EPA-600/5-77-015b
November 1977
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
THE COST OF WATER SUPPLY AND
WATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Volume II
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting, and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/5-77-015b
November 1977
THE COST OF WATER SUPPLY AND
WATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Volume II
by
James I. Gillean
W. Kyle Adams
ACT Systems, Inc.
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Robert M. Clark
Water Supply Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Contract No. 68-03-2071
Project Officer
Robert M. Clark
Water Supply Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul-water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay among its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that first step in problem solution, and it
involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for solu-
tions . The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and im-
proved technology and systems (1) to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater,
solid and hazardous waste, and pollutant discharges from municipal and com-
munity sources, (2) to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and
(3) to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects
of pollution. This publication is a product of that research and is a most
vital communications link between the researcher and user community.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 establishes primary, health-related
standards and secondary, aesthetic-related but nonenforceable guidelines for
drinking water supplies. These standards will bring about fundamental
changes in the way water is handled before it is delivered to the consumer.
Many of these changes will have an economic impact on the affected water
utilities. This report provides detailed information on the current costs
of water supply for 12 selected water utilities. In addition to providing
information on the individual supplies, data are aggregated to provide pro-
jections of the relative impact of various strategies that might be under-
taken to satisfy the Act's requirements. These data and associated analyses
are presented in two volumes. Volume I is a summary of selected data from
the study together with its analysis. Volume II contains detailed, in-depth
information for each utility studied.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
A study of 12 selected water utilities was undertaken to determine
the economics of water delivery. Data were collected from at least one Class
A water utility (revenues greater than $500,000/year) in each of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's 10 regions. Volume I provides summary in-
formation and in-depth analyses of five of the utilities studied. All the
utilities are analyzed in aggregate, and factors affecting the cost of water
supply are examined. Also provided is an evaluation of the hypothetical im-
pact of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1980.
Volume II contains the basic data from each of the 12 utilities
studied. Services of each utility were divided into three functional areas
common to all water supply delivery systems—acquisition, treatment or puri-
fication, and distribution. These areas provided a common basis for collect-
ing and comparing data. Costs were categorized either as operating or as
capital expenditures.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2071
by ACT Systems, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U. S, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This report covers the period June 20, 1974 to March 20,
1976.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables x
Abbreviations and Definitions xvi
Metric Conversion Table xvi
Acknowledgements xvii
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Introduction 5
3. Conclusions 8
4. Overview and Aggregate Data Analysis 9
5. Cincinnati Water Works 15
6. Kansas City, Missouri, Water Department 42
7. Dallas Water Utility 66
8. San Diego Water Utility 91
9. New Haven Water Company 113
10. Fairfax County Water Authority 136
11. Phoenix Water Department 157
12. Kenton County Water District 177
13. Orlando Water Utility 199
14. Elizabethtown Water Company ... 220
15. Pueblo Water System 244
16. Seattle Water Department 266
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location of Water Utilities Studied 6
2 Average Annual Revenue-Producing Water for All 12 Utilities ... 10
3 Cincinnati Water Works Service Area. 17
4 Major Facilities in Cincinnati Water Works Service Area 18
5 Cincinnati Water Works Organizational Chart 19
6 Cincinnati Water Works Supply Division 21
7 Schematic Diagram of Treatment Plant Costs ($/mil gal) in the
Cincinnati Water Works System 23
8 Cincinnati Water Works Water Flow, 1964 to 1973: Treated Water
Versus RPW 25
9 Location of 10 Major Users Within the Cincinnati Water Works
Service Area 40
10 Kansas City Water Supply Service Area 44
11 Kansas City Water Department Organizational Structure 45
12 Kansas City Water Department Treatment Plant Schematic 47
13 Kansas City Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW 50
14 Kansas City Water Department Facilities 57
15 Kansas City Water Department Allocation of Capital and Operating
Expenses to Water System Components 58
16 Locations of 10 Major Users Within the Kansas City Service Area . 65
17 Dallas Water Utility Water Supply Service Area 68
18 Dallas Water Utility Organizational Structure 69
19 Plan of a Dallas Water Treatment Plant 73
20 Dallas Water Utility Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW ... 76
21 Dallas Water Utility Treatment Plants and Pump Stations 83
22 Dallas Water Utility Allocation of Capital and Operating Expenses
to Water System Components 84
23 Dallas Water Utility Cost Zones and Location of Major Users ... 89
24 San Diego Water Utility Reservoir System and Service Area .... 93
vi
-------
FIGURES .(continued)
Number Page
25 San Diego Water Utility Organizational Chart 94
26, Flow Diagram of the Alvarado Filtration Plant 97
27 San Diego Water Utility Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . . 99
28 San Diego Water Utility Facilities . 106
29 San Diego Water Utility Capital and Operating Costs Allocated to
Water System Components 107
30 San Diego Water Utility Major Users and Cost Zones Ill
31 New Haven Water Company Service Area 115
32 New Haven Water Company Organizational Chart _ 116
33 New Haven Water Company Treatment Facility Locations 118
34 New Haven Water Company Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . . 121
35 New Haven Water Company Location of Facilities and General
Direction of Water Flow in the Retail Service Areas . 128
36 New Haven Water Company Allocation of Capital and Operating
Expenses to Water System Components 129
37 Fairfax County Water Authority Location Map and Service Areas . . 138
38 Fairfax County Water Authority Organizational Chart 140
39 Fairfax County Water Authority Schematic Diagram of Treatment
Facilities 142
40 Fairfax County Water Authority Water Flow: Treated Water Versus
RPW 144
41 Fairfax County Water Authority Principal Supply and Transmission
Facilities, 1967 152
42 Fairfax County Water Authority Allocation of Capital and Operating
Expenses to Water System Components 153
43 Phoenix Water Department Retail Service Area 159
44 Phoenix Water Department Organizational Chart 160
45 Squaw Peak Treatment Plant Flow Diagram 162
46 Phoenix Water Department Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . 165
47 Simplified Phoenix Waterworks Schematic, 1975 171
48 Phoenix Water Department Major Users 175
49 Kenton County Water District Retail Service Area 179
50 Kenton County Water District Organizational Chart 180
51 Schematic Diagram of the Water Treatment Plant and Distribution
System for Kenton County Water District No. 1 182
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
52 Kenton County Water District Water Flow: Treated Water Versus
RPW 185
53 Kenton County Water District Facilities 192
54 Kenton County Water District Allocation of Capital and Operating
Costs to Water System Components 193
55 Kenton County Water District Major Users 197
56 Orlando Water Utility Source Water Map 201
57 Orlando Water Utility Organization Chart 202
58 Orlando Water Utility Flow Diagram 204
59 Orlando Water Utility Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . . . 207
60 Orlando Water Utility Flow Map 214
61 Orlando Water Utility Allocation of Capital and Operating
Expenses to Water System Components 215
62 Orlando Water Utility Major Users 218
63 Elizabethtown Water Company Service Area Map 223
64 Elizabethtown Water Company Organizational Chart 224
65 Elizabethtown Water Company, Raritan-Millstone Plant 226
66 Elizabethtown Water Company Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW 229
67 Elizabethtown Water Company System Map, July, 1974 236
68 Elizabethtown Water Company Allocation of Capital and Operating
Costs to System Components 237
69 Elizabethtown Water Company Meter Rates 240
70 Location of 10 Major Users Within the Elizabethtown Water Company
Service Area 243
71 Pueblo Water System Retail Service Area 246
72 Pueblo Water Utility Organizational Chart 247
73 Pueblo Water Utility Water Treatment Facilities 249
74 Pueblo Water Utility Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . . . 252
75 Pueblo Water Utility System Facilities 259
76 Pueblo Water Utility Allocation of Capital and Operating Expenses
to Water System Components 261
77 Seattle Water Department Service Area 268
78 Seattle Water Department Organizational Chart 270
79 Seattle Water Department Location of System Treatment Facilities 272
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
80 Seattle Water Department Water Flow: Treated Water Versus RPW . 274
81 Seattle Water Department Distribution Area 281
82 Seattle Water Utility Allocation of Capital and Operating
Expenses to System Components 283
83 Locations of Seattle Water Department Major Users 289
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Cost Analysis Summary for Latest Year of Record (1974)
Expected Increase in Costs for 1980
Average Operating Costs for Major Operating Cost Categories . . .
Average Unit Costs for Major Operating Cost Categories
Average Operating Cost Categories as Percent of Total Operating
Cost
Average Operating and Capital Costs
Operating and Capital Expense Ratios
Cincinnati Water Works, Basic Facts
Cincinnati Water Works Storage Facilities
Cincinnati Water Works Annual Operating Costs
Cincinnati Water Works Unit Operating Costs
Cincinnati Water Works Operating Cost Categories as Percent of
Total Operating Cost
Cincinnati Water Works Capital and Operating Costs
Cincinnati Water Works Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios
Cincinnati Water Works Labor Cost Analysis
Cincinnati Water Works Historical and Reproduction Costs of
Plant-in-Service
Transmission Costs Between Service Areas
Cincinnati Water Works Cost, Consumption, and Revenue by Area (1973)
Cincinnati Water Works Water Cost for 10 Major Users
Cincinnati Water Works Meter Rates (April 1, 1969)
Cincinnati Water Works Monthly and Quarterly Commodity Charges .
Actual Price Versus Cost Comparisons for Ten Major Users in
Cincinnati Water Works Service Area
Kansas City, Missouri, Water Department, Basic Facts
3
4
11
11
12
12
13
14
16
24
26
28
29
30
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
41
43
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
25 Kansas City Water Department Systems Storage 49
26 Kansas City Water Department Annual Operating Costs 51
27 Kansas City Water Department Unit Operating Costs 52
28 Kansas City Water Department Operating Cost Categories as Percent
of Total Operating Cost 53
29 Kansas City Water Department Labor Cost Analysis 54
30 Kansas City Water Department Capital and Operating Costs .... 54
31 Kansas City Water Department Capital Versus Operating Expenses
Ratios 55
32 Kansas City Water Department Cost, Consumption, and Revenue,
by Zone 59
33 Kansas City Water Department Meter Rates 61
34 Kansas City Water Department Commodity Charges 62
35 Kansas City Water Department Charge Analysis 63
36 Kansas City Water Department Water Costs for 10 Major Users ... 64
37 Dallas Water Utility, Basic Facts (1974) 67
38 Dallas Water Utility Storage Facilities 74
39 Dallas Water Utility Annual Operating Costs 77
40 Dallas Water Utility Unit Operating Costs 78
41 Dallas Water Utility Operating Cost Categories as Percent of
Total Operating Costs 79
42 Dallas Water Utility Labor Cost Analysis 80
43 Dallas Water Utility Operating and Capital Costs 80
44 Dallas Water Utility Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios . . 81
45 Dallas Water Utility Costs, Consumption, and Revenue, by Zone . . 85
46 Typical Monthly Rates for the Dallas Water Utility 86
47 Dallas Water Utility Costs for 10 Major Users 87
48 Dallas Water Utility's Costs and Revenues for Major Users .... 90
49 San Diego Water Utility, Basic Facts (1974) 92
50 San Diego Water Utility Storage Facilities 98
51 San Diego Water Utility Annual Operating Costs 100
52 San Diego Water Utility Operating Costs 101
53 San Diego Water Utility Operating Cost Categories as a Percent of
Total Operating Cost 102
xi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
54 San Diego Water Utility Labor Cost Analysis 103
55 San Diego Water Utility Capital and Operating Costs .' 103
56 San Diego Water Utility Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios . 105
57 Cost Elements for San Diego Service Zones 108
58 Typical Monthly Rates for San Diego Water Utilities 109
59 San Diego Water Utlity Water Costs for 6 Major Users 110
60 Costs and Revenues for the San Diego Water Utility's 6 Major Users 112
61 New Haven Water Company, Basic Facts 114
62 New Haven Water Company Distribution Reservoir and Standpipes . . 120
63 New Haven Water Company Annual Operating Costs 122
64 New Haven Water Company Operating Costs 123
65 New Haven Water Company Operating Costs Categories as Percent
of Total Operating Cost 124
66 New Haven Water Company Labor Cost Analysis 125
67 New Haven Water Company Capital and Operating Costs 125
68 New Haven Water Company Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios . 126
69 New Haven Water Company Quarterly Rate Schedule 131
70 New Haven Water Company Quarterly Rate Schedule 131
71 New Haven Water Company Season Rate Schedule 132
72 New Haven Water Company Season Rate Schedule 132
73 New Haven Water Company Quarterly Rate Charge Analysis 133
74 RPW for New Haven Water Company's Ten Major Users 134
75 Fairfax County Water Authority, Basic Facts (1974) 137
76 Fairfax County Water Authority Storage Facilities 143
77 Fairfax County Water Authority Annual Operating Costs 145
78 Fairfax County Water Authority Unit Operating Costs 146
79 Fairfax County Water Authority Operating Cost Categories as
Percent of Total Operating Cost . 147
80 Fairfax County Water Authority Labor Cost Analysis 149
81 Fairfax County Water '.uthority Capital and Operating Costs . . . 149
82 Fairfax Cou^' ^r Authority Capital Versus Operating Expense
Ratios . 150
xii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
83 Fairfax County Water Authority Cost Elements by Zones ...... 154
84 Fairfax County Water Authority Meter Rates 155
85 Fairfax County Water Authority Charge Analysis 155
86 Fairfax County Water Authority Water Costs for 10 Major Users . . 156
87 Phoenix Water Department, Basic Facts (1974) 158
88 Phoenix System Storage Facilities 164
89 Phoenix Water Department Annual Operating Costs 166
90 Phoenix Water Department Unit Operating Costs 167
91 Phoenix Water Department Operating Cost Categories as Percent
of Total Cost 167
92 Phoenix Water Department Labor Cost Analysis 168
93 Phoenix Water Department Capital and Operating Cost 168
94 Phoenix Water Department Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios 169
95 Phoenix Water Department Meter Rates Effective January 1, 1974 . 172
96 Phoenix Water Department Unit Rates (Effective January 1, 1974) . 173
97 Phoenix Water Department Water Costs for 10 Major Users 174
98 Kenton County Water District, Basic Facts (1974) 178
99 Kenton County Water District Storage Facilities 184
100 Kenton County Water District Annual Operating Costs 186
101 Kenton County Water District Unit Operating Cost 187
102 Kenton County Water District Operating Cost Categories as
Percent of Total Operating Cost 188
103 Kenton County Water District Labor Cost Analysis 189
104 Kenton County Water District Capital and Operating Costs .... 189
105 Kenton County Water District Capital Versus Operating Expense
Ratios 190
106 Kenton County Water District Cost Elements by Zones 194
107 Kenton County Water District No. 1 Quarterly Rates 195
108 Kenton County Water District 10 Major Users 196
109 Orlando Water Utility, Basic Facts (1974) 200
110 Orlando Water Utility Elevated Water Storage 206
111 Orlando Water Utility Ground Storage Reservoirs 206
112 Orlando Water Utility Annual Operating Costs 208
xxn
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
~ —.-.i.i.i.i.i.i— . i W
113 Orlando Water Utility Unit Operating Costs 209
114 Orlando Water Utility Operating Cost Categories as Percent of
Total Operating Cost 210
115 Orlando Water Utility Labor Cost Analysis 211
116 Orlando Water Utility Capital and Operating Costs 211
117 Orlando Water Utility Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios . . 212
118 Orlando Water Utility Water Rates 216
119 Orlando Water Utility RPW of 10 Major Users 217
120 Elizabethtown Water Company, Basic Facts (1974) 221
121 Elizabethtown Water Company Number of Meters by Meter Size . . . 222
122 Elizabethtown Water Company Storage Facilities 228
123 Elizabethtown Water Company Annual Operating Costs 230
124 Elizabethtown Water Company Unit Operating Costs 231
125 Elizabethtown Water Company Operating Cost Categories as Percent
of Total Operating Cost 232
126 Elizabethtown Water Company Labor Cost Analysis 233
127 Elizabethtown Water Company Capital and Operating Costs 233
128 Elizabethtown Water Company Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios 234
129 Elizabethtown Service Area Cost, Consumption and Revenue by Zone 239
130 Elizabethtown Water Company Water Costs for 10 Major Users . . . 241
131 Pueblo Water Utility, Basic Facts (1974) 245
132 Pueblo Water Utility Storage Facilities 251
133 Pueblo Water Utility Annual Operating Costs 253
134 Pueblo Water Utility Unit Operating Costs 254
135 Pueblo Water Utility Operating Costs as Percent of Total .... 255
136 Pueblo Water Utility Labor Cost Analysis . . 257
137 Pueblo Water Utility Capital and Operating Costs 257
138 Pueblo Water Utility Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios . . 258
139 Pueblo Water Utility Water Rates, March 1974 262
140 Pueblo Water Utility Minimum Monthly Charge by Meter Size .... 262
141 Rates for Multiple Dwelling Units, Inside City 263
142 Pueblo Water Utility Water Costs for 10 Major Users (1974) . . . 264
143 Seattle Water Department, Basic Facts (1974) 267
xiv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
144 Seattle Water Department Storage Facilities 273
145 Seattle Water Department Annual Operating Costs 275
146 Seattle Water Department Unit Operating Costs 276
147 Seattle Water Department Operating Cost Categories as Percent of
Total Operating Cost 277
148 Seattle Water Department Labor Cost Analysis 278
149 Seattle Water Department Capital and Operating Costs 280
150 Seattle Water Department Capital Versus Operating Expense Ratios 280
151 Seattle Water Utility Cost Elements by Source 284
152 Seattle Water Department Minimum Charge by Meter Size Inside
City Limits 285
153 Seattle Water Department Minimum Charge by Meter Size Outside
City Limits 286
154 Seattle Water Rates for All Meter Sizes 287
155 Seattle Water Department Water Costs for 10 Major Users 288
xv
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Cost
CPI
Maximum day/
maximum hour
Mil gal
MGD
Price
Retail service area
Revenue-producing
water (RPW)
Treated water
SMSA
Source water
expense of water production
Consumer price index
maximum day flow for the year in MGD/maximum
hour flow for the year in MGD
million gallons
million gallons per day
amount charged user
area in which water is retailed by the utility
the water measured as metered consumption and
paid for by wholesale and retail customers
within the service area
the amount of water treated through the water
department's treatment plant
standard metropolitan statistical area
raw water from ground or surface supply
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
English Units
1 foot
1 mile
1 sq mi
1 mil gal
1 $/mil gal
Metric Equivalents
0.305 meters
1.61 kilometers
2.5y sq kilometers
3.79 thou cu meters
0.26 $/thou cu meters
xvi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The cooperation, active support, and sustained interest of many people
made the study described in this report possible. In particular, the
following individuals should be acknowledged.
From the regional offices of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Floyd Taylor and Charles Larsen of Region I
Everett L. MacLeman, formerly of Region II
James Manwaring, formerly of Region III
Gary D. Hutchinson and Curt Fehn of Region IV
Joseph Harrison of Region V
Charles Sever and Warren Norris of Region VI
Otmar 0. Olson and Aleck Alexander of Region VII
Albert V. Soukop, formerly of Region VIII
Robert Scott of Region IX
William A. Mullen of Region X
From the participating water utilities:
Henry J. Graeser, Director, Robert G. Ford, Assistant Director,
and Larry Shaw, Accounting, Dallas Water Utilities Department
Henry S. Patterson, President, Chester A. Ring, Vice President
(Operations), Bob Palasits, Director of Planning, Elizabethtown
Water Company
James F. Corbalis, Jr., Director, Vincent Bryne, Fairfax County
Water Authority
Donald R. Boyd, Director, H. E. Snider, Assistant Director,
J. R. Popalisky, Chief, Water Supply Division, Kansas City
Missouri Water Department
Victor C. Fender, General Manager, Mai Connett, Office Manager,
Kenton County Kentucky Water District No. 1
Charles E. Woods, President, Richard P. McHugh, Vice President for
Engineering, New Haven Water Company
Ted Pope, Manager, Water Division, Bob Savarese, Applications
Engineer, Orlando Water Utility
Art F. Vondrick, Director, Philip S. Slagel, Assistant Director,
Phoenix Water Department
xv 11
-------
Larry C. Fountaine, Director, Craig A. Olsen, Engineer, Pueblo
Board of Water Works
R. W. King, Director, Ernie Clay, Assistant Director, San Diego
Water Utilities Department
Kenneth M. Lowthian, Superintendent, James T. Rice, Assistant
Superintendent, Seattle Water Department
Charles Bolton, former Superintendent, Dan Merwin, Former Special
Assistant to the Superintendent, and William F. Reeves, Chief
Engineer, Cincinnati Water Works
Special acknowledgements are extended to Mr. Ted Pope, Manager of Water
Division, Orlando Water Utility, for his review in the formative stages of
this study, and for the continuing assistance of Messrs. John N. English and
Leland J. McCabe and Dr. James M. Symons of the EPA in Cincinnati.
Dr. Billy P. Helms, Assistant Professor of Finance, University of
Alabama, and Mr. Nolan Reed, President of Nolan Reed Associates, Orlando,
Florida, provided in-depth reviews of the final report from this project.
Mrs. Ann Hamilton in Cincinnati, Ohio edited and Gwen Manley and Dot Loental
of ACT Systems typed this manuscript.
xvm
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A two-year study of 12 selected water utilities was undertaken to
determine the economics of water delivery. Data were collected from at least
one class A water utility (revenues greater than $500,000/year) in each of
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 10 regions. The finished water
from all utilities selected meets the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards. Volume I of this report provides in-depth analyses for five
of the 12 utilities studied: Cincinnati, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri;
Fairfax County Water Authority in Fairfax, Virginia; Dallas, Texas; and the
Elizabethtown Water Company in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Aggregate analysis of
data from all the utilities is also provided in Volume I, along with an
evaluation of factors affecting the cost of water supply and a consideration
of the impact of technologies that might be used to satisfy requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Volume II contains the basic data from each of the 12 utilities studied.
They represent many institutional arrangements, physically different water
supply systems, and different conditions faced by water utilities across the
United States. For example, Cincinnati and Kansas City are single-source
utilities distributing water to far-flung distribution areas, Others, such
as the Dallas Water Utility and the Fairfax County Water Authority, are in
rapidly growing areas with capital costs distributed over a fast growing,
revenue-producing base that keeps water costs low. Two investor-owned utili-
ties, Elizabethtown Water Company and New Haven Water Company, were included
in the sample to demonstrate problems associated with investor-owned utili-
ties. The San Diego and Phoenix utilities operate in water-short areas.
Pueblo and Kenton County were the smallest utilities studied. Seattle has
made extensive investments in controlled source protection, and Orlando uses
groundwater from a deep aquifer.
Data were collected for 10 years in five operating cost categories and
two capital cost categories. The operating cost categories are support
services, acquisition, treatment, power and pumping, and transmission and
distribution. Capital costs were dived into interest and depreciation. Each
operating cost category was examined as to total expenditures, unit costs,
and percent of total cost. Revenue-producing water was used for all unit
cost calculations because it represents the basis on which utilities obtain
their operating revenues. The impact of operating expenditures, increasing
labor costs, and increasing labor productivity on total water production
costs were examined.
-------
A systems evaluation was made for each utility in which the service area
was divided into its components. Schematic diagrams of the system components
have been developed for each of the utilities studied. For some utilities,
these diagrams are very detailed, and for others, because of the complexity
of the system, the diagram is somewhat superficial. By using the systems
diagram and the previous cost categorizations, it was possible to evaluate
the costs associated with delivering water to various subsections of the
distribution system and to make some estimates as to how the costs of water
vary throughout the distribution area.
Individual and comparative analyses reveal certain trends. Labor cost
is a significant part of the annual operating costs for all utilities and has
nearly doubled in some cases over the period of analysis. More and more
dollars are being shifted into support service activities. Examination of
water delivery costs shows that they increase with the distance from the
treatment plant; thus there are definite limits to the efficient size of water
utility service areas.
Mathematical models have been developed that relate labor cost ($/man-
hour), productivity (man-hours/million gallons (mil gal)), and production
(revenue-producing water) to annual operating costs. Another model has been
developed for annual capital costs incorporating revenue-producing water and
depreciation.
Extrapolations have been made with historical data for future water
costs. Estimates for meeting the Safe Drinking Water Act's organic standards
have been superimposed on these costs. Between 1974 and 1980, it is esti-
mated that the price of water will have increased by 36% as a result of normal
inflation and increased demands. For those few utilities required, under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, to install the most expensive control technology
(granular activated carbon), costs will increase an additional 24% above the
expected 1980 level.
Total costs for each of the 12 utilities during the latest year of data
collection are shown in Table 1. Taxes for the investor-owned utilities are
reported separately. This analysis provides a mechanism for comparing
utilities.
We hope these data will provide useful information on water supply costs
from various utility systems and an example of the means by which data can be
collected from water supplies to provide comparative information. With the
advent of the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulatory agencies, utility managers,
and the public should be able to isolate and understand various cost impacts
on utilities of inflation and expansion demand versus regulatory impacts.
The approach suggested here will allow the utility manager to pinpoint areas
where costs are spiraling out of control and allow him to take corrective
action. Table 2 summarizes some of the expected cost increases resulting
from inflation and demand, as well as the effects of add-on technologies.
-------
TABLE 1, COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR LATEST YEAR OF RECORD (1974)
Revenue-producing Support
Utility water services
(mil gal)
Kansas City
Dallas
San Diego
New Haven
Fairfax Co.
Phoenix
Kent on Co.
Orlando
Elizabeth
Pueblo
Seattle
Cincinnati
26,855
63,030
47,192
17,714
19,232
63,661
2,259
12,522
38,256
6,793
45,967
38,104
$ 145
83
96
113
88
91
82
110
89
99
109
85
Cost
Acquisition
$ 15
25
277
29
35
17
12
42
67
38
37
17
c a t e g o
Treatment
$ 82
52
28
15
56
47
103
22
33
84
13
36
r i e s ($/mil gal)
Distribution
$ 138
120
106
106
134
112
124
135
144
232
77
139
Interest
$ 50
58
7
117
209
53
73
85
113
164
27
18
Total
$ 430
338
514
560*
522
320
394
394
492+
617
263
295
* Includes $179 taxes.
+ Includes $76 taxes.
-------
TABLE 2. EXPECTED INCREASE IN COSTS FOR 1980
I - ... , . , . , - . - , , . . 1 -
1980 costs
with add-on technologies
Item
Treatment operating cost
($/yr in millions)
Treatment capital cost
($/yr in millions)
Total operating cost
($/yr in millions)
Total capital cost
($/yr in millions)
Total production cost
($/yr in millions
Total unit cost
($/mil gal)
Cost
in 1975
1.10
0.48
8.85
3.80
12.75
412.00
Expected
cost
in 1980
1.50
0,60
12.40
4.95
17.35
480.00
GAG - GAG - media
contractors replacement
2.97 4.17
3.34 1.33
13.87 15.07
7.69 5.68
21.56 20.75
596.47 574.06
Chlorine
dioxide
2.17
0.73
13.07
5.08
18.25
504.90
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 will bring about fundamental changes
in the way drinking water is handled before it is delivered to consumers. The
Act establishes primary health-related standards and secondary or aesthetic-
related but nonenforceable guidelines for drinking water supplies. Through-
out the Act, emphasis is placed on the need to consider the economics of
water delivery.
In response to this need, a 2-year study of selected water utilities was
undertaken in which data were collected from at least one Class A water util-
ity (revenues greater than $500,000/year) in each of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's 10 regions. Figure 1 shows the location of the utilities
studied. Twelve utilities were selected for investigation—one in regions I,
II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and X and two in regions IV and IX. The study,
which ran from 1974 through 1976, was conducted in two phases with a special
study in Cincinnati, Ohio. Data were collected so that costs could be easily
compared among utilities.
Each utility's services were divided into the functional areas of acqui-
sition, treatment or purification, and distribution. These functional areas
or subsystems are common to all water supply delivery systems and can there-
fore provide a common basis for data collection. Another category common to
all water utilities is the management or administrative function which com-
pletes the framework of the institution for insuring an adequate supply of
safe drinking water. This institution is most commonly called a water supply
utility.
Costs were categorized as either operating or capital expenditures.
Operating costs have been assigned to the following functional areas: acqui-
sition, treatment, power and pumping, transmission and distribution (includ-
ing storage), and support services. The first four functional areas are re-
lated to the physical delivery of water, and the fifth, support services, is
related to the overall integrative responsibility of utility management.
Operating costs include operating labor, maintenance, and materials. For ex-
ample, if the utility has a treatment division, laboratory personnel costs
are included in the treatment cost category, but management costs for the
division are included in the support services category. Support services in-
clude, therefore, all of the administrative and customer services that are
required to manage the water utility and collect revenues but that are not
directly related to the physical process of delivering water.
-------
New Haven
1 fizubi'Uitowu
Figure 1. Location of water utilities studied.
-------
Capital costs are assumed as depreciation and interest for the plant-in-
service. Depreciation is based on the historic cost of the facility divided
by its useful life, and not on the costs required to reproduce the facility.
Lower costs will therefore be associated with older utilities. Most of the
utilities analyzed constructed the major portion of their facilities in the
1930's and 40's. Interest costs are the dollars the utilities must pay for
their bonds or other money raising mechanisms.
Revenues were not considered in this report. All of the data reported
are strictly related to the cost of water supply and do not include some of
the broader aspects of elasticity of demand and optimal pricing policies of
water supply. All costs reported are based on revenue-producing water (RPW)
pumped by the utilities for a 10-year period from 1965 through 1974.
The report has been prepared in two volumes. Volume I contains summary
information and an analysis of the factors that affect the cost of water sup-
ply, and Volume II contains the basic data from each of the selected utilities.
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
Data from the 12 utilities studied here are representative of many
utilities in the United States. Distributed across the country, the 12 util-
ities studied reflect differences in wage rates and costs for various items
throughout the United States. The cost of water supply has been continually
increasing as a result of increased capital and labor costs, labor wage rates,
costs of chemicals and other supplies, and increased demand for water. How-
ever, a decrease in the number of man-hours required to supply 1 million gal-
lons (mil gal) of water has moderated these cost increases. In many cases,
when the unit cost of water is modified by the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
costs have actually decreased with time.
Equations developed in Volume 1 show that when water conservation
measures are adopted, increasing wage rates and other inflationary effects
will increase the cost of water in accordance with other cost increases in
the economy. Such increases are inevitable and should be anticipated.
The methodology used for collecting these data can be applied to
water utilities not included in this study. Such an application would pro-
vide for a comparative and standardized analysis of water supply costs for
all utilities. This effort is intended as a model for other related data
collection efforts.
-------
SECTION 4
OVERVIEW AND AGGREGATE DATA ANALYSIS
Revenue-producing water from all 12 utilities increased by approxi-
mately 50% over the 10-year period studied (1965-74) (Figure 2).
Average costs for the five major operating cost categories all showed
substantial increases over time (Table 3). Support services increased from
an average of slightly over $1 million/year to more than $3 million/year,
or by nearly 200%. The other categories increased by slightly more than
100%, with the exception of transmission and distribution, which increased
by approximately 73%.
Unit costs had considerably smaller increases or remained stable dur-
ing the 10-year period (Table 4). Support services unit cost increased
nearly 63%, transmission and distribution stayed nearly the same, and total
expendutires increased by less than 50%.
The five operating cost categories varied as a percent of total operat-
ing cost (Table 5). Support services increased from 26% to slightly over
31%, and treatment, power and pumping, and transmission and distribution de-
creased as percents of total operating cost.
Average operating and capital costs for all 12 utilities more than
doubled during the 10-year period (Table 6). Operating expenditures in-
creased by 127%, and capital expenditures increased by 78%. Unit costs
increased by only 25%.
Average operating and capital expenditures ratios for the 12 utilities
studied are shown in Table 7. Operating expenses increased as a percent of
total cost from 64.5% in the first year of analysis to nearly 70% by the
last year, whereas capital cost dropped from 35.5% in the first year of
analysis to just over 30% in the last year.
The impact of labor and operating costs for water supply are shown in
Table 8. Labor costs accounted for 42% of the utilities' operating costs in
the first year of analysis and 42% in the last year. The average cost/man-
hour increased 82%, but the ratio of man-hours/mil gal of RPW decreased by
16%. Table 8 shows a steady decrease in capital/labor cost ratio. Although
economies of scale were in effect with respect to the number of man-hours
used to produce water, this cost reduction was nullified by wage increases.
Labor is therefore a very important factor in what is typically presumed to
be a capital intensive industry.
-------
50
40
30
O
I
§
i-J
M
20
10
j_
_L
5 6
YEARS
10
Figure 2. Average annual revenue-producing water for all 12 utilities,
-------
TABLE 3. AVERAGE OPERATING COSTS FOR MAJOR OPERATING COST CATEGORIES
Operating cost
category
Year
123456789 10
Support services
Acquisition
Treatment
Power and pumping
Transmission and
distribution
$1,126,622 $1,198,861 $1,474,482 $1,560,884 $1,837,836 $2,031,880 $2,268,728 $2,437,329 $2,705,626 $3,127,558
981,998 1,007,698 978,196 1,062,491 1,231,310 1,289,012 1,537,034 1,770,871 1,990,661 2,356,385
539,946 577,796 617,713 630,019 701,651 783,581 1,013,585 913,933 998,003 1,212,659
789,402 830,034 922,020 870,937 933,141 955,478 1,042,051 1,172,427 1,294,861 1,805,530
890,750 927,939 978,982 1,044,549 1,108,421 1,213,655 1,320.415 1,439,312 1,548,570 1,541,550
TABLE 4. AVERAGE UNIT COSTS FOR MAJOR OPERATING COST CATEGORIES
($/tnil gal metered consumption
Operating cost
category
Support services
Acquisition
Treatment
Power and pumping
Transmission and
distribution
Year
1
$55.29
48.27
26.58
38.70
43.81
2
$54
45
26
37
42
.6
.91
.27
.85
.19
3
$62
41
26
38
41
.51
.46
.10
.94
.46
4
$61
42
25
34
41
.89
.22
.0
.43
.40
5
$71
48
27
36
43
.66
.08
.44
.51
.32
6
$76
48
29
35
45
.19
.20
.39
.74
.38
7
$79
53
35
36
46
.35
.75
.41
.42
.21
8
$83
60
29
40
49
.49
.69
.63
.29
.30
9
$91
67
33
43
52
.72
.42
.85
.98
.37
10
$89
67
35
52
44
.98
.43
.01
.08
.27
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Operating cost
category
Support services
Acquisition
Treatment
Power and pumping
Transmission and
distribution
Year
1 2
26.0 26
22.7 22
12.5 12
18.2 18
20.6 20
.4
.2
.7
.3
.4
3
29.7
19.7
12.4
18.5
19.7
4
30
20
12
16
20
.2
.6
.2
.8
.2
5
31.6
21.2
12.1
16.1
19.1
6 7
32.4 31.6
20.5 21.4
12.5 14.1
15.2 14.5
19.3 18.4
8
31.5
22.9
11.8
15.2
18.6
9
31.7
23.3
11.7
15.2
18.1
10
31
23
12
18
15
.1
.5
.1
.0
.3
TABLE 6. AVERAGE OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
Item
Year
123456789 10
Operating cost ($)
Depreciation ($)
Interest ($)
Total cost ($)
Unit cost
($/mil gal)
4,074,911 4,272,278 4,579,474 5,030,824 5,830,681 6,285,280 6,934,452 7,598,149 8,431,726 9,262,730
1,241,563 1,296,702 1,430,217 1,547,238 1,604,659 1,661,276 1,693,273 1,828,003 1.904,825 2,145,428
996,955 920,622 948,614 1,286,566 1,267,062 1,428,970 1,411,346 1,488,971 1,707,623 1,848,256
6,313,429 6,490,102 6,958,305 7,864,628 8,702,402 9,375,526 10,039,071 10,915,123 12,044,174 13,256,414
332.?
322.45
328.39
327.39
340.26
354.23
370.57
387.88
425.93
416.74
-------
TABLE 7. OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENSE RATIOS
Item
Operating cost ($)
Capital cost ($)
Interest ($)
Total cost ($)
Operating cost as
% of total
Capital cost as
% of total
Year
12345678
9 10
4,074,911 4,272,278 4,579,474 5,030,824 5,830,681 6,285,280 6,934,452 7,593,149 8,431,726 9,262,730
2,238,518 2,217,324 2,378,831 2,833,804 2,871,721 3,090,246 3,104,619 3,316,924 3,612,448 3,993,684
996,955 920,622 948,614 1,286,566 1,267,062 1,428,970 1,411,346 1,488,971 1,707,623 1,848,256
6,313,429 6,490,102 6,958,305 7,864,628 8,702,402 9,375,526 10,039,071 10,915,123 12,044,174 13,256,414
64.5 65.8 69.4 64.0 67.0 67.0 69.1 69
35.5 34.2 30.6 36.0 33.0 33.0 30.9 30
.6 70.0 69.9
.4 30.0 30.1
-------
TABLE 8. MANPOWER COSTS
Item
Years
123456
7 8 9 10
Total payroll ($) 1,713,806 1,825,217 2,006,525 2,237,453 2,525,527 2,724,751 3,040,661 3,392,529 3,665,588 3,857,361
659,156 683,602 716,616 743,340 756,145 754,778 787,736 794,503 816,389 813,789
30,159
Total hours for
O&M Payroll
Metered consumption
(mil gal)
22,193 23,930 24,619 25,864 27,456 28,736 28,904
Total payroll/metered
consumption
($/mil gal)
Total hours/metered
consumption
(hr/mil gal)
Average cost/man-
hour ($)
Capital/labor cost
ratio
77.22
33.75
2.60
1.31
76.27
32.50
2.67
1.21
81.50
30.42
2.80
1.18
86.51
29.85
3.01
1.27
91.98
31.17
3.34
1.14
94.82 105.28
29.70
3.61
1.13
30.32
3.86
1.02
112.49
29.83
4.27
0.98
29,857 34,169
122.77 112. £
30.50
4.49
0.99
28.32
4.74
1.04
-------
SECTION 5
CINCINNATI WATER WORKS
The City of Cincinnati is located in Hamilton County in southwestern
Ohio. Based on the 1970 census, the city has a population of 452,524, and
the county, 924,018. During the past few years, both the city and the county
have been declining in population. Some system facts are shown in Table 9.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Cincinnati Water Works, owned and operated by the City of Cincinnati,
is a self-sustaining public utility. It is metropolitan both in nature and
scope since water is served to areas outside the city limits.
In 1955, the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County joined in a contract
that stipulated that the Cincinnati Water Works would serve approximately
80% of Hamilton County for a period of 30 years (Figure 3). In 1961, the
Water Works contracted to serve a portion of Butler County, and in 1967 a
portion of Warren County was added. A number of communities maintain their
own systems but are surrounded by the Cincinnati Water Works service area.
Emergency service is provided to most of them, but as long as their source
of supply can be maintained, most of the communities will not change their
present status. The distribution area and the facilities used are shown in
Figure 4. One city has its own distribution system, but it is served by the
Cincinnati Water Works.
The Cincinnati Water Works currently serves over 186,000 accounts
through more than 3,785 miles of water mains. It has been expanding at the
rate of 3,000 accounts and 35 miles of mains each year. In 1974, the Water
Works supplied approximately 840,000 people at a daily rate of 132.9 mil gal
(almost 158 gallons/capita/day). The amount of water supplied might be
greater except for the large amount of well water available in the area to
consumers who wish to develop their own supplies. One private water purveyor
supplies approximately 17 MGD for industrial use.
ORGANIZATION
The Cincinnati Water Works serves only as a water utility, but it does
collect revenue for the Metropolitan Sewer District. The structure of the
organization depicted in Figure 5 is composed of administration, supply,
distribution, and commercial divisions.
15
-------
TABLE 9. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS, BASIC FACTS*
Item
Amount
Population:
City
County
Retail service area
Area of retail service area (sq miles)
Number of metered customers
Percent metered
Source water
Pipe in system (miles)
Elevation of treatment plant (ft above mean sea level)
Elevation of service area (min - max)
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (mil gal)
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD)
452,524
924,018
840,000
312,73
186,000+
100
100% Surface
(river)
3,785
532
500 - 1001
38,104
48,627
237/231
* 1973 data.
16
-------
LEGEND
Service Ar*o tor Cincinnati Water Workt
Mattered Mstered Areat
Independent Utilitiel
CINCINNATI SERVICE AREAS
A.
B,
C.
D.
E.
F.
G,
H.
MASTER
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cherry Grove
Me. Washington
California
Central
Fastem Hi lie
Brecon
Western Hills North
Western Hills South
METERED AREAS
Butler County
Warren County
Arlington Heights
Norwood
INDEPENDENT UTILITIES
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
11.
C leves
Add i son
Wyoming
Lock land
Reading
Glendale
Indian Hill
Love land
13. Milford
Figure 3. Cincinnati Water Works service area.
-------
00
LEGEND
Tank
Reservoir
Pump Station
O Treatment Plant
Figure 4. Major facilities in Cincinnati Water Works service area.
-------
SUPPLY
Treatment
Pump ing
Engineering and
Maintenance
ADMINISTRATION
Superintendent of
Water Works
DISTRIBUTION
Maintenance
Engineering
Inspection
Customer Service
COMMERCIAL
Customer Relations
Meter Reading
Accounting
Billing
Figure 5. Cincinnati Water Works organizational chart.
-------
The administrative division plans all system improvements, analyzes the
adequacy of the system, develops the rate structure, and coordinates long-
range plan development.
The supply division handles treatment, pumping operation, and some
engineering and maintenance, especially in connection with new facilities
or replacements.
The distribution division involves engineering, inspection, and main-
tenance of tanks, reservoirs, and equipment. The customer service section
maintains and replaces meters for each account.
Finally, the commercial division controls the accounts receivable,
which includes meter reading, accounting, billing, and customer relations.
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes from an intake pier located in Kentucky on the south
side of the Ohio River. Water obtained through this pier is pumped to two
nearby settling basins having a combined capacity of 372 mil gal. As water
flows to the settling basins, chlorine, alum, and activated carbon may be
added as needed. From the settling basins, water flows by gravity to the
treatment plant.
TREATMENT
All raw water is treated at the complex in California, Ohio, just east of
Cincinnati. The treatment plant, built in 1936, contains facilities for chem-
ical treatment, coagulation, and flocculation; 47 filter beds, each with a
capacity of 5 MGD; and two clear wells with a combined capacity of 28.3 mil
gal for storage of treated water.
In the chemical treatment processes, six chemicals are fed in proportion
to the amount of water treated, but the quality of the raw water determines
the specific amount of each chemical used. The chemicals used, their purpose,
and their order of application are as follows:
1. Chlorine, alum, and activated carbon may be added before pumping to the
settling basins. The purpose here is basically taste and odor control
as well as control of algae. Alum is also used for coagulation.
2. Lime, ferric sulfate, soda ash (sodium carbonate), and activated carbon
are added as water flows from the settling basins through the chemical
house to the coagulating basins. Provision exists for necessary chlorine
addition. Ferric sulfate and alum are used for coagulation. Lime and
soda ash affect the mineral content, and activated carbon is used for
taste and odor control.
3. Once the water leaves the filter house, it is collected in the clear
wells. At this point, chlorine and soda ash can again be added as needed.
Figure 6 shows the plan of the Cincinnati treatment plant.
20
-------
A - Intake pier
B - Submerged intake crib
C— Tunnels
Old river pumping station
New river pumping station
Chemical house-west
Raw water mains (2-60" on D, 1-72" on E)
Underground wash water chambers
Settling basins—total capacity, 372 mil gal
Chemical house-east
Two hydraulic jumps (rapid mix)
Flocculators (four per basin)
Clarifiers (two per basin)
Filtration plant—47 rapid sand filters (235 MOD capacity)
Underground finished water reservoir (20 mil gal)
Gravity tunnel to main pumping station
Underground finished water reservoir (6 mil gal)
Gravity tunnel to Tennyson pumping station
Figure 6. Cincinnati Water Works supply division.
21
-------
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The current source of supply is the Ohio River, from which water is
pumped to the treatment plant. The plant has a capacity of 235 MGD, and in
1973, it treated an average of 136 MGD. Water is distributed to the east
through a series of pumping stations and tanks. To the north and west, water
passes through two gravity tunnels and two pump stations and it is then
repumped into outlying service areas.
The distribution system consists of approximately 3,785 miles of mains
composed of 3- to 60-in- pipe. The two gravity tunnels are 84 and 96 in.
in diameter. Figure 7 provides a simplified diagram of the transmission
system.
There are 17 storage facilities in the system to provide pressure as
well as 152.7 mil gal storage for peak demand periods. There is an elevation
difference of about 500 ft between the hilly zones and the treatment plant.
Five of the 17 storage facilities are not elevated. They have a combined
capacity of 96.6 mil gal. All but the Sutton Road Reservoir have pumping
capability to increase pressure in the distribution system. Table 10 lists
the water storage facilities in the network.
COST ANALYSIS
Total water pumped by the Cincinnati utility during calendar years
1964 through 1973 as well as metered RPW and water that was accounted for but
did not produce revenue are shown in Figure 8. All cost data are based on
RPW; for example, purification costs in dollars per million gallons
($/mil gal) are based on RPW and not on the total number of gallons of water
pumped by the utility. As Figure 8 shows, the total water pumped exceeded
RPW by nearly 13,000 mil gal in 1973.
Table 11 contains the total operating cost for each of the previously
mentioned categories. Support services includes all of those operating
costs that support but are not directly chargeable to the production of
water. Such items as general administration, accounting and collection,
and meter reading are included. The subcategory "Other", which includes
pensions, workman's compensation, charges by other city departments, and
security, shows a sharp increase between 1968 and 1969 as a result of the
addition of fulltime guards to the Water Works staff. Purification includes
those costs related to operating the laboratory, labor involved in the
treatment function, chemicals for purifying the water, and maintenance of
the treatment plant. Power and pumping includes costs related to operating
labor, maintenance, and power for pumping water throughout the service area.
Transmission and distribution includes the operating labor and maintenance
costs associated with supplying water to the consumer.
Costs for support services more than doubled between 1964 and 1973.
All of the other cost categories incressec1 during this period, but their
rates of increase were smaller. Total operating costs increased by about 65%.
22
-------
($68.29)
^($36.86)
Clo
($37.50)
C2
($31.43)
C3b
($65.01)
($46.88)
C3a
($33.21)
C4a
S0.31)
Gravity
Tunnel
($55.37)
($80.48)
($120.30)
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of treatment plant costs ($/mil gal) in the Cincinnati Water
Works system. A, Bl, B2, etc. denote service areas. (See Figure 9 for geo-
graphic locations.)
-------
TABLE 10. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS STORAGE FACILITIES
Type of storage
Tank storage:
Brecon elevated
Cherry Grove elevated
Cherry Grove tank
Delhi Hills tank
Ferguson Road tanks
Greenhills tank
Kugler Mill elevated
Mack tank
Mt . Airy tanks
Mt. Washington tank
Pleasant Run elevated
Wardall elevated
Ground storage:
Eden Park Reservoir
Kennedy underground
Summit underground
Sutton Road Reservoir
Winton Road Reservoir
Total capacity
Ground
elevation (ft)
955
1001
887
995
966
898
930
995
966
808
995
995
Elevation
bottom (ft)
643
829
868
660
920
Overflow
elevation (ft)
990
1030
950
1030
1028
950
960
1030
1028
950
1030
1030
Elevation
top (ft)
682
845
882
683
950
Capacity
(mil gal)
1
1
2
2
1.4
1.5
1
2
8.5
1.2
2
2.5
Capacity
(mil gal)
80
6
4.9
1.1
34.6
152.7
24
-------
56
48
3
o
1-3
53
o
O
w
a
o
40
32
24
0
TREATED WATER
RPW
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 8. Cincinnati Water Works water flow, 1964 to 1973:
treated water versus RPW.
25
-------
TABLE 11. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services:
Administration
Acctg and collection
Service
Other
Total support services
Acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution;
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total trans, and distr.
1964
$235,834
282,963
225,768
615,177
1,359,742
394,844
31,434
149,426
409,463
170,180
152,710
913,213
199,620
182,915
581,588
122,039
1,086,162
462,986
1,003,220
91,989
1,558,195
1965
$243,870
278,983
233,539
574,111
1,330,503
368,762
38,493
144,277
367,234
196,119
160,352
906,475
202,322
182,814
606,176
124,036
1,115,348
450,387
1,027,617
75,792
1,553,796
1966
$250
292
245
624
1,413
374
42
152
375
187
175
933
223
216
613
128
1,182.
475
1,128
106
1,711
,774
,656
,552
,059
,041
,229
,706
,633
,132
,569
,827
,867
,715
,483
,971
,545
,714
,763
,650
,959
,372
1967
$295,445
324,660
249,206
629,284
1,498,595
372,385
41,219
164,778
410,700
216,698
171,299
1,004,694
232,845
226,307
645,362
151,493
1,256,007
491,722
1,256,074
137,468
1,885,264
1968
$306,583
395,372
256,748
647,647
1,616,350
379,928
32,315
169,750
411,143
216,442
182,267
1,011,917
228,061
238,245
629,906
150,925
1,247,137
534,062
1,329,452
64,201
1,927,715
1969
$336,236
410,427
302,611
1,059,359
2,108,633
405,149
37,934
180,574
410,172
246,220
166,132
1,041,032
255,809
304,739
696,544
154,805
1,411,897
570,439
1,436,244
77,331
2,084,014
1970
$359,307
422,221
300,214
999,165
2,080,907
426,743
39,801
188,150
426,248
223,697
187,145
1,065,041
272,235
252,469
694,359
163,001
1,382,064
595,005
1,586,635
141,096
2,322,736
1971
$384,356
480,680
351,596
1,155,109
2,371,741
496,344
38,381
143,383
423,667
315,748
243,424
1,164,603
239,756
346,596
870,796
181,262
1,638,410
611,769
1,794,415
80,963
2,487,147
1972
$465,136
533,285
370,723
1,264,105
2,633,249
480,020
42,154
167,608
424,586
323,127
282,744
1,240,219
232,280
320,396
902,790
179,479
1,634,945
607,511
1,846,084
152,840
2,606,435
1973
$451,404
585,288
407,787
1,321,758
2,766,237
485,102
46,940
172,754
384,698
334,765
270,910
1,210,067
238,806
309,375
903,397
215,554
1,667,132
652,791
1,868,514
132,579
2,653,884
Total operating cost
5,312,156 5,274,884 5,615,223 6,016,945 6,183,047 7,050,725 7,277,491 8,158,245 8,594,868 8,782,422
-------
Table 12 contains the average unit operating costs for each major
category based on the number of revenue-producing gallons pumped in a given
year. All of the cost categories increased by a factor of less than two,
and the total operating cost increased by about 40%.
Table 13 shows each cost category as a percent of total operating cost.
Support services accounted for a significant and increasing portion of the
utility's budget — from 25.6% in 1964 to 31.5% in 1973. The other cost
categories either decreased or remained constant.
Cincinnati's operating and capital expenses, as defined earlier, are
shown on Table 14. Depreciation and interest are defined as the capital
expenses for the waterworks system. They remained essentially constant,
but operating expenses increased by approximately 65%. The percentage of
expenditures allocated to capital decreased from approximately 27% to 22%
during the period (Table 15). Operating expenditures are always reported in
inflated or current dollars, and capital expenditures are depreciated in
historical dollars over a long period of time. The problems related to the
depreciation of capital will be discussed later. Since the support services
category, which is labor intensive, played an increasingly important role
in the cost of water supply, labor and manpower costs will be analyzed in
the following section.
LABOR COST ANALYSIS
To evaluate the impact of labor costs on operating costs for water
supply, it is necessary to examine the payroll of the water utility
(Table 16). Labor costs'accounted for 64% of the utility's operating costs
in 1964 and for 62% in 1973. The average cost/man-hour increased 71%, and the
number of man-hours/mil gal of metered consumption decreased by 23%. The
bottom line in the table shows a decreasing capital/labor cost ratio. Al-
though economies of scale were achieved with respect to the number of man-
hours used to produce water, the effect on cost was nullified by wage in-
creases. Table 16 therefore illustrates the importance of labor in what
is typically presumed to be a capital intensive industry.
DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS
Capital expenditures make up a large portion of the cost of water
supply. Depreciation reflects historical costs and not that of replacing
a facility based on current costs. Historical costs refer to the original
construction cost of a capital facility, and reproduction costs reflect the
capital expenditures necessary to build an identical plant today. Historical
cost is exact, but reproduction cost is based on the original investment
modified by an appropria*" index.
The reco: ae Cincinnati Water Works show the historical value of
the plant-in-sei - to be $111.7 million. The value of pipelines, plant,
or equipment previously replaced or fully depreciated is excluded.
27
-------
TABLE 12. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil gal RPW)
00
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Service
Other
Total support services
Acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1964
$7
8
7
19
42
12
4
12
5
4
28
6
5
18
3
33
14
31
2,
48
.36
.82
.04
.19
.41
.31
.98
.66
.77
.31
.76
.48
.23
.70
.14
.81
.88
.44
.29
.87
.60
1965
$7
8
7
17
40
11.
1
4
11
5
4
27
6
5
18
3
33
13,
31.
2
47
.38
.44
.06
.36
.24
.15
.16
.37
.11
.93
.85
.42
.12
.53
.34
.75
.74
.63
.08
.29
.00
1966
$7,
8.
7,
18,
41.
11.
1
4
11
5
5
27
6
6
18
3
35
14
33.
3
50
.44
.68
.28
.50
.90
.10
.27
.53
.12
.56
.21
.69
.63
.42
.21
.81
.07
.11
.46
.17
.74
1967
$8.
9.
7.
18.
43.
10,
1,
4,
12.
6.
5,
29,
6,
6,
18,
4,
36,
14,
36,
4,
55,
.65
.50
.30
.42
.87
.90
.21
.82
.02
.34
,02
.41
.82
.63
.89
,43
,77
.40
.77
.02
,19
1968
$8.
11,
7,
18,
46,
10,
4
11
6
5
29
6
6
18
4
35
15
38
1
55
.83
.39
.39
.94
.55
.94
.93
.89
.84
.23
.25
.14
.57
.86
.14
.35
.92
.38
.29
.85
.52
1969
$9.
11.
8.
29.
58.
11.
.29
.34
.36
.26
.25
19
1.05
4.
11,
6,
4
28,
7.
8,
19,
4,
39,
15,
39
2,
57
.99
.33
.80
,59
,76
.07
.42
.24
.28
.01
.76
.68
.13
.57
1970
$9.
11.
8.
26.
56.
11.
1.
5.
11,
6,
5.
28.
7.
6,
18,
4,
37,
16,
42,
3
62
68
,38
09
91
.06
.50
.07
.07
.48
.03
.04
.69
.33
.80
.71
.39
.23
.03
.75
.80
.58
1971
$10.
12.
9.
30.
62.
13.
1.
3.
11,
8,
6,
30.
6,
9,
22,
4,
42,
16,
47,
2
65
08
61
22
29
20
02
,01
.76
.11
.28
.38
.54
.29
.09
.84
.75
.97
.04
.07
.12
.23
1972
$12.
14.
9.
33.
69.
12.
1.
4.
11
8,
7.
32
6
8
23
4
43
16
48
4
68
.26
,06
.78
.33
.43
.66
.11
.42
.19
.52
.46
.70
.12
.45
.80
.73
.10
.02
.67
.03
.72
1973
$11.
15.
10.
34.
72.
12.
1.
4.
10,
8,
7.
31,
6,
8,
23,
5,
43
17
49
3
69
84
37
70
69
60
73
.23
.53
.10
.78
.11
.75
.27
.12
.71
.65
.75
.13
.04
.48
.65
Total unit operating cost
165.68
159.55
166.50
176.14
178.07
194.78
196.06
213.96
226.61
230.48
-------
TABLE 13. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Service
Other
Total support services
Acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating expense
1964
4.4
5.3
4.3
11.6
25.6
7.4
.6
2.8
7.7
3.2
2.9
17.2
3.8
3.4
11.0
2.3
20.5
8.7
18.9
1.7
29.3
100.0
1965
4.
5.
4.
10.
25.
7.
2.
7.
3,
3.
17.
3
3
11.
2
21
8
19
1
29
100
,6
3
.4
,9
2
,0
.7
,7
.0
.7
.1
.2
.8
.5
.5
.3
.1
.6
.5
.4
.5
.0
1966
4.
5.
4.
11.
25.
6.
2.
6.
3,
3.
16.
4,
3.
10.
2.
21,
8,
20,
1.
30
100,
5
2
4
1
2
.7
.8
7
.7
.3
.1
.6
.0
.8
.9
.3
.0
.5
.1
.9
.5
.0
1967
4
5,
4,
10,
24,
6,
2,
6,
3,
2,
16,
3
3,
10,
2,
20
8
20
2
31
100
,9
.4
.1
.5
.9
.2
.7
.7
.8
.6
.9
.7
.9
.8
.7
.5
.9
.1
.9
.3
.3
.0
1968
4
6
4
10
26
6
2
6
3
2
16
3
3
10
2
20
8
21
1
31
100
.9
.4
.2
.6
.1
.1
.5
.8
.7
.5
.9
.4
.7
.9
.2
.4
.2
.6
.5
.1
.2
.0
1969
4
5
4
15
29
5
2
5.
3.
2.
14,
3
4
9,
2,
20,
8.
20.
1.
29,
100.
.8
.8
.3
.0
.9
.8
.5
.6
.8
.5
.4
.8
.6
.3
.9
.2
.0
.1
.3
.1
.5
.0
1970
5.0
5.8
4.1
13.7
28.6
5.9
.5
2.6
5.8
3.1
2.6
14.6
3.7
3.5
9.6
2.2
19.0
8.2
21.8
1.9
31.9
100.0
1971
4
5
4
14
29
6
1
5
3
3.
14.
2.
4,
10.
2.
20.
7.
22.
1.
30.
100.
.7
.9
.3
.2
.1
.1
.5
.7
.2
.9
.0
.3
g
2
7
2
,0
5
0
0
5
0
1972
5.4
6.2
4.3
14.7
30.7
5.6
.5
1.9
4.9
3.8
3.3
14.4
2.7
3.7
10.5
2.1
19.0
7.0
21.5
1.8
30.3
100.0
1973
5
6
4
15
.1
.7
.7
.0
31.5
5.5
.5
2.
4.
3.
3.
13.
2.
3.
10.
2.
19.
7.
21.
1.
30.
100.
.0
.4
8
1
8
7
5
3
5
0
4
3
5
2
0
-------
TABLE 14, CINCINNATI WATER WORKS CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
CO
o
1 If til
Operating uxperise
Capital expense;
Depreciation
fiitereyt expense
To i, ML
Torul cost/mil gal
1964
$5,310,156
1,177,441
826,052
7,313,650
228.10
1965
$5,274,856
1,230,236
947,251
7,452,373
225.41
1966
$5,615,223
1,421,671
926,933
7,963,827
236.14
1967
$6,016,945
1,549,928
877,190
8,444,063
247.19
1968
56,183,047
1,605,070
887,150
8,665,267
249,56
1969
$7,050,725
1,633,727
887,103
9,571,465
264.41
1970
$7,277,491
1,632,017
792,755
9,702,263
261.39
1971
$8,158,
1,656,
802,
10,616,
278
245
520
055
820
.45
1972
$8,594,868
1,699,258
710,555
11,004,681
290.14
1973
$8,782,422
1,771,299
669,455
11,223,176
294.54
TABLE 15. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973_
Operating expense ($) 5,310,156 5,274,886 5,615,223 6,016,945 6,183,047 7,050,725 7,277,491 8,158,245 8,594,868 8,782,422
Capital expense <$) 2,033,494 2,177,487 2,348,604 2,427,118 2,492,220 2,520,740 2,424,772 2,458,575 2,409,813 2,440,754
(Interest, $) (826,052) (947,251) (926,933) (877,190) (887,150) (887,013) (792,755) (802,055) (710,555) (669,955)
Total 7,313,650 4,452,373 7,963,827 8,444,063 8,675,267 9,571,465 9,702,263 10,616,820 11,004,681 11,223,167
Operating expense
as 7. of total 72.61 70.78 70.51 71,25 71.35 73.66 75.01 75.84 78.10 78.25
Capital expense
as X of total 27.39 29.22 29.49 28.75 28.65 26.34 24.99 24.16 21.90 21.75
-------
TABLE 16. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Total payroll ($) 3,393,575 3,399,082 3,664,567 3,946,864 4,085,948 4,446,863 4,467,360 4,979,657 5,261,055 5,474,585
Total hours on payroll 1,110,032 1,116,220 1,102,892 1,120,980 1,148,588 1,141,448 1,115,744 1,094,229 1,071,476 1,046,724
Revenue-producing water
($/mil gal) 32,063 33,061 33,725 34,160 34,722 36,199 37,117 38,128 37,928 38,104
Total payroll metered ($/mil gal) 105.84 102.81 108.66 115.54 117.68 122.84 120.36 130.60 138.71 143.67
Total hours RPW ($/mil gal) 34.62 33.76 32.70 32.81 33.08 31.53 30.06 28.70 28.25 27.47
Average cost/man-hour 3.06 3.04 3.32 3.52 3.56 3.89 4.00 4.55 4.91 5.23
Capital/labor cost ratio 0.60 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.49 0.46 0.45
-------
A reproduction cost was calculated using the historical costs, the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (1913 = 100) for buildings and
equipment, and the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (1903 =
100) for pipes and valves. A skilled labor cost factor was used to compute
the Building Cost Index, and a common labor cost factor was used to compute
the Construction Cost Index. After weighing these capital expenditures with
the proper indices, a reproduction cost of $459 million was found for the
current plant-in-service, which represents a 311% increase over the histori-
cal value. These capital expenditures include capital investment in a new
treatment plant (Great Miami), which is expected to be operational soon.
Derivation of a reproduction value facilitates examining the impact of in-
flation on capital cost and the current worth of capital's contribution to
output. The computations discussed in this section are summarized in
Table 17.
SYSTEM COSTS
With the cost data for the various functional areas discussed earlier,
costs were allocated to specific treatment, transmission, storage, and pump-
ing facilities in the system, A general cost was determined for distribution,
interest, and overhead. Using costs based on 1973 dollars, and assuming a
linear allocation of costs for a given area against capacity required to
serve it, the facility costs ($/mil gal) associated with each service area,
such as pumping and storage, were established as shown in parentheses in
Figure 7.
The costs in the schematic diagram (Figure 7) can be related to the
costs in Table 18 and 19. For example, the acquisition cost for water from
the Ohio River, including depreciation of the facility and operating costs,
is $16.70/mil gal (Figure 7). As a unit of water (mil gal) moves through
each facility to another service area, the unit cost of moving it through
that area is added to the cost of getting water to that area, thereby creat-
ing the incremental costs shown in Table 19. The facility and transmission
costs are added to the costs of distribution, interest, and overhead to yield
an average unit cost to serve that area. A service zone represents a
customer service area and a demand point for water. For purposes of this
analysis, an attempt was made to discriminate between the water demanded in
a given distribution area and the water transmitted through the area into
the next service zone.
PRICING ANALYSIS
The price of water ($/mil gal) for the top 10 users for 1973 in the
Cincinnati Water Works service area is shown in Table 20. In the city, the
Davison Chemical Company paid a low monthly rate of $87.54/mil gal and a
high of $180.26/mil gal. These data are based on utilization of water for
1973, and on the rates shown in Tables 21 and 22.
32
-------
TABLE 17. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS HISTORICAL AND REPRODUCTION COSTS OF
PLANT-IN-SERVICE
Capital
facility
Plant
Pipe
Misc. plant*
Total
Historical
cost
$42,649,160
54,848,943
14,202,213
111,700,315
Reproduction cost
(1973-74 dollars)
$146,981,272
296,771,626
15,237,389
458,990,286
* Capital expenditures that are not specifically identified.
33
-------
TABLE 18. TRANSMISSION COSTS BETWEEN SERVICE AREAS (.$/mil gal)*
To
From A Bl B2 Cla Clb C2 C3a C3b C4a C4b
Treatment plant $78.14 $75.43 $19.76 $28.93 $22,29 $24.98
Service area:
si $60.26
Cla $113.61
C3a $39.45
C4a $50.03
* See Figure 9 for geographic locations of service areas.
-------
TABLE 19. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS COST, CONSUMPTION, AND REVENUE BY AREA, (1973)
Area
A
Bl
B2
Cla
Clb
C2
C3a
C3b
C4a
C4b
Total
Incremental cost
($/mll gal)
251.19
183.55
324.29
109.68
291.58
119.49
122.23
193,11
111.25
226.29
Total
C$/mil gal)*
404.50
336.86
477.60
262.99
444.89
272.80
225.54
346,42
264,56
379,60
RPW
(gallons)
190,150
629,050
339,991
6,796,811
290,806
9,667,159
3,784,174
3,873,248
7,640,334
4,859,095
38,070,818
Revenue
($)
76,915.68
211,901.78
162,379.70
1,787,493.30
129,376.68
2,637,200.90
1,042,691.30
1,341,770.50
2,021,326.70
1,844,512.40
11,255,568.94
* Includes distribution ($50.52), interest ($17.57), and overhead ($85.22).
-------
TABLE 20. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS WATER COST FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
High or low
Major user month Month
City of Norwood
Hilton Davis
Sun Chemical
Procter and Gamble
Davis on Chemical
Metropolitan Sewer
Cincinnati Milacron
Kroger Company
Kroger Company
E. Kahn's Sons
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
11
3
2
1
9
11
7
2
7
12
12
6
7
4
7
8
7
12
5
11
Units used Amount
(mil gal) billed
163.6
112.4
56.1
33.1
50.9
32.0
46.1
30.6
62.3
23.0
33.2
19.6
34.8
22.2
24.0
16.6
22.9
13.2
23.3
14.2
$48,112.24
33,046.20
9,464.44
5,773.96
8,642.84
5,612.72
14,232.55
9,829.27
5,457.40
4,154.56
5,822.88
3,638.88
6.097.44
4,166.40
7.538.95
5,447.98
4,167.12
2,607.72
4,230.68
2,778.44
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$294.12
294.12
168.83
174.67
169.87
175.44
308.70
321.12
87.54
180.26
175.19
185.44
175.07
187.95
313.54
328.26
181.90
197.73
181.67
195.17
Location
Suburb
City
City
Suburb
City
City
City
Suburb
City
City
Cost
zone
C2
Cla
C3a
C3a
C2
C4a
C2
Cla
C4a
C4a
-------
TABLE 21. CINCINNATI WATER WORKS METER RATES (APRIL 1, 1969)
Minimum charges
Criteria
Inside Cincinnati
Outside Cincinnati in
Hamilton and
Clermont Counties
Meter size
(in)
5/8
3/4
1
Us
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
Family units
(number)
1
2 -
4 -
6 -
13 -
21 -
55 -
116 -
over
3
5
12
20
50
115
250
250
Monthly
$2.50
2.80
3.50
4,50
7.00
9,00
12.00
25.00
35.00
40.00
40.00
Quarterly
$4,50
5.40
7.50
10.50
18.00
24.00
33,00
75.00
105 . 00
120,00
120.00
Monthly
$5.00
5,60
7.00
9.00
14.00
18.00
24.00
50.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
Quarterly
$9.00
10.80
15.00
21.00
36.00
48,00
66.00
150.00
210.00
240.00
240.00
Butler and
Warren
Monthly
$5.75
6.45
8.05
10.35
16.10
20.70
27.00
57.00
80.00
92.00
92.00
Counties
Quarterly
$10.35
12.40
17.25
24.15
41.40
55.20
75.00
170.00
240.00
270.00
270.00
-------
TABLE 22, CINCINNATI WATER WORKS MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY COMMODITY CHARGES (cents/100 cu ft)
Per month
1,000
50,000
Over 1
- 60,000 cu ft
- i million cu ft
million cu ft
Per quarter
2,000 - 180,000 cu ft
180,000 - 3 million cu ft
Over 3 million cu ft
Inside
Cincinnati
20
16
12
Outside Cincinnati
in Hamilton and
Clermont Counties
35
28
21
Butler and
Warren Counties
40
32
24
-------
The lowest cost for water delivered to a service area was for area
Cla ($262.99/mil gal). Cost areas defined in this report and the 10 major
users are shown in Figure 9, which allows for easy visual comparison between
the data in Figure 7 and Table 20. These data are summarized in Table 23,
which compares the cost and revenues from various levels of water used for
the 10 major users in the water works billing area. Many of the major users
do not meet the cost of supplying water to them.
Table 23 (column 2) presents a cost comparison based on the assumption
that each of the costs in the categories of acquisition, treatment, trans-
mission and distribution, power and pumping, support services, and capital
can be based on a cost/mil gal basis. Such an assumption might be questioned,
particularly as it relates to support services. An alternate means of cost
allocation to the 10 largest users may be generated through adjustment of
support services cost/mil gal to overhead cost/customer.
Total support services is $2.8 million, which, when divided by total
metered water, gives a unit cost of $72.60/mil gal. The remaining $12. 62/
mil gal included in the $85.22 support services cost refers to miscellaneous
capital and operating expenditures not counted in the incremental costs for
each service area.
The $72,60/mil gal cost can be reallocated on a per-customer basis, since
there are 186,910 quarterly accounts and 1,533 monthly accounts. Customers
billed monthly require three times as many meter readings, yielding a total of
191,509 equivalent quarterly accounts. Support services cost per quarterly
customer is therefore $14.44.
For the 10 largest users (which are monthly accounts) , the support
services cost is $43.32/customer (three times that for the quarterly cus<-
tomers) . This adjusted overhead cost is then added to the incremental,
interest, adquisition, treatment, distribution, transmission, and miscellaneous
support services cost for each zone. Total costs to supply the 10 largest
customers are shown in column 3 of table 23.
The adjusted cost approach lowers the costs for the 10 major users, but
it raises the proportion of support services that the other users must bear.
Nevertheless, the same users that pay less than cost now (column 2, Table 23)
would continue to pay less than cost (column 3) . Both approaches reveal an
interesting picture of costs and the way they vary throughout the Cincinnati
Water Works service area.
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent year
studied are as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services*™
Acquisition — — —
Treatment • *•—
Distribution-
Interest- — — —
Tof-al
- - 85
. __ 17
•}£
- - 1 ^Q
- - 295
39
-------
TEN LARGEST USERS
1. City of Norwood
2. Hilton Davis
3. Sun Chemical
4. Procter and Gamble
5. Davison Chemical
6. Metropolitan Sewer District
7 Cincinnati Milacron
8. Kroger Company
9 Kroger Company
10. E. Kahn's and Son's
Figure 9.
Location of 10 major users within the Cincinnati Wate^ Works service area,
Bl, B2, Cla, etc. denote various distribution areas within the system.
-------
TABLE 23. ACTUAL PRICE VERSUS COST COMPARISONS FOR TEN MAJOR USERS IN
CINCINNATI WATER WORKS SERVICE AREA ($/mil gal)
Major user
Norwood
Hilton Davis
Sun Chemical
Procter and Gamble*
Davison Chemical
Metropolitan Sewer
Cincinnati Milacron
Kroger Company
(Suburb)*
Kroger Company
(City)
E. Kahn's Sons
Price*
$294.12
168.83
175.67
169.87
175.44
308.70
321.12
87.54
180.26
175.19
185.44
175.07
187.95
313.54
328.26
181.90
197.73
181.67
195.17
Cost+
$272.80
262.99
275.54
275.54
272.80
264.56
272.80
262.99
264.56
264.56
Adjusted
cost"1"
$243.52
233.71
246.26
246.26
243.57
235.28
243.52
233.71
235.28
235.28
* Wherever two values are presented, one represents the high and the other
the low bill in $/mil gal for 1973-74.
+ These values were calculated on an average cost basis and as such do not
reflect potential economies of scale that result from having large users
in the system.
$ Suburban users are charged at a higher rate to allow for expansion into
Hamilton County.
41
-------
SECTION 6
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, WATER DEPARTMENT
The Kansas City, Missouri, Water Department provides treated water to
citizens and industry located in Kansas City. The retail service area of
the Kansas City Water Department served approximately 515,000 people in
1973. Population trends in the area have shown a relatively slow increase
during the past 10 years. Most of the increase in residential population
has been in fringe areas of the city. Some basic facts about the system are
shown in Table 24.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Kansas City Water Department provides water on a retail basis to
all classes of customers within the service area (Figure 10). This treated
water is supplied primarily to all users within the incorporated limits of
Kansas City. In addition to these areas, water is sold to other water util-
ities such as the Raytown Water Company, Lee Summit, Belton, and other water
distributors servicing areas outside of Kansas City.
ORGANIZATION
The Kansas City Water Department operates as a department of the Kansas
City government. Basically, the department provides only the service of de-
livering potable water to its users; however, the director of the water sup-
ply department and the director of the pollution control department (which
includes sewage treatment) report to the same person. Some mixing of activ-
ities therefore occurred and had to be separated to identify costs associ-
ated with water production.
Some reorganization of the management structure occurred in the 2 years
before the study began. The present organization shown in Figure 11 is made
up of five divisions that report to the Director for Water Supply.
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes primarily from the Missouri River and is delivered dir-
ectly to a treatment plant near the intake where all raw water is treated.
A well field capable of producing 25 MGD is located near the intake facility
and provides some of the raw water for the Kansas City system. The purpose
of the well water, however, is primarily to assist in treatment processes
and temperature control during the winter. An adequate amount of raw water
42
-------
TABLE 24. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI. WATER DEPARTMENT, BASIC FACTS*
Item
Amount
Population (1973):
SMSA 1,295,000
County 813,900
Retail service area 515,000
Area of retail service area (sq miles) 316
Recognized customer classes (No. of accounts):
Industrial and commercial 13,719
Residential 116,417
Suburban , 1,429
Flat-rate customers None
Percent metered 100%
Purchased water None
Source water 10% Well - 90% River
Pipe in system (miles) 1,912.1
Elevation of treatment plant (ft above mean sea level) 754
Elevation of service area (min-max, ft) 722/1188
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 26,856
Treated water (pumpage from treatment plants, mil gal) 35,150
Max day/max hour (July 4, 1974, MGD)
* All data except population are for 1974.
43
-------
Claycomo
.' e a 111 e i
Lake
Kansas City Water Co.
Figure 10. Kansas City water supply service area.
44
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE
DIVISION
ACCOUNTS
DIVISION
Auditing
Payroll
Stores
CONSUMER SERVICES
DIVISION
Customer Services
Accounting
Data Flow Control
Meter Reading
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
Design and
Specifications
Construction and
Surveys
DISTRIBUTION
DIVISION
Pipe Line
Garage
Water Services
WATER SUPPLY
DIVISION
Laboratory Services
Purification
Maintenance
Electrical Maintenance
Electric Pumping
Figure 11. Kansas City Water Department organizational structure.
-------
intake facility near the entrance to the treatment plant delivers water
directly from the river to the treatment facility.
TREATMENT
All raw water for Kansas City is treated in one facility located on the
bank of the Missouri River. The present plant was constructed during the
mid-twenties and put into use in 1928 with a pumping capacity of 100 MGD. A
vast expansion program, started in the early fifties and completed in 1958,
increased the rated capacity of the plant to its present 210 MGD.
Though the plant is housed in a single facility, there are actually
three separate treatment facilities, each capable of functioning inde-
pendently. The treatment plant performs four primary functions: softening,
sterilization, taste and odor control, and coagulation. The water goes
through five stages during the treatment process: four basins and a set of
filters. Chemicals are added before and after each of these stages
(Figure 12).
Physical, chemical, and bacteriological characteristics of the raw water
from the Missouri River vary greatly on a daily and seasonal basis, de-
pending on numerous factors such as rainfall, temperature, flow rates, and
the character of waste material discharged into the river upstream. Daily
tests are made of raw water samples, and the treatment process is modified
as needed for changing conditions. Tests are made on finished water samples
to assure that the objectives of the treatment process are met at all times.
When the water leaves the filter basin, it goes into a large underground
clear well with a capacity of 7 mil gal and is ready to be moved into the
transmission and distribution system, which has much greater storage
capacity.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The distribution system consists of approximately 1,912 miles of pipe
in the ground, ranging from the 96-in. mains leading from the treatment
facility to the 2-in. mains used for distribution to homes.
The terrain served elevations ranging from 722 to 1,188 ft above sea
level; therefore, it is not necessary to boost water to high elevations.
But it is necessary to transmit the water over considerable distances from
the one treatment plant. Transmission is accomplished by both high- and
low-head pumps. To the north and west of the water plant, water is trans-
mitted by high pressure pumps feeding directly into the distribution system
and delivering water under pressure to the consumers. The Waukomis pumping
station boosts the pressure and flow of water in the extreme northern por-
tion of the delivery system. This station boosts less than 2% of the water
used by consumers.
Pumping to the south is through a low pressure flow line that delivers
water to a 35-mil gal ground storage reservoir at Turkey Creek and into a
17-mil gal ground storage reservoir at East Bottoms. Both of these storage
46
-------
MISSOURI RIVER
ACTIVATED CARBON
FERRIC SULFATE
ALUMINUM SULFATE
CALCIUM OXIDE
SODIUM CARBONATE
CARBON DIOXIDE
FERRIC SULFATE
ALUMINUM SULFATE
POLYMER
POLYPHOSPHATE
CHLORINE "I
POLYPHOSPHATE J
-F
tp
POTASSIUM
PERMANGANATE
PRESEDIf'.ENTATION
BASINS
SECONDARY
FLOCCULATION BASINS
I
LA
CHLORINE
POLYMER
ALUMINUM SULFATE
£ACTIVATED CARBON
fpOLYPHOSPHATE
{CARBON DIOXIDE
Figure 12. Kansas
Water Department treatment plant schematic.
47
-------
facilities have high pressure pumps that move the water into the transmission
and distribution system. Approximately 65% of the water consumed by cus-
tomers is delivered directly by these two pumping stations, which also
delivers water to two ground storage reservoirs located further south in the
system at Waldo and Blue Ridge. Each of these reservoirs has a storage
capacity of 10 mil gal and a pumping station that delivers the water under
pressure into the distributions system at the southern limits of the service
area. Table 25 shows the storage capacity, both ground and elevated, within
the Kansas City system. As shown, there are approximately 3 mil gal of ele-
vated storage throughout the entire system. This elevated storage assists
in maintaining pressure within the distribution system but the main source
of pressure comes directly from the pumps.
COST ANALYSIS
Figure 13 illustrates the growth in consumer demand for water from 1964
through 1974. A wide discrepancy exists between the amount of water treated
and the amount billed. This problem was being analyzed by the water depart-
ment at the time the data were gathered, and part of the difference (RPW for
1973 and 1974) then appeared to be the result of a computer problem.
Data were collected and reported using standard cost categories, as
shown in Tables 26 through 28. Because a major portion of the operating
budget was expended for labor, Table 29 was developed to examine costs
associated with the operation and maintenance activities of the department.
The cost/man-hour increased over the 10-year period by 98%, whereas the
total payroll hours required to produce a billion gallons of RPW decreased
by 9% (Table 29). Thus the operating costs for producing water did not
increase as rapidly as the labor cost/man-hour. However, when it is no
longer possible to gain increased efficiencies with respect to manpower,
the operating costs will start to increase at a rate that is at least equal
to the labor cost.
Operating and capital costs for the 10-year period of the analysis are
summarized in Table 30.
Capital and operating expense ratios (Table 31) provide a comparison
of expenditures made for operations and capital in each of the 10 years
under study. The operating expenses shown as a total value in the table are
the expenses incurred in the normal day-to-day operation of the system. The
capital expenses represent the total periodic expenditures for major equip-
ment items and facilities plus the interest charged on money borrowed for
that purpose.
A comparison of the operating and capital expenses as a percent of the
total shows that in the Kansas City Water Department, more expenses are
associated with operations than with capital. Over the 10-year period, this
trend has continued and is primarily a result of the continued increase in
the cost of items necessary for operation, such as increasing salaries.
During the same time period, no major capital costs were incurred; there-
fore, the expenditure ratio shifted from 69% operating:31% capital in
48
-------
TABLE 25. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT SYSTEMS STORAGE
Type of storage Overflow elevation
(ft above sea level datum)
Elevated storage tanks :
KC1
North (out of service)
North (out of service)
East
Ruskin
150 Highway
House service
Total elevated storages
Ground
(ft above
Ground storage reservoirs:
Clear Well
Turkey Creek
East Bottoms
Waldo
Blue Ridge
Total ground storage
1174
1124
1124
1120
1189
1152
958
level elevation
sea level datum)
754
764
752
1008
1019
Capacity
(mil gal)
.25
.15
.15
2.00
.40
.06
.07
3.08
Capacity
(mil gal)
7
35
17
10
10
79
49
-------
55
O
Pn
O
S3
O
HH
d
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
0
TREATED WATER
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 13. Kansas City water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
50
-------
TABLE 26. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Service
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distr.
1965
5 777,760
628,155
278,532
152,603
1,837,050
33,818
11,997
152,703
34,162
232,680
57,755
125,490
492,523
157,316
184,811
1,017,895
138,864
49,264
627,029
140,278
955,435
79,277
364,533
139,731
583,541
1966
$ 892,396
738,702
332,123
99,154
2,062,375
41,574
6,519
146,082
36,244
230,419
69,717
139,192
531,327
139,655
206,096
1,085,986
170,710
26,768
599,845
148,825
946,148
77,593
425,728
126,140
629,461
1967
$ 860,750
802,054
369,497
112,638
2,144,939
43,192
11,315
159,578
36,683
250,768
80,672
134,802
576,501
166,376
236,433
1,194,784
177,356
46,461
655,260
150,628
1,029,706
95,026
493,108
140,908
729,042
1968
$ 953,346
1,128,566
434,332
134,914
- 2,651,158
51,824
25,322
159,099
40,843
277,087
74,728
173,343
523,917
192,978
231,513
1,196,479
212,800
103,975
653,293
167,708
1,137,777
99,400
505,435
163,829
768,664
1969
$1,243,758
1,250,998
484,127
169,385
3,148,268
59,821
32,981
168,077
45,861
306,740
112,268
181,001
488,972
222,492
285,859
1,290,592
245,635
135,428
690,160
188,314
1,259,537
117,922
560,517
199,586
878,025
1970
$1,308,126
1,467,475
486,498
155,301
3,417,400
63,369
26,332
168,537
59,734
317,972
136,431
190,719
673,105
180,958
353,555
1,534,768
260,207
108,125
692,050
245,278
1,305,661
129,439
738,226
200,004
1,067,669
1971
$1,518,099
1,390,970
549,484
107,146
3,565,699
65,459
31,330
179,968
60,311
337,068
141,653
176,840
705,175
168,861
369,907
1,562,436
268,789
128,647
738,988
247,648
1,384,072
125,080
747,918
240,385
1,113,383
1972
$1,477,868
1,347,694
523,104
231,287
3,579,953
57,068
34,164
199,767
59,210
350,210
179,765
185,954
799,833
180,960
369,630
1,716,142
234,335
140,284
820,287
243,128
1,438,033
171,432
785,554
238,750
1,195,736
1973
$1,597,632
1,445,082
543,821
228,826
3,815,361
71,119
36.749
200,370
57,124
365,362
192,829
220,294
992,883
202,370
274,674
1,883,050
292,030
150,889
822,761
234,563
1,500,253
175,793
717,772
258,166
1,151,731
1974
$1,609,870
1,410,436
544,270
221,808
3,786,384
76,485
28,677
216,147
53,068
374,378
196,290
228,645
959,156
262,294
352,140
1,998,525
314,064
117,756
887,546
217,910
1,537,275
185,499
773,622
245,815
1,204,936
Total operating cost
4,626,601 4,954,389 5,349,239 6,031,165 6,883,162 7,643,470 7,962,658 8,280,074 8,715,757 8,901,498
-------
TABLE 27. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/MIL GAL RPW)
Category
Administration
Accounting and collection
Service
Other
Total support services
Acquisition :
Operating labor
Maintenante
Power
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating cost
1965
$ 29
23
10
5
70
1
0
5
1
8
2
4
18
6
7
38
5
1
23
5
36
3
13
5
22
176
.68
,97
.63
.82
.11
.29
.46
.83
.30
.88
.20
.79
.80
.00
.05
.85
.30
.88
.93
.35
.46
.03
.91
.33
.27
.56
1966
S 33
27
12
3
76
1
0
5
1
8
2
5
19
5
7
40
6
0
22
5
35
2
15
4
23
183
.07
.37
.31
.67
.43
.54
.24
.41
.34
.54
.58
.16
.69
.18
.64
.24
.33
.99
.23
.52
.06
.88
.78
.67
.33
.60
1967
$ 30.
28
13
4
76
1
0
5
1
8.
2
4
20
5
8.
42.
6
1
23.
5
36
3
17
5
25
190
.67
.58
.17
.01
.43
.54
.40
.69
.31
.94
.87
.80
.54
.93
.43
.58
.32
.66
.35
.37
.69
.39
.57
.02
.98
.62
1968
$ 35.
41
16.
4
97
1
0
5
1
10
2
6
19
7,
8
44
7,
3
24,
6
41
3
18
6
28
222
.13
.58
.00
.97
.68
.91
.93
.86
.50
.21
.75
.39
.30
.11
.53
.08
.84
.83
.07
.18
.92
.66
.62
.04
.32
.21
1969
$ 44.
44.
17.
6.
113.
2.
1.
6.
1.
11.
4.
6.
17.
7,
10,
46.
8.
4.
24,
6,
45,
4
20
7
31.
247.
68
94
.39
.08
.10
,15
18
,04
,65
02
03
50
.57
.99
.27
.36
.82
87
.79
.76
,25
.24
.14
.17
.54
.27
1970
$ 45.28
50.79
16.84
5.38
118.28
2.19
0.91
5.83
2.07
11.01
4.72
6.60
23.30
6.26
12.24
53.12
9.01
3.74
23.95
8.49
45.19
4.48
25.55
6.92
36.95
264.55
1971
$ 55.
50.
20.
3.
129.
2.
1.
6.
2.
12.
5.
6.
25.
6.
13.
56.
9.
4.
26.
9,
50.
4
27
8
40
290
34
71
03
91
98
39
14
56
20
29
.16
.45
71
.16
,48
.96
.80
,69
.94
.03
.45
.56
.26
.76
.59
.27
1972
$ 51.44
46.91
18.21
8.05
124.60
1.99
1.19
6.95
2.06
12.19
6.26
6.47
27.84
6.30
12.86
59.73
8.16
4.88
28.55
8.46
50.05
5.97
27.34
8.31
41.62
288.18
1973
$ 56.
51.
19.
8.
135.
2.
1.
7.
2.
12.
6.
7.
35.
7.
9.
66.
10.
5.
29.
8.
53.
6.
25.
9.
40
309
71
30
30
12
44
52
30
11
03
97
84
82
24
18
,75
.84
.37
,36
,21
,33
,26
.24
.48
.16
.88
.39
1974
$ 59.
52,
20,
8,
140,
2,
1,
8.
1,
13
7.
8
35.
9
13
74
11
4
33.
8.
57,
6
28
9
44
331
95
,52
.27
,26
.99
.85
.07
.05
.98
.94
.31
.51
.71
.77
.11
.42
.69
.38
.05
.11
.24
.91
.81
.15
.87
.45
The above figures are not additive. They are obtained by dividing yearly mil gal RPW into the annual costs shown in the preceding table.
-------
TABLE 28. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Ul
U>
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Service
Other
Total overhead
Acquisition:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Laboratory
Operating labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
16
13
6
3
39
0,
0
3
0
5
1
2
10
3
3
22
3
1
13
3
20
1
7
3
12
.81
.58
.02
.30
.71
.73
.26
.30
.74
.03
.25
.71
.65
.40
.99
.00
.00
.06
.55
.03
.65
.71
.88
.02
.61
1966
18
14
6,
2
41
0,
0,
2,
0
4
1
2
10
2
4
21,
3
0
12
3
19
1.
8,
2
12
.01
.91
.70
.00
.62
.84
.13
.95
.73
.65
.41
.81
.72
.82
.16
.92
.45
.54
.11
.00
.10
.57
.59
.55
.71
1967
16
14
6
2
40
0,
0,
2,
0
.09
.99
.91
.11
.10
.81
.21
.98
.69
4^.69
1,
2.
10
3
4
22,
3
0
12
2,
19,
1
9,
2,
13,
.51
.52
.78
.11
.42
.33
.32
.87
.25
.82
.25
.78
,22
.63
.63
1968
15
18
7
2
43
0,
0,
2,
0,
4
1,
2,
8,
3,
3,
19.
3,
1
10
2,
18,
1
8,
2,
12,
.81
.71
.20
.24
.96
.86
.42
.64
.68
.59
.24
.87
.69
.20
.84
.84
.53
.72
.83
.78
.86
.65
.38
.72
.75
1969
18.07
18.17
7.03
2.46
45.74
0.87
0.48
2.44
0.67
4.46
1.63
2.63
7.10
3.23
4.15
18.75
3.57
1.97
10.03
2.74
18.30
1.72
8.14
2.90
12.76
1970
17
19
6
2
44
0
0
2
0
4
1
2
8
2
4
20
3
1
9
3
17
1
9
2
13
.11
.20
.36
.03
.71
.83
.34
.20
.78
.16
.78
.50
.81
.37
.63
.08
.40
.41
.05
.21
.08
.69
.66
.62
.97
1971
19.07
17.47
6.90
1.35
44.79
0.82
0.39
2.26
0.76
4.23
1.78
2.22
8.86
2.12
4.65
19.62
3.38
1.62
9.28
3.11
17.38
1.57
9.39
3.02
13.98
1972
17.84
16.28
6.32
2.79
43.23
0.69
0.41
2.41
0.72
4.23
2.17
2.25
9.66
2.19
4.46
20.73
2.83
1.69
9.91
2.94
17.37
2.07
9.49
2.88
14.44
1973
18.33
16.57
6.24
2.63
43.77
0.82
0.42
2.30
0.66
4.20
2.21
2.53
11.40
2.32
3.15
21.61
3.35
1.73
9.44
2.69
17.21
2.02
8.23
2.96
13.21
1974
18
15
6
2
42
0
0
2,
0
4,
2.
2.
10.
2.
3.
22.
3.
1.
9.
2.
17.
2.
8.
2.
13.
.09
.84
.11
.49
.54
.86
.32
.43
,60
.21
,21
,57
,78
.95
,96
45
,53
,32
,97
45
27
,08
69
76
,53
Total
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
-------
TABLE 29. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Category 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Total payroll ($) 2,627,096 2,707,386 2,834,801 3,335,272 3,864,478 4,276,038 4,572,337 4,486,488 4,577,926 4,865,085
Total hours on payroll 1,219,867 1,206,749 1,167,368 1,276,910 1,359,372 1,371,570 1,309,498 1,153,979 1,113,292 1,143,839
RPW (mil gal) 26,204 26,985 28,063 27,141 27,837 28,892 27,432 28,732 28,171 26,856
Total payroll/mil gal ($) 100.26 100.33 101.01 122.89 138.82 148.00 166.68 156.15 162.51 181.16
Total hours/mil gal 46.55 44.72 41.60 47.05 48.83 47.47 47.74 40.16 39.52 42.59
Average cost/man-hour ($) 2.15 2.24 2.43 2.61 2.84 3.12 3.49 3.89 4.11 4.25
TABLE 30. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Item
Operating expense ($)
Depreciation,
amortization ($)
Other (interest) (?)
Total cost ($)
Unit cost ($/mil gal RPH)
1965
4,626,004
1,008,700
1,063,760
6,699,064
255.65
1966
4,954,389
1,042,635
1,067,192
6,507,351
241.15
1967
5,349,239
1,055,788
981,434
7,386,461
263.21
1968
6,031,
1,065,
939,
8,036,
296
165
576
797
538
.10
1969
6,883,161
1,098,210
1,061,401
9,042,772
324.84
1970
7,643,472
1,117,895
1,207,367
9,968,733
345.03
1971
7,962,659
1,156,777
1,519,028
10,638,464
387.82
1972
8,280,075
1,202,328
1,456,258
10,938,661
380.71
1973
8,715,758
1,263,516
1,406,804
11,386,078
404.18
1974
8,901,496
1,315,193
1,351,320
11,568,009
430.74
-------
TABLE 31. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSES RATIOS
Item
Operating expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Total expense ($)
Operating expense
as % of total
Capital expense
as % of total
1965
4,626,604
2,072,460
6,699,064
69.06
30.94
1966
4,954,389
2,109,827
7,064,216
70.13
29.87
1967
5,349,239
2,037,221
7,386,460
72.42
27.58
1968
6,031,165
2,005,373
8,036,538
75.05
24.95
1969
6,883,161
2,159,611
9,042,772
76.17
23.83
1970
7,643,472
2,325,261
9,968,733
76.67
23.33
1971
7,962,659
2,675,805
10,638,464
74.85
25.15
1972
8,289,075
2,658,586
10,938,661
75.70
24.30
1973
8,715,758
2,670,320
11,386,078
76.55
23.45
1974
8,901,
2,666,
11,568,
76
23
496
513
009
.95
.05
-------
1965 to 77% operating:23% capital in 1974.
The Kansas City system is relatively old; therefore, the capital
depreciated was expended when costs were significantly lower than at present.
On the other hand, the operating expenses are in current dollars. This ratio
will change whenever capital investments are made by the utility. For
example, at some time in the future, major capital expenditures may be
required at the treatment facility to meet increasing demands. When this
occurs, the ratio of capital expense to operating expense will increase
significantly.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of the costs on a functional basis is only a part of the
total picture. Since the purpose of the water utility is to deliver water
to customers, it is important to be able to present the costs in such a way
that they relate to the delivery of water to the demand point within the
distribution system. The functional categories, both operating and capital,
should therefore be reaggregated and assigned to the physical components of
the water delivery system. This section contains such a cost analysis of
the water supply system.
To analyze the cost of water as it moves from acquisition to treatment
and on to the consumer, it is necessary to identify the capital and operating
costs of the system components. Figure 14 shows the location of the Kansas
City Water Department facilities, and Figure 15 is a schematic diagram
showing operating and capital costs for each of the major system components.
A linear assumption is made that allows costs/mil gal to be added as water
moves from one component of the system to another. For example, the cost of
acquiring water from the Missouri River and moving it to the treatment plant
is $15.28/mil gal. The cost of treating the water from the time it arrives
at the treatment plant until it is pumped out is $81.98/mil gal. Two types
of pumping occur out of the treatment plant: high-pressure pumping into the
distribution system to the northwest, and low pressure flowline pumping to
the south, toward the Turkey Creek and the East Bottoms storage and pumping
facilities. Farther to the south, flowline pumping costs $16.87/mil gal,
with an additional operating capital cost of the flowline amounting to
$1.53. This moves the water to the pumping stations, which perform the
function of high-pressure pumping into the distribution system. This high
pressure pumping costs $38.41. Adding these costs together yields a total
incremental cost for providing water to service Zone 3 of $163.19/mil gal
(see Table 32). Added to the incremental costs are those for distribution,
interest, and support services. Distribution costs are calculated on the
assumption that these costs on a mil gal basis are constant throughout the
system; therefore, the total capital and operating cost for distribution
is divided by the number of gallons of RPW in the year under consideration,
yielding a figure of $61.05/mil gal. The same approach is taken for interest
and support services. When these are added together, a total cost/mil gal
for water to a given zone results. For example, the total cost of water
delivered to Zone 3 is $419.43/mil gal. Table 32 also contains the metered
56
-------
Elevat ion
(ft. above
sea level)
Facility
KCW Kansas City
Waterworks
EB East Bottoms
W Waukomis
TC Turkey Creek
WB Waldo Booster
BR Blue Ridge
Figure 14. Kansas City Water Department facilities
(arrows depict general direction of water flow).
57
-------
Zone 1
Waukomis
Pump ing
$45.83
Zone 2
Intake
P ump ing
$15.28
•MMM
Water
Treatment
$81.98
• i.
Pumping North
$38,41
Pumping South
$16.87
Tunnel/flow Line}
T.C. Pumping
1.53
$38.41
E.B. Pumping
Waldo Pumping
-$31,99 -
Zone 3
Blue Ridge
Pump ing
Zone 4
458
mil gal
RPW
$13.21/mil gal
Transmission
cost
2,072
mil gal
RPW
$10.78/mil gal
Transmission
cost
17,383
mil gal
RPW
$9.21/mil gal
Transmission
cost
6,942 $13.23/mil gal
mil gal Transmission
RPW cost
Figure 15. Kansas City Water Department allocation of capital and operating
expenses to water system components ($/mil gal RPW) .
58
-------
TABLE 32. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT COST, CONSUMPTION, AND REVENUE, BY ZONE
Zone
1
2
3
4
Total
Incremental
costs
($/mil gal)
$205.40
146.36
163.19
208.45
Distribution
costs
($/mil gal)
$61.05
61.05
61.05
61.05
Interest
($/mil gal)
$50.32
50.32
50.32
50.32
Support
services
($/mil gal)
$144.52
144.52
144.52
144.52
Total
*
cost
($/mil gal)
$461.33
402.25
419.43
464.34
RPW
(mil gal)
458
2,072
17,383
6,942
26,855
Revenue
$ 211,289
833,462
7,290,952
3,223,448
11,559,151
* Average cost/zone is $436.83
-------
consumption for each of the pressure areas and the estimated contributions
of revenue for recovering the total cost.
Once these calculations are made and various cost zones are established,
costs versus charges can be examined. Tables 33, 34, and 35 contain the
Kansas City rate schedules.
The cost of water for the 10 largest consumers of the Kansas City
Water Department is broken down in Table 36.
The locations of these 10 major users within the service area are
shown in Figure 16. By comparing each location with the cost allocations
in Table 32, it is possible to identify the actual allocated cost of
delivering water to the individual consumer. This comparison shows that in
some cases the water department is recovering its cost for water, and in
other cases, the charge is substantially less than the actual cost of
producing and delivering the water.
Average costs for all RPW during the most recent year studied are as
follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 145
Acquisition 15
Treatment 82
Distribution 138
Interest 50
Total 430
60
-------
TABLE 33. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT METER RATES ($/mil gal)
Meter size (in.) City rate Suburban rate
5/8 $ 1.30 $ 2.20
3/4 1.50 2.50
1 1.85 3.30
1-h 2.50 4.50
2 3.75 6.50
3 7.50 12.50
4 12.50 22.00
6 25.00 44.00
8 37.50 66.00
10 55.00 93.00
61
-------
TABLE 34. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT COMMODITY CHARGES
Item Amount ($/mil gal)
City:
First 50 units @ $.39 $521.35
Next 250 units @ $.28 374.31
Next 4,700 units @ $.23 307.47
Over 5,000 units @ $.14 187.15
Suburban:
First 20 units @ $.53 708.50
Next 480 units @ $.44 588.19
Over 500 units @ $.32 427.78
62
-------
TABLE 35. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT CHARGE ANALYSIS
Total charge
Units served Gallons used City Suburban
13.4 10,000 $5.22 $7.01
5,000 3,740,260 1,170.56 1,661.80
100,000 74,805,200 14,470.32 32,061.80
150,000 112,207,800 21,470.22 48,061.80
63
-------
TABLE 36. KANSAS CITY WATER DEPARTMENT WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
ON
-p-
Major Users
Sheffield Steel
AEC
Ford Motor Co.
K. C. Power & Light
Ray town Water Co .
Union Wire & Rope
J. C. Nichols
K. C. Stockyards
Lee Summit
Belton
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
5
3
6
10
5
11
10
3
6
1
5
6
12
4
10
9
12
9
12
9
Units used
(mil gal)
120.6
74.7
112.6
16.8
53.1
14.3
46.4
10.2
41.9
21.1
24.5
5.5
31.5
6.0
16.9
9.8
28.1
4.0
37.0
5.4
Amount
billed
$23,055
14,435
21,804
3,670
22,778
6,164
9,188
2,389
17,960
9,063
5,077
1,462
13,532
2,645
2,488
1,442
12,087
1,759
15,892
2,355
Unit Charge
($/mil gal)
$191.16
193.21
193.68
218.73
428.99
432.35
198.08
234.62
428.94
430.42
206.84
266.89
429.95
438.42
147.03
147.09
430.20
443.50
429.62
437.80
Location
City
City
Suburb
City
Suburb
City
Suburb
Flowline
Suburb
Suburb
Cost
zone
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
-------
MAJOR USERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sheffield Steel
AEC
Ford Motor
KC Power and Light
Raytown Water Co.
Union Wire and Rope
J. C. Nichols
K. C. Stockyards
Lee Summit
Belton
Figure 16. Locations of 10 major users within the Kansas City service area.
65
-------
SECTION 7
DALLAS WATER UTILITY
The City of Dallas lies within Dallas County in north central Texas.
Based on the 1970 census, the city has a population of 942,462, and the pop-
ulation of the county is nearly 1.6 million. The Dallas metropolitan area is
growing at the rate of 3.1%/year. This growth rate has many implications for
urban services such as water supply. Some system facts are shown in Table 37.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Dallas Water Utility provides water on a retail basis to all classes
of customers within the city's five service areas (Figure 17). Treated water
is supplied to 19 cities ("county towns") within Dallas County, and also to
the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport. Some water is also sold to communi-
ties outside Dallas County. Service is provided to each of the cities
through one or more master meters, and contracts are negotiated individually
by the utility with each county town or water service area. The contracts
are for 1 to 50 years, with 20- or 30-year contracts being most common. The
total consumption for the customer cities and the airport in 1974 was 12,438
mil gal, approximately 20% of the total metered consumption.
The rate of increase in the population is expected to continue. A great
deal of emphasis is placed on meeting the treated water needs of the Dallas
county towns as they turn to the Dallas Water Utility for additional water.
At present, financing and developing of new reservoirs is a primary concern
for the utility.
ORGANIZATION
The Dallas Water Utility combines both water supply and wastewater treat-
ment functions. Because the accounting systems are also combined, it was
necessary to estimate the costs assigned to each operation where overlap in
functions occurred. The structure of the organization (Figure 18) is com-
posed of engineering and planning, operations, and business sections.
The Engineering and Planning Section plans all system improvements,
analyzes pumpage, flow, and consumption data to evaluate the adequacy of the
system, and coordinates the development of long-range plans with engineering
consultants. The Business Section is responsible for accounting, meter read-
ing, billing, and collecting for the utility.
66
-------
TABLE 37. DALLAS WATER UTILITY. BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item Amount
Population:
SMSA 2,729,356
County 1,549,221
Retail service area 942,462
Area of retail service area (sq miles) 301.38
Recognized customer classes (no. of meters)
Residential 201,830
Commercial 20,508
Government 1,015
Apartment 5,272
Industrial 129
Suburban cities 35
Flat rate (no. accounts) None
Percent metered 100
Purchased water (mil gal treated) 2,770
Source water 100% surface impoundment
Pipe in system (miles) 3,208
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above mean sea level):
Bachman 446
Elm Fork 458
East Side 480
(146)
Elevation of service area (min-max ft) 430 - 875
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 63,030
Treated water (pumpage from treatment plants + treated
purchased water, mil gal) 70,656
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD) 433/665
67
-------
CITY OF DALLAS SERVICE AREAS
A North High
B East High
C Central Low
D South High
E Trinity Heights -
Cedardale Intermediate
CUSTOMER CITIES
OUTSIDE DALLAS
Sunnyvale
Balch Springs
Kleberg
Rylie
Seagoville
Hutchins
Wilmer
Lancaster
Woodland Hills
10 DeSoto
11 Cedar Hill
12 Duncanville
13 Grand Prairie
14 Irving
15 Regional Airport
16 Coppell
17 Carrollton
18 Fanners Branch
19 Addison
20 Richardson
Figure 17. Dallas Water Utility water supply service area.
68
-------
DIRECTOR
ENGINEERING
& PLANNING
JL
WATER
OPERATIONS
Reservoirs
Purification
Pumping
Distribution
OPERATIONS
BUSINESS
JL
WASTEWATER
OPERATIONS
Collection
Treatment
J_
SUPPORT
SERVICES
Maintenance
Stores
Meter Shop
CONSTRUCTION
Water and Sewer
Structural
Figure 18. Dallas Water Utility organizational structure.
-------
The Water Operations Division is the largest of the four divisions
within the Operations Sections. All water production and distribution func-
tions are handled by this division. The Wastewater Operations Division is
responsible for the collection and treatment of wastewater. The Support
Services Division maintains equipment and meters and is responsible for
storage of spare parts. The Construction Division supervises the installa-
tion of additions to the system.
All three sections handle both wastewater and water supply responsi-
bilities through the division level. The only division handling water supply
is the Water Operations Division. Separate costs are maintained for both
water and wastewater activities by the business section.
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes from five major reservoirs and is treated in treatment
plants located in the northwest, central, and southeast sections of the city.
The treatment plants are generally located in the low-lying areas, thus re-
quiring that water be pumped up to residences and businesses located at
higher elevations,
Dallas paid $5.5 million toward the cost of dams to be built at
Lewisville on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and at Grapevine on Denton
Creek. The remaining construction cost for the dams was paid by the Federal
government. In return the Federal government reserved 163 billion gallons
of water in the Garza-Little Elm and Grapevine reservoirs exclusively for
Dallas' use.
Lavon reservoir is operated by the North Texas Municipal Water District.
Under the terms of a contract, Dallas will be provided until 1991 with an
average of 10 MGD of treated water, which is furnished to the northeast
section of the city at the Casa View station.
Lake Ray Hubbard on the East Fork of the Trinity River has a capacity
of 181 billion gallons. It was built for water supply only and is owned
entirely by Dallas.
Lake Tawakoni is located on the Sabine River and lies in an entirely
different watershed from Dallas. The reservoir and dam were built by Dallas
and the U.S. Corps of Engineers and turned over to the Sabine River Authority
in return for 80% of the water yield. The lake normally holds 306 billion
gallons.
Waters from the Garza-Little Elm and Grapevine reservoirs flow in
natural channels to points near the Bachman and Elm Fork treatment plants.
At these plants, the raw water is removed from the channel by pumps located
in the treatment facility.
Water from Lake Hubbard is pumped directly to the East Side treatment
plant by a remote pump station controlled by the treatment plant.
70
-------
Water from Lake Tawakoni is pumped 18 miles through a 60-in, pipeline
to a 266r®d-l gal interim reservoir located on the ridge separating the Sabine
and East Fork watersheds. The water then flows by gravity to the East Side
treatment plant.
TREATMENT
Raw water is treated at Elm Fork, Bachman, and East Side. Each facility
was constructed at a different time in response to increasing demands.
The Elm Fork treatment plant, completed in 1952, is about 4 miles north-
west of the city and has a capacity of 196 MGD. It is equipped with activat-
ed carbon facilities in addition to chlorinators, primary and secondary
flocculators, and settling tanks. It also houses a 13.2-mil gal clear well
storage facility. Onsite pumping facilities include five 30-MGD at 58 feet
of head, low-service pumps, four 30-MGD and one 15-MGD at 280 feet discharge
head, high-service pumps, plus additional wash-water pumps. The high-service
pumps put water directly into the distribution system.
The Bachman purification plant, located within the city limits, was
completed in 1930 and has a capacity of 116 MGD. Its design is similar to
that of Elm Fork, but it has no secondary flocculators. The plant has four
centrifugal water pumps, 14 high-service pumps, and one wash-water pump.
The clear wells at Bachman have a total capacity of 20 mil gal, and the high-
service pumps put water directly into the distribution system.
The East Side treatment plant, about 5 miles east of the city, was
completed in 1964. Its design capacity is 205 MGD, and it has flocculators,
primary clarifiers, secondary settling basins, and filters. There are no
low-service pumps located at the plant because water flows from the interim
reservoir by gravity.
In the chemical treatment processes, seven chemicals are fed into the
plants in proportion to the amount of water treated, but the quality of the
raw water determines the specific amount of each chemical used. The chemi-
cals used, their purpose, and the order of application are as follows:
1. Activated carbon is used to absorb organic matter and to control
taste and odor.
2. Chlorine is added in the initial phases of treatment to start the
process of killing bacteria, to prevent the growth of algae in the
basins, and to oxidize organic matter.
3. Lime serves as a softening agent, combines with other chemicals to
settle out suspended matter, and adjusts the alkalinity of the water
to make it less corrosive.
4. Ferric sulfate is the chief clarifying agent. It combines with part
of the lime.
71
-------
5. Fluosilicic acid is the flouridating agent and is added at the end
of the first settling stage. If needed, more ferric sulfate is
added at this point.
6. Sodium hexametaphosphate is added for scale and corrosion control.
7. Ammonia is added as a disinfectant along with chlorine; it also
makes the taste of the chlorine less noticeable,
8. Chlorine is added again.
Of the chemicals used, all of the carbon and ferric sulfate and nearly
all of the lime settle out in the plant as sludge. Most of the pre-chlorine
is consumed, a trace of the lime and the ammonia, post-chlorine, fluoride,
and hexametaphosphate remain in the water going to the consumer. Figure 19
shows the plan and functions of a Dallas treatment plant.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The distribution system consists of approximately 3,208 miles of mains
composed of 2- to 90-in. pipe. To direct the flow of water to the proper
areas and to control pressure, 32,000 valves have been installed. There are
eight elevated tanks in the system to provide pressure together with 10.5 mil
gal storage for peak demand periods. A difference of about 360 ft in eleva-
tion exists between the areas along the river channel and the surrounding
hills.
The line from the East Side treatment plant to the Lake June reservoir
is concrete pipe 90 in. in diameter. Transmission to the Southcliff reser-
voir is through a small line.
The Elm Fork plant pumps into a line to serve the city; it also serves
the City of Irving through a 40-in. pipe, and Grand Prairie through a 36-in.
line beyond Irving.
The Bachman plant pumps into three 36-in. lines that fan out over the
central part of the city into the business district and on to South Dallas.
Within the distribution system, nine ground storage reservoirs have a
total capacity of 141.87 mil gal. Each reservoir is paired with a high-
pressure pump station to boost water into the distribution system under
enough pressure to deliver it to the customer. The eight elevated storage
tanks provide: 1) slack in the system so that the pumps are not pumping
against a closed system and overheating, 2) an additional 10.5 mil gal
storage. During peak consumption when it is impossible for booster pumps
to deliver enough water to remote areas within the system, water is pro-
vided to these areas by gravity from the elevated tanks. Table 38 lists
system storage facilities.
72
-------
-J
U>
m
(1) Raw wafer conduits,
(2) Carbon storage for control, of taste and odor.
(3) Raw water pumps - pump water to chemical building. Gravity flow from chemical building through plant to clear wells.
(4) Chemical building - where chlorine, lime, a I. urn and ferric sulfate are added for purification nnd softening.
(5) Rapid mixers - chemicals and river water are mixed.
(6) Primary flocculators - chemicals are slowly mixed until chemical reactions take place.
(7) Primary settling tanks - chemicals and suspended matter settle out.
(8) Secondary flash mixers and flocculators - more chemicals may be added to increase clarification in final settling
tanks, or control taste and odor.
(9) Secondary settling basin - final settling of treated water to remove most of the suspended solids.
(10) Filters - filtration through sand for removal of remaining suspended matter that will not settle. A small quantity
of chlorine aud ammonia is added after filtration to assure removal of all bacteria.
(11) Clear wells - to store treated purified water at the plant until needed.
(12) Filtered water pumps - to pump the treated water to distribution system.
(13) Supply main to Dallas.
Figure 1.9. Plan of a Dallas water treatment plant.
-------
TABLE 38. DALLAS WATER UTILITY STORAGE FACILITIES
Type of storage
Elevated storage tanks:
Cedardale
Forest Lane
Garland Road
Piano Road
Red Bird
Trinity Heights
Western Hills
Western Hills
(ground storage)
Ground storage reservoirs:
Beltwood
Gas a View
Greenville
Lake June
Southcliff
Sunset
Walcrest
Bachman+
Elm Fork"1"
Ground
elevation (ft)
586
632
603
617
746
612
685
686
Elevation
bottom (ft)
623
547
608
494
584
608
626
429+
443+
Overflow
elevation (ft)
702
752
714
752
875
717
787
767
Elevation
top (ft)
643
562
627
516
606
627
648
444
459
Capacity
(mil gal)
0.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Capacity
(mil gal)
10.0
3,5
21.6
21.4
26.0
15.9
20.1
10.0
13.3
* Total storage capacity is 152.3 mil gal.
+ Clear well
74
-------
COST ANALYSIS
Growth in consumer demand for water from 1964 through 1974 is shown in
Figure 20.
Using the standard cost categories defined earlier, data were collected
and reported as shown in Tables 39, 40, and 41. As indicated by the relative
increases in the support services category, a major portion of the operating
budget was expended for labor. Table 42 examines the labor costs associated
with operations and maintenance and gives the total payroll expended along
with the total number of man-hours on payroll.
Table 42 shows that the cost/man-hour has increased over 10 years by
131%, whereas the total payroll hours required to produce 1 mil gal of RPW
decreased by 22%. Thus the operating cost for producing water did not in-
crease as rapidly as the labor cost/man-hour. When it is no longer possible
to gain increasing efficiencies with respect to manpower, the payroll cost
will start to increase at the same rate as the labor cost,
Table 43 summarizes operating and capital costs for the 10-year period
of analysis and Table 44 lists capital and operating expense ratios. The
operating expenses are costs incurred in normal day-to-day operations.
Capital expenses are the total of the depreciated values of the periodic
expenditures on major equipment items and facilities plus the interest
charged on money borrowed for that purpose,
A comparison of the operating and capital expenses as a percent of the
total cost shows that more expenses were associated with operations than with
capital. Over the 10-year period, this trend continued primarily because of
a continued increase in the cost of items associated with operations, such as
salaries. Capital costs also increased slightly, but not at the same rate as
operating expenses.
Because the Dallas system is relatively old, the capital depreciated was
expended when costs were significantly lower. On the other hand, the operat-
ing expense is in current dollars. This ratio will change whenever capital
investments are made by the utility. For example, major expenditures are
planned for constructing new reservoirs and pipelines. When this occurs, the
ratio of capital to operating expense will increase significantly.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of the costs on a functional basis is only part of the total
cost picture. Since the purpose of a water supply utility is to deliver
water to a consumer, it is impor*-'at to be able to present costs in such a
way that they relate to thp " .^ery of water to a demand point within the
utility's distribution- , The functional categories, both operating
and capital, will there. be reaggregated and assigned to physical compo-
nents in the water delivery system.
75
-------
CO
!Z
o
o
CO
is
o
M
70 -
65 -
60 -
55 -
50 -
45 -
40 -
35 L
30 -
25 -
20
0
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 20. Dallas Water Utility water flow:
treated water versus RPW,
76
-------
TABLE 39. DALLAS WATER UTILITY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
-J
-J
Category
Support services :
Administration $
Acctg & collection
Other
Total overhead 1
Acquisition :
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals and supplies
Other
Total treatment 1
Power and pumping :
Supervision and labor
Miscellaneous services
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Miscellaneous services
Other
Total trans. & dist. 1
Total operating cost 5
1965
530,135
822,425
2,610
,355,170
524,440
556,380
693,419
127,316
,377,115
454,234
489,789
55,148
999,171
894,528
261,572
188,285
86,392
,430,777
,686,673
1966
$ 540,798
907,782
2,329
1,450,909
537,779
577,366
706,144
165,173
1,448,683
454,181
502,600
45,978
1,002,759
975,233
291,502
212,094
93,499
1,572,328
6,012,458
1967
$ 616,410
1,043,523
4,054
1,663,987
597,257
573,028
729,556
145,665
1,448,249
515,622
530,983
47,600
1,094,205
1,095,557
299,637
210,432
86,752
1,692,378
6,496,076
1968
$ 707,941
1,161,223
3,675
1,872,839
515,147
655,615
723,275
130,784
1,509,674
562,015
528,055
52,817
1,142,887
1,242,960
284,162
214,990
104,634
1,846,746
6,887,293
1969
$ 957,709
1,322,772
4,811
2,285,292
495,129
766,745
838,152
154,19?
1,759,096
636,310
655,995
43,349
1,335,654
1,352,503
259,426
253,241
97,390
1,962,560
7,837,731
1970
$1,189,749
1,474,440
5,993
2,670,182
501,031
879,388
836,382
185,992
1,901,762
676,597
673,864
53,842
1,404,303
1,466,236
316,959
266,819
128,756
2,178,770
8,656,048
1971
$1,320,763
1,552,938
618,498
3,492,199
577,571
1,032,354
888,443
285,408
2,206,205
802,553
642,147
76,134
1,520,834
1,368,530
351,940
276,539
107,110
2,104,119
9,900,928
1972
$ 537,166
1,716,325
1,510,872
3,764,363
533,481
1,079,892
907,206
319,931
2,307,029
933,639
766,508
81,006
1,781,153
1,608,508
413,654
325,031
125,893
2,473,086
10,859,112
1973
$ 677,837
2,099,736
1,624,958
4,402,531
756,126
1,166,396
1,009,252
397,390
2,573,038
928,523
876,909
102,275
1,907,707
1,787,916
411,147
431,043
120,684
2,750,790
12,390,192
1974
$ 509,
1,928,
2,263,
4,700,
688,
1,240,
1,151,
396,
2,788,
849,
892,
64,
1,806,
1,952,
406,
54,
131,
2,544,
12,528,
168
061
210
439
105
568
276
605
449
759
073
421
253
521
501
309
464
794
040
-------
TABLE 40. DALLAS WATER UTILITY UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/MIL GAL RPW)
00
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total overhead
Acquisition :
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals and supplies
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Miscellaneous services
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating cost
1965
$ 13
20
0
34
13
14
17
3
35
11
12
1
25
22
6
4
2
36
144
.50
.94
.07
.51
.35
.17
.66
.24
.07
.57
.47
.40
.44
.78
.66
.79
.20
.43
.80
1966
$ 13
23
0
36
13
14
17
4
36
11
12
1
25
24
7
5
2
39
152
.72
.04
.06
.82
.65
.65
.92
.19
.76
.53
.76
.17
.46
.75
.40
.38
.37
.90
.59
1967
$ 14
24
0
38
13
13
16
3
33
11
12
1
25
25
6
4
2
39
150
.29
.19
.09
.57
.85
.28
.91
.38
.57
.95
.31
.10
.36
.40
.95
.88
.01
.24
.29
1968
$ 15
25
0
41
11
14,
15
2,
33,
12,
11,
1,
25
27
6
4,
2,
40
151,
.60
.59
.08
.27
.35
.45
.94
.88
.27
.39
.64
.16
.19
.39
.26
.74
.31
.70
.78
1969
$ 17
24
0
42
9
14
15
2
32
11
12
0
24
25
4
4
1
36
146
.92
.75
.09
.76
.26
.34
.68
.88
.90
.90
.27
.81
.98
.30
.85
.74
.82
.71
.61
1970
$ 21.07
26.11
0.11
47.29
8.87
15.57
14.81
3.29
33.67
11.98
11.93
0.95
24.86
25.96
5.61
4.72
2.28
38.57
153.26
1971
$ 23,
27,
10,
61.
10
18,
15.
5.
39.
14
11.
1,
26
24
6
4
1
37
.35
.46
.94
.75
.21
.25
.71
.05
,01
.19
.35
.35
.89
.20
.22
.89
.89
.20
175.06
1972
$ 8
28
24
62
8
17
14
5
38
15
12
1
29
26
6
5
2
40
178
.85
.28
.89
.02
.79
.79
.95
.27
.01
.38
.63
.33
.34
.50
.81
.35
.07
.73
.89
1973
$ 12
37
29
78
13
20
18
7
45
16
15
1
34
31
7
7
2
49
221
.11
.50
.02
.63
.50
.83
.01
.10
.95
.58
.66
.83
.07
.93
.34
.70
.16
.13
.28
1374
$ 8.08
30.59
35.91
74.57
10.92
19.68
18.27
6.29
44.24
13.48
14.15
1.02
28.66
30.98
6.45
0.86
2.09
40.37
198.76
-------
TABLE 41. DALLAS HATER UTILITY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
Category '
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals and supplies
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Miscellaneous services
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
9
14
23
9
9
12
2
24
7
8
0
17
15
4
3
1
25
.32
.46
.05
.83
.22
.79
.20
.24
.23
.99
.61
.97
.57
.73
.60
.31
.52
.16
1966
8
15
24
8
9
11
2
24
7
8
0
16
16
4
3
1
26
.99
.10
.04
.13
.95
.60
.74
.75
.09
.56
.36
.77
.69
.22
.85
.53
.55
.15
1967
9
16
25
9
8
11
2
22
7
8
- 0
16
16
4
3
1
26
.49
.06
.06
.61
.20
.82
.23
.24
.29
.94
.17
.73
.84
.87
.61
.24
.33
.05
1968
10
16
27
7
9
10
1
21
8
7
0
16
18
4
3
1
26
.28
.86
.05
.19
.48
.52
.50
.90
.92
.16
.67
.76
.59
.05
.12
.12
.52
.81
1969
12
16
29
6
9
10
1
22
8
8
0
17
17
3
3
1
25
.22
.88
.06
.16
.32
.78
.70
.96
.44
.12
.37
.55
.04
.26
.31
.23
.24
.04
1970
13
17
30
5
10
9
2
21
7
7
0
16
16
3
3
1
25
.75
.04
.07
.86
.79
.16
.66
.15
.97
.82
.78
.62
.22
.94
.66
.08
.49
.17
1971
13
15
6
35
5
10
8
2
22
8
6
0
15
13
3
2
1
21
.34
.69
.25
.28
.83
.42
.97
.88
.27
.11
.48
.77
.36
.82
.55
.79
,08
.24
1972
4
15
13
34
4
9
8
2
21
8
7
0
16
14
3
2
1
22
.95
.81
.91
.67
.91
.94
.36
.94
.24
.60
.06
.74
.40
.81
.81
.99
.16
.77
1973
5
16
13
35
6
9
8
3
20
7
7
0
15
14
3
3
0
22
.47
.95
.11
.33
.10
.41
.14
.21
.76
.49
.08
.83
.40
.43
.32
.48
.97
.20
1974
4
15
18
37
5
9
9
3
22
6
7
0
14
15
3
0
1
20
.07
.39
.08
.54
.49
.90
.19
.16
.25
.78
.12
.51
.41
.59
.25
.43
.05
.32
-------
TABLE 42. DALLAS WATER UTILITY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
00
O
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Total payroll ($)* 2,039,838 2,187,844 3,126,940 3,468,600 3,936,236 4,398,157 5,148,817 5,688,610 6,102,292 6,296,936
Total hours on payroll 1,753,440 1,759,680 1,724,320 1,768,000 1,734,720 1,828,320 2,028,000 2,186,080 2,302,560 2,204,800
RPW (mil gal) 39,274 39,404 43,135 45,372 53,451 56,472 56,555 60,698 55,994 63,030
Total payroll/mil gal 51.94 71.51 72.49 76.45 73.64 77.88 91.04 93.39 108.98 99.90
Total hours/mil gal 44.65 44.66 39.97 38.97 32.45 32.38 35.86 38.02 41.12 34.98
Average cost/man-hour+ 1.16 1.24 1.81 1.96 2.27 2.41 2.54 2.60 2.65 2.86
* Includes operations and maintenance payroll only.
+ Includes all water utility man-hours.
TABLE 43. DALLAS WATER UTILITY OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Operating expense $ 5,686,674 $ 6,012,457 $ 6,496,075 $ 6,887,291 $ 7,837,731 $ 8,656,048 $ 9,900,927 $10,859,112 $12,390,193 $12,528,040
Depreciation 2,978,901 3,175,888 3,339,206 3,494,015 3,687,875 3,814,911 3,985,751 4,406,954 4,751,860 5,135,253
Interest 1,917,672 1,951,243 2,088,277 2,245,807 2,196,370 2,804,185 2,192,802 2,508,647 3,424,568 3,637,576
Total 10,583,253 11,139,588 11,923,558 12,627,113 13,721,976 14,555,144 16,079,480 17,774,713 20,566,621 21,300,869
Total unit cost/mil gal RPW 269.46 282.70 276.42 278.30 256.72 257.74 284.31 292.83 367.29 337.94
-------
TABLE 44. DALLAS WATER UTILITY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Operating cost ($) 5,686,674 6,012,457 6,496,075 6,887,291 7,837,731 8,656,048 9,900,927 10,859,112 12,390,193 12,528,040
Capital cost (?) 4,396,573 5,127,131 5,427,483 5,739,822 5,884,245 5,899,096 6,178,553 6,915,601 8,176,428 8,772,829
l_i Total ($) 10,583,253 11,139,568 11,923,558 12,627,113 13,721,976 14,555,144 16,079,480 17,774,713 20,566,621 21,300,869
Operating cost as % of total 53.73 53.97 54.48 54.54 57.11 59.47 61.57 61.09 60.24 58.81
Capital cost as % of total 46.27 46.03 45.52 46.46 42.89 40.53 38.43 38.91 39.76 41.19
Capital labor cost ratios 2.16 2.34 1.74 1.65 1.49 1.34 1.20 1.22 1.34 1.39
-------
Locations of treatment plants and pump stations in the Dallas service
area are shown in Figure 21. The Elm Fork and Bachman treatment plants con-
tain seldom used, high-pressure pumps for moving water to the Lake June pump
station, where all the water treated at East Side is pumped into the distri-
bution system.
To analyze the impact of the cost of water as it moves from acquisi-
tion to treatment to the consumer, it is necessary to identify the capital
and operating cost of each system component. Figure 22 is a schematic dia-
gram of Figure 21 and shows the operating and capital cost for each of the
system's major facilities. A linear assumption is made to demonstrate the
accrual of costs/mil gal as water moves from one component of the system to
another. For example, the acquisition cost of water going to the East Side
treatment plant (Figure 21) is $54.62/mil gal, the cost of treatment is
$78.08/mil gal, and the cost of pumping to Zone A is $20.34/mil gal. This
results in a cost of $153.04/mil gal for water delivered to Zone A. As
water passes through this zone, a transmission cost of $41.01/mil gal is
added.
The schematic diagram shows the major water pathways as designated by
1, 2, or 3. The various cost zones are shown in column 1 of Table 45.
According to the designation, for Zone 3A, the incremental cost is $153.04.
These incremental costs include distribution, interest, support services.
Calculation of the distribution cost is based on the assumption that
these are constant throughout the system. Therefore, the total capital and
operating cost for distribution is divided by the number of gallons of KPW
in 1973, yielding the figure $67.33/mil gal. The same approach is taken to
calculate the interest and support services cost. When these costs are
added, a total cost/mil gal for water delivered to a given zone results.
For example, the total cost of water delivered in Zone 3A is $361.55/mil gal.
Columns 7 and 8 of the Table 45 contain the metered consumption for each
zone and the estimated revenue.
Once these calculations are made and various cost zones established,
costs versus charges for a given set of consumers can be examined. Table 46
summarizes rates charged by the City of Dallas for typical monthly water
consumption.
Water costs for the 10 largest consumers served by the Dallas Utility
are shown in Table 47. For utility bills including both watej. and sewer
service charges, it was necessary to calculate the portion of the bill allo-
cated directly to water.
By converting units used to mil gal and dividing the monthly water
service charge by this amount, it is possible to determine the unit cost
($/mil gal) paid by the consumer (Table 47). The actual allocated cost of
delivering water to a specific consumer can be determined by comparing the
location of each user with Table 45.
82
-------
II Treatment Plants
EF Elm Fork
B Bachman
ES East Side
Elevation
(ft above
sea level)
458
456
480
Pump Stations
B Beltwood
CW Camp Wisdom
CC Cosa Crest
G Greenville
JM Jim Miller
LJ Lake June
SC Southcliff
S Sunset
WC Walcrest
CV Casa View
WH Walnut Hill
Elevation
(ft above
sea level)
622
693
620
609
521
504
586
607
627
562
Figure 21. Dallas Water Utility treatment plants and pump stations
(arrows depicit general direction of water flow).
83
-------
00
-p-
1 2
ACQUISITION $13.
29 $13.
EF B
TREATMENT 37.27 71.
PUMPING 20 .
MISSION $41.
34 20.
01 $41.
3
29 $54.62
ES
03 78.08
34
20.34 )
01 $41.01
ZONE
PUMPING
TRANSMISSION
Figure 22. Dallas Water Utility allocation of capital and operating expenses
to water system components ($/mil gal RPW).
A
-------
TABLE 45. DALLAS WATER UTILITY COSTS, CONSUMPTION, AND REVENUE, BY ZONE
00
Zone
1 A
B
C
C
2 A
B
3 A
B
C
CP
Total
Incremental
costs
($/mil gal)
$70.90
132.25
193.60
193.60
104.66
166.01
153.04
214.39
275.74
125.37
Distribution
costs
($/mil gal)
$67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
67.33
Interest
($/mil gal)
$57.72
57.72
57,72
57.72
57.72
57.72
57.72
57.72
57.72
General
services
($/mil gal)
$83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
83.46
Total
cost*
C$/mil gal
$279.41
340.76
402.11
313.17
374.52
361.55
422.90
484.25
333.88
RPW
(mil gal)
16,766
16,323
223
7,872
6,854
4,212
6,936
1,287
2,557
63,030
Revenue
$4,684,588.06
5,562,225.48
89,670.53
2,465,274.24
2,566,960.08
1,522,848.60
2,933,234.40
623,299.75
853,731.16
21,301,762.30
* Average cost/zone is $337.96/mil gal.
-------
TABLE 46. TYPICAL MONTHLY RATES FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITY
Gallons Amount Unit cost
Class Meter size (in.) consumed billed ($/mil gal)
Residential 5/8 10,000 $6.12 $612.00
Commercial 4 1,000,000 509.54 509.54
Industrial 25,000,000 5,316.00 212.64
* Multiply rates by 1.5 outside city limits.
86
-------
TABLE 47. DALLAS WATER UTILITY COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
oo
Major users
Texas Instruments
Procter and Gamble
Standard Brands
Texas Instruments
Texas Instruments
Glevepak Corp .
Stokely Van Camp
Morton Foods
Diamond Shamrock
Dr. Pepper Co.
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
9
1
9
10
8
4
8
2
11
1
9
11
8
11
9
1
7
10
9
3
Units used
(mil gal)
103.5
78.0
27.5
19.0
20.5
14.3
21.3
9.3
12.3
7.5
13.8
10.0
10.0
7.5
3.6
5.2
2.7
8.1
5.5
Amount allocated
to water
$18,487.62
13,932.94
7,717.08
5,385.77
3,627.54
3,675.77
6,036.12
2,763.96
2,177.15
1,304.57
1,984.13
2,435.82
1,755.25
3,150.98
603.12
1,624.82
1,021.39
1,425.00
1,390.57
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$178.56
178.44
280.54
284.09
177.30
257.05
282.80
295.80
177.00
173.94
143.77
243.82
175.70
422.38
169.89
314.52
373.88
174.91
254.68
Cost
zone
IB
3A
2A
2A
IB
3A
2B
2A
3A
2B
Denotes portion of combined water and sewer bill allocated directly to water.
-------
Locations of the major users by cost zone are shown in Figure 23. The
majority of these consumers are located along the central low area of the
distribution system and are served directly from the treatment facilities.
Some users, such as two of the Texas Instruments plants (1 and 3 on Figure
23), are located a considerable distance from the treatment plants and re-
quire significant transportation of water. Table 48 shows the costs asso-
ciated with water delivery by cost zone and the amount actually paid by the
consumer.
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 83
Acquisition 25
Treatment 52
Distribution 120
Interest 58
Total 338
88
-------
Identification
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Major Users
Texas Instruments
Procter and Gamble
Standard Brands
Texas Instruments
Texas Instruments
Clevepak Corporation
Stokely Van Camp
Morton Foods
Diamond Shamrock
Dr. Pepper Co.
Supply
Area
IB
3A
2A
2A
IB
3A
2B
2A
3A
2B
Figure 23. Dallas Water Utility cost zones and location of major users.
89
-------
TABLE 48. DALLAS WATER UTILITY'S COSTS AND REVENUES FOR MAJOR USERS
Major users
Amount paid
for high and low
use month (1973)
($/mil gal)
Estimated
delivery cost
($/mil gal)
Texas Instruments
Procter and Gamble
Standard Brands
Texas Instruments
Texas Instruments
$178.56
178.44
280.54
284.09
177.30
257.05
282.80
295.80
291.45
43.69
$340.76
361.55
313.17
313.17
340.76
Clevepak Corporation
143.77
361.55
Stokely Van Camp
243.82
175.70
374.52
Morton Foods
422.38
169.89
313.17
Diamond Shamrock
Dr. Pepper Co.
314.52
373.88
174.91
254.68
361.55
374.52
90
-------
SECTION 8
SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY
The City of San Diego is located in San Diego County, which makes up the
San Diego SMSA. The retail service area is made up of the City of San Diego
(except for the South Bay area) and a small number of retail customers in
San Diego County. The San Diego County Water Authority purchases raw water
from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California at a price that
covers the operating costs of the County Water Authority and the Metropolitan
Water District. The San Diego Water Utility makes in-lieu-of-tax payments
to the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Authority to
cover the capital cost of the aqueducts. System facts are included in
Table 49.
SERVICE AREA
The San Diego Water Utility provides water service on a retail basis to
all classes of customers within the San Diego city limits. Treated water is
also supplied to the California-American Water Company, the City of Del Mar,
and miscellaneous users outside the city. The California-American Water
Company in turn supplies retail customers within the South Bay area of the
city.
In 1974, the San Diego Water utility sold 3025.6 mil gal to the
California-American Water Company, 306.8 mil gal to Del Mar, and 64.2 mil
gal to miscellaneous users outside the city; in addition, 49,039.8 mil gal
were delivered to the City of San Diego. The service area is shown in
Figure 24.
ORGANIZATION
The organizational structure of the San Diego Water Utility is illus-
trated in Figure 25. Included in the Service Division's functions are design
engineering, customer service, and administrative support. The Systems
Division is responsible for installation and maintenance of hydrants, man-
holes, valves, and mains. It is also responsible for hydraulic control,
emergency services, systems engineering, utility plant checking, maps and
records, meters, services and laterals, sewer main cleaning, and hydrology-
The Water Quality Division is responsible for water supply, water treatment,
wastewater collection and treatment, and the operation of the laboratory.
The water and wastewater functions of the San Diego Water Utility are
combined at the division level, although separate accounts are maintained
91
-------
TABLE 49. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item Amount
Population:
SMSA 1,562,100
County 1,562,100
Retail service area 761,916
Area of retail service area (sq miles) Not available
Recognized customer classes:
Single family domestic 139,378
Other domestic 24,953
Commercial 6,325
Industrial 234
Combined irrigation and domestic 42
Outside city services 60
Other utilities 5
Fire service 913
Flat rate (no. accounts) 135
Percent metered 100
Purchased water (raw, acre ft) 125,019.8
Source water 100% surface impoundments
Pipe in system (miles) 1,968
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above mean sea level):
Alvarado
Otay
Miramar
Elevation of service area (min-max ft)
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (flow from treatment plants, mil gal)
Maximum day /maximum hour (MGD)
536
521
715
10/1020
47,205
52,436
212.61/N.A.
92
-------
It
m Lake Hodges
^» Reservoir
o I
=<
Ll,
'fit*
Sutherland
Reservoir
MEXICO
Figure 24. San Diego Water Utility reservoir system and service area,
93
-------
UTILITIES SERVICES
DIVISION
Design engineering
Customer service
Chollas administration
ADMINISTRATION
UTILITIES SYSTEMS
DIVISION
Hydrant, manhole,
valve main
Hydraulic control and
emergency services
Systems engineering
Utilities plant
checking
Maps and records
Meters
Services and laterals
Sewer main cleaning
Hydrology
WATER QUALITY
DIVISION
Laboratory
Water supply
Water treatment
Waste water
Figure 25. San Diego Water Utility organizational chart.
-------
for water and sewer revenues and expenses. All bonds are clearly defined as
either water or sewer bonds.
ACQUISITION
There are no permanent streams or natural lakes anywhere in the San
Diego area, nor are there any extensive groundwater sources. For this reason,
San Diego has developed a system of impounding reservoirs (Figure 24) divided
into three geographical districts. Each series of watersheds or drainage
basins extends from the summit of the mountains to the lowest dam. Parallel
to the Mexican Border is the Cottonwood-Otay District, which includes Morena
and Barrett reservoirs on the Cottonwood River, and the Dulgura Conduit and
Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs on the Otay River.
To the north of the Cottonwood-Otay District lies the San Diego River,
the largest river system in the county in terms of runoff. This watershed
contains the Cuyomaca reservoir (which is owned by the Helix Irrigation
District) and El Capitan and San Vicente reservoirs (owned by the City of San
Diego). The San Dieguito River District, which includes Sutherland and
Hodges reservoirs, is north of the Helix Irrigation District.
These reservoirs provide storage for local runoff and for imported water
that flows down from the north through the two San Diego aqueducts. In 1974,
89.4% of the water used by the San Diego Water Utility was imported from the
Colorado River. This percentage will drop as water is imported from the
Feather River project in Northern California.
TREATMENT
Raw water treatment is accomplished by three treatment plants: the
Alvarado plant, located at the Murray reservoir; the Miramar plant, located
at Miramar reservoir; and the Otay plant, located at the Otay reservoir. The
plants have a combined capacity of 66, 40, and 15 MGD, respectively.
The Alvarado treatment plant filters water that originates in the San
Diego River system, including water originating from the El Capitan, San
Vicente, and Murray reservoirs, and Colorado River water stored in the San
Vicente and El Capitan reservoirs. Water from the San Diego aqueduct can
also be processed at this plant.
The Miramar plant serves the northern section of the city and filters
water transported from the Colorado River through the facilities of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the San Diego County
Water Authority. Miramar reservoir serves as a supplemental source of supply
or in the event of an aqueduct failure.
The Otay plant serves the South Bay area of the city and treats water
from the Cottonwood-Otay system and from the second San Diego aqueduct.
Water from Morena and Barrett reservoirs is transferred to Otay when avail-
able and is treated after being pumped from the Otay reservoir.
95
-------
The Alvarado, Miramar, and Otay treatment plants are similar in design,
with separate mixing and settling basins with rapid sand filters. The Otay
treatment plant combines the steps of mixing, coagulation, and sedimentation
in one single basin and has pressure filters. Figure 26 is a flow diagram of
the Alvarado plant.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The three treatment plants are located between 521 and 715 ft above sea
level; however, most of the customers are located below these elevations and
are supplied by gravity from the treatment plants. Pressure-reducing valves
are required on trunk mains. The highest point in the distribution area is
1,020 ft above sea level. The higher elevations scattered throughout the
distribution area are supplied through small pumping plants. Most of these
areas are also equipped with elevated storage tanks or standpipes for the
purpose of leveling out demand. There are currently 145 pressure-reducing
stations, 33 pumping stations, 23 elevated storage tanks, and 74 pressure
zones in the San Diego system.
The distribution storage reservoirs are built at strategic locations,
allowing the filtration plants to be operated at a fairly constant rate.
During periods of peak demand, the water flows back out of the reservoirs
and augments the filtration plants. The system now has 20 covered storage
reservoirs with a total capacity of 159.37 mil gal.
The standpipes and elevated storage tanks within the San Diego system
serve a dual purpose—leveling out the demand on the pumping plants and main-
taining adequate delivery pressures within the higher elevations of the
distribution area. At present, there are 10 standpipes with a total storage
capacity of 13.28 mil gal and 11 tanks with a total capacity of 3.05 mil gal
in the San Diego system. Table 50 is a summary sheet of the facilities
making up the storage system.
COST ANALYSIS
Figure 27 illustrates the steady growth in the production of water from
1965 through 1974. The cost analysis for each utility is based on RPW. Unit
costs have been calculated by dividing cost for a given functional area by
the amount of RPW supplied.
Tables 51, 52, and 53 contain the costs for treatment, acquisition,
transmission and distribution, power and pumping, and support services. The
"other" category under support services includes expenses of other city
departments that relate to the water utility, contributions to the retirement
fund, compensation insurance, other insurance and damage claims, uncollect-
able accounts, engineering, taxes, and general expenses.
Table 54 is an analysis of labor costs for San Diego and shows that
although the unit cost of water based on labor input is rising, the number of
manhours required to produce a million gallons is decreasing. Table 55 shows
96
-------
20 MlLU SON GALLON
ALVARAOO REGELATING
RESERVOIR
LAKE MURRAY
68" EL MONTE
PIPE LINE
TO 35 MILLION GALLON ^—jl-^rr
EARL THUMAS f}
REGULATING REStRvOiR i.l
Figure 26. Flow diagram of the Alvarado filtration plant
(Water Utilities Department, City of San Diego).
-------
TABLE 50. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY STORAGE FACILITIES
Facility
Reservoirs (covered) :
Alvarado
Bayview
Brown Field
Del Cerro
Earl Thomas
La Jolla CC Hts
La Jolla Exchange
La Jolla View
Miramar Reg
Pacific Beach
Point Loma
Pomerado Park
Penasquitos
Rancho Bernardo
San Carlos
San Ysidro
Soledad
South San Diego
Torrey Pines
University Hts .
Capacity
(mil gal)
20.2
10.0
1.0
1.5
35.0
0.5
.99
.72
20.0
2.4
10.06
5.2
5.0
10.1
5.0
1.2
1.5
15.0
2.8
11.2
Facility
Standpipes :
Camp Callan
Catalina
Chesterton
College Ranch
Emerald Hills
Encanto
Kearney Mesa
Lomita Village
Paradise Hills
Redwood Village
Tanks :
Alvarado Wash
Brown Field
Climax
College Hts.
College Ranch
La Jolla CC
Miramar Wash
Paradise Hills #2
Point Loma Sewage
San Carlos
University Hts.
Capacity
(mil gal)
2.0
1.5
0.99
1.5
1.5
0.75
1.52
0.77
0.75
2.0
0.792
0.002
0.50
0.003
0.50
.003
.050
.002
1.200
98
-------
o
1
Pn
o
§
H
a
H
M
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
0
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 27. San Diego Water Utility water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
99
-------
TABLE 51. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 19 74
Support services:
Administration $ 367,863 $ 325,079 $ 384,750 $ 418,357 $ 463,869 $ 207,538 $ 224,967 $ 229,958 $ 238,638 $ 251,425
Accounting and collection 370,697 426,691 511,013 515,851 700,219 729,688 710,393 736,689 891,761 1,016,043
Other 918,736 959,086 1,077,771 1,277,882 1,510,889 1,829,757 2,150,856 2,321,519 2,730,463 3,151,995
Total support sercices 1,657,296 1,710,856 1,973,534 2,212,090 2,674,977 2,766,983 3,086,216 3,288,166 3,860,862 4,419,463
Acquisition:
In lieu of taxes and payments 1,728,586 1,876,458 1,810,262 1,860,094 3,248,161 3,723,339 4,119,568 4,851,837 5,063,372 5,335,690
Purchase of water 2,883,918 2,609,532 2,940,944 3,578,306 4,468,675 4,361,873 4,996,429 7,164,875 8,793,815 7,026,638
Impounding/transmission 491,060 481,999 387,537 416,087 496,109 556,099 535,124 595,165 566,241 567,396
Other 138,905 172,797 234,227 130,223 ______
Total acquisition 5,242,469 5,140,786 5,372,970 5,984,710 8,212,945 8,641,311 9,651,121 12,611,877 14,423,428 12,929,724
>- Treatment: 533,115 519,532 492,548 539,065 641,455 725,262 747,559 806,348 913,471 1,055,868
O
Power and pumping:
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Mains
Services
Meters
Reservoirs and tanks
Other
Total transmission & distribution 1,867,048 1,811,422 1,817,872 1,995,496 2,049,630 1,983,310 2,220,963 2,366,638 2,457,196 2,478,020
Total operating cost 9,457,496 9,353,539 9,843,266 10,908,306 13,759,362 14,328,836 15,937,434 19,354,269 21,954,790 21,228,851
137,201
20,367
157,568
735,668
263,070
530,141
58,052
280,117
150,444
20,499
170,943
722,331
296,901
451,292
91,288
249,610
161,308
25,034
186,342
780,076
254,223
403,633
93,937
286,003
154,143
22,802
176,945
823,365
242,644
535,480
95,440
298,567
156,045
24,310
180,355
839,388
303,581
496,501
87,062
323,098
176,233
35,738
211,970
831,956
246,315
410,400
85,205
409,434
182,055
49,520
231,575
750,927
284,585
486,078
81,787
617,586
230,279
50,961
281,240
845,835
307,020
582,627
96,143
535,013
247,521
52,312
299,833
872,818
341,075
608,068
104,865
530,370
286,130
59,646
345,776
829,755
347,245
671,878
100,143
528,999
-------
I-1
o
Category
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
In lieu of taxes and payments
Purchase of water
Impounding/ transmission
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Power and pumping:
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Mains
Services
Meters
Reservoirs and tanks
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating cost
TABLE
52.
1965
12.
12.
30,
54.
56.
94.
16,
4.
172,
17.
4,
0,
5,
24,
8
17
1
9
61
311
,11
.20
.25
.56
,91
.95
.17
.57
.60
.55
.52
.67
.19
.22
.66
.45
.91
.22
.47
.38
SAN
DIEGO WATER UTILITY OPERATING COSTS/ ($/MIL GAL RPW)
1966
10
13
29
52
57
80
14
5
158
16
4
0
5
22
9
13
2
7
55
288
.01
.14
.54
.69
.79
.37
.85
.32
,33
.00
.63
.63
.26
.25
.14
.90
.81
.69
.79
.08
1967
11.
15,
32,
60,
55,
89
11
7,
163,
15
4,
0
5.
23
7
12
2
8,
55
299
.72
.56
.82
.09
.12
.55
.80
.13
.60
.00
.91
.76
.67
.75
.74
.29
.83
.71
.35
.72
1968
11,
14
36
63
53
101
11
3
170
15
4
0
5
23
6
15
2
8
56
310
.92
.70
.42
.05
.02
.99
.86
.71
.57
.36
.39
.65
.04
.47
.92
.26
.72
.51
.87
.89
1969
12.
18.
40.
71.
87.
119.
13.
-
220.
17.
4.
0.
4.
22.
8.
13.
2.
8.
54.
368.
43
76
47
66
01
71
29
01
18
18
65
83
49
13
30
33
66
91
59
1970
5
18
45
69
93
109
13
216
18
4
0
5
20
6
10
2
10
49
359
.20
.30
.89
.39
.38
.39
.95
-
.72
.19
.42
.90
.32
.86
.18
.29
.14
.27
.74
.35
1971
5
16
51
73
98
119
12
230
17
4
1
5
17
6
11
1
14
53
380
.37
.96
.34
.67
.33
.26
.77
-
.37
.84
.35
.18
.53
.92
.79
.60
.95
.74
.01
.42
1972
5
16
51
72
106
157
13
277
17
5
1
6
18
6
12
2
11
52
425
.06
.20
.04
.29
.67
.53
.09
-
.28
.73
.06
.12
.18
.60
.75
.81
.11
.76
.03
.51
1973
5
20
62
88
115
200
12
329
20
5
1
6
19
7
13
2
12
56
501
.45
.38
.39
.22
.70
.94
.94
-
.57
.87
.66
.20
.85
.94
.79
.89
.40
.12
.15
.66
1974
5
21
66
93
113
148
12
273
22
6
1
7
17
7
14
2
11
52
449
.33
.52
.77
.62
.03
.85
.02
-
.91
.37
.06
.26
.32
.58
.36
.23
.12
.21
.49
.72
The above figures are not additive. They are obtained by dividing yearly mil gal RPW into the annual costs shown in the preceding Table.
-------
TABLE 53. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
In lieu of taxes and payments
Purchase of water
Impounding/ transmission
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Power and pumping:
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Mains
Services
Meters
Reservoirs and tanks
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
3
3
9
17
18
30
5
1
55
5
. 1
0
1
7
2
5
0
2
19
.89
.91
.72
.52
.27
.50
.19
.47
.43
.64
.45
.22
.67
.78
.78
.61
.61
.96
.74
1966
3
4
10
18
20
27
5
I
54
5
1
0
1
7
3
4
0
2
19
.48
.56
.25
.29
.06
.90
.15
.85
.96
.55
.61
.22
.83
.72
.17
.82
.98
.67
.37
1967
3
5
10
20
18
29
3
2
54
5
1
0
1
7
2
4
0
2
18
.91
.19
.95
.05
.39
.88
.94
.38
.59
.00
.64
.25
.89
.92
.58
.10
.95
.91
.47
1968
3
4
11
20
17
32
3
1
54
4
1
0
1
7
2
4
0
2
18
.84
.73
.71
.28
.05
.80
.81
.19
.86
.94
.41
.21
.62
.55
.23
.91
.87
.74
.30
1969
3
5
10
19
23
32
3
59
4
1
0
1
6
2
3
0
2
14
.37
.09
.98
.44
.61
.48
.61
-
.69
.66
.13
.18
.31
.10
.21
.61
.63
.35
.90
1970
1
5
12
19
25
30
3
60
5
1
0
1
5
1
2
0
2
13
.45
.09
.77
.31
.98
.44
.88
-
.31
.06
.23
.25
.48
.81
.72
.86
.59
.86
.84
1971
1.41
4.46
13.50
19.36
25.85
31.35
3.36
-
60.56
4.69
1.14
0.31
1.45
4.71
1.79
3.05
0.51
3.88
13.94
1972
1.19
3.81
11.99
16.99
25.07
37.02
3.08
-
65.16
4.17
1.19
0.26
1.45
4.37
1.59
3.01
0.50
2.76
12.23
1973
1.09
4.06
12.43
17.58
23.06
40.05
2.58
-
65.70
4.16
1.13
0.24
1.37
3.98
1.55
2.77
0.48
2.42
11.19
1974
1.18
4.79
14.85
20.82
25.13
33.10
2.67
-
60.91
4.97
1.35
0.28
1.63
3.91
1.64
3.16
0.47
2.49
11.67
Total operating cost
100.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
-------
TABLE 54. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Total payroll ($)* 2,553,524 2,525,456 2,657,682 2,945,243 3,715,028 3,868,786 4,303,107 5,225,653 6,010,371 6,323,384
Total hours on payroll f 841,781.3 867,973.0* 844,954.9* 821,936.7 1,050,737.8 1,045,416.0 1,046,527.4 1,057,132.7 1,051,336.9 1,045,541.0
RPW (mil gal) 30,373 32,468 32,842 35,086 37,330 39,874 41,894 45,484 43,764 47,205
Total payroll/mil gal RPW 87.07 77.78 80.92 83.94 99.52 97.03 102.71 114.89 137.34 133.96
Total hours/mil gal RPW 27.71 26.73 19.95 23.43 28.15 26.22 24.98 23.24 24.02 22.15
Average cost/man-hour ($) f 3.03 2.91 3.15 3.58 3.54 3.70 4.11 4.94 5.72 6.05
* Includes operation and maintenance payroll only.
f Includes all water utility man-hours.
TABLE 55. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Operating expenses $ 9,457,496 $ 9,353,539 $ 8,843,266 $10,908,306 $13,759,362 $14,328,836 $15,937,434 $19,354,269 $21,954,790 $21,228,851
Depreciation 2,572,669 2,496,354 2,526,851 2,676,098 2,627,145 2,811,573 2,532,092 2,768,889 2,578,850 2,778,632
Interest 664,684 621,896 580,202 539,381 498,747 459,194 421,966 385,204 350,645 317,516
Total 12,694,849 12,471,789 12,950,319 14,123,785 16,885,254 17,599,603 18,891,492 22,508,362 24,884,285 24,324,999
Total unit cost/
mil gal RPW 417.96 384.13 394.32 402.55 452.32 441.38 450.94 494.86 568.60 515.31
-------
operating and capital cost expenditures, and Table 56 gives the percent of
operating and capital cost as a function of total cost.
SYSTEM COSTS
The cost of each functional component of the San Diego Water Utility can
be reaggregated and allocated against the physical components of the water
delivery system. The arrows in Figure 28 show the direction of the flow of
water from the treatment plants through booster pumping stations and pressure
regulators to the 74 service areas across the city.
Operation and depreciation costs for each component of the system are
shown in Figure 29. Total delivery costs of water to specific points within
the distribution area are given in Table 57.
Table 58 establishes the monthly unit cost for water consumption in San
Diego based on meter size and typical consumption rates. Most domestic,
commercial, and industrial customers are billed bimonthly, although 5,000
customers are billed monthly.
Table 59 shows the six major customers of the San Diego Water Utility
together with their high and low water use, the number of million gallons
used during that time, and the amount they were billed for the service,
These same users (Figure 30) are all located on the shores of San Diego Bay
with the exception of the Torrey Pines Golf Course. The cost zones estab-
lished for the San Diego Utility are also shown in Figure 30.
Table 60 compares the costs associated with delivery of water to the
consumer versus the costs actually paid.
Average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent year
studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 96
Acquisition 277
Treatment 28
Distribution 106
Interest •— 7
Total 514
104
-------
TABLE 56. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
0
Ul
Item
Operating cost ($)
Capital cost ($)
Total cost ($)
Operating cost
as % of total
Capital cost
as % of total
1965
9,457,496
3,237,353
12,694,849
74.50
25.50
1966
9,353,539
3,118,250
12,471,789
75.00
25.00
1967
9,843,266
3,107,053
12,950,319
76.01
32.99
1968
10,908,306
3,215,479
14,123,785
77.23
22.77
1969
13,759,362
3,125,892
16,885,254
81.49
18.51
1970
14,328,836
3,270,767
17,599,603
81.42
18.58
1971
15,937,434
2,954,058
18,891,492
84.36
15.64
1972
19,354,269
3,154,093
22,508,362
85.99
14.01
1973
21,954,790
2,929,495
24,834,285
88.23
11.77
1974
21,228,851
3,096,148
24,324,999
87.27
12.73
-------
Figure 28. San Diego Water Utility facilities (arrows
indicate general direction of water flow).
106
-------
RESERVOIRS
Aqueduct
Treatment
Distribution
$288
.85
Miramar
$33.83
1
$273
.27
Alvarado
$19.29
$105
$255.45
Otay
$45.19
.91
Figure 29. San Diego Water Utility capital and operating costs allocated to water system
components ($/mil gal RPW).
-------
TABLE 57. COST ELEMENTS FOR SAN DIEGO SERVICE ZONES
o
oo
Pathway
No.
1
2
3
Total
Incremental
cost
($/mil gal)
322.68
292.56
300.64
Distribution
cost
($/mil gal)
105.91
105.91
105.91
Interest
($/mil gal)
6.73
6.73
6.73
Overhead
($/mil gal)
95.67
95.67
95.67
Total
cost
($/mil gal)
530.99
500.87
508.95
RPW
(mil gal)
17,013
24,802
5,377
47,192
Revenue
$9,033,732.87
12,422,577.74
2,736,624.15
24,192,934.76
-------
TABLE 58. TYPICAL MONTHLY RATES FOR SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITIES
Gallons Amount Unit cost
Class Meter size (in.) consumed billed ($/mil gal)
Residential 5/8 10,000 $3.91 $391.00
Commercial 4 1,000,000 490.32 490.32
Industrial 10 25,000,000 10,158.05 406.32
109
-------
TABLE 59. SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY WATER COSTS FOR 6 MAJOR USERS
Major user
Kelco Co.
Navy Training
USMC
Convair
Solar Aircraft
Torrey Pines
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
Aug.
Dec.
Dec.
Jan.
Sept.
Aug.
June
Dec.
June
July
July
Jan.
Units used
(mil gal)
16.3
7.5
25.0
5.0
46.5
18.4
7.1
3.3
15.2
6.8
11.6
1.2
Amount
billed
$6,583
3,134
10,376
2,542
18,743
7,765
2,995
1,524
6,167
2,890
4,959
923
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$404.36
420.67
414.37
511.46
403.36
423.16
422.42
459.03
405.19
423.75
429.35
762.80
Cost
zone
C
B/C
C
B
B
A
-------
MAJOR USER
1 Torrey Pines
Golf Course
2 Solar
3 Convair
4 NIC
5 USMC
6 Kelco
SUPPLY \\
AREA X
A
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
C
Figure 30. San Diego Water Utility major users and cost zones,
111
-------
TABLE 60. COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE SAN DIEGO WATER UTILITY'S 6 MAJOR USERS
Major user
Revenue
collected
($/mil gal)
Delivery cost
($/mil gal)
Kelco Co.
Navy Training
USMC
Convair
Solar Aircraft
Torrey Pines
$404.36
420.67
414.37
511.46
403.36
423.16
422.42
459.03
405.19
423.75
429.35
762.80
$515.86
505.21
574.11
505.21
574.11
505.21
574.11
503.21
574.11
574.11
112
-------
SECTION 9
NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY
The New Haven Water Company provides water to the City of New Haven,
Connecticut, and surrounding communities. The 1973 population served by the
water company was 371,144. Ninety-five percent of the customers are metered.
Over a 10-year period, there was an approximate 16% increase in water con-
cumption, partly because of the acquisition of the Milford Water Company in
1966. Some systems facts are shown in Table 61.
The New Haven Water Company is an investor-owned utility and as such has
some different characteristics from the majority of the utilities in this
report, which are operated by counties or municipalities. One basic differ-
ence is that this utility incurs a liability for real estate and other taxes
not incurred by publicly owned utilities.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The New Haven Water Company provides water on a retail basis to all
classes of customers within the service area shown in Figure 31. Treated
water is supplied to all or part of 12 towns. The major town in the service
area is New Haven. As noted above, population and water consumption increased
slightly over the 10-year period; but since 1966, water consumption has re-
mained relatively stable.
ORGANIZATION
Although the utility does run a small forestry operation in the water-
shed, it operates as a system for the purpose of supplying water only and is
not associated with any other organization. The water company is headed by
a 12-member board of directors and is operated by the president who is a
member of the board.
Four divisions report to the president (Figure 32): one is responsible
for the engineering effort, one for the accounting and collection, one for
all administration, and one for the operations of the system, including
maintenance and meter reading.
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes from a series of reservoirs and wells. Approximately
5% of the total water is from the wells. Most of the reservoirs are located
113
-------
TABLE 61. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY,BASIC FACTS.
Item
Amount
Population:
SMSA N.A.
County N.A.
Retail Service Area 371,144
Area of retail service area (square miles) 316
Number of metered customers 84,167
Percent metered 95.4
Flat rate customers 4,104
Purchased water None
Source water:
Percent surface 95.6
Percent wells 4.4
Miles of Pipe in system 1,266
Elevation of treatment plant (ft above mean sea level):
Whitney 30
Saltonstall 50
Elevation of service area (ft above mean sea level) min - max 0 - 525
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 17,714
Treated Water (mil gal pumpage from treatment plants) 20,300
Max day/max hour - July 4, 1974 (MGD) 78.8/98.52
114
-------
Figure 31. New Haven Water Company service area.
115
-------
ENGINEERING
PRESIDENT
TREASURY
Accounting
Collection
ADMIN-
ISTRATION
OPERATIONS
Meter Reading
Maintenance
Figure 32. New Haven Water Company organizational chart.
-------
within the service area, and others are located in townships to the east of
the service area.
The company owns 26,000 acres of land located in 17 communities in
Connecticut. Most of this land is associated with the reservoirs. All
reservoirs are surrounded by a greenbelt and are fenced to control access.
Rather than invest their money in treatment operations, the water company
chose to invest in developing a quality water acquisition system that would
require less treatment. Restoration of the area is a continuing vital part
of the land operations, and this involves obtaining some lumber from the area
around the reservoirs. Most of the logging, however, is a result of the
trees becoming diseased. Revenues received from the operation help to lower
the water rates charged to consumers.
Nine major intake facilities associated with the reservoir system and
three intake facilities associated with well fields are geographically dis-
tributed over the service area, thus minimizing the transmission of potable
water within the system.
The large land holdings result in sizable real estate property taxes.
The company indicated it is considering the sale of some 16,500 acres not
necessary to the water utility. The reason for this is that natural land
filtration will no longer be adequate to provide water that meets the new
and more stringent State and Federal water standards. Because water will
have to be treated by filtration and other processes, the large holdings
around the reservoirs are less desirable.
TREATMENT
As indicated, the company provides high quality source water naturally
filtered. Chlorine is added as disinfectant at the various reservoir intakes
and wells scattered throughout the system. Two small filter plants presently
in operation filter approximately 7% of the reservoir water.
The New Haven Water Company recognizes that natural land filtration will
not provide water of adequate quality to meet the standards presently under
consideration. Because of this, the need for ownership of watershed lands is
eliminated, and plans are underway to mechanically filter water at various
treatment plants. One such plant is under construction at Lake Saltonstall
in East Haven for an estimated $5.5 million. Additional plants are antici-
pated to be operational within the next few years. Figure 33 shows locations
of wells and treatment facilities.
Most of the source of supply is at a slightly higher elevation than the
distribution area. In 1973, only 25.1% of the total draft was pumped from
the source. All of the water pumped from reservoirs was pumped from Lake
Whitney at the low service pumping station.
At present, only one slow sand filtration plant located at Lake Whitney
is in operation, and it filters 12 MGD from that source only. An additional
filtration plant with an 8-MGD capacity is under construction at Lake Salton-
stall.
117
-------
Chesire Wells
Sleeping Giant Wells
North Branford Pump and Treatment
Mount Carmel Wells
Saltonstall Pump and Filters
Dawson Treatment
Wintergreen Pump and Treatment
Whitney Pump and Filters
Maltby Pump and Treatment
Figure 33. New Haven Water Company treatment facility locations
118
-------
All water is chlorinated at any one of 10 points as it is drawn from the
reservoir system, or as it leaves either of the two well fields. Rechlori-
nation takes place at the Spring Street station. In 1973, a total of 3,099
mil gal was rechlorinated at this site. Secondary chlorination of the. distri-
bution storage reservoirs also takes place. Calgon is added to the water at
11 points to reduce corrosion in the pipes. Fluoride is added at 12 points
in the system, as required by State law.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The distribution system consists of 24 pumping stations, including those
at the well sites, one storage reservoir, and 16 standpipes. The system is
actually a number of small systems interconnected. The distribution reservoir
and the standpipes have a total capacity of just over 3 mil gal. Table 62
identifies the distribution system's reservoir and standpipes and gives the
capacity of each. There are 1,266 miles of pipe in the ground, ranging in
size from 1 to 72 in.
COST ANALYSIS
Growth of consumer demand for water from 1964 through 1973 is illustrat-
ed in Figure 34. During the 10-year period there was only a slight increase
in the amount of water used, and for the most part, that increase occurred
with the acquisition of a small water utility in the 1966-67 time frame.
Using standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 63, 64, and 65. Because a major portion of the operating
budget was expended for labor, Table 66 was developed to examine labor costs
for operation and maintenance activities. Because accurate man-hours were
not available for the 5 years before 1969, that information is not part of
this report.
Based on the records for 1969 through 1973, the cost for each man-hour
increased 43%, and the amount of labor required to produce 1 mil gal increas-
ed by 32%. The increase in both these parameters reflects a rapid increase
in the cost of producing water because there is a compounding relationship.
For example, to produce 1 mil gal water in 1973 required 185.5 man-hours;
in 1969, only 141.06 man-hours were required. In addition, a corresponding
increase from $3.80 to $4.82/man-hour compounded the cost increase. The
payroll and man-hours reflected in Table 66 include construction labor cap-
italized by the utility. The number of capitalized dollars, including both
labor and materials, are identified in Tables 63, 64, and 65 and are removed
from the total operating cost in subsequent areas of the report.
Table 67 summarizes operating and capital costs for the 10-year period
of analysis. Table 68 computes capital and operating expenditure ratios.
Operating expenses are those shown as the total of the values in Table 63,
expenses incurred in the normal day-to-day operation of the system. The
capital expenses are the total expenditures for providing major equipment
items and facilities plus the interest charged on money borrowed for these
purposes. A comparison of the operating expenses and the capital expenses
119
-------
TABLE 62. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY DISTRIBUTION RESERVOIR AND STANDPIPES.
Location Capacity
(1.000 gallons)
Reservoir:
Mill Rock* 8,660
Standpipes:
Mill Rock 375
Burwell Hill 937
Burwell Hill 720
Shingle Hill* 720
Shingle Hill 2,000
Mount Carmel (2) 1,300
Summit Street 480
Rabbit Rock 1,000
Brushy Plains 1,000
High Rock 1,000
Naugatuck Avenue 800
Clark Hill 800
York Hill 2,500
Ford Street 2,100
Prospect Tank 2,500
North Branford 3,300
Total 30,192
* Open storage.
120
-------
CO
S3
O
50
45
40
35
o 30
CO
§
pa
25
"
20
15
10
0
TREATED
RPW
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 34. New Haven Water Company water flow:
treated water versus RPW-
121
-------
TABLE 63. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services:
Administration
Acctg and collection
Other
Total
Acquisition:
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operations
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission & distribution
Total operating cost
Capitalized as construction
1964
$ 575,812
392,675
968,487
368,518
111,280
33,461
10,434
155,175
59,446
14,894
109,047
6,997
190,384
343,714
153,810
81,115
578,639
2,261,203
530,026
1965
$ 594,472
419,961
(34,420)
980,013
346,286
118,409
30,180
11,108
7,342
167,039
59,668
9,996
120,946
6,112
196,722
333,716
147,720
82,579
564,015
2,254,075
* 457,833
1966
$ 657,124
469,759
(48,946)
1,077,937
351,387
143,153
35,110
8,556
8,016
194,835
87,630
15,860
141,310
6,912
251,712
352,545
188,762
98,856
640,163
2,516,034
543,793
1967
$ 696
513
(59,
1,150
343
156
55
17
7
237
53
20
128
5
208
383
199
114
698
2,637
588
,339
,362
001)
,700
,381
,026
,976
,276
,855
,133
,303
,782
,472
,593
,150
,994
,450
,667
,111
,475
,097
1968
$ 786,883
535,449
(40,482)
1,281,850
373,210
155,632
62,426
19,633
8,697
246,388
27,127
26,695
124,867
4,887
183,576
393,372
143,383
129,132
665,887
2,750,911
575,989
1969
$ 917,121
537,291
(38,946)
1,415,466
416,149
163,319
56,147
21,800
8,941
250,207
30,876
27,759
135,997
6,799
201,431
452,988
182,793
138,306
774,087
3,057,340
621,020
1970
$1,042,840
666,485
(62,607)
1,646,718
387,544
174,225
71,729
17,248
8,050
271,252
34,504
29,022
142,187
8,987
214,700
486,155
229,070
137,790
853,015
3,373,229
831,120
1971
$1,100,552
769,117
(49,529)
1,820,140
407,834
179,325
72,687
21,149
10,572
283,733
35,169
28,559
159,400
8,293
231,421
529,472
213,585
145,734
888,791
3,631,919
876,952
1972
$1,168,414
869,258
(51,462)
1,986,210
437,367
174,600
78,532
12,073
10,810
276,015
22,358
29,903
181,979
8,836
243,076
501,822
330,730
144,043
976,595
3,919,263
1,047,973
1973
$1,260,410
988,000
(72,466)
2,175,944
459,699
197,683
64,218
15,610
14,411
291,922
31,221
32,283
211,242
8,133
282,879
519,990
265,005
144,320
929,315
4,139,759
1,125,019
Estimated
-------
TABLE 64. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY OPERATING COSTS/($/MIL GAL RPW)
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition :
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and. pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operations
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribute n
Total operating cost
Capitalized as construction
1964
$ 37.
25.
-
63.
24.
7.
2.
0.
-
10.
3.
0.
7.
0.
12.
22.
10.
5.
37.
148.
34.
1965
74
74
48
15
29
19
68
16
90
98
15
46
49
53
08
32
93
21
74
$ 38,
26.
(2.
62.
22.
7.
1,
0,
0,
10,
3,
0,
7,
0,
12,
21
9
5
36
144
* 29
.14
.94
.21)
,87
.22
.60
.94
.71
.47
.72
.83
.64
.76
.39
.62
.41
.48
.30
.19
.62
.38
1966
$ 35,
25,
.47
.36
(2.64)
58,
18,
7
1
0
0
10
4,
0,
7,
0,
13,
19
10
5
34
135
29
.19
.97
.73
.90
.46
.43
.52
.73
.86
.63
.37
.59
.03
.19
.34
.56
.83
.35
1967
$ 42.21
31.12
(3.58)
69.75
20.81
9.46
3.39
1.05
0.48
14.38
3.23
1.26
7.79
0.34
12.62
23.28
12.09
6.95
42.32
159.88
35.65
1968
$ 45.83
31.19
(2.36)
74.66
21.74
9.07
3.64
1.14
0.51
14.36
1.58
1.55
7.27
0.28
10.69
22.91
8.35
7.52
38.78
160.22
33.55
1969
$ 53.56
31.38
(2.27)
82.67
24.30
9.54
3.28
1.27
0.52
14.61
1.80
1.62
7.94
0.40
11.76
26.46
10.68
8.08
45.22
178.56
36.27
1970
$ 58.69
37.51
(3.52)
92.68
21.81
9.80
4.04
0.97
0.45
15.26
1.94
1.63
8.00
0.51
12.08
27.36
12.89
7.75
48.00
189.83
4 .77
1971
$ 61.38
42.89
(2.76)
101.51
22.74
10.00
4.05
1.18
0.59
15.82
1.96
1.59
8.89
0.46
12.90
29.53
11.91
8.13
49.57
202.54
48.91
1972
$ 67.81
50.45
(2.99)
115.27
25.38
10.13
4.56
0.70
0.63
16.02
1.30
1.74
10.56
0.51
14.11'
29.12
19.19
8.36
56.67
227.45
60.82
1973
$ 71.15
55.78
(4.09)
122.84
25.95
11.16
3.63
0.88
0.81
16.48
1.76
1.82
11.93
0.46
15.97
29.35
14.96
8.15
52.46
233.70
63.51
-------
TABLE 65. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Support services :
Administration
Acctg and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Treatment:
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Maintenance
Other
Total
Power and pumping
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Power
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operations
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission & distribution
1964
25
17
42
16
4
1
0
6
2
0
4
0
8
15
6
3
25
.46
.37
-
.83
.29
.92
.40
.46
-
.84
.63
.66
.82
.31
.42
.20
.80
.59
.59
1965
26
18
(1
43
15
5
1
0
0
7
2
0
5
0
8
14
6
3
25
.37
.63
.53)
.47
.36
.26
.34
.49
.32
.41
.65
.44
.37
.27
.73
.80
.56
.66
.02
1966
26.11
18.67
(1.94)
42.84
13.97
5.69
1.40
0.34
0.32
7.75
3.48
0.63
5.62
0.27
10.00
14.01
7.50
3.93
25.44
1967
26.
19.
(2.
43.
13.
5.
2.
0,
0.
9.
2.
0.
4.
0,
7.
14,
7,
4,
26,
,40
,46
24)
,62
,02
,92
,12
,66
,30
,00
.02
,79
,87
,21
,89
.56
.56
,35
.47
1968
28
19
(1
46
13
5
2
0
0
8
0
0
4
0
6
14
5
4
24
.60
.47
.47)
.60
.57
.66
.27
.71
.32
.96
.99
.97
.54
.17
.67
.30
.21
.69
.20
1969
30.00
17.57
(1.27)
46.30
13.61
5.34
1.84
0.71
0.29
8.19
1.01
0.91
4.45
0.22
6.59
14.82
5.98
4.53
25.33
1970
30.92
19.76
(1.85)
48.83
11.49
5.16
2.13
0.51
0.24
8.04
1.02
0.86
4.21
0.27
6.36
14.41
6.79
4.08
25.28
1971
30.31
21.18
(1.36)
50.13
11.23
4.94
2.00
0.58
0.29
7.81
0.97
0.79
4.39
0.23
6.38
14.58
5.88
4.01
24.47
1972
29.81
22.18
(1.31)
50.68
11.16
4.45
2.00
0.31
0.28
7.04
0.57
0.77
4.64
0.22
6.20
12.80
8.44
3.68
24.92
1973
30
23
(1
52
11
4
1
0
0
7
0
0
5
0
6
12
6
3
22
.45
.87
-75)
.57
.10
.78
.55
.38
.35
.06
.75
.78
.10
.20
.83
.56
.40
.49
.45
Capitalized as construction
23.44
20.31
24.12
22.30
26.48
20.65
24.64
31.83
26.74
27.18
-------
TABLE 66. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item
Total payroll * ($)
Total hours on payroll
RPW (mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal RPW ($)
Total hours/mil gal RPW
Average cost/man-hour ($)
Payroll capitalized
as construction ($)
Man-hours capitalized
as construction
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
1,786,350 1,780,719 1,987,667 2,083,605 2,173,220 2,415,299
715,520
15,256 15,585 18,526 16,498 17,168 17,122
117.09 114.26 107.29 126.29 126.59 141.06
41.79
3.38
N/A 322,163 378,405 423,806 392,573 397,271
160,050
1970
2,664,851
690,560
17,769
149.97
38.86
3.86
558,420
153,976
1971
2,869,216
713,440
17,931
160.01
39.79
4.02
557,629
163,700
1972
3,096,218
686,400
17,231
179.69
39.84
4.51
712,524
154,917
1973
3,285,898
682,240
17,714
185.50
38.51
4.82
771,979
150,563
* Estimates as per 1973 distribution of salaries and wages (PUC pg. 313); to be revised during revisit.
TABLE 67. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Item
Operating expense
Depreciation
Other
Interest
Taxes
1964
1,731,
675,
443,
2,207,
177
890
386
766
1965
1,796,190
738,431
498,536
2,161,481
1966
1,710,280
738,431
498,536
2,161,481
1967
2,049,378
892,758
561,053
2,467,516
1968
2,174,923
956,164
642,527
2,647,209
1969
2,386,319
1,072,890
692,177
3,068,840
1970
2,542,108
1,158,462
976,765
3,449,890
1971
2,754,967
1,236,515
1,358,734
4,016,819
1972
2,871,290
1,357,659
1,679,893
3,782,864
1973
2,014,740
1,503,812
2,067,270
3,741,714
Total 5,028,219 5,194,638 5,108,728 5,970,705 6,420,823 7,220,226 8,127,225 9,367,035 9,691,706 10,327,536
Total cost/mil gal RPW 329.59 333.31 275.76 361.90 374.00 421.69 457.38 522.39 562.46 583.02
-------
TABLE 68. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item
Operating expense ($)
Taxes ($)
Capital expense ($)
Interest ($)
Total cost ($)
Operating expense
as % of total
Capital expense
as % of total
1964
3,938,943
2,207,766
1,119,276
443,386
5,058,219
77.87
22.13
1965
3,958,671
2,161,481
1,236,967
498,536
5,195,638
76.19
23.81
1966
3,871,761
2,161,481
1,236,967
498,536
5,108,728
75.79
24.21
1967
4,516,894
2,467,516
1,453,811
561,053
5,970,705
75.65
24.35
1968
4,822,132
2,647,209
1,072,890
642,527
5,898,022
81.80
18.20
1969
5,455,159
3,068,840
1,598,691
692,177
7,053,850
77.34
22.66
1970
5,991,998
3,449,890
1,765,067
976,765
7,575,065
77.25
22.75
1971
6,770,927
4,016,819
2,135,227
1,358,734
8,906,154
76.03
23.97
1972
6,654,154
3,782,864
2,595,249
1,679,893
9,249,403
71.94
28.06
1973
6,756,454
3,741,714
3,037,552
2,067,270
9,794,006
68.99
31.01
-------
as a percent of the total shows that in the New Haven Water Company, more
expenses are associated with operations than with capital.
Over the 10-year period, the trend has been in the direction of capital
rather than operations and reflects the continual investment made by the New
Haven Water Company in improving its system. The shift was from approximately
80% operating versus 20% capital in 1964 to 69% operating versus 31% capital
in 1973.
The system is relatively old, and the capital depreciated was expended
when costs were significantly lower than at present. On the other hand, the
operating expense is in current dollars. This ratio will significantly in-
crease as major capital investments are made by the utility. For example,
the company is starting to make major capital expenditures for treatment
facilities. As these expenditures are made, the ratio of capital to operat-
ing expenses will increase significantly.
From a cost standpoint, New Haven Water Company is unusual in that the
utility made major investments in large areas of land to control source water.
Because of this, the company incurred liability for real estate taxes. Table
67 shows that a total of $3.7 million was paid for taxes in 1973. Most of
this was real estate tax. This value divided by the billed consumption
(17,714 mil gal) for 1973 shows that $211.23 was paid in taxes for each mil
gal of water sold to consumers.
SYSTEM COSTS
Explanation of costs on a functional basis is only part of the total
picture. Because the purpose of the utility is to deliver water to a
consumer, it is important to present costs as they relate to the delivery of
water to a demand point within the system. This section contains such an
analysis.
Locations of the company's facilities are shown in Figure 35. To
analyze the cost of water as it moves through acquisition to treatment to
the customer, it is necessary to identify the capital and operating cost of
each system component. Figure 36 is a schematic diagram of Figure 35 and
shows the operating and capital costs for each of the system's major facili-
ties. A linear assumption is made to allow unit cost/($/mil gal) to be added
as water moves from one system component to another. Transmission distances
are relatively short because water is added at many points within the system.
Little variation exists in the cost of providing water to any specific point
in the service area.
The terrain served is relatively level, reservoirs are generally located
on higher ground, and the water is gravity fed into the distribution system.
The exception to this occurs in the well fields and the Lake Whxtney reser-
voir, where the water is lifted into the system. Once the water is in the
distribution system, it is pumped to maintain pressure and to lift the water^
into the standpipes. Generally speaking, because the water enters the distri-
bution system and is pumped at so many various points, it is normally
127
-------
A
AA
C
cc
D
DD
H
HH
I
II
J
L
P
R
T
Y
Cheshire Wells
First Avenue Pump
Sleeping Giant Wells
Rabbit Rock Pump
High Rock Pump
North Branford Pump and Treatment
Mount Carmel Wells
Saltonstall Pump and Filters
Dawson Pump
Cherry Hill Pump
Dawson Treatment
Wintergreen Pump and Treatment
Whitney Pump and Filters
Maltby Pump and Treatment
Spring Street Pump
Beaver Brook Pump
Figure 35. New Haven Water Company location of facilities
and general direction of water flow in the re-
tail service areas.
128
-------
Acquisition
$28.93
Pumping
Treatment
$15.38
$15.38
Pumping
Figure 36. New Haven Water Company allocation of capital and
operating expenses to water system components ($/
mil gal RPW).
129
-------
delivered to the consumer without being repumped. Since the cost for re-
pumping is small, it is included in the cost of the initial pumping.
Figure 36 shows the costs associated with acquiring, treating, and pump-
ing water within the system. As discussed, water is not transported over
great distances, and the schematic presentation is simple. The only signifi-
cant variation in the system is whether the pumping occurs before or after
the chlorine and fluoride are added. This does not affect the cost.
Available data allowed a breakout of capital and operating costs only to
the general categories of the operations. For example, breakout cost on each
individual reservoir or well system was not available, and it was necessary
to accumulate all the costs related to the reservoirs and divide the total by
the RPW to arrive at the total acquisition cost of $28.93/mil gal. Using the
same procedure, the pumping cost is $20.92/mil gal, and the treatment cost is
$15.38/mil gal. The sum of these costs is $65.23, which represents the in-
cremental cost for providing water to any distribution point in the system.
Added to this expense are the costs for distribution, interest, and support
services. Distribution cost is calculated on the assumption that the cost/mil
gal is constant throughout the system; therefore, total capital and operating
costs for distribution are divided by the number of gallons of revenue-
producing water for the year under consideration. The same approach is taken
for taxes ($211.23/mil gal), as described earlier. Adding the cumulative
sums gives an average cost for delivery of water to the consumer of $583.Ol/
mil gal. These data are outlined as follows:
Costs:
Incremental —— $65.23
Distribution 86.45
Interest 116.70
Support services — 103.40
Taxes •—• 211.23
Total • 583.01
Metered consumption (mil gal)- 17,714
Revenue ($) 10,327,439
Once these calculations are made, costs versus charges can be examined.
Tables 69 through 73 summarize charges for typical monthly water consumption
in New Haven. Table 74 gives RPW for the 10 largest customers of the New
Haven Water Company.
Converting the units used to mil gal and dividing that into the amount
billed makes it possible to examine the amount actually paid/mil gal, as
shown in the last column of Table 73.
Because water is delivered to all users within the service area at
approximately the same cost, it is possible to compare the average cost of
delivering water with the amount paid by the major users. This comparison
shows that major users are not paying the cost of producing and delivering
water.
130
-------
TABLE 69. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY QUARTERLY RATE SCHEDULE*
Units used (cu ft)
Cost/100 cu ft
First 500 or less
Next 29,500
Next 70,000
Next 900,000
Over 1,000,000
$0.63
.49
.37
* For all meter sizes.
+ See Table 70.
TABLE 70. NEW HAVENWATER COMPANY QUARTERLY RATE SCHEDULE
Meter size (in.)
5/8 + 3/4
1
ih
2
3
4
6
8
10
Privately owned
Charge for
1st 500 cu ft
or less
$10.38
12.46
16.61
20.66
33.03
49.49
90.59
131.25
172.68
3.15
Minimum
charge
$12.38
17.50
29.21
42.71
77.13
125.09
244.94
378.35
517.78
3.15
Allowance for
minimum charge
(cu ft)
500
1,300
2,500
4,000
7,500
12,500
25,000
42,500
62,500
500
131
-------
TABLE 71. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY SEASON RATE SCHEDULE*
Units used (cu ft) Cost/100 cu ft
First 1,300 or less"1"
Next 68,700 $0.63
Next 163,300 .49
Over 233,500 .37
* For all meter sizes.
+ See Table 72.
TABLE 72. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY SEASON RATE SCHEDULE
Charge for 1st
1,300 cu ft or
Meter size (in.) less
5/8 + 3/4 $46.53
1 51.73
1% 62.11
2 72.23
3 103.16
4 144.31
Minimum
charge
$46.53
63.70
93.61
127.04
213.41
333.31
Allowance for
minimum charge
(cu ft)
1,300
3,200
6,300
10,000
18,800
31,300
132
-------
TABLE 73. NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY QUARTERLY RATE CHARGE ANALYSIS
Units used (cu ft) Gallons used Meter size (in.) Charge
13.4 10,000 5/8 $15.67
5,000 3,740,260 4 2,058.34
100,000 74,805,200 10 29,681.53
150,000 112,207,800 10 43,931.53
133
-------
TABLE 74. RPW FOR NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY'S TEN MAJOR USERS
Major user
Olin Corporation
Yale University
Simkins Industry
United Illinois Co.
Armstrong
Federal Paper
Schick
Connecticut Light
and Power
Up j ohn
Penn Central
High or
low month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
Oct
Mar
*
Sep
Jul
Sep
Mar
Apr
May
Feb
Mar
Sep
Mar
Apr
Mar
Feb
Mar
Jan
Nov
Units used
(mil gal)
120.0
80.6
296.5
249.6
42.6
24.3
31.3
17.8
30.1
17.8
22.8
10.7
22.9
11.3
23.8
12.1
20.1
12.8
11.8
6.5
Amount
billed
$32,105.90
21,724.14
101,036.89
88,694.19
11,684.34
6,850.07
8,697.56
5,163.13
8,429.12
5,182.43
6,479.14
4,226.16
6,490.16
3,446.57
7,196.78
4,116.20
6,238.03
4,313.99
3,668.15
2,242.10
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$267.62
269.63
340.72
355.29
274.40
282.34
278.21
289.85
279.98
290.82
284.42
396.32
283.44
304.79
301.94
340.35
309.89
335.98
309.94
342.83
Cost
zone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
* Billed quarterly.
-------
The average costs/mil gal for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services- • $113
Acquisition 29
Treatment 15
Distribution 107
Interest • •— 117
Taxes • 179
Total 560
135
-------
SECTION 10
FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
The Fairfax County Water Authority, headquartered in Annandale, Virginia,
was created under the Virginia Water and Sewage Authority Act of 1950 and
chartered by the State Corporation Commission on September 26, 1957, for the
purpose of acquiring, constructing, operating, and maintaining an integrated
water system to supply and distribute water to Fairfax County. The charter
was amended in 1959 to add the provision for sewer systems and sewage disposal
systems located within Fairfax County and partly within and without the
county.
The Authority is a public body politic incorporate deemed to be an in-
strumentality exercising public and essential governmental functions to
provide for the public health and welfare. The Authority is empowered to:
(1) acquire, construct, operate, and maintain water supply systems; (2)
finance its programs through the issuance of revenue bonds without obtaining
referendum approval; and (3) fix and prescribe rates, fees, and charges for
the service rendered. It cannot levy any taxes or assessments, nor do the
obligations of the Authority become obligations of Fairfax County.
Since 1959, the Authority has acquired 15 water companies, consisting of
22 separate water systems. The Alexandria Water Company, acquired in 1967,
served 70% of the customers gained through the acquisition of 15 companies.
The Fairfax County Water Authority serves approximately two-thirds of
the population (364,000) in Fairfax County and small areas in adjoining
counties. The population is relatively stable, and little construction
activity is taking place in the service area. System facts are given in
Table 75.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The retail service area shown in Figure 37 encompasses approximately 400
sq miles in Fairfax County, Water is supplied to some areas lying partly
outside the county, such as Dulles Airport. In addition to serving county
residents, the Authority wholesales treated water to places such as Alexandria,
Prince William Water Company, and other areas located in or near Fairfax
County.
The service area is relatively level, with elevations varying between 0
to 510 ft above sea level. The treatment plant is located at 260 ft above sea
level, or approximately in the middle of the elevation range.
136
-------
TABLE 75. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY. BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item Amount
Population:
SMSA
County 552,000
Retail service area 364,000
Area of retail service area (sq miles) 400
Recognized customer classes (no. of metered accounts):
Single family 71,977
Townhouses 8,650
Apartments 1,188
Commercial and industrial 2,635
Municipal-institutional 515
Flat Rate (no. of accounts) None
Percent metered 100
Purchased water (mil gal treated) 1,627
Source water 97% Surface, 3% Wells
Pipe in system (miles) 1,256
Elevation of treatment plant (ft above mean sea level) 260
Elevation of service area (min-max ft) 0 - 510
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 21,411
Treated water (pumpage from treatment plants + treated
purchased water, mil gal) 19,096
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD) 91/N.A.
137
-------
\
DISTRICT
OF
/> ./ ^fer COLUMBIA
(ARLINGTON
FAUS \
CHURCH \ COUNTY
Figure 37. Fairfax County Water Authority location map and service areas.
138
-------
This area is not expected to expand significantly in size unless an
additional water system (such as the City of Fairfax) is acquired; however,
the population is projected to increase the water demands at a rate of 3%
to 4%/year through the year 1985.
ORGANIZATION
The Authority is administered by a board of five members appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors for staggered terms of 3 years each. Officers
are elected by the members for a term of 1 year. Operations are accomplished
by a director who reports to the five-member board.
As shown in Figure 38, the director has four divisions reporting to him:
(1) Engineering and Construction, responsible for designing and building
facilities; (2) Finance, principally responsible for acquiring funds to sup-
port the operations; (3) Operations and Maintenance, responsible for accom-
plishing the production work and maintaining the equipment; and (4) General
Services, responsible for performing the support activities necessary to the
operation of the utility.
Although the charter includes the right to provide sewage service, none
is provided at present time and therefore it was not necessary to separate
costs for water and sewage functions.
ACQUISITION
Raw water for the Fairfax County Water Authority comes from both surface
and ground sources. Approximately 97% of the water used is surface water,
and 3% is groundwater.
The principal source of water is the Occoquan River, located in Fairfax,
Fauquier, Loudon, and Prince William Counties with an impounded watershed of
approximately 570 sq miles. Two dams constructed near Occoquan impound the
river for water supply. The lower dam, constructed in 1950, impounds a
relatively small reservoir containing about 55 mil gal, and the upper dam,
constructed approximately 3,000 ft upstream from the lower dam in 1957,
impounds a reservoir containing about 9.8 billion gallons. As presently
developed, the impounding water supply has a dependable yield of approximately
65 MGD, even under the most severe drought conditions of record. Usually
during the months of November through April, hydroelectric generating facili-
ties utilize surplus stream flow to generate the power for pumping and treat-
ing water.
Supplementary as of water include 30 wells and the purchase of water
from Fort Belvoir an che cities of Fairfax and Falls Church. Provisions in
the design and construction of the larger dam will permit 5-ft increase in
height, which will increase storage by about 3 billion gallons. This addi-
tional storage will increase the dependable yield to approximately 84 MGD.
Easements have been obtained for flooding the additional acerage along the
shoreline when the height of the dam is increased.
139
-------
DIRECTOR
Engineering
and
Construction
(60)
1
Finance
(24)
Operations
and
Maintenance
(120)
1
General
Service
(60)
Figure 38. Fairfax County Water Authority organizational chart.
-------
TREATMENT
Water treatment is provided in two interconnecting plants constructed in
stages during the period 1950 to 1973. The combined maximum capicity of these
facilities is 99.6 MGD.
The principal chemicals used in the treatment process include: (1)
chlorine for disinfection, manganese and iron removal as well as taste and
odor control, (2) activated carbon for taste and odor control, (3) alum to
assist in the coagulation and settling of suspended materials, (4) lime to
increase alkalinity for optimum coagulation and to inhibit pipe corrosion,
(5) potassium permanganate for magnesium removal, (6) sodium bisulfite as a
dechlorinating agent, and (7) fluoride for retardation of tooth decay. Four
filtered water reservoirs containing about 4.8 mil gal are located at the
treatment plant. Figure 39 presents a schematic diagram of the treatment
plant.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The transmission and distribution system of the Fairfax County Water
Authority consists of approximately 1,256 miles of mains varying in diameter
from 2 to 30 in. Water is delivered into the transmission and distribution
system by 18 pumping units providing a maximum capacity of 100 MGD. Operat-
ing pressures are maintained throughout the service area by 22 booster pump-
ing stations, with capacities ranging from 0.13 to 41.0 MGD.
A total of 19 mil gal water is stored in 44 reservoirs located within
the service area principally, as follows: 9 mil gal in three standpipes near
Annandale, 5 mil gal in two standpipes at Gum Springs, 2 mil gal in two stand-
pipes at Penderwood, and 1 mil gal in an elevated storage tank at the Fairfax
County Hospital.
The distribution system is interconnected at 62 locations with 12 other
water systems in northern Virginia. Five of these systems have independent
water supply sources, and seven are dependent on the Authority for their
water supply. The water storage facilities of the Fairfax County Water
Authority, their number, and capacity are listed in Table 76.
In addition to its principal system, the Authority owns and operates
seven independent well systems providing service to about 300 customers in
communities distant from the principal system.
COST ANALYSIS
The rapid growth in RPW from 1964 through 1973 (Figure 40) reflects the
acquisition of utilities rather than new customers within the service area.
The acquisition of the Fairfax Water Company in 1967 more than doubled the
amount of water sold by the Authority.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 77, 78, and 79. There are no data breakouts below the level
of the total before 1968; the operations changed so radically in 1967 with
141
-------
a^ |z)
Stmce No2 Purification Uni
LORTON TREATMENT FACILITIES
oo 9S Billten Gallon Cnggctfrl 7?
OCCOQUAN TREATMENT FACILITIES
Occoquani Village 12 -*
Prince William County
Figure 39. Fairfax County Water Authority schematic diagram of treatment facilities.
-------
TABLE 76. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY STORAGE FACILITIES
Facility
Annandale
Gum Springs
Penderwood
Number
3
2
2
Standpipes
Total
capacity
(mil gal)
9
5
2
Fairfax County Hospital
(elevated tank) 1 1
40 Locations
(miscellaneous storage) -— 2
Total storage capacity 19
143
-------
24
22
20
18
16
§ 14
12
O
fa
o
C/3
8 10
d
6 -
4 -
0
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 40. Fairfax County Water Authority water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
144
-------
TABLE 77. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category 1964+
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Personnel
Water purchased
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Personnel
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Personnel
Power
Maintenance
Other
Total pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Personnel
Maintenance
Other
Total trans, and distribution
Total operating cost $707,901
1965 1966 1967 1968
$ 108,576
256,520
308,194
673,290
16,928
128,490
4,543
277
150,238
168,224
249,153
44,434
461,811
84,738
225,284
14,180
5,642
329,844
199,573
68,809
433,567
701,949
$834,487 $1,096,406 $1,345,317 2,317,132
1969
$ 79,520
341,445
579,233
1,000,198
23,410
179,948
2,378
33
205,769
179,716
350,688
33,660
564,064
112,739
248,880
17,925
4,364
383,908
225,555
48,605
462,760
736,920
2,890,859
1970
$ 91,124
392,215
769,956
1,253,295
21,188
226,970
1,588
1
249,747
223,696
312,576
38,210
574,482
108,212
279,512
15,776
5,099
408,599
259,511
97,042
386,347
742,900
3,229,023
1971
$ 115,267
471,967
645,210
1,232,444
25,525
259,171
4,178
78
288,952
256,252
259,208
39,105
554,565
149,526
286,918
15,979
10,153
462,576
307,050
123,908
486,943
917,901
3,456,438
1972
$ 120,524
491,998
793,847
1,406,369
24,633
215,705
3,010
243,348
279,924
269,633
36,460
586,017
185,058
309,795
21,000
12,125
527,978
408,495
107,112
658,382
1,173,989
3,937,701
1973*
$ 163,791
719,886
665,136
1,548,813
341,832
387,470
325,340
584,170
350,195
526,275
1,385,546
4,432,274
* As per total current expenses from respective annual reports.
+ Except for totals, 1964-67 data are excluded because they are not comparable to 1968-73 data, the period after acquisition of the Alexandria Waterworks,
T Cost figures for certain categories not complete.
-------
TABLE 78. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil gal RPW)
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition :
Personnel
Water purchased
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment
Personnel
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping
Personnel
Power
Maintenance
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Personnel
Maintenance
Other
Total Transmission and distribution
Total unit operating cost
1964* 1965 1966 1967 1968
$ 7
17
___ ___ 20
45
!
a
10
11
16
K 2
01
___ c
15
22
13
4
______ 29
47
$397.92 $402.22 $451.57 $340.59 155
.30
.26
.73
.29
.14
.64
.31
.02
.11
.32
.67
.99
.07
.70
.15
.95
.38
.18
.42
.63
.17
.22
.87
1969
$ 4
21
36
62
1
11
-
12
11
21
2
35
7
15
1
23
14
3
28
46
180
.96
.31
.16
.43
.46
.23
.15
—
.84
.22
.89
.10
.21
.04
.54
.12
.27
.97
.08
.03
.89
.00
.45
1970
$ 5
23
45
73
1
13
-
14
13
18
2
33
6
16
23
15
5
22
43
189
.34
.01
.16
.51
.24
.31
.09
—
.64
.12
.33
.24
.69
.35
.39
.93
.30
.97
.22
.69
.66
.57
.38
1971
$ 6
26
36
70
1
14
-
16
14
14
2
31
8
16
26
17
7
27
52
196
.55
.82
.66
.03
.45
.73
.24
—
.42
.56
.73
.22
.51
.50
.30
.91
.58
.29
.45
.04
.67
.16
.41
1972
$ 6
26
42
76
1
11
-
13
15
14
1
31
10
16
1
28
22
5
35
63
212
.51
.59
.90
.00
.33
.66
.16
—
.15
.13
.57
.97
.67
.00
.74
.13
.66
.53
.08
.79
.58
.45
.80
1973
$ 8.
37.
34.
80.
17.
—
—
20.
16.
—
30.
—
18.
—
—
27.
—
—
—
72.
230.
52
43
58
53
_+
77
-
-
15
™
92
-
37
-
21
~
—
36
_
—
.-
05
46
* Except for totals, 1964-67 data are excluded because they are not comparable to 1968-73 data, the period after acquisition of the Alexandria Waterworks.
+ Insufficient information.
-------
TABLE 79. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category *
Support Services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Personnel
Water purchased
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Personnel
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Personnel
Power
Maintenance
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Personnel
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating expense
. 1968
4.
11.
13.
29.
0.
5,
0.
0.
6.
7.
10
1,
19.
3
9
0
0
14
8
2
18
30
100
.68
07
31
06
73
,54
.20
.01
,48
,26
.75
.92
.93
.66
.72
.61
.24
.23
.61
.97
.72
.30
.00
1969
2.75
11.81
20.04
34.60
0.81
6.22
0.08
7.11
6.22
12.13
1.16
19.51
3.90
8.61
0.62
0.15
13.28
7.80
1.68
16.01
25.49
100.00
1970
2.
12.
23.
38.
0.
7.
0.
—
7.
6.
9.
1.
17.
3.
8.
0.
0.
12.
8.
3.
11.
23.
100.
82
15
85
82
65
03
05
-
73
93
68
18
79
35
65
49
16
65
04
00
97
01
00
1971
3
13
18
35
0
7
0
-
8
7
7
1
16
4
8
0
0
13
8
3
14
26
100
.33
.66
.67
.66
.74
.50
.12
—
.36
.41
.50
.13
.04
.33
.30
.46
.30
.39
.88
.58
.09
.55
.00
1972
3
12
20
35
0
5
0
-
6
7
6
0
14
4
7
0
0
13
10
2
16
29
100
.06
.50
.15
.71
.63
.48
.08
—
.19
.11
.85
.93
.89
.70
.87
.53
.31
.41
.38
.71
.71
.80
.00
1973
3
16
15
34
-
7
-
-
8
-
7
-
13
_
7
-
-
11
_
-
-
31
100
.70
.24
.00
.94
— +
.71
—
—
.74
—
.34
—
.18
—
.90
—
—
.87
—
—
—
.27
.00
* Excludes 1964-67 data because they are not comparable to 1968-73 data, the period after acquisition of the Alexandria Waterworks.
4- Insufficient information.
-------
the acquisition of the Alexandria Waterworks that any breakout on a compara-
tive basis is not meaningful. Even the 1968 data are somewhat questionable,
because the Authority was still suffering the impact of the major change.
The effect of selling more water is readily seen in Table 78. During
the preceding years, the unit operating cost was in the neighborhood of $400/
mil gal. In 1968, with the larger amount of water sold, the operating cost
decreased sharply to $155/mil gal. From that point on, a steady and rather
consistent increase on a $/mil gal basis has occurred each year.
The relative increase in cost for support services is significantly
higher than for other areas of the operating budget. Table 80 examines labor
costs associated with the operation and maintenance activities of the utility.
The cost/man-hour from 1968 through 1973 increased by 54%, and the total pay-
roll hours required to produce 1 mil gal of RPW increased by 14 percent.
Because more man-hours are required and because the cost/man-hour is increas-
ing, total cost for support services is compounding.
Operating and capital costs are summarized in Table 81 for the full 10-
year period. As indicated by the capital and interest figures, a major
change occurred between 1967 and 1968, when the major capital investment was
made.
Capital and operating expense ratios are computed in Table 82. The
operating expenses shown are the costs incurred in the normal day-to-day
operation of the system. The capital expenses are the total expenses for
providing major equipment items and facilities plus the interest charged on
money borrowed for that purpose.
A comparison of the operating and capital expenses as a percent of the
total cost shows that in the Fairfax County Water Authority, more expenses
are associated with capital than with operations. This is contrary to the
condition found in most of the utilities monitored and is surely influenced
by the fact that the major capital expenditure of Fairfax County is more
recent than in most of the systems. Again, a significant shift can be seen
between 1967 and 1968, when the ratio of operating to capital expense de-
creased from 46 percent to 27 percent. The ratio is gradually shifting more
toward the operating area; by 1973 it reached 44% because of rapid increases
in operating costs, especially in the labor area.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of cost on a functional basis is only a part of the total
cost picture. Since the purpose of the water supply utility is to deliver
water to its customers, it is important to present costs in such a way that
they relate the delivery of water to a demand point within the distribution
system. The functional categories, both operating and capital, wjll therefore
be reaggregated and assigned to physical components of the water system.
This section contains such an analysis of the water supply system's cost.
148
-------
TABLE 80. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
Revenue-producing water
(mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal RPW ($)
Total hours/mil gal RPW
Average cost/man hour ($)
Item
Operating cost
Depreciation
Interest*
Total cost
Total unit cost ($/mil g
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
338,111 447,765 541,529 708,289 1,191,623
352,605
1,779 2,199 2,428 3,950 14,866
190.06 203.62 223.04 179.31 80.16
23.72
0 -)Q
— J.JO
TABLE 81. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY CAPITAL AND
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
$707,901 $884,487 $1,096,406 $1,345,317 $2,317,132
234,464 234,464 240,982 912,326 1,583,865
608,006 663,038 663,038 663,038 4,799,993
1,550,371 1,781,989 2,000,426 2,920,681 8,700,990
;al) 871.48 810.36 823.90 739.41 585.29
1969 1970
1,401,918 1,623,016
374,217 352,712
16,020 17,049
87.51 95.21
23.36 20.69
3.75 4.60
OPERATING COSTS
1969 1970
$2,890,859 $3,229,023
1,583,865 1,583,865
3,401,288 4,934,620
7,876,012 9,747,508
491.64 571.73
1971 1972
2,039,253 2,405,568
449,566 492,488
17.699 18,504
115.22 130.00
25.40 26.69
4.54 4.88
1971 1972
$3,456,438 $3,937,701
1,583,865 1,583,865
4,105,420 4,059,620
9,145,723 9,581,186
516.74 517.79
1973
2,696,576
519,994
19,232
140.21
27.04
5.19
1973
$4,432,271
1,586,914
4,011,220
10,030,405
521.55
Interest figures for 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1969 were taken from the Annual Report. Other years were taken from the Interest and Sinking Fund
Report of December 31 for each year.
-------
TABLE 82. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
M
Ul
o
Item
Operating expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Interest
1964
707,901
842,470
608.006
1965
884,487
897,502
663,038
1966
1,096,406
904,020
663,038
1967
1,345,317
1,575,364
663,038
1968
2,317,132
6,383,858
4,799,993
1969
2,890,859
4,985,153
3,401,288
1970
3,229,023
6,518,485
4,934,620
1971
3,456,438
5,689,285
4,105,420
1972
3,937,701
5,643,485
4,059,620
1973
4,432,271
5,598,134
4,011,220
Total cost ($) 1,550,371 1,781,989 2,000,426 2,920,681 8,700,990 7,876,012 9,747,508 9,145,723 9,581,186 10,030,405
Operating expense as % of total 45.66 49.63 54.81 46.06 26.63 36.70 33.13 37.79 41.10 44.19
Capital expense as % of total 54.34 50.37 45.19 53.94 73.37 63.30 66.87 62.21 58.90 55.81
-------
Locations of the Fairfax County Water Authority's facilities are shown
in Figure 41.
To analyze the cost of water as it moves through acquisition to treatment
to the customer, it is necessary to identify the capital and operating cost of
each system component. Figure 42 is a schematic diagram of Figure 41 and
shows the operating and capital costs for each of the system's major facili-
ties. A linear assumption is made to allow unit cost ($/mil gal) to be added
as water moves from one component of the system to another. For example, the
cost of acquiring water from the Occoquan supply is $17.56/mil gal, and the
cost of treating 1 mil gal of water is $61.54. The cost of pumping the water
from the treatment plant into the distribution system and delivering it to
Zone 1 is $24.95/mil gal. These costs added together make an incremental cost
of $103.74/mil gal for water delivered to Zone 1. Incremental costs are shown
in Table 83.
Added to the incremental costs are the distribution cost, the interest
cost, and the support services cost. The distribution cost is calculated on
the assumption that these unit costs are constant throughout the system; the
total capital and operating cost for distribution is therefore divided by the
number of gallons of RPW in the year under consideration, yielding a figure
of $104.44/mil gal. The same approach is taken for interest and support
services. When these are added together, a total unit cost/($/mil gal) for
delivery to a given area results. For example, the total cost for delivering
water to Zone 1 is $505.33/mil gal. Table 83 contains the metered consumption
for each of the pressure areas and the estimated contribution for recovering
the total cost.
Once these calculations are made and various cost zones are established,
the costs versus charges can be examined. Tables 84 and 85 summarize the
water consumption rates charged by the Fairfax County Water Authority.
Costs of water for the 10 largest consumers served by the Authority are
shown in Table 86.
By dividing the mil gal used into the amount charged, it is possible to
examine the actual unit charge ($/mil gal), as shown in the last column of
Table 86.
Average unit cost for all water supplied during the most recent year
studied is as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 88
Acquisition 35
Treatment 56
Distribution • 134
Interest 209
Total 522
151
-------
•
SCALE IN MILES
\
FUTURE
STORAGC
EXISTING
FUTURE
WANTS AND
PUMPING STATIONS
EXISTING
FUTURE
Figure 41. Fairfax County Water Authority principal supply and transmission facilities, 1967.
-------
Ui
u>
OCCOQUAN
SUPPLY
WELL
SUPPLY
PURCHASED
SUPPLY
Acquisition
$17.25
$81.55
$256.63
Treatment
$61.54
Pumping and
transmission
$24.95
Booster
pumping
$30.29
$42.95
17,614 mil gal
15,490
(mil gal)
Zone 1
2,124
(mil gal)
Zone 2
Zone 3
286 mil gal
Zone 4 Zone 5
1,171 (mil gal) 161 (mil gal)
$28.64 -
1,332 mil gal
$30.29
Figure 42. Fairfax County Water Authority allocation of capital and operating expenses to water
system components.
-------
TABLE 83. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY COST ELEMENTS BY ZONES
Ul
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Incremental
cost
($/mil gal)
103.74
134.03
124.50
285.27
315.56
Distribution
cost
($/mil gal)
104.44
104.44
104.44
104.44
104.44
Interest
($/mil gal)
208.57
208.57
208.57
208.57
208.57
Overhead
($/mil gal)
88.27
88.27
88.27
88.27
88.27
Total
cost
($/mil gal)
505.02
535.31
525.78
686.55
716.84
RPW
(mil gal)
15,490
2,124
286
1,171
161
19,232
Revenue
$7,822.760
1,136,998
150,373
803,950
115,411
10,029,492
-------
TABLE 84. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY METER RATES* ($/mil gal)
Meter size (in.)
5/8
3/4
1
1%
2
3
4
6
8
10
Charge
$3.00
3.50
4.00
5.25
6.50
15.00
25.00
45.00
70.00
100.00
* Commodity charge is $0.68/1,000 gallons.
TABLE 85. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY CHARGE ANALYSIS
Units used
(cu ft x 100)
Gallons used
Commodity + Meter
Charge
13.5
5,000
100,000
150,000
10,000
3,740,260
74,805,200
112,207,800
$14.71
5,500.38
110,007.65
165,011.47
155
-------
TABLE 86. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
01
High or low
Major user quarter
Fairfax County Hospital
New Alex Dairy
Hazelton Labs
Woodley Mobile Homes
Oakland Manor Apartments
Fairfax County Hospital
Allen and Rocks, Inc.
Washington Real Estate
Allen and Rocks, Inc.
Charterhouse Motor Hotel
•&• - " ~
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Quarter
3
1
4
1
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
1
Consumption
(mil gal)
14.7
1.2
9.8
9.2
8.7
6.0
6.2
1.0
7.2
5.7
6.6
3.6
6.9
3.1
4.9
4.1
5.4
3.6
4.5
2.3
Amount
billed*
$10,048.32
894.84
6,655.54
6,287.66
5,897.45
4,066.21
4,234.06
715.74
4,894.34
3,872.98
4,565.48
2,506.44
4,684.22
2,113.82
3,347.34
2,800.62
3,683.94
2,426.62
3,047.46
1,565.06
Unit charge Cost
($/mil gal) zone+
$684.77
737.71
680.66
680.70
680.61
680.88
681.05
686.23
680.90
681.14
690.59
699.54
680.94
682.10
681.32
681.58
681.20
681.83
681.45
682.84
Meter charge plus commodity charge at current rate.
T Could not be determined.
-------
SECTION 11
PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT
The City of Phoenix (Maricopa County) lies in the south central part of
Arizona in what is considered to be a water-short area. The county, which is
also the SMSA boundry, had a population of 1.3 million in 1974. The retail
service area of the Phoenix Water Department serves 794,542 persons. Esti-
mates are that in this rapidly growing area, the population served will more
than double by the year 2,000. Table 87 gives some facts pertaining to the
system.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The retail service area for the Phoenix Water Department encompasses
approximately 185 sq miles, and water is provided on a wholesale basis to
other areas, increasing the total service area to approximately 280 sq miles
(Figure 43). The present retail service area includes retail service to most
of the incorporated area of the City of Phoenix (some small portions of the
city are still served by private companies), some unincorporated areas around
the city, and a portion of the City of Scottsdale, Arizona.
The elevations within the service area vary from a low of 940 ft to a
high of 1,600 ft, and in some cases water must be moved over fairly long
distances to provide service to the citizens. The population within the
Phoenix Water Department's service area is increasing at a rapid rate, a
trend that is expected to continue. In the future, it is anticipated that
the Phoenix Water Department will expand by construction and by acquiring
some of the smaller private companies in the area. By the year 2,000 its
service area will increase to approximately 455 sq miles. The water depart-
ment has placed major emphasis on developing a plan to meet future water needs
through acquiring the water and providing the physical facilities for treat-
ment and distribution.
ORGANIZATION
Organizationally, the Phoenix Water Department combines both water
supply and wastewater treatment functions; the accounting systems for the two
operations are also combined. Where an overlap in function occurred, it was
necessary to estimate the cost assigned to each operation. The Phoenix Water
Department organizational structure (Figure 44) is composed of two major
sections: administration and operations. The administrative area accom-
plishes all tasks not associated with the direct production of water or waste-
water and includes three divisions: Accounting, Engineering, and Technical
157
-------
TABLE 87. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item Amount
Population:
SMSA 1,306,000
County 1,306,000
Retail service area 794,542
Area of retail service area (sq miles) 185
Recognized customer classes (active accounts):
Residential 172,503
Commercial 20,347
Industrial 142
Government 1,028
Flat rate (no. accounts) 400
Percent metered 100
Purchased water (raw, mil gal) 29,485
Source water 60% Surface - 40% Ground
Pipe in system (miles) 3,445
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above sea level datum):
Verde 1,370
Deer Valley 1 228
Squaw Peak ]_ 390
Elevation of service area (min-max, ft) 940/1600
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 63661
Treated water (treated and well water, mil gal) 67,042
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD) 323.8/449.0
158
-------
Verde
Infiltrat ion
Gallery 5
(20 MGD)
Phoenix Wells
(110 MGD)
Figure 43. Phoenix Water Department retail service area.
-------
WATER AND SEWERS DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNTING DIVISION
Billing and Collections
Customer Accounting
Customer Services
Meter Reading and Field Investigations
Proprietary Accounting
Cost Accounting
Rates and Statistics
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Maps and Construction Records
Water and Sewers System Design
Plans and Specifications Review
Drafting and Surveying
Field Engineering and Inspections
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
Water and Sewer Service Connection
Sales, Agreements and Records. Capital
Improvement Program Planning, Coordination
and Records. Codes, Policies, Operating
procedures and regulations. Water and
Sewers System Information, Federal Aid
Grants for Water and Sewer Capital
Projects.
Inventory of Water and Sewers System
Facilities
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OPERATIONS
..I..
WATER PRODUCTION DIVISION
Water Pumping, Treatment and Storage
Operation and Maintenance of Wells,
Treatment Plants, Reservoirs, and
Pumping Facilities
Laboratory Analysis and Control
WATER DISTRIBUTION DIVISION
System Maintenance
Meter Installation, Service and Repair
Main Extensions, Replacement and Repair
Fire Hydrant and Valve Installation and
Maintenance
SEWERS SYSTEM DIVISION
Sewer Maintenance and Repairs
Sewer Service Connection Installation
Operation and Maintenance of Sewage
Pumping Stations and Treatment Plan
Laboratory Analysis and Control
Industrial Waste Inspection and Control
Figure 44. Phoenix Water Department organizational chart.
160
-------
Services. The Operations Section, which performs the physical operations and
maintenance for water supply and wastewater, also has three major divisions:
Water Production, Water Distribution, and Sewer Systems. The function of
each division is shown on Figure 44.
For the most part, the operations areas of the water supply and sewer
services are reasonably well divided; in the administrative area, however,
considerable overlapping of function occurs and it is necessary to estimate
the portion of each service allocated to the water production. For example,
all billing and collection for both water and sewer are accomplished through
a common accounting system.
ACQUISITION
Raw water for the Phoenix Water Department comes from both surface and
ground sources. Approximately 60% of the water used is surface water and 40%
is groundwater.
The surface water for the Phoenix Water Department is obtained from two
basic sources: the Salt and Verde Rivers.* The surface water is controlled
by the Salt River Project, and there is a tight accountability for the water
extracted from the source and ultimately returned to the water source system.
There are 110 wells with a total capacity of 155 MGD producing for the
Phoenix Water Department. These wells are somewhat clustered in fields and
are geographically distributed over portions of the area. Some wells are
held in reserve for emergency use only.
Well water is used in two ways by the department: (1) water is pumped
from the well, chlorinated, and moved directly into the transmission and
distribution system; and (2) well water is pumped directly into canals con-
trolled by the Salt River Project. This water is traded for surface water,
which can be utilized at a different point in the water system or at a dif-
ferent time when the need may be greater. When well water is pumped into a
canal above the city water department, a greater amount of water can be
stored in the Salt River Project's reservoirs for release at a later time.
TREATMENT
Raw surface water is treated at three treatment plants with a total
design capacity of 230 MGD. The Verde treatment plant (40 MGD) is located
approximately 15 miles east of the city; Squaw Peak treatment plant, 110 MGD,
is located on the Arizona Canal* at 24th Street near the center of the city;
and Deer Valley treatment plant, 80 MGD, is located northwest of the city.
Figure 45 is a flow diagram of the Squaw Peak treatment plant. The
other two treatment plants are similar to this system.
* Arizona Canal water comes from the Salt and Verde Rivers
161
-------
Ar-iZO"''.
Canal
Screen Awn C«.rbon
Storo-g'e Reservoir
(3- ?0m.c.)
Figure 45. Squaw Peak Treatment Plant flow diagram.
-------
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The transmission and distribution system of the Phoenix Water Department
consists of approximately 3,445 miles of underground pipe ranging from 2-in.
pipe used for distribution to some of the residential areas up to 60-in. pipe
used in some of the transmission lines.
The distribution system is divided into 21 separate service areas located
within six pressure zones. Each 100 ft rise in elevation requires the
establishment of a new pressure zone to provide the desirable range of water
pressure to each customer. In every case, a higher service zone is serviced
in whole or in part by pumps from the zone or zones below. Water delivered
to some of the higher zones passes through several lower zones and has to
be repumped as many as four times. The result is that each of the 21 service
areas is interdependent and is affected by the water production capacity and
rate of water consumption in other areas. The interrelationship of the 21
areas is complex, and the actual flow of water is controlled by hundreds of
valves located throughout the system. At any given time, the interrelation-
ship of the service areas and pressure zones is dependent on the valve setting
configurations, making it extremely difficult to determine water flow. In
the transmission and distribution system, there are 44 booster pumping sta-
tions and 25 storage reservoirs, which have a capacity of over 191 mil gal.
In addition to these storage facilities, 31 booster stations with wells have
a storage capacity of almost 13 mil gal. Table 88 lists the storage facili-
ties and their capacities.
COST ANALYSIS
Growth in consumer demand for water from 1965 through 1974 is illustrated
in Figure 46.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 89, 90, and 91. As indicated by the relative increase in the
support services category, a major portion of the operating budget is expended
for labor. Table 92 examines labor costs for operations and maintenance of
the utility. The cost/man-hour increased by 122%, whereas the total payroll
hours required to produce 1 mil gal of RPW decreased by 31%; thus the operat-
ing cost for producing water did not increase as rapidly as the labor cost/
man-hour. However, at some future date it will no longer be possible to gain
increasing efficiencies with respect to manpower, and the total payroll
cost will increase at least at the same rate as the labor cost. Table 93
summarizes the operating, depreciation, and interest expenses for the 10-year
period of the analysis. Capital and operating expense ratios are computed in
Table 94. The operating expenses shown in Table 89 are costs incurred in the
normal day-to-day operation of the system. The capital expenses are the
total expenditures for providing major equipment items and facilities plus
the interest charged on money borrowed for those purposes.
A comparison (Table 94) of the operating and capital expenses as a per-
cent of the total cost shows that in the Phoenix Water Department, more
expenses are associated with operations than with capital. Over the 10-year
period, this trend continued to shift more heavily toward the operating
163
-------
TABLE 88. PHOENIX SYSTEM STORAGE FACILITIES
Reservoir name
Sweetwater and 18th St.
Cactus Rd. and 20th St.
Greenway Rd. and 16th St.
Lincoln Dr. and 36th St.
Cinnabar and 5th St. (2)
Hatcher Rd. and 18th St.
Mineral Rd. and 9th St.
Moon Mtn. and 18th Ave . (2)
Shaw Butte (2)
Squaw Pk. Wash Water
Papago Park (2)
Mineral Rd. and 9th St.
Olney and 15th Ave.
Thomas Rd. and 64th St. (3)
Squaw Peak Clearwell (3)
South Mountain
Deer Val Clearwell
Capacity*
(mil gal)
0.1
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.3
1.0
1.0
4.15
10.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
60.0
60.0
20.0
20.0
Overflow
(ft)
1,543
1,629
1,629
1,503
1,483
1,483
1,468
1,452
1,405
1,346
1,462
1,360
1,360
1,286
1,283
1,283
1,228
Elevation
Ground
(ft)
1,532
1,601
1,598
1,476
1,453
1,454
1,437
1,430
1,357
1,323
1,430
1,328
1,329
1,266
1,258
1,251
1,203
Total capacity of tanks at each location.
An additional 12.88 mil gal storage is distributed among 31 booster stations with the wells,
-------
75
70
65
60
55
1 50
o
§
H
H
M
45
40
35
RPW
30
25
20
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 46. Phoenix Water Department water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
165
-------
TABLE 89. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Support services:
Administration $ 589,212 $ 649,286 $ 692,791 $ 798,830 $ 903,020 $1,016,810 $1,134,421 $1,273,269
Accounting and collection 1,119,069 1,155,357 1,183,205 1,313,009 1,456,148 1,748,834 1,913,198 2,207,037
Other 1,112,676 1,212,944 1,420,457 1,514,275 1,601,935 1,693,404 1,760,845 1,831,773
Total support services 2,820,957 3,017,587 3,296,453 3,626,114 3,961,103 4,459,048 4,808,464 5,312,079
Acquisition 182,138 252,054 334,943 425,059 491,747 602,885 632,158 653,091
Treatment — 875,362 930,437 1,007,997 1,151,044 1,331,632 1,421,131 1,634,991 1,630,577
Power and pumping 1,262,866 1,226,583 1,080,230 1,174,795 1,359,108 1,671,913 1,956,441 2,237,248
Transmission and distribution 1,024,055 1,225,687 1,283,099 1,539,713 1,773,444 1,960,999 2,211,966 2,628,261
Total operating cost $5,299,336+ $5,731,336+ 6,165,378 6,652,348 7,002,722 7,916,725 8,917,034 10,115,976 11,244,020 12,461,256
* Cost breakout for these years is not available.
+ Estimated.
-------
TABLE 90. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil gal RPW)
ON
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition
Treatment
Power and pumping
Transmission and distribution
Total unit operating cost
* Cost breakout for these years
+ Estimated.
1965* 1966* 1967
$14,
28,
28,
4.
22.
OT
25,
$152. 31+ $139. 10+ 156.
is not available.
,93
.36
.20
.49
.62
.18
,00
.95
,24
TABLE 91. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition
Treatment
Power and pumping
Transmission and distribution
Total operating expense
1965* 1966* 1967
Q
18.
]_g.
45,
2,
14,
20,
16,
100,
.56
.15
.05
.76
.95
.20
.48
,61
.00
1968
$16,
29,
31
77
6,
23,
31,
31,
170,
.60
.55
.02
.17
.45
.79
.37
.34
.12
OPERATING
1968
9,
17,
18.
45.
3,
13.
18.
18.
100.
.76
,37
.23
.36
.80
,99
.44
.41
.00
1969
$16.84
28.75
34.52
80.11
8.14
24.50
26.25
31.18
170.18
1970
$17.35
28.51
32.88
78.74
9.23
24.99
25.51
33.43
171.90
COST CATEGORIES AS
1969
9.89
16.90
20.28
47.07
4.78
14.39
15.43
18.33
100.00
1970
10.09
16.59
19.13
45.81
5.37
14.54
14.84
19.44
100.00
1971
$19.11
30.81
33.90
83.82
10.41
28.18
28.76
37.53
188.70
PERCENT OF
1971
10.13
16.33
17.96
44.42
5.51
14.93
15.24
19.90
100.00
1972
$18.98
32.65
31.61
83.24
11.25
26.53
31.21
36.61
188.85
TOTAL COST
1972
10.05
17.29
16.74
44.08
5.96
14.05
16.53
19.38
100.00
1973
$21.35
36.01
33.14
90.51
11.90
30.78
36.83
41.64
211.65
1973
10.09
17.01
15.66
42.76
5.62
14.54
17.40
19.68
100.00
1974
$20
34
28
83
10
25
35
41
195
.00
.67
.77
.44
.26
.61
.14
.29
.74
1974
10.22
17.71
14.70
42.63
5.
13.
17.
21.
100.
24
09
95
09
00
* Cost breakout for these years is not available.
-------
TABLE 92. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT LABOR COST ANALYSIS
00
Category
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
Revenue-producing water
(mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal ($)
Total hours RPW/mil gal
Average cost/man-hour ($)
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
2,039,599 2,426,455 2,454,856 2,769,303 2,852,055 3,089,632 3,586,964 4,774,176 5,237,496 5,743,024
881,000 878,000 894,000 902,000 938,000 930,000 946,000 1,002,000 1,050,000 1,113,000
34,794 41,203 39,459 39,104 41,148 46,054 47,255 53,566 53,126 63,661
58.62 58.89 62.21 70.82 69.31 67.09 75.91 89.13 98.59 90.21
25.32 21.30 22.65 23.06 22.79 20.19 20.01 18.70 19.76 17.48
2.32 2.76 2.75 3.07 3.04 3.32 3.79 4.76 4.99 5.16
TABLE 93. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST
Item
Operating expense
Depreciation
Interest
Total
Total cost/mil gal RPW
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
$5,299,336* $5,731,336* $6,165,378 $6,652,348 $7,002,722 $7,916,725 $8,917,034 $10,115,976 $11,244,020 $12,461,256
2,536,867 2,650,000* 2,868,063 2,984,716 3,152,513 3,319,446 3,474,388 4,013,693 4,182,875 4,524,535
2,135,831 2,215,029 2,364,290 2,326,628 2,317,427 2,343,740 2,145,752 2,077,064 2,542,319 3,419,045
9,972,034 10,596,365 11,397,731 11,963,692 12,472,662 13,579,911 14,537,174 16,206,733 17,769,214 20,404,836
286.60 257.17 288.85 305.94 303.12 294.87 307.63 302.55 338.24 320.52
Estimates .
-------
TABLE 94. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item
Operating expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Total ($)
Operating expense as % of total
Capital expense as % of total
1965
5,299,336*
4,672,898
9,972,234
53.14
46.86
1966
5,731,336*
4,865,029*
10,596,365
54.08
45.92
1967
6,165,378
5,232,353
11,397,731
54.09
45.91
1968
6,652,348
5,311,344
11,963,692
55.60
44.40
1969
7,002,722
5,469,940
12,472,662
56.14
43.86
1970
7,916,725
5,663,186
13,579,911
58.29
41.71
1971
8,917,034
5,620,140
14,537,174
61.33
38.67
1972
10,115,976
6,090,757
16,206,733
62.41
37.59
1973
11,244,020
6,725,194
17,969,214
62.57
37.43
1974
12,461,
7,943,
20,404,
61
38
256
580
836
.07
.93
Estimates.
-------
expense area. In 1965, the ratio was about 53% operating to 47% capital.
This gradually changed to the point that in 1974, the ratio was 61% operating
to 39% capital. During this time, there were no major capital expenditures,
but labor costs increased drastically.
The Phoenix system is relatively old; therefore, the capital depreciated
was expended when costs were significantly lower than at present. On the
other hand, the operating expense is in current dollars. This ratio will
change whenever major capital investments are made by the utility. For
example, if a major modification to the treatment facility is required, capi-
tal expenses will increase without a corresponding increase in operating
costs.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of the cost on a functional basis is only part of the total
picture. Since the purpose of a water supply utility is to deliver water to
a consumer, it is important to be able to present costs in such a way that
they relate delivery of water to a demand point within the distribution sys-
tem. The functional categories, both operating and capital, will therefore
be reaggregated and assigned to physical components in the water delivery
system. This section contains such an analysis of water supply system costs.
Figure 47 is a schematic presentation of the Phoenix Water Department
supply system. As shown, the system is extremely complex, and because of the
interdependence of the various service areas and pressure zones and the con-
tinual change in the water flowing within the system, it becomes impossible
to accurately allocate costs and identify specific flow patterns of water
through the physical components of the system. Therefore, a schematic dia-
gram was not developed to identify operating and capital costs to the various
physical components of the system.
Total unit costs for Phoenix were $320.52/mil gal RPW in 1974 (Table 93).
This value includes all operating, depreciation, and interest costs associated
with the utility's operation. It does not identify the costs of the specific
components, but it does allow an overall evaluation of the cost to the depart-
ment to produce water.
Though Phoenix is located in a water-short area, the charge for water
usage (Tables 95 and 96) is relatively low—in fact, less than that charged
in some areas that are not short of water.
The 10 top users of water from the Phoenix Water Department are listed
in Table 97. Note that these major users are relatively low consumers of
water as compared to the top 10 users of many other utilities across the
United States. One reason is that Phoenix is considered a water-short area,
and the city does not encourage industry requiring large volumes of water to
locate in the vicinity.
Figure 48 shows the Phoenix service area and the locations of the top 10
users of the water. For the most part, they are clustered relatively close
to the center of the total service area, and thus close to the Squaw Peak
170
-------
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Verde
Water Treatment Plant
III
Figur^ 47. Simplified Phoenix Waterworks schematic, 1975,
171
-------
TABLE 95. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT METER RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1974 (cu ft)
Inside city rates
Size of
meter (in.)
5/8 x 3/4
1
1%
2
3
4
6
Minimum
allowance
600
800
1,200
1,500
1,900
2,400
3,200
Monthly
rate
$3.30
4.35
6.10
7.50
9.40
11.70
15.50
Outside city rates
Size of
meter (in.)
5/8 x 3/4
1
1%
2
3
4
6
Minimum
allowance
600
800
1,200
1,500
1,900
2,400
3,200
Monthly
rate
$5.00
6.50
9.15
11.25
14.10
17.55
23.25
Scottsdale/
Paradise Valley rates
Size of
meter (in.)
5/8 x 3/4
1
1%
2
3
4
6
Minimum
allowance
600
800
1,200
1,500
1,900
2,400
3,200
Monthly
rate
$4.00
5.20
7.30
9.00
11.30
14.00
18.60
-------
TABLE 96. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT UNIT RATES (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1 1974)*
Quantity in excess
of minimum allowance
(cu ft)
Cost/100 cu ft
May
thru
Oct.
Nov.
thru
April
Inside dity:
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
3,000
57,000
100,000
140,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
Over 3,300,000
Outside city:
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Over
3,000
57,000
100,000
140,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,300,000
Scottsdale/Paradise Valley:
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Over
3,000
57,000
100,000
140,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,300,000
$0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.14
$0.30
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.20
$0.25
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.17
$0.23
0,22
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.14
$0.34
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.20
$0,28
0,26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.17
* Rates applicable for duplex, triplex, combination residential and/or
commercial usage; trailer courts and churches, furnished upon request
173
-------
TABLE 97. PHOENIX WATER DEPARTMENT WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
Major user
Pepsi Cola
Arizona State Hospital
Honeywell
Air Research
Coca Cola
Cudahy
Carnation
Reynolds Metals
Western Electric
Motorola
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
Nov.
Jan.
July
Feb.
July
Jan.
Sept.
Dec.
June
Jan.
Nov.
July
July
Feb.
May
Feb.
June
Jan.
July
Aug.
Units used
(mil gal)
4.0
3.2
5.4
2.2
4.9
2.3
10.1
4.0
5.1
3.6
10.8
8.1
13.1
9.3
23.5
1.7
14.6
0.4
26.1
13.6
Amount
billed
$985
803
1,290
674
1,167
598
2,347
1,001
1,216
897
2,515
1,893
2.941
2,195
5,034
473
3,256
130
5,546
3,053
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$248.54
253.87
238.75
310.59
239.43
263.32
232.49
247.95
237.68
250.13
232.16
234.63
225.01
236.04
214.26
271.99
222.63
315.53
212.14
224.27
Cost
zone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
1 Arizona State Hospital
2 Pepsi Cola
3 Coca Cola
4 Motorola
5 Aresearch
6 Western Electric
7 Carnation
8 Reynolds Metals
9 Cudahy
10 Honeywell
Figure 48, Phoenix Water Department major users,
175
-------
treatment plant and some of the well fields. This location means that the
water delivered to them travels only a short distance and does not require
the added cost of boosting to reach the extremity of the system.
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 91
Acquisition 17
Treatment 47
Distribution 112
Interest 53
Total 320
176
-------
SECTION 12
KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Kenton County Water District provides water to about 7,000 customers
in the northwestern portion of Kenton County, Kentucky. The population in
this area was 133,115 in 1974 and has shown only a slight increase over the
past 10 years, allowing for the development of a relatively stable water
utility. Some systems facts are shown in Table 98.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The water district provides water on a retail basis to all classes of
customers in the service area shown in Figure 49. Treated water is supplied
to 12 townships, an industrial park situated mainly outside the county, and
unincorporated areas of Kenton County lying within the service area. In
addition, water is supplied to the City of Florence and to the Boone County
Airport, both located in Boone County but close to the population centers of
Kenton County.
With a reasonably stable population, the emphasis is on maintaining the
stability of the operating system from a cost/mil gal standpoint.
ORGANIZATION
Because the Kenton County Water District supplies water only, it is not
intermingled with any other organization. The organization is headed by a
general manager who reports directly to a three-man commission responsible
for the operation of the water district.
Four divisions report to the general manager. Their responsibilities
are: (1) treatment plant and laboratory operation and maintenance, (2) dis-
tribution system operations and maintenance, (3) accounting and collection,
including meter service, and (4) engineering.
Because the organization is small (about 27 people), there is a tendency
for one division to help another when the work load becomes heavy in a
specific area. This does not affect the overall cost of the operation but
may slightly shift cost allocations from one area to another. Figure 50
shows the organization of the Kenton County Water District.
177
-------
TABLE 98. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item
Amount
Population:
SMSA
County
Retail service area
Area of retail service area (sq miles)
Recognized customer classes (average no. of customers/year):
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Customer cities
Flat rate
Percent metered
Purchased water
Source water
Pipe in system (miles)
Elevation of treatment plant (ft above mean sea level)
Elevation of service area (min-max ft)
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (pumpage from treatment plants +treated
purchased water, mil gal)
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD)
1,424,596
133,155
7,000
40
12,773
585
59
1
0
100
None
100% surface
157
506
520/910
2,258.877
2,356.97
9/NA
178
-------
COUNTY
LINE
1 Park Hills
2 Fort Wright
3 Lake View
4 Fort Mitchell
5 Villa Hills
6 Crescent Springs
7 Lakeside Park
8 Crescent Park
9 Crestview Hills
10 Edgewood
11 Erlanger
12 Eisnere
13 Industrial Park
14 Unincorporated Areas
Figure 49. Kenton County Water District retail service area.
179
-------
COMMISSION
3 Men
GENERAL
MANAGER
oo
o
TREATMENT
PLANT
Operations
Laboratory
Maintenance
DISTRIBUTION
Operations
and
Maintenance
ACCOUNTING &
COLLECTION
Cashier
Billing Clerk
Meter Service
ENGINEERING
Figure 50. Kenton County Water District organizational chart,
-------
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes from the Licking River and is transported a short
distance to a single treatment plant where all raw water is treated. Intake
facilities are located on the bank of the Licking River, approximately 5
miles upstream from the Ohio River, within the pool of the Markland Dam.
Normal pool elevation maintained by the dam provides a water depth of 25 ft
at the intake. The intake structure is a reinforced concrete tower that
houses three electrical vertical turbine pumps—one 3.0-MGD and two 9.0-MGD.
The intake facility is equipped with removable bar screens, motorized intake
grates, traveling water screen, and adequate muck removal equipment.
TREATMENT
The treatment plant is located at the intersection of Grand and Howard
Avenues in the city of Taylor Mill and performs three primary functions:
clarification of raw water; removal of undesirable chemical characteristics
(such as iron and manganese); and reduction of bacterial count. To accom-
plish these requirements, the plant includes facilities for storage and feed-
ing of chlorine, alum, lime, activated carbon, and fluoride into the raw
water. Basically, the plant cycle consists of prechlorination, chemical
mixing, flocculation, clarification, filtration, and post-chlorination at a
rated capacity of 12.0 MGD. There are eight mixed media filters. Figure 51
is a schematic diagram of the treatment facility.
Physical, chemical, and bacteriological characteristics of the raw water
vary greatly on a daily and seasonal basis, depending on numerous factors
such as rainfall, temperature, flow rate, and the character of waste materials
discharged upstream. Daily tests are run on samples of raw water, and the
treatment process is modified as needed for changing conditions. Similarly,
tests are run on the finished water samples to ensure that the objectives of
the treatment process are met at all times.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The distribution system consists of approximately 157 miles of pipe in
the ground. The 24-in. transmission pipe leading from the treatment plant is
rapidly decreased to a 12-in. and then an 8-inch main, which constitutes the
bulk of the transmission system. The distribution system is operated on
three pressure levels or gradients.
The first pressure level is fed from a 5.0 MGD storage tank by gravity
or by the pumping capacity at the treatment plant, which consists of one
3.0-MGD and two 5.0-MGD vertical turbine pumps. The 5.0-MGD ground storage
tank located on the highest ground of the first pressure level is filled
directly from the treatment facility.
The second pressure level, which is the largest and serves most of the
communities in the service area, is supplied by gravity from three elevated
storage tanks or by the capacity of the main booster pump station located at
Dudley Pike. The pump station has three 4.5-MGD vertical turbine pumps that
181
-------
CO
K3
TO ELEV
AND DIS
SYSTEM
TED TANK
RIBUTION
t
W "^*
i
TO DIS"
5,000,000 GAL
GROUND STORAGE
RESERVOIR
"** \
LOW-LEVEL
FRIBUTION SYSTEM
1
V Y ¥
Prepared by: NORTHERN KENTUCKY AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
Figure 51.
Schematic diagram of the water treatment plant and distribution system for Kenton County
Water District No. 1,
-------
operate automatically based on the level existing in the elevated storage
tanks. The pumps operate singly or in parallel, as required. The three
elevated storage tanks have a combined capacity of 2.0 MGD.
The third pressure level is fed by gravity from two elevated storage
tanks or by the two booster stations located on Turkey Foot Road at Lafayette
Avenue. Each of these stations has a 1.0-MGD pump operated automatically off
storage tank levels. The storage tanks have a combined capacity of 1.0 mil
gal. Table 99 defines the storage capability of the Kenton County system.
COST ANALYSIS
The growth in consumer demand for water from 1965 through 1974 is illus-
trated in Figure 52.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 100, 101, and 102. Because a major portion of the operating
budget was expended for labor, Table 103 was developed. The cost/man-hour
increased by 52 percent over the 10-year period, whereas the man-hours re-
quired to produce 1 mil gal RPW decreased 40%. Thus, even though the hourly
rate of pay increased significantly, the actual labor cost for producing 1
mil gal water decreased from $132.99/mil gal to $119.95/mil gal. The operat-
ing cost of production therefore did not increase as rapidly as the labor
cost. In fact, the labor-related portion actually decreased. When it is no
longer possible to gain increased efficiency with respect to manpower, the
payroll cost will increase at least at the same rate as the labor cost.
Table 104 summarizes operating, depreciation, and interest expenses for
the 10-year period of analysis. Table 105 computes capital and operating
expense ratios. The operating expenses are those shown as the totals of the
values in Table 100, the expenses incurred in the normal day-to-day operation
of the system. The capital expenses are the total of periodic expenditures
for major equipment and facilities plus the interest charged on money borrow-
ed for those purposes.
A comparison of operating with capital expenses as a percent of the total
cost shows that in the Kenton County system, more expenses are associated with
operations than with capital. This 10-year trend resulted primarily from
continued increases in the costs of items necessary to operations. Because
only moderate capital costs were incurred during this period, the ratio of
operating to capital expense maintained approximately the same relationship
(70:30) throughout the 10 years studied.
The Kenton County system is relatively old; therefore, the capital de-
preciated was expended when costs were significantly lower than at present.
On the other hand, the operating expense is in current dollars. This ratio
will increase as capital investments are made by the utility. For example,
a major capital expenditure may be required at the treatment facility to meet
increasing demands. Should this occur, the ratio of capital expense to
operating expense will increase significantly.
183
-------
TABLE 99, KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT STORAGE FACILITIES
00
Storage
location
Barrlngton Rd. in
Lookout Heights -
Fort Wright
Dudley Pike
Dudley Pike in Edgewood
Kenton Lands Rd. in
Erlanger
Industrial Park in
Florence
Oblique Street in Florence
Type of
storage
Elevated tank
Ground storage
tank
Elevated tank
Elevated tank
Elevated tank
Elevated tank
Base
elevation
(ft)
910.0
831.0
890.0
896.0
945.5
937.0
Overflow
elevation
(ft)
1,045.0
- 876.0
1,045.0
1,045.0
1,084.0
1,084.0
Capacity
(mil gal)
1.0
5.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
CO
§
eJ
i-l
<
O
Pn
O
w
2
O
10
0
TREATED
RPW
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 197Q 1971 1172 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 52. Kenton County Water District water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
185
-------
TABLE 100. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Engineering
Total support services
Acquisition:
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Power
Maintenance and other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
$52,186
22,811
12,797
87,794
2,360
25,738
26,902
28,271
80,911
3,601
58,166
8,785
70,552
6,667
31,120
19,688
57,475
1966
$44,383
27,147
20,964
92,494
1,482
25,822
28,808
31,396
86,025
3,603
72,084
9,241
84,928
6,601
30,412
21,370
58,384
1967
$48
27
11
87
3,
27
31
34
93
3
81
10
96
6
35
24
66
,153
,309
,877
,339
730
,547
,677
,674
,898
,814
,840
,450
,104
,980
,285
,079
,144
1968
$47,651
32,095
14,224
93,970
1,284
29,848
27,618
36,577
94,043
3,962
86,351
10,959
101,272
5,807
35,528
26,519
67,854
1969
$49,905
37,599
17,886
105,390
2,556
32,806
30,335
41,029
104,170
4,046
91,954
11,625
107,625
3,612
34,915
28,682
67,209
1970
$50,119
41,088
20,372
111,579
2,443
34,321
37,415
43,734
115,470
4,185
107,263
13,145
124,593
3,347
46,394
28,174
77,915
1971
$48,040
61,945
23,747
133,732
2,474
36,955
34,402
43,751
115,108
4,643
122,451
12,890
139,984
4,834
40,464
31,801
77,099
1972
$55,814
66,733
26,120
148,667
10,062
38,082
37,564
46,906
122,552
4,679
130,910
15,685
151,274
4,035
67,246
27,005
98,286
1973
$60,100
72,671
28,037
160,808
2,110
40,017
38,081
44,922
123,020
4,903
134,983
14,784
154,670
4,117
45,358
42,777
92,252
1974
$64,565
80,525
27,738
172,828
924
40,454
49,213
47,743
137,410
4,937
171,595
17,053
193,585
3,979
65,447
40,281
109,707
Total operating cost 299,092 323,313 347,215 358,423 386,950 432,000 468,397 530,841 532,860 614,454
-------
TABLE 101. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT UNIT OPERATING COST ($/mil gal RPW)
OO
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Engineering
Total support services
Acquisition:
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Power
Maintenance and other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total unit operating cost
1965
$45.
20.
11,
77.
2.
22.
23,
24,
71,
3 (
51.
7,
62,
5.
27
17
50
262
86
,04
,25
,15
,07
,62
.64
.84
,10
,16
.12
.72
.00
.86
.35
.30
.51
.82
1966
$36.
22.
17,
75,
1.
21,
23,
25,
70,
2,
58,
7,
69,
5.
24
17
47
263
,14
.11
.07
.32
.21
.03
.46
.56
.05
.93
.70
.53
.16
.38
.76
.40
.54
.28
1967
$34
19
8
63
2
19
22
25
67
2
59
7
69
4
25
17
47
251
.87
.77
.60
.24
.70
.95
.94
.10
.99
.76
.26
.57
.59
.91
.55
.44
.90
.42
1968
$31,
21
9
62
0
19.
18
24
62,
2,
57,
7,
67,
3
23
17.
45
238
.66
.33
.45
.44
.85
.84
.35
.30
.49
.63
.38
.28
.29
.86
.61
.62
.09
.15
1969
$30,
23.
11
64.
1,
20,
18,
25,
64,
2.
56.
7,
66.
2,
21,
17.
41,
238.
.71
.14
.01
.86
.57
.19
.67
,24
.10
.49
,59
.15
.23
.22
.49
,65
.36
.12
1970
$28.41
23.29
11.55
63.25
1.38
19.46
21.21
24.79
65.46
2.37
60.81
7.45
70.63
1.90
26.30
15.97
44.17
244.90
1971
$25.44
32.81
12.58
70.83
1.31
19.57
18.22
23.18
60.97
2.46
64.85
6.83
74 . 14
2.56
21.44
16.84
40.84
248.09
1972
$28.19
33.70
13.19
75.08
5.08
19.23
18.97
23.69
61.89
2.36
66.12
7.92
76.40
2.04
33.96
13.64
49.64
268.10
1973
$27.93
33.76
13.03
74.72
0.98
18.60
17.70
20.87
57.17
2.28
62.72
6.87
71.87
1.91
21.08
19.88
42.87
247.61
1974
$28
35
12
76
0
17
21
21
60
2,
75.
7.
85.
1.
28.
17.
48.
272.
.58
.65
.28
.51
.41
.91
.79
.13
.83
.19
,96
,55
,69
76
97
83
56
00
-------
TABLE 102. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Engineering
Total support services
Acquisition:
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
1 i Chemicals
CO Other
C° Total treatment
Power and pumping
Supervision and labor
Power
Maintenance and other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total
1965
17
7
4
29
0
8,
8,
9.
27.
1,
19,
2,
23.
2.
10.
6,
19.
100,
.45
.63
.28
.36
.78
.61
.99
.45
.05
.20
.45
.94
.59
.23
.41
.58
.22
.00
1966
13
8.
6
28
0.
7
8
9
26
1,
22,
2,
26.
2.
9.
6
18.
100
.73
.40
.48
.61
.46
.99
.91
.71
.61
.11
.30
.86
.27
.04
.41
.61
.06
.00
1967
13
7.
3.
25
1,
7
9
9
27
1
23
3.
27
1
10.
6
19.
100
.87
.87
.42
.16
.07
.93
.12
.99
.04
.10
.57
.01
.68
.95
.16
.93
.04
.00
1968
13,
8.
3.
26.
0,
8.
7.
10.
26.
1,
24.
3.
28,
1,
9,
7,
18.
100
,29
,95
.97
.21
.36
.33
.71
.20
.24
,11
,09
,06
.26
.62
.91
.40
.'93
.00
1969
12.
9.
4.
27.
0.
8.
7.
10,
,90
.72
62
24
,66
,48
.84
.60
26.92
1,
23.
3.
27,
0
9,
7,
17,
100
.05
.76
.00
.81
.93
.02
.42
.37
.00
1970
11.60
9.51
4.72
25.83
0.57
7.94
8.66
10.12
26.72
0.97
24.83
3.04
28.84
0.77
10.75
6.52
18.04
100.00
1971
10.25
13.22
5.07
28.55
0.53
7.89
7.34
9.34
24.57
0.99
26.14
2.75
29.89
1.03
8.64
6.79
16.46
100.00
1972
10.
12.
4.
28.
1.
7.
7.
8,
23.
0.
24
2
28
0
12
5
18
100
.51
,57
.92
.00
.90
,17
.08
.84
.09
.88
.66
.95
.49
.76
.67
.09
.52
.00
1973
11.
13.
5.
30.
0.
7.
7.
8,
23.
0.
25.
2,
29
0
8
8
17
100
28
64
26
.18
,40
,51
,15
.43
.09
.92
.33
.77
.02
.77
.51
.03
.31
.00
1974
10.
13.
4.
28.
0.
6.
8.
7.
22,
0,
27
2
31
0
10
6
17
100
.51
.11
.51
.13
,14
.58
.01
.77
.36
,80
.93
.78
.51
.65
.65
.56
.86
.00
-------
TABLE 103. .KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LABOR COST ANALYSIS
oo
Item
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
Revenue-producing water
(mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal
RPW ($)
Total hours/mil gal RPW
Average cost/man-hour ($)
Estimated.
Item
Operating expenses
Depreciation
Interest*
Total
Total cost/mil gal RPW
1965
151,360
47,000*'
1,138
133.00
41.30
3.22
1965
$299,092
16,339
105,712
421,143
370.07
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
157,208 159,593 171,120 191,812 207,238 223,933 242,152 200,249
48,500 55,450 53,300 46,750 49,900 57,258 57,641 56,480
1,228 1,381 1,505 1,625 1,764 1,888 1,980 2,152
128.01 115.56 113.70 118.03 117.48 118.63 122.29 93.05
39.49 40.15 35.74 28.76 28.28 30.32 29.11 26.24
3.24 2.87 3.18 4.10 4.15 3.91 4.20 3.54
TABLE 104. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
$323,313 $347,215 $358,423 $386,950 $432,000 $468,401 $530,841 $532,860
26,600 32,118 34,676 37,835 47,458 58,907 58,664 67,142
104,497 103,237 101,942 100,612 99,212 96,802 96,322 94,772
454,410 482,570 483,833 525,397 578,670 624,110 685,827 694,774
370.04 349.77 321.48 323.32 328.04 330.57 346.38 322.85
1974
271,302
55,529
2,259
120.09
24.58
4.88
1974
$614,454
110,771
165,492
890,717
394.30
Includes $72,280.00 for interest on bank notes in 1974.
-------
TABLE 105. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item
Operating
expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Total ($)
Operating
as % of
expense
total
Capital expense
as % of total
1965
299,092
122,051
421,143
71.02
28.98
1966
323,313
131,097
454,410
71.15
28.85
1967
347,215
135,355
482,570
71.95
28.05
1968
358,423
125,410
483,833
74.03
25.92
1969
386,950
138,447
525,397
73.65
26.35
1970
432,000
146,670
578,670
74.65
25.35
1971
468,401
155,709
624,110
75.05
24.95
1972
530,841
154,986
685,827
77.40
22.60
1973
532,860
161,914
694,774
76.70
23.30
1974
614,454
276,263
890,717
68.98
31.02
-------
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of costs on a functional basis is only part of the total
picture. Because the purpose of the water utility is to deliver water to a
customer, it is important to present costs as they relate delivery of water
to a demand point within the system. For this reason, the functional cat-
egories, both operating and capital, are reaggregated and assigned to physi-
cal components in the system. This section contains such an analysis of the
water supply system costs.
The locations of the Kenton County facilities are shown in Figure 53.
The booster station (5) is where the Kenton County Water District connects
with the Covington water utility and is considered an emergency water source.
To analyze the cost of water as it moves through acquisition to treatment
to the consumer, it is necessary to identify the capital and operating cost of
each system component. Figure 54 is a schematic diagram of Figure 53 and
shows the operating and capital costs for each of the system's major facili-
ties. A linear assumption allows the unit cost ($/mil gal) to be added as
water moves from one component of the system to another. Total incremental
cost is $157.01 for providing water to pressure zone 3 (see Table 106).
Added to the incremental costs are the distribution, interest, and sup-
port services costs. Distribution is calculated on the assumption that these
unit costs ($/mil gal) are constant throughout the system; therefore, the
total capital and operating cost for distribution is divided by the number of
gallons of RPW in the year under consideration, yielding a figure of $92.91/
mil gal. The same approach is taken for interest and support services. When
these are added, a total cost/mil gal to a given zone results. For example,
the total cost for water delivered to Area 3 is $404.81/mil gal.
Once these calculations are made and various cost zones are established,
the costs versus charges can be examined. Table 107 summarizes the Kenton
County Water Utility quarterly rates. Billed consumption of water for the 10
largest consumers served by the water district is shown in Table 108.
By comparing each user's location with the cost allocation table, it is
possible to identify the actual allocated cost of delivering water to a
specific customer. Figure 55 is a schematic presentation showing that many
of the major users are located at the extreme limits of the system. Kenton
County Water District is, for the most part, recovering the cost of producing
the water. An exception is the City of Florence, which is the largest user.
191
-------
SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY
1 Intake
2 Treatment plant
3 Kyles Lane
4 Dudley Pike
5 Dixie Highway*
6 Lafayette
7 Turkey Foot Road
* Emergency supply station
not used in 1974.
Figure 53. Kenton County Water District facilities
(arrows show general direction of flow).
192
-------
ACQUISITION
TREATMENT
BILLED
2,258,877 mil gal
Treatment
Plant
$102.60
PRESSURE ZONE
PUMPING
5%
PUMPING
PUMPING
65%
30%
Figure 54. Kenton County Water District allocation of capital and operating
costs to water system components ($/mil gal RPW).
193
-------
TABLE 106. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT COST ELEMENTS BY ZONES
Zone
Incremental
cost
($/mil gal)
Distribution
cost
($/mil gal)
Support services Total
Interest cost cost RPW*
($/mil gal) ($/mil gal) ($/mil gal) (mil gal)
Revenue
1 $129,01
2 143.01
3 157.01
Total —-^
$92.91
92.91
92.91
$73.26
73.26
73.26
$81,63
81.63
81.63
$376.81
390.81
404.81
112.94
1,468.28
677.66
2,258.88
$42,556.92
573,818.51
274,323.54
890,698.97
* No flows available.
Based on 5% area 1, 65% area 2, 30% area 3.
-------
TABLE 107. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO, 1 QUARTERLY RATES
Units used Rate
(cu ft) ($/cu ft)
First 800 $0.50*
800-5,000 .40
Over 5,000 ._30
* Minimum is $4.
195
-------
TABLE 108. KENTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 10 MAJOR USERS
Major User
Cit ' of Florence
Kenton Co. Airport Bd.
Grefco, Inc.
Sigaode Corporation
Swedlo
KY Jockey Club
Nat. Ind. Containers
S H Golf Club, Inc.
Cincinnati Rowntowner
Hoi Lday Inn Motel
High or low
Quarter
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Quarter
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
4
2
1
2
3
2
4
2
4
3
1
3
1
Units used
(mil gal)
121.4
104.21
28.4
9.5
17.2
14.9
12.3
7.9
10.3
7.4
9.8
6.5
7.0
5.6
6.7
0.5
5.9
3.1
5.8
4.1
Amount
billed
$35,316.12
31,178.82
8,390.50
3,827.80
6,886.20
5,962.20
4,937.80
3,177.10
4,150.90
2,982.70
3,954.40
2,615.20
2,821.00
2,257.90
2,691.40
186.70
2,371.30
1,258.00
2,353.30
1,642.60
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$290.89
299.18
295.59
401.68
401.07
401.07
401.54
401.80
401.63
401.85
401.66
401.96
401.90
402.10
401.94
413.93
402.05
402.93
402.06
402.49
Cost
zone
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
-------
9
10
City of Florence
Kenton Co. Airport Bd.
Grefco
Signode
Swedlo
KY Jockey Club
Nat. Ind. Containers
SH Golf Club, Inc.
Cincinnati Rowntowner
Holiday Inn Motel
Figure 55. Kenton County Water District major users.
197
-------
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 82
Acquisition 12
Treatment 103
Distribution 124
198
-------
SECTION 13
ORLANDO WATER UTILITY
The City of Orlando in Orange County is located in the central part of
the State of Florida. In 1974, the population of the county was 422,190, and
the City of Orlando was just over 100,000. The projected growth rate of the
Orlando metropolitan area is one of the highest in the nation, but the actual
increase is falling short of the projections. As a mater of fact, county
population decreased slightly between 1974 and 1975. The City of Orlando is
surrounded in part by other incorporated areas, but room exists for growth to
the south, east, and southwest. Table 109 includes system facts.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Orlando Water Utility provides water on a retail basis to all
classes of customers in the city and to a relatively large group of customers
outside the city. All service outside the city limits is on an individual
basis and is billed directly by the utility. No water is sold through master
meters to other utilities.
The utility does not plan to provide water to all citizens in the county.
Its expansion now and in the future will be on a case-by-case basis as deemed
worthwhile to both the consumer and the utility. Figure 56 illustrates the
service area boundaries.
ORGANIZATION
Through the Orlando Utilities, the City of Orlando provides both elec-
tricity and water to the citizens of the city and selected areas surrounding
the city. The Orlando Utilities is managed by a commission reporting
directly to the mayor and city council. An executive vice president and
general manager are responsible for the total utilities operation. Although
two separate services are involved in the organization and some specific
functions are shared between the electric and the water service, other func-
tions are completely independent. Figure 57 depicts the organizational
structure of the Orlando Utilities.
As can be seen, functions such as financial operations, customer re-
lations, and support operations are shared between the two services. The
combined operations of these functions were reviewed with the utility to
estimate the percentage of effort in each department that could be allocated
to water. Twenty percent of the financial operations and 45% of the customer
199
-------
TABLE 109. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item Amount
Population:
SMSA 598,692
County 422,190
Retail service area 188,652
Area of retail service area (sq miles) 90
Recognized customer classes (No. of accounts)
Total metered customers 62,884
Percent metered 100
Purchased water None
Source water 100% ground water
Pipe in system (miles) 958.8
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above sea level datum):
Kirkman 99
Highland 87
Primrose 108
Pine Hills 113
Kuhl 98
Martin 102
Conway 108
Elevation of service area (min/max, ft) 75/120
Revenue-producing water (billed consumption, mil gal) 12,522
Treated water pumpage from plants (mil gal) 14,880
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD) 73/108
200
-------
Orlando Utility wells
Service area boundary
City limits
Figure 56. Orlando Water Utility source water map.
201
-------
COMMISSION
EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT
GENERAL MANAGER
A.SST. GEN. MANAGER;
SYSTEM PLAN
PURCHASING
ASST. SEC. COMM.
ELECTRIC
OPERATIONS
WATER OPERATIONS
MANAGER
FINANCIAL
OPERATIONS
20% WATER
DISTRIBUTION
Engineering
Construction
Meter Shop
PRODUCTION
Maintenance
Operation
Laboratory
CUST. REL. &
SUPPORT OPER.
45% WATER
Cut-on, Cut-off
Meter Readers
Records
Figure 57. Orlando Water Utility organization chart.
202
-------
relations and support operations were allocated to the function of water
supply.
The major part of the water effort is accomplished under the water
operations manager, who is responsible for all functions relating to acquir-
ing, treating, and distributing water.
ACQUISITION
In the past, the Orlando utility obtained raw water from several lakes
located in the city, moved the water through a treatment plant, and distrib-
uted it to the citizens. Because an abundance of high quality water was
found to be available through deep wells reaching into the second aquifer
directly under the city, the utility switched from the surface water to
groundwater. The groundwater requires little treatment, and the wells are
dispersed across the distribution area, so water is transported over short
distances only.
All water is provided from 22 wells in the range of 2,000 ft deep. The
source water is projected to meet the needs of the utility for the next 50
years. To meet the flow requirements, however, additional wells must be
added.
TREATMENT
Because the source water is of high quality, only minimum treatment is
necessary, and this takes place at the well or well fields. The water
brought up from the well goes through an aerator to remove hydrogen sulfide,
which gives the water an undesirable odor. Following aeration, chlorine is
added to disinfect the water. For health purposes, fluoride is also added
to the water. Figure 58 is a diagram of a treatment facility.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The Orlando system contains 958.8 miles of underground pipe. Most of
this pipe is considered to be the distribution system as opposed to the
transmission system. Transmission in the system is greatly reduced because
of the geographical distribution of the well fields. Under normal operating
conditions, the water is transported over relatively short distances. Each
of the well fields is interconnected. The system is capable of functioning
adequately with some of the wells down for maintenance.
The terrain of the service area is relatively flat, with a minimum
elevation of 75 ft and a maximum elevation of 120 ft. At each well field
there is a ground reservoir for storing water and an elevated storage tank
to maintain pressure in the system. There are seven ground storage reser-
voirs and seven elevated storage tanks. All of the elevated storage tanks
are 0.5 mil gal capacity, with the exception of one located at Copeland with
a capacity of 1 mil gal. Total elevated storage capacity is 4 mil gal. Five
ground storage reservoirs hold 2 mil gal each—one located at Highland holds
203
-------
ro
o
WELL
,,
AERATOR pSfe.
mm
/ ELEVATED^,
i TANK
Figure 58. Orlando Water Utility flow diagram.
-------
3.5 mil gal, and one at Martin holds 1 mil gal. The combined ground storage
capacity is 14.5 mil gal. Tables 110 and 111 include information on system
storage.
COST ANALYSIS
The growth in consumer demand for water from 1965 through 1974 is illus-
trated in Figure 59. Revenue-producing water increased from 7,754 mil gal in
1965 to 12,522 mil gal in 1974. These figures reflect the amount of water
billed to consumers during a given year. Treated water shown in the figure
is the amount of water pumped from the wells for use by the city.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 112, 113, and 114. As indicated by the relative increase
shown in support services, a major portion of the operating budget is expend-
ed for labor. Table 115 examines labor costs of operation and maintenance
of the utility.
Table 115 shows total payroll hours required to produce 1 mil gal of RPW
has remained approximately constant; therefore, one of the major influences
in the increased cost of producing water is the increased labor cost.
Table 116 summarizes the operating, depreciation and interest expenses
for the 10-year period of analysis. Table 117 computes capital and operating
expenditure ratios. The operating expenses are those shown as a total of the
values on Table 112—those incurred in the normal day-to-day operation of the
system. The capital expenses are the total expenses for providing major
equipment items and facilities plus the interest charged on money borrowed
for those purposes.
A comparison of the operating and capital expense as a percentage of the
total shows that at present, more expenses are associated with operations
than with capital. At the beginning of the 10-year period, the ratio was
approximately even between operating and capital expenses. Since that time,
increasing costs of operation have changed the ratio-
In 1974, the ratio of 63% operations to 37% capital outlay reflected
major investments made in years before the analysis. Slight increases in
capital expenditures reflected only minor adjustments to the system. During
the same period, a considerable increase occurred in the operating area
because of increased man-hours and increased costs/man-hour. This, along
with other increased operating costs, caused a more rapid increase in the
operation and maintenance area than in the area of capital expense.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of costs on a functional basis is only part of the total
cost picture. Because the purpose of a water supply utility is to deliver
water to a customer, it is important to present costs as they relate water
delivery to a demand point in the system. For this reason, functional cate-
gories, both operating and capital, are reaggregated and assigned to physical
205
-------
TABLE 110. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY ELEVATED WATER STORAGE.
Location
Oakridge
Rugby
Hazel
Copeland
Gore
Hiawassee
Martin*
Total
Ground elevation+ Capacity
(ft) (mil gal)
100.0 0.50
105.2 0.50
95.5 0.50
107.0 1.0
107.2 0.50
123.0 0.50
101.0 0.50
4.0
Overflow elevation
(ft)
245.0
235.6
238.5
238.0
476.2
250.5
255.0
* Owned by
+ Refers to
Martin Company.
mean sea level U.S. Geodetic Survey data.
TABLE 111. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY GROUND STORAGE
RESERVOIRS .
Location
Kirkman
Highland
Primrose
Pine Hills
Kuhl
Martin
Conway
Total
Discharge elevation*
(ft)
99.1
87.0
107.6
112.5
98.4
102.0
108.0
Capacity
(mil gal)
2.0
3.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
14.5
* Refers to mean sea level U.S. Geodetic Survey data.
206
-------
55
50
45
40
3 35
3
o
o 30-
CO
S5
O
M
pq
TREATED
RPW
25
20
15
10
5
0
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 59. Orlando Water Utility water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
207
-------
TABLE 112. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
o
OO
Category
Support services;
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating supervision and engr
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Operating supervision and engr
Chemicals
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating supervision and engr
Raw water power
Finished water power
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total power and pumpimg
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and engineering
Meters
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distr
Total
1965
$208,855
157,884
366,739
2,571
20,103
13,132
7,221
43,027
1,543
29,324
12,062
7,880
4,332
55,141
6,171
29,758
88,663
48,249
31,519
17,330
221,690
39,302
81,190
137,086
90,411
347,989
1,034,586
1966
$217,473
161,708
379,181
2,958
21,595
15,332
7,975
47,860
1,775
26,810
12,957
9,199
4,785
55,526
7,100
25,670
82,914
51,828
36,795
19,141
223,418
43,913
84,132
167,555
110,041
405,641
1,111,656
1967
$266,481
176,254
442,735
6,272
23,188
17,984
8,674
56,118
3,763
35,415
13,912
10,790
5,205
69,085
15,053
38,360
102,894
55,650
43,160
20,819
275,936
60,735
87,581
145,634
97,441
391,391
1,235,265
1968
$326,220
225,385
551,605
6,562
24,463
19,814
11,394
62,233
3,938
37,072
14,678
11,889
6,836
74,412
15,750
35,717
88,542
58,711
47,555
27,345
273,620
80,471
93,058
145,309
125,415
44,253
1,406,123
1969
$344,976
292,054
637,030
6,623
25,203
27,486
13,090
72,402
3,974
35,783
15,122
16,492
7,854
79,225
15,896
38,373
92,259
60,488
65,967
31,417
304,400
91,666
95,398
149,440
147,706
484,210
1,577,267
1970
$416,604
320,545
111,144
848,293
7,162
26,626
33,458
16,102
83,348
4,297
35,132
15,976
20,075
9,661
85,141
17,189
44,551
122,859
63,902
80,300
38,645
367,446
100,459
97,077
190,497
125,186
513,219
1,897,447
1971
$402,293
362,433
116,846
881,572
8,084
29,052
52,536
89,672
4,850
37,744
17,431
31,522
91,547
19,401
112,712
137,383
69,724
126,087
465,307
111,869
103,761
185,843
229,650
631,123
2,159,221
1972
$357,009
376,510
125,150
858,669
10,482
31,717
57,131
99,330
6,289
42,690
19,030
34,279
102,288
25,158
139,509
170,511
76,120
137,114
548,412
7,078
108,352
256,950
161,779
534,159
2,142,858
1973
$445,506
421,139
135,053
1,001,698
14,483
56,447
48,255
119,185
8,690
44,209
33,868
28,953
115,720
34,758
149,597
182,841
135,472
115,813
618,481
61,105
122,551
297,280
265,150
746,086
2,601,170
1974
$538,277
496,316
161,002
1,195,595
15,445
58,063
49,170
122,679
9,267
41,738
34,838
29,502
115,345
37,069
208,096
248,160
139,351
118,009
750,691
102,561
153,531
302,723
347,857
906,672
3,090,976
-------
K3
o
TABLE 113.
Category
Support Services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating, supervision and engineering
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Operating, supervision and engineering
Chemicals
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping
Operating, supervision and engineering
Raw water power
Finished water power
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution
Supervision and engineering
Meters
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
Total
1965
$26.94
20.36
47.30
0.33
2.59
1.69
0.93
5.55
0.20
3.78
1.56
1.02
0.56
7.11
0.80
3.84
11.43
6.22
4.06
2.23
28.59
5.07
10.47
17.68
11.66
44.88
133.43
ORLANDO WATER UTILITY UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil
1966
$30.15
22.42
52.56
0.41
2.99
2.13
1.11
6.63
0.25
3.72
1.80
1.28
0.66
7.70
0.98
3.56
11.49
7.18
5.10
2.65
30.97
6.09
11.66
23.23
15.25
56.23
154.10
1967
$29.63
19.59
49.22
0.70
2.58
2.00
0.96
6.24
0.42
3.94
1.55
1.20
0.58
7.68
1.67
4.26
11.44
6.19
4.80
2.31
30.68
6.75
9.74
16.19
10.83
43.51
137.33
1968
$33.88
23.40
57.28
0.68
2.54
2.06
1.18
6.46
0.41
3.85
1.52
1.23
0.71
7.73
1.64
3.71
9.19
6.10
4.94
2.84
28.41
8.36
9.66
15.09
13.02
46.13
146.01
1969
$40.05
33.91
73.96
0.77
2.93
3.19
1.52
8.41
0.46
4.15
1.76
1.91
0.91
9.20
1.85
4.46
10.71
7.02
7.66
3.65
35.34
10.64
11.08
17.35
17.15
56.22
183.13
1970
$43
33
11
88
0
2
3
1
8
0
3
1
2
1
8
1
4
12
6
8
4
38
10
10
19
13
53
198
.52
.48
.61
.59
.75
.78
.49
.68
.70
.45
.67
.67
.10
.01
.89
.80
.65
.83
.67
.39
.04
.38
.49
.14
.90
.07
.60
.17
gal
RPW)
1971
$37
33
10
82
0
2
4
-
8
0
3
1
2
-
8
1
10
12
6
11
-
43
10
9
17
21
59
202
.66
.93
.94
.53
.76
.72
.92
—
.39
.45
.53
.63
.95
—
.57
.82
.55
.86
.53
.80
—
.56
.47
.71
.40
.50
.08
.14
1972
$31
33
11
75
0
2
5
-
8
0
3
1
3
-
8
2
12
14
6
12
-
48
0
9
22
14
46
188
.38
.09
.00
.47
.92
.79
.02
—
.73
.55
.75
.67
.01
—
.99
.21
.26
.99
.69
.05
—
.20
.62
.52
.58
.22
.95
.33
1973
$38.37
36.27
11.63
86.28
1.25
4.86
4.16
10.27
0.75
3.81
2.92
2.49
9.97
2.99
12.89
15.75
11.67
9.98
53.27
5.26
10.56
25.61
22.84
64.26
224.05
1974
$42.99
39.64
12.86
95.48
1.23
4.64
3.93
9.80
0.74
3.33
2.78
2.36
9.21
2.96
16.62
19.82
11.13
9.42
59.95
8.19
12.26
24.18
27.78
72.41
246.84
The above figures are not additive. They are obtained by dividing yearly mil gal RPW into the annual costs shown in the preceding table.
-------
TABLE 114. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating, supervision and engineering
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment
Operating, supervision and engineering
Chemicals
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping
Operating, supervision and engineering
Raw water power
Finished water power
Other operating
Maintenance
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution
Supervision and engineering
Meters
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
20.19
15.26
35.45
0.25
1.94
1.27
0.70
4.16
0.15
2.83
1.17
0.76
0.42
5.33
0.60
2 . 88
8.56
4.66
3.05
1.68
21.43
3.80
7.85
13.24
8.74
33.63
1966
19
14
-
34
0
1
1
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
4
0
2
7
4
3
1
20
3
7
15
9
36
.56
.55
—
.11
.27
.94
.38
.72
.31
.16
.41
.17
.83
.43
.99
.64
.31
.46
.66
.31
.72
.10
.95
.57
.07
.90
.49
1967
21
14
-
35
0
1
1
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
5
1
3
8
4
3
1
22
4
7
11
7
31
.57
.27
—
.84
.51
.88
.46
.70
.54
.30
.87
.13
.87
.42
.59
.22
.11
.33
,51
.49
.69
.35
.92
.09
.79
.89
.68
1968
23
16
-
39
0
1
1
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
5
1
2
6
4
3
1
19
5
6
10
8
31
.20
.03
—
.23
.47
.74
.41
.81
.43
.28-
.64
.04
.85
.49
.29
.12
.54
.30
.18
.38
.94
.46
.72
.62
.92
.59
1969
21
18
-
40
0
1
1
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
5
1
2
5
3
4
1
19
5
6
9
9
30
.87
.52
—
.39
.42
.60
.74
.83
.59
.25
.27
.96
.05
.50
.03
.01
.43
.85
.83
.18
.99
.30
.81
.05
.47
.36
.69
1970
21,
16,
5,
44
0.
1
1,
0
4,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0.
4
0
2
6
3
4,
2,
19
5
5
10
6
27
.96
.89
.86
.71
.38
.40
.76
.85
.39
.23
.85
.84
.06
.51
.49
.90
.35
.47
.37
.23
.04
.36
.29
.12
.04
.60
.05
1971
18.
16.
5.
40.
0.
1.
2.
—
4.
0.
1.
0.
1.
—
4.
0.
5.
6.
3.
5.
—
21.
5.
4.
8.
10.
29.
63
79
41
83
37
35
43
-
15
22
75
81
46
-
24
90
22
36
23
84
,-
55
18
81
61
64
23
1972
16.66
17.57
5.84
40.07
0.49
1.48
2.67
4.64
0.29
1.99
0.89
1.60
4.77
1:17
6.51
7.96
3.55
6.40
25.59
0.33
5.06
11.99
7.55
24.93
1973
17.
16.
5.
38.
0.
2.
1.
—
4.
0.
1.
1.
1.
—
4.
1.
5.
7.
5.
4.
—
23.
2.
4.
11.
10.
28.
13
19
19
51
56
17
86
-
59
33
70
30
11
-
44
34
75
03
21
45
-
78
35
71
43
19
68
1974
17.
16.
5.
38.
0.
1.
1.
—
3.
0.
1.
I.
0.
—
3.
1.
6.
8.
4.
3.
—
24.
3.
4.
9.
11.
29.
41
06
21
68
50
88
59
-
97
30
35
13
95
-
73
20
73
03
51
82
.-
29
32
97
79
25
33
Total
100.00
100.00 100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-------
TABLE 115. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal RPW ($)
Total hours/mil gal RPW
Average cost/man-hour ($)
1965
535,664*
299,722
7,754
69.08
38.65
1.78
1966
549,753
304,166
7,214
76.20
42.16
1.80
1967
547,621*
301,338
8,995
60.88
33.50
1.81
1968
600,879*
318,890
9,630
62.39
33.11
1.88
1969
705,551*
348,404
8,613
81.91
40.45
2.02
1970
779,012
373,677
9,575
81.35
39.02
2.08
1971
846,319
381,525
10,682
79.22
35.71
2.21
1972
1,214,955
420,211
11,378
106.78
36.93
2.89
1973
1,464,267
467,462
11,610
126.12
40.26
3.13
1974
1,571,133
463,881
12,522
125.46
37.04 •
3.38
Figures include overtime estimates.
TABLE 116. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Item
Operating expense
Depreciation
Interest
Total
Total cost/mil gal RPW
1965
$1,034,
548,
475,
2,058,
586
523
513
622
265.49
1966
$1,111,656
561,531
447,280
2,120,467
293.94
1967
$1,235,265
585,199
409,968
2,230,432
247.96
1968
$1,406,123
630,875
407,447
2,444,445
253.83
1969
$1,577,267
680,239
396,729
2,264,235
308.18
1970
$1,897,448
589,399
393,518
2,880,365
300.82
1971
$2,159,220
633,827
617,578
3,410,625
319.28
1972
$2,142,858
683,298
923,338
3,749,494
329.53
1973
$2,601,170
737,358
926,271
4,265,799
367.44
1974
$3,090,976
773,868
1,065,954
4,930,798
393.77
Calculated as 20% of total interest cost, including amortization, adjustments, and other interest costs.
-------
TABLE 117. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
Item
Operating expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Total ($)
Operating expense as % of total
Capital expense as % of total
1965
1,034,586
1,024,036
2,058,622
50.26
49.74
1966
1,111,656
1,008,311
2,120,467
52.43
47.57
1967
1,235,265
995,167
2,230,432
55.38
44.62
1968
1,400,123
1,038,322
2,444,445
57.52
42.48
1969
1,577,267
1,076,968
2,654,235
59.42
40.58
1970
1,897,448
982,917
2,880,365
65.88
34.12
1971
2,159,220
1,251,405
3,410,625
63.31
36.69
1972
2,142,858
1,606,627
3,749,494
57.15
42.85
1973
2,601,170
1,664,629
4,265,799
60.98
39.02
1974
3,090,
1,839,
4,930,
62
37
976
822
798
.69
.31
-------
components in the water delivery system. This section contains such an
analysis of the water supply system costs.
Locations of the Orlando Water Utility facilities are shown in Figure 60.
The dots represent the well fields along with the treatment and storage
facilities. As shown, the Orlando Utility's system is simple and laid out so
that no booster stations are required. Elevation of the storage facilities
is shown in Table 110.
To analyze the cost of water as it moves through acquisition to treatment
to the consumer, it is necessary to identify the capital and operating costs
for each system component. Figure 61 is a schematic diagram of the functions
of the Orlando utility and shows the operating and capital costs for each
function. Each of the well fields is operated similarly. Low service pumping
removes the water from the wells and moves it through the aeration and chlori-
nation and into the ground reservoir storage. High service pumping moves the
water into elevated storage and into the distribution system. Because the
function of each well field is similar, the flow chart is representative of
all well fields in the system.
The incremental cost of providing water to the distribution system is
$101.35/mil gal. Added to the incremental cost are those for distribution,
interest, and support services, as follows:
Costs:
Incremental cost ($/mil gal) $101.35
Distribution cost ($/mil gal) 96.63
Interest ($/mil gal) 85.12
Support services cost ($/mil gal) 110.31
Total ($/mil gal) 393.41
Metered consumption (mil gal) , 12,522.1
Revenue ($) 4,926,319.36
Distribution cost is calculated on the assumption that these unit costs are
constant throughout the system. The total capital and operating cost for^the
distribution system is therefore divided by the number of gallons of RPW in
the year under consideration, yielding a figure of $96.63/mil gal. The same
approach is taken for interest and support services. When these costs are
added, the total cost is $393.41/mil gal. This value multiplied by the
annual metered consumption produces the total cost of water production for
the year. Table 118 gives the current water rates.
Revenue-producing water for the 10 largest consumers served by the
Orlando utility is shown in Table 119.
Locations of the major users in order of their consumption are shown in
Figure 62. Because the water sources are well distributed, the cost of de-
livering water to each user is approximately the same.
213
-------
Orlando Utility water plants
Figure 60. Orlando Water Utility flow map,
214
-------
Acquisition
Low
Service
Pumping
Treatment
Low
Service
Pumping
Distribution
(2) Chlorine
Aeration
(1) Includes power and depreciation + $15/mil gal unidentifiable O&M
expenses.
(2) Includes chemical and depreciation = $9.09/mil gal unidentifiable
O&M expenses.
(3) Includes power and depreciation + $15/mil gal unidentifiable O&M
expenses.
Figure 61. Orlando Water Utility allocation of capital and operating
expenses to water system components ($/mil gal RPW).
215
-------
TABLE 118. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY WATER RATES,
Blocks
Inside city:
0-1
0-4
5-10
11-50
2 - 100
51-100
101 +
Outside city:
0-1
0-4
5-10
11 - 50
2 - 100
51 - 100
101 +
January
1, 1974
$2.60
.33
.32
.29
.21
3.57
.45
.44
.39
.38
January
1, 1975
$2.67
.35
.35
.35
.25
3.67
.48
.48
.48
.34
July 1,
1975
$1.85
.41
~ ^
.31
2.54
.56
.42
216
-------
TABLE 119. ORLANDO WATER UTILITY RPW OF 10 MAJOR USERS
Major user
Navy
Martin
Coca Cola
Habitat
Florida
Hospital
American
Bakeries
Frito Lay
Royal Crown
Orange
Memorial
Sheraton
Olympic
High
or low
date
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Date
Oct 74
Mar 75
Jan 75
Jun 75
Jun 75
Jan 75
Apr 75
Oct 74
Nov 74
Sep 75
Jun 75
Jan 75
Aug 75
Oct 75
Oct 74
Apr 75
Oct 74
Dec 74
Aug 75
Feb 75
Units
used
(mil gal)
49.6
37.6
38.1
28.5
7.1
3.0
2.1
0.4
5.0
2.5
5.9
4.1
9.0
5.7
8.9
3.6
6.7
4.1
6.8
0.7
Unit charge ($/MG)
Amount
billed
$10,432.46
9,409.27
3,816.80
2,860.00
1,785.27
772.02
540.02
95.84
1,068.56
776.21
1,491.02
1,041.53
2,788.11
1,765.11
1,879.58
906.27
1,411.49
862.13
2,879.96
237.09
With
tax
$107.41
66.88
54.00
9.58
78.74
67.05
408.48
331.51
147.52
106.60
255.59
205.40
92.46
70.49
Without
tax
$210.21
250.30
100.21*
100.28*
251.16*
253.70*
255.33
236.06
212.10
314.67
251.90*
252.73*
311.28*
312.02*
211.19
253.15
211.59*
212.86*
422.34
364.19
Cost
zone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
* Rate increases occurred January 1, 1975 and July 1, 1975.
-------
1 USN Training Center
2 Martin Company
3 Coca Cola Company
4 Habitat Apartments
5 Florida Hospital
6 Park Plaza Hotal
7 Frito Lay, Inc.
8 Royal Crown Cola
9 Orange Memorial Hospital
10 Sheraton Olympic Hotel
Figure 62. Orlando Water Utility major users,
218
-------
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 110
Acquisition 42
Treatment 22
Distribution 135
Interest • 85
Total 394
219
-------
SECTION 14
ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY
The Elizabethtown Water Company provides treated water to areas in five
counties of New Jersey, with a combined population of 1.8 million—Union,
Middlesex, Summerset, Mercer, and Hunterdon. The retail service area of the
Elizabethtown Water Company includes a relatively stable population of 507,836
as of 1974. The amount of water consumed increased by 30% over the 10-year
period of the study, primarily as a result of integrating smaller utilities.
As an investor-owned utility, the Elizabethtown Water Company has some
different characteristics from the majority of utilities studied; for example,
unlike publicly owned utilities, an investor-owned utility incurs liability
for real estate taxes. Tables 120 and 121 show some basic system facts.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Elizabethtown Water Company provides water on a wholesale and retail
basis to all classes of customers within the service area (Figure 63). The
service area includes irregularly shaped portions of the five counties listed
above. In addition, treated water is sold on a wholesale basis to York,
Elizabeth, and other cities, and to other water companies such as Common-
wealth Water Company and Middlesex Water Company. Service to these large
customers is provided through master meters.
Limited amounts of treated water are purchased from other utilities,
primarily the Newark Utility, located at the northeast end of the company's
operating area.
ORGANIZATION
The Elizabethtown Water Company is controlled by a board of directors
headed by a chairman to whom the president of the company reports. As shown
in Figure 64, the president has four organizational areas reporting to him—
operations, controller, business, and legal. The largest area, operations,
includes engineering, planning, and the physical operations and maintenance
of the entire utility. The controller's area is responsible for all finan-
cial documentation and accounting of the activities as well as meter reading,
billing, and collecting. The business area handles purchasing, contracting,
and personnel records.
220
-------
TABLE 120. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item
Amount
N.A.
1,800,000
507,836
440
Population:
SMSA
County (Union, Middlesex, Summerset,
Mercer, Hunterdon)
Retail service area
Area of retail service area (sq miles)
Recognized customer classes (no. of meters by meter size
shown in Table 121)
Percent metered
Purchased water (mil gal)
Treated
Raw
Source water:
Surface (%)
Wells (%)
Pipe in system (miles)
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above mean sea level):
Somerville
Raritan-Millstone
Pottersville
Stony Brook
Harrison Station
Elevation of service area (min-max ft)
Revenue producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (pumpage from treatment plants + treated
purchased water, mil gal)
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD)
100
95
32,597
77
23
1,790
60
40
460
98
65
0 - 560
38,235
43,886
157/226
221
-------
TABLE 121. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY NUMBER OF METERS BY METER SIZE
Meter size (in.)
5/8
3/4
1
ih
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
16
20
No. of meters
117,007
3,621
2,521
1,073
1,204
338
465
708
201
25
4
1
1
222
-------
fO
N3
2. Subsidiary retail sales
(except Mt. Holly) __
Became part of. the
Elizabethtown Water Co.
retail service area:
2A - April 1, 1973 /- NJ
2B - December 31, 1973
3. Wholesale
*—^^^
Figure 63. Elizabethtown Water Company service area map.
-------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE & CHAIRMAN OF BOARD
PRESIDENT
Senior V.P.
Operation
V.P. Operations
1
1
P. and
troller
V.P.
Business
Legal
Engineering
Plants and Supply
Transmission/
Distribution
Planning and
Operation Service
Accounting
Commercial
Personnel
Purchasing
Figure 64. Elizabethtown Water Company organizational chart,
-------
ACQUISITION
Raw water comes from both surface and ground sources—approximately 77%
surface and 23% ground. Payments made to the State of New Jersey for surface
water are designed to cover the proportional share of the cost for operating
and financing the Spruce Run and Round River reservoirs, which are the pri-
mary sources of water. The company has grants to obtain 70 MGD from the
Raritan River Basin, with an option to go up to 110 MGD to meet peaks in
demand. Other grants permit withdrawal of 28 MGD from the Delaware River via
the Delaware and Raritan Canal and nearly three MGD from the Raritan River.
In addition to this surface water, the company obtains another 40 MGD from
wells located at various points throughout the service area. The surface
water is processed through four treatment plants that purify the water and
deliver it to the distribution system. Additional water is added in the
distribution system from well fields located at various points within the
distribution system. The well water is chlorinated and moved directly into
the distribution system along with the water from the treatment facilities.
TREATMENT
Raw surface water is treated at four facilities: Harrison Street
Station, Raritan Millstone Filter Plant (Figure 65), Somerville Filter Plant,
and Potterville Plant. At one time, these facilities were part of independent
utility systems that were brought together to form the Elizabethtown Water
Company. The facilities were constructed at different times and provide water
to different zones of the service area. Each facility has an intake at a
river or canal that flows by or near the filter plant. The plants are similar
in operation and have coagulation basins for sedimentation and flocculation.
At times, taste and odor problems have occurred as a result of winter
thaws followed by heavy rainstorms. In such situations, the run-off into the
watershed contains road tars, oil, salt, fertilizer, etc. These instances
are predictable, and the facility treatment process is capable of making the
water supply entirely safe to drink despite its potability. There are times,
however, when such water has a medical or chemical taste or odor. This is a
recurring problem, and some progress has been made in overcoming it. The
technology of the industry has not reached the state where taste and odor
problems can be completely eliminated.
The main treatment plant, Raritan Millstone, has a capacity of 160 MGD.
The other three plants are significantly smaller, with the Somerville filter
plant having a capacity of 8.0 MGD, Stoneybrook plant, 6.0 MGD, and Potter-
ville plant, 0.5 MGD. This gives a combined surface water treatment capa-
bility of 174.5 MGD.
Chlorination is accomplished at all well sites, and one well site where
there are eight wells operates a 2.0 MGD treatment facility for iron removal.
225
-------
N>
t-0
To 0
WASH WAIEB TAMK
...
" UlGM lit T Pu«PS El! CTfllC*
LifTPUMP STATION
TRAVELING Scmsus
Pot ASS IUM
SODA
4cTIVATED CARBON
LIQUID Aiuu
PUMPS
Diesu xuo
Figure 65. Ellzabethtown Water Company, Rarltan-Millstone Plant.
-------
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The transmission and distribution system is relatively complex. Thirty-
nine well fields consisting of approximately 100 wells each inject water into
the system at various points. In addition, 30 booster stations operate one
to six pumps each. Also intermixed in the distribution system are seven
storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 14.2 mil gal, one clear well
with a 0.1-mil gal capacity, 17 storage tanks with a combined capacity of
38.9 mil gal, and seven standpipes with a combined capacity of 4.1 mil gal.
Table 122 provides information on the system's storage.
The transmission and distribution system consists of approximately
1,790 miles of underground pipe ranging from 60 in. in diameter at the main
treatment facility to the 2-in. pipe used in portions of the system. Trans-
mission of large amounts of water throughout the entire system is somewhat
reduced by the location of the wells.
COST ANALYSIS
Growth in consumer demand for water from 1964 through 1974 is shown in
Figure 66.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 123, 124, and 125. As indicated by the relative increase in
the support services category, a major portion of the operating budget was
expended for labor. Table 126 examines labor costs of operations and main-
tenance activities related to producing water. As shown, the cost/man-hour
increased by 73%, whereas the total payroll hours required to produce 1 mil
gal of RPW decreased by 10%. This means that the operating costs for pro-
ducing water did not increace as rapidly as the labor costs/man-hour. When
it is no longer possible to gain increasing efficiency with respect to man-
power, the payroll cost will start to increase at least at the same rate as
labor cost.
Table 127 summarizes the operating, depreciation, and interest expenses
for the 10-year period. Table 128 computes the capital and operating
expenditure ratios. Operating expenses are shown as a total of the values
in Table 123, which represent expenses incurred in the norman day-to-day
operation of the system. The capital expenses are the total of periodic
expenditures to provide major equipment and facilities plus the interest
charged on money borrowed for these purposes.
A comparison of the operating and capital expenses as a percent of total
(Table 127) shows more expenses associated with operations than with capital.
Over the 10-year period, the trend remained in favor of operation; however,
the ratio has shifted somewhat toward capital. In 1965, the ratio was
approximately 76% operating expense to 24% capital expense. In 1974, the
ratio had changed to the point that only 69% was expended for operations,
and 31% was expended for capital.
227
-------
TABLE 122. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY STORAGE FACILITIES
Ground Overflow Capacity
Type of storage elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) (mil gal)
Storage reservoirs:
Netherwood 120 133 0.5
Netherwood 120 133 1.0
Jerusalem 243 264 9.4
Springfield 106 116 1.0
Hummocks 61 71 1.0
Stony Brook 0.3
Harrison St. 1.0
Collecting reservoir:
Pottersville 488 6.5
Clear well:
Pottersville 0.1
Tanks:
Oak Tree
Oak Tree
Johnson Drive
Johnson Drive
Michigan Ave.
Coles Ave .
Jerusalem
Warren Twp .
Hi Thor
Hummocks
Montgomery
Mtnside
John St.
Terhune
Salzman
Oak Tree
Hummocks
Standpipes :
Drakes Corner
Raritan
Bridgewater
Branchburg
Washington Valley
Oak Tree
Drakes Corner
156
156
239
487
171
515
265
575
540
72
153
545
200
222
311
160
40
397
56
168
223
635
156
397
216
216
264
579
276
560
365
639
645
283
273
633
319
319
400
216
95
437
206
264
319
711
252
437
10.0
10.0
0.8
0.5
2.0
0.2
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.6
0-6
0.1
5.0
5.0
0.1
0.6
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.1
228
-------
a
o
pj
I
is
o
H
»J
l-q
M
M
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
i
0
TREATED
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 66. Elizabeth!:own Water Company water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
229
-------
TABLE 123. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Total support services
Acquisition :
Operating
Purchased water
Maintenance
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Operating
Chemicals
Maintenance
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating
Fuel and power
Maintenance
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating
Maintenance
Total transmission and distr.
Total
1965
$820,203
371,476
1,191,679
8,483
447,048
29,332
484,863
109,723
294,027
43,852
447,602
236,619
667,728
59,833
964,180
388,579
230,458
619,037
3,707,361
1966
939,772
365,564
1,305,336
7,407
704,860
35,971
748,238
110,123
389,575
64,879
564,577
234,696
784,544
60,217
1,079,447
444,813
198,974
643,787
4,341,385
1967
$990,793
401,178
1,391,971
7,680
928,782
42,918
979,380
129,198
258,805
24,466
412,469
264,624
723,653
54,292
1,042,569
495,101
207,403
702,504
4,528,893
1968
$1,050,742
448,651
1,449,393
10,479
958,190
79,631
1,048,300
110,497
354,328
53,681
518,506
287,392
756,166
60,843
1,104,401
599,825
212,965
812,790
4,983,390
1969
$1,275,119
491,310
1,766,429
6,658
1,026,094
60,033
1,092,785
108,164
400,771
70,295
579,230
286,089
820,809
54,476
1,161,374
665,548
213,672
879,220
5,479,038
1970
$1,509,030
598,985
2,108,015
7,046
1,085,668
82,502
1,175,216
118,694
380,955
93,810
593,459
272,731
797,880
60,905
1,131,516
719,317
198,979
918,296
5,926,502
1971
$1,664,239
612,352
2,276,591
5,139
1,129,825
91,033
1,225,997
145,918
432,830
112,424
691,172
317,638
1,045,675
45,016
1,408,329
801,718
215,457
1,017,175
6,619,264
1972
$1,693,288
658,040
2,351,328
5,134
1,444,576
42,685
1,492,395
189,167
426,643
109,094
724,904
232,290
1,066,204
113,969
1,412,463
739,116
280,459
1,019,575
7,000,665
1973
$1,977,604
699,221
2,676,825
5,278
1,441,516
31,394
1,478,188
177,853
490,264
121,440
789,557
376,934
1,272,486
169,414
1,818,834
745,037
323,877
1,068,914
7,832,318
1974
$2,138,
889,
3,027,
8,
1,442,
50,
1,501,
373,
603,
139,
1,115,
327,
2,198,
184,
2,710,
930,
363,
1,293,
9,649,
306
422
728
329
434
760
523
034
167
305
506
343
957
113
413
208
784
992
162
-------
TABLE 124. ELIZABETHTOWS WATER COMPANY UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil gal RPW)
Category
Support services:
Adminis trat ion
Accounting and collection
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating
Purchased water
Maintenance
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Operating
Chemicals
Maintenance
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Operating
Fuel and power
Maintenance
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating
Maintenance
Total transmission and distribution
Total operating cost
1965
$27.
12.
40.
0.
15.
1.
16.
3.
10.
1.
15,
8.
22.
2.
32.
13.
7.
21.
126.
95
66
61
29
23
00
52
74
02
49
25
06
75
04
85
24
85
09
32
1966
$27.
10.
37.
0.
20.
1.
21.
3.
11.
1.
16.
6.
22.
1.
31.
12.
5.
18.
125.
19
58
77
21
39
04
64
19
27
88
34
79
70
74
23
87
76
63
61
1967
$31
12
43
0
29
1
30
4
8
0
13
8
22
1
32
15
6
22
142
.24
.65
.89
.24
.29
.35
.88
.07
.16
.77
.00
.34
.82
.71
.87
.61
.54
.15
.79
1968
$31.61
13.50
45.11
0.32
28.83
2.40
31.55
3.32
10.66
1.62
15.60
8.65
22.75
1.83
33.23
18.05
6.41
24.46
149.95
1969
$37
14
52
0
30
1
32
3
11
2
17
8
24
1
34
19
6
25
161
.66
.51
.17
.20
.30
.77
.27
.19
.84
.08
.11
.45
.24
.61
.30
.65
.31
.96
.81
1970
$43.85
17.41
61.26
0.20
31.55
2.40
34.15
3.45
11.07
2.73
17.25
7.93
23.19
1.77
32.89
20.90
5.78
26.68
172.23
1971
$47.79
17.59
65.38
0.15
32.45
2.61
35.21
4.19
12.43
3.23
19.85
9.12
30.03
1.29
40.44
23.02
6.19
29.21
190.09
1972
$49.38
19.19
68.57
0.15
42.13
1.24
43.52
5.52
12.44
3.18
21.14
6.77
31.09
3.32
41.18
21.55
8.18
29.73
204.14
1973
$54.07
19.12
73.19
0.14
39.42
0.86
40.42
4.86
13.41
3.32
21.59
10.31
34.79
4.63
49.73
20.37
8.86
29.23
214.16
1974
$55
23
79
0
37
1
39
9
15
3
29
8
57
4
70
24
9.
33,
252.
.92
.26
.18
.22
.73
.33
.28
.76
.78
.64
.18
.56
.51
.82
.89
.33
.51
.84
,37
-------
TABLE 125. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
K!
CO
to
Category
Administration
Accounting and collection
Total support services
Acquisition:
Operating
Purchased water
Maintenance
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Operating
Chemicals
Maintenance
Total treatment
Power and pumping
Operating
Fuel and power
Maintenance
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Operating
Maintenance
Total transmission and distribution
1965
22
10
32
0
12.
0
13
2,
7
1,
12,
6.
18.
1.
26.
10,
6,
16,
.13
.02
.15
.23
.06
.79
.08
.96
.93
.18
.07
.38
,01
.61
,00
.49
.21
.70
1966
21,
8,
30,
0,
16.
0.
17.
2,
8,
1.
13,
5.
18.
1,
24.
10.
4,
14,
.65
.42
.07
.17
.23
.83
.23
.54
.97
.50
.01
.41
.06
.39
,86
.24
.59
.83
1967
21
8
30
0
20
0
21,
2
5
0,
9,
5,
15
1
23,
10,
4,
15
.88
.86
.74
.17
.51
.95
.63
.85
.71
.54
.10
.84
.98
.20
.02
.93
.58
.51
1968
21
9
30
0
19
1
21
2
7
1
10
5
15
1
22
12
4
16
.08
.00
.08
.21
.24
.60
.05
.21
.11
.08
.40
.77
.17
.22
.16
.04
.27
.31
1969
23
.27
8.97
32
0
18
1
19
1
7
1
10
5
14
0
21
12
3
16
.24
.12
.73
.09
.94
.97
.32
.29
.58
.22
.99
.99
.20
.14
.90
.04
1970
25
10
35
0
18
1
19
2
6
1
10
4
13
1
19
12
3
15
.46
.11
.57
.12
.32
.39
.83
.00
.43
.59
.02
.60
.46
.03
.09
.13
.36
.49
1971
25
9
34
0
17
1
18
2
6
I
10
4
15
0
21
12
3
15
.14
.25
.39
.08
.07
.37
.52
.20
.54
.70
.44
.80
.80
.68
.28
.11
.26
.37
1972
24.19
9.40
33.59
0.07
20.64
0.61
21.32
2.70
6.09
1.56
10.35
3.32
15.23
1.63
20.18
10.55
4.01
14.56
1973
25
8
34
0
18
0
18
2
6
1
10
4
16
2
23
9
4
13
.25
.93
.18
.07
.41
.40
.88
.27
.26
.55
.08
.81
.24
.16
.21
.51
.14
.65
1974
22.
9.
31.
0.
14.
0.
15.
3.
6.
1.
11.
3.
22.
1.
28.
9.
3.
13.
16
22
38
09
94
53
56
87
25
44
56
39
79
91
09
64
77
41
Total operating expense
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-------
TABEL 126. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
Revenue-producing water
(mil gal)
Total payroll/mil gal ($)
Total hours/mil gal
Average cost/man-hour ($)
1965
1,587,811
430,560
29,349
54.10
14.67
3.69
1966
1,654,576
501,28
34,565
47.87
14.50
3.30
1967
1,722,878
486,720
31,711
54.33
15.35
3.54
1968
1,846,771
488,800
33,236
58.24
15.41
3.78
1969
2,063,137
465,920
33,862
60.93
13.76
4.43
1970
2,158,699
476,320
34,410
62.73
13.84
4.53
1971
2,421,262
468,000
34,822
69.53
13.44
5.17
1972
2,492,084
461,760
34,291
72.67
13.47
5.40
1973
2,720,899
480,480
36,572
74.40
13.14
5.66
1974
3,206,656
503,360
38,235
83.87
13.16
6.37
Calculated (2080 x average number of employees) .
TABLE 127. ELIZABETHTOHN WATER COMPANY CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Item
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Operating expense
Depreciation
Other:
Interest
$3,707,361 $4,341,385 $4,528,893 $4,983,390 $5,479,038 $5,926,502 $6,619,264 $7,000,665 $7,832,318 $9,649,165
915,402 1,004,132 1,078,670 1,145,037 1,199,771 1,296,594 1,351,526 1,418,022 1,520,845 1,692,842
1,039,159 1,344,648 1,577,222 1,872,357 2,058,123 2,926,501 2,819,429 2,907,539 3,373,375 4,326,732
Taxes 2,646,337 2,658,194 2,323,726 2,558,779 3,561,304 3,391,773 3,210,237 3,030,096 4,616,579 3,935,124
Total capital and operating cost 8,308,259 9,348,359 9,508,511 10,559,563 12,748,236 13,541,370 14,000,456 14,356,322 17,343,117 19,603,863
Total cost/mil gal RPW 283.08 270.45 299.85 317.71 376.48 393.53 402.05 418.66 474.21 512.71
-------
TABLE 128. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
M
u>
-p-
Item
Operating expenses ($)
Taxes
Capital expenses ($)
Total expense ($)
Operating expense as % of total
Capital expense as % of total
1965
6,353,698
(2,646,337)
1,954,561
8,308,259
76.47
23.53
1966
6,999,579
(2,658,194)
2,348,780
9,348,359
74.87
25.13
1967
6,852,619
(2,323,726)
2,655,892
9,508,511
72.07
27.93
1968
7,542,169
(2,558,779)
3,017,394
10,559,563
71.43
28.57
1969
9,040,342
(3,561,304)
3,707,894
12,748,236
70.91
29.09
1970
9,318,275
(3,391,733)
4,223,095
13,541,370
68.81
31.19
1971
9,829,501
(3,210,237)
4,170,955
14,000,456
70.29
29.70
1972
10,030,761
(3,030,096)
4,325,561
14,356,322
69.87
30.13
1973
12,448,897
(4,616,579)
4,894,220
17,343,117
71,78
28.22
1974
13,584,289
(3,935,124)
6,019,574
19,603,863
69.29
30.71
-------
The Elizabethtown system is relatively old; therefore, the capital
depreciated was expended when costs were significantly lower than at present.
On the other hand, the operating expense is in current dollars. This ratio
will change whenever capital investments are made by the utility, and the
change will generally be proportional to the significance of the investment.
For example, if a new treatment facility is added, the ratio of capital to
operating expense will significantly increase because of the impact of the
depreciated capital of the new investment.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of the costs on a functional basis is only part of the total
cost picture. Because the purpose of a water supply utility is to deliver
water to a consumer, it is important to be able to present costs as they
relate water delivery to a demand point within the distribution system. For
this reason, the functional categories, both operating and capital, will be
reaggregated and assigned to physical components in the delivery system.
This section contains such an analysis of the water supply system's cost.
Locations of the Elizabethtown Water Company facilities are shows in
Figure 67. Because the locations of the 39 well fields and the 30 booster
stations make it extremely difficult to identify & specific flow pattern,
no arrows are drawn to show the general flow of water. Careful examination
must be made of the figure to determine the locations of the wells and
booster stations. Booster stations and wells are too numerous to list.
To analyze the Elizabethtown utility on a physical functions basis, it
is necessary to make some basic assumptions. Costs associated with individual
wells and booster stations are generally available from the utility and can
be identified to the level of the function. Also, the water company, in
general terms, operates four independent systems rather than one joint system
with four treatment plants; well fields can be identified as located in the
general distribution area of a specific treatment plant. Booster facilities
and their costs can also be identified in general terms to be associated
with water from specific well fields or from specific treatment plants.
Determining whether water has been boosted once, twice, three times, or
more is extremely difficult, however. For the purpose of this analysis, all
water that has been boosted, regardless of the number of times, is placed in
one category, and all water that has not been boosted except as it was pumped
from the treatment plant or from the wells is considered in another category.
Based on this assumption,, and lumping all costs of boosting into a single
booster category, it is possible to analyze the system.
Figure 68 is a simplified schematic representation of this complicated
system, using the assumption outlined above. By using one of the systems as
an example, the figure is better understood. System Sj is the Raritan Mill-
stone filter plant. The first block shows the cost of the river source as
$59.52/mil gal; moving down to the next block, treatment is shown as $42.07/
mil gal; then $39.44/mil gal is added to pump the treated water from the
treatment facility into the transmission and distribution system. Water
235
-------
ELIZABETHTOWN
WATER COMPANY
SYSTEM MAP
Figure 67. Elizabethtown Water Company system map, July, 1974.
-------
txl
LO
—I
S..T
- Raritan Millstone SW-^WB - Output Area Code A Wells
- Somerville
- Stony Brook
- Pottersville
59.52
42.07
39.44
SW-,
I 59.52 |
42.07
59.52
S2T
s2w
River Source
Treatment
T - Treated water
W - Well water
B - Repumped water
S2 O Pumping 83
S2WB
59.52
42.07
(81.99 J
n rri
b3i
SoW
STB
Figure 68. Elizabethtown Water Company allocation of capital and
operating costs to system components ($/RPW).
-------
from the S]_ system is then distributed to some of the consumers without
further activity. This water, indicated as S]_T, is water that has been
treated, pumped from the treatment plant, and distributed to customers with-
out being boosted.
Another type of water distributed to customers in the same pressure
level will be obtained from wells. The triangle to the right shows that
water coming from wells in that area costs $88.51/mil gal. A portion of the
water from the wells is distributed directly to the customers without further
pumping. This water is identified as S^W. Part of the water supplied by the
treatment plant and the wells passes on through that distribution area and
is boosted by pumps into another pressure zone.
As discussed above, it is impossible to determine the specific flow of
water and therefore the number of times some water is boosted. Therefore,
all costs associated with boosted water in this system are aggregated into
one value, and the costs for boosting water within the system are determined.
As shown, this cost is $63.27/mil gal. A portion of the well water and a
portion of the treated water are boosted, and the water is distributed into
other pressure zones. The water boosted and distributed is indicated by the
symbols S^TB and SjWB. S-]_TB indicates water processed through the treatment
facility, pumped out, boosted and then distributed. S^WB indicates water
from local area wells boosted and distributed.
Table 129 shows the incremental costs of water delivered as described
above. For S^T water, the incremental cost of $141.03/mil gal includes
acquisition from the river source, the treatment process, and the pumping of
the water under pressure from the treatment facility. An additional $63.27/
mil gal must be added for the portion of water boosted and then delivered to
the area; thus, the incremental cost becomes $204.30 and $151.78/mil gal.
Added to the incremental cost are the distribution, interest, and support
services costs. Calculation of the distribution cost is based on the assump-
tion that these unit costs are constant throughout the system. Therefore,
the total capital and operating costs for distribution are divided by the
number of gallons of RPW in the year under consideration, yielding a figure
of $63.33/mil gal. The same approach is taken for interest and support
services. These costs added together yield the total unit cost ($/mil gal)
for each area (Table 129). For example, the water delivered as S^T costs a
total of $401.02/mil gal. The total metered consumption in Table 129 re-
flects the total amount of water for which revenue was charged during the
year of analysis, ami the total cost represents the total amount of capital
and operating money expended in that year. Figure 69 is a sample rate
schedule for general metered service.
Once these calculations are made and the various cost zones are estab-
lished, costs versus charges can be examined. Table 130 shows the charge for
water to the 10 largest customers served by the Elizabethtown Water Company.
By comparing each user's location with the cost allocation table, it is
possible to identify the actual allocated costs of delivering water to a
specific customer.
238
-------
TABLE 129. ELIZABETHTOWN SERVICE AREA COST, CONSUMPTION AND REVENUE BY ZONE
Zone
SlT
S]W
SjTB
SIWB
SWiT
swj[W
SWiTB
SWiWB
S2T
S2W
S2TB
S2WB
S3T
S3W
S3TB
S3WB
Total
Incremental
costs
($/mil gal)
141.03
88.51
204.60
151.78
180.69
133.03
280.31
232.65
164.98
189.02
239.29
263.33
183.58
291.09
915.36
1,022.89
""""""
Distribution
costs
($/mil gal)
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
63.33
— ___
Interest
($/mil gal)
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
113.04
— •— —
Support
services
($/mil gal)
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
83.62
""""""—
Total
cost
($/mil gal)
401.02
348.50
464.59
411.77
440.68
393.02
540.30
492.64
424.97
449.01
499.28
523.32
443.57
551.08
1,175.35
1,282.86
—• — —
RPW
(mil gal)
19,708.20
5,608.46
7,768.10
2,216.60
1,231.27
391.51
82.31
26.13
704.25
6.41
477.93
4.83
24.12
3.97
1.80
0.29
38,256.18
Revenue
7,903,382.36
1,954,548.31
3,608,981.58
912,729.38
542,596.06
153,871.26
44,472.09
12,872.68
299,285.12
2,878.15
238,620.89
2,527.64
10,698.91
2,187.79
2,115.63
372.03
15,692,139.88
-------
ED-I SM-1
RATE SCHEDULE NO.-1
GENERAL METER SERVICE
CONSUMPTION CHARGES
For the first 5,000 Cu.Ft. in ihe Quarter
S7.10ptr M Cu.Ft.
5,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
S5.80 per M Cu.Fl.
For the next
For the next
90,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
$4.82 per M Cu.Ft.
For all in excess of 100,000 Cu.Ft. in ihe Quarter
$4.19 per M Cu.Ft.
Size of Meter
5/8"
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Charpe per Quarter
$ 10.85
16.80
26.35
52.70
68.40
137.25
232.45
412.85
646.80
794.05
1.167.85
Cu.Ft.
Equivalent
1500
2300
3700
7900
10800
25000
44800
82200
135400
170500
259700
Western Division
RATE SCHEDULE NO. P.1X-1
GENERAL METER SERVICE
CONSUMPTION CHARGES:
For the first
5,000 Cu.Fl. In (he Quarter
$6.74 per M Cu.Fl.
For the next 5,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
$5.51 per M Cu.Ft.
For (he next 90,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
$4.58 per M Cu.Fl.
For all in excess of 100,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
$3.98 per M Cu.Fl.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM CHARGES: * r Ft
Size of Meier Charge per Quarter Equivalent
$ 10.30
16.05
25.10
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
50.15
65.10
130.70
221.40
393.60
609.75
744.15
1,091.25
1500
2300
3700
7900
10800
25100
44900
82500
134200
168000
255200
Southern Division
RATE SCHEDULE NO. SD-1
GENERAL METERED SERVICE
WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP — PLAINSBORO TOWNSHIP
CONSUMPTION CHARGES:
For the first 5,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
$6.06 per M Cu.FL
For the neit 5,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
$4.84 per M Cu.Ft.
For the next 90,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
$435 pti M Cu.FL
For all in excess of 100,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
S4.13 per M Cu.FL
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM CHARGES
Cu. Ft.
Size of Meier Charge per Quarter Equivalent
5/8" $ 10.85
3/4" 16.15
1" 25.40
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
50.25
65.55
132.90
224.90
400.45
619.70
756.55
1,109.40
1700
2600
4100
9100
12500
28000
49100
89500
142000
175100
260600
RATE SCHEDULE SDP-1
GENERAL METERED SERVICE
CONSUMPTSON CHARGES:
For the first 5,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
For the next
For the next
For the next
MINIMUM CHARGES:
Size of Meter
S6.06 per M Cu.Fl.
5,000 Cu.FL in the Quarter
$4.84 per M Cu.Ft.
90,000 Cu.Ft. in the Quarter
$4.35 per M Cu.Fl.
100,000 Cu.Fl. in the Quarter
$4.13 per M Cu.Ft.
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
per Quarter
i 8.00
9.30
13.10
30.05
37.50
86.15
1 25.05
234.80
332.65
Cu. Fl.
Equivalent
1300
1500
2100
4900
6400
17200
26200
51400
73WO
Figure 69. Elizabethtown Water Company meter rates.
240
-------
TABLE 130. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
High or low
Major user month
Newark, City
Commonwealth Water Co.
Elizabeth, City
Edison, Township
Middlesex Water Co.
Public Service
Franklin, Township
Bound Brook Water Co.
Exxon
Highland Park, Borough
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Units used
(mil gal)
403.6
160.1
275.9
243.3
226.7
163.3
168.0
124.2
125.0
113.5
124.2
71.3
103.2
67.1
70.5
51.2
78.5
38.8
62.7
48.1
Amount
billed
$73,053
28,972
58,215
51,331
47,842
34,451
35,376
28,534
26,408
24,079
36,960
26,165
21,765
14,151
14,875
10,799
24,246
13,210
13,232
10,342
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$181.00
180.96
211.00
210.98
211.04
210.97
210.57
229.74
211.26
212.15
297.58
366.97
210.90
210.89
210.99
210.92
308.87
340.46
211.04
215.01
Cost
zone
S1TB
S1TB
S1TB
S1T
SjT
S-jTB
S-jT
S^
S-j^TB
S.jT
-------
The Elizabethtown water service area is shown in Figure 70 with the top
10 customers identified. Though it is not possible to identify the specific
zones, it is easy to see that most of the top customers (the cities of Newark
and Elizabeth and several of the water companies) lie outside the normal
distribution area, and for that reason are assumed to receive boosted water.
It should be noted (Table 129) that the lowest total cost for boosted water
is for S]WB, which totals $411.77 (actual cost/mil gal) to deliver to that
point.
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 89
Acquisition 67
Treatment—- • 33
Distribution 144
J.H u GIT G S t ~~ """""""""*————— —"—""•""»»"""•""•• J_Xo
Tavo c ——_———-«—.-«.—«.««,»««. _VM__ "7 f\
J-Ci.AC'O / \J
Total 492
242
-------
ELIZABETHTOWN WATER CO.
MAJOR USERS
Newark
Commonwealth Water Co.
Elizabeth
Edison
Middlesex Water Co.
Public Service
Franklin
Bound Brook Water Co.
Exxon
Highland Park
Figure 70. Location of 10 major users within the Elizabethtown Water Company service area.
-------
SECTION 15
PUEBLO WATER SYSTEM
The Pueblo Water System is a municipal utility providing water to the
citizens of Pueblo, Colorado, and to some adjacent areas, including the
Memorial Airport. The population of the county in 1974 was just over 127,000.
The retail service area, primarily the City of Pueblo, provides water to
108,000 customers. During the past 10 years, the population and the water
demand have remained relatively stable. Some system facts are given in
Table 131.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Pueblo Water System provides water on a retail basis to all classes
of customers within the service area shown in Figure 71. Treated water is
primarily supplied to citizens and industry within the city limits and to
some outlying areas, including the Pueblo Memorial Airport on the east side
of the city. This service area encompasses approximately 56 sq miles.
Growth is anticipated in the future, and it is expected that the service
area will expand somewhat to the east, but primarily to the north and south-
west. By the year 2,000, the service area will more than double its present
size.
ORGANIZATION
Because the system supplies water only, it is not intermingled with any
other service organization. The system is controlled by five members of the
Board of Waterworks, elected by the citizens to serve a 6 year term. This
Board is responsible for long-range plans insuring that the water system is
operated in the most efficient and economical manner possible.
Five division heads report to an executive director who is responsible
for operation of the utility (Figure 72). The Engineering Division is
responsible for determining the equipment and facility requirements and
construction of the facilities. The Treatment and Pumping Division is pri-
marily responsible for the operation and maintenance of treatment facilities
and pumping from the treatment facilities into the system. The Transmission
and Distribution Division is responsible for operation and maintenance re-
lated to moving the water from the treatment facilities to the customers and
for storage within the distribution system. The Finance Division is respon-
sible for maintaining financial records and billing and collecting. The
244
-------
TABLE 131. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item
Amount
Population:
SMSA
County
Retail service area (city)
Area of retail service area (estimated sq miles)
Recognized customer classes (number of accounts)
City resident
County resident
City commercial
County commercial
Flat rate
Church and charity
Percent metered
Purchased water
Source water
Pipe in system (estimated miles)
Elevation of treatment plants
North Ft.
South Ft.
Elevation of service area (min/max ft)
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (mil gal)
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD)
N/A
127,092
108,028
56
27,292
247
1,664
21
2
136
100
None
100% Surface
300
4,695
4,695
4600/5050 (1402/1539)
6,845
9,854
51/82
245
-------
;i >: " 'L.Mij^! "VH-^/ V""-'
>-("(I-,, H • ./."./ • ••"•,
^T', • ,-,
/,, 4--. .\^-; ;/
?Tl
-------
CITIZENS
WATER BOARD
ATTORNEY
-
AUDITOR
CONSULTING ENGINEER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1 • • — — 1
Engineering
Division
Treatment and
Pumping
Division
I 1
Transmission and
Distribution
Division
Finance
Division
Supply and
Main Division
Figure 72. Pueblo Water Utility organizational chart,
-------
Supply and Mains Division is primarily responsible for maintaining the system
that supplies raw water to the utility.
ACQUISITION
Raw water is taken from the Arkansas River. Because Pueblo is located
in an area with a semi-arid climate and at times is subject to water shortage,
the system acted to obtain water rights in excess of that normally provided
by the Arkansas River.
Pueblo's water supply is composed of three types of rights: (1) non-
storable direct flow water from the Arkansas River, (2) storable water divert-
ed from the western slope of the Rocky Mountains into the Arkansas River
Basin, and (3) rights to store eastern slope water in Clear Creek reservoir.
These watershed areas and storage points are located 140 river miles or more
to the west of Pueblo in the Rocky Mountains near Leadville, Colorado.
Pueblo's water rights consist of 34 mil gal of nonstorable water a day
from the Arkansas River, To supplement direct flow rights, the Water Board
purchased transmountain diversion facilities to transport water from the
western slopes of the Rocky Mountains. In 1955, the Board purchased Clear
Creek reservoir, which provides 11,232 acre ft of storage space for Pueblo's
storable transmountain water. In recent years, the Pueblo Water Board
acquired excessive direct flow and transmountain rights for Pueblo's future
development. The largest of these is Pueblo's portion of the Twin Lakes
diversion system, which alone could support enough water for 50,000 people.
From 1967 to 1973, $23 million was spent for water rights to insure Pueblo's
orderly growth and development. The present water supply is capable of sup-
porting 230,000 people plus the water needs of the Comanche Power Station.
TREATMENT
Pueblo has two water treatment plants. The Gardner Plant, located on
the north side of the Arkansas River, produces 25 MGD, and the McCabe plant,
located on the south side of the river directly across from the Gardner plant,
produces 15 MGD, providing a total capacity of 40 MGD of treated water. The
present treatment process of both plants (Figure 73) removes turbidity and
bacteria by sedimentation and flocculation, which depend on gravity aided by
chemicals. Each plant uses dry feed machines, mixers, and chlorinators to
feed the chemicals in the prescribed amounts into the system.
Water enters each plant through an inlet flume from the Arkansas River
to the initial settling basin. Activated carbon is added to the water in the
flume and basin to remove any objectionable taste or odor. Heavier particles
settle to the bottom, and the water moves slowly to the flash mixers at the
beginning of the flocculation tanks. Aluminum sulfate is added and violently
flash-mixed by electrically driven blades. This chemical forms jelly-like
particles (floe) that attract foreign matter. Slow mixers throughout the
tank encourage the formation of floe. As a floe attracts foreign particles,
it becomes heavy and sinks to the bottom of the basin. Copper sulfate is
added at the end of the flocculation tanks to retard the growth of algae.
248
-------
North Side Plant
Gardner
Feed Alum
C12
NHj
abi1i ty
To Intake
Feed
powdered
activated
carbon
Slow Mix
South Side Plant
To Intake
Slow Mixers
•Flash Mixers
Alum
"2
NH3
Lime
NaOH
Chemical
Building
— — -~
McCabe
Pump
Statior
\
Tl
Screens
x —
Post Cl
#4 Reservoir
JNot to Scale)
Figure 73. Pueblo Water Utility water treatment facilities.
249
-------
Chlorine is added to the water to kill any objectionable bacteria, and
at the same time, ammonium sulfate is added to combine with the chlorine and
form chloramine. These compounds reduce the chlorine taste and enable chlo-
rine to stay in the solution longer.
Filtration, the final step in water treatment, was put into operation
during the summer of 1976 at the Northside Treatment Plant. Filtration is
especially critical during periods of high water consumption, when the water
must be treated rapidly. Chemically treated water will pass through sand
filters to guarantee removal of any impurities remaining in the water.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The transmission and distribution system consists of an estimated 300
miles of underground pipe. The distribution system mains vary in size from
2 to 48 in. in diameter. Most of the pipe is cast iron, but wooden stave,
asbestos cement, and steel pipe are also in service. Much of the cast iron
pipe is unlined, which has permitted rapid corrosion of the pipe interior.
In recent years, cast iron pipes lined with asbestos cement and cement mortar
have been used for the smaller mains, and lined steel pipes for the larger
mains. The wooden stave pipes are some of the first installed in the system
and presently are giving adequate service, although tapping into and repairing
the wood pipes have presented some maintenance problems.
Located in Pueblo along the edge of the city are eight clear water reser-
voir areas with a total storage capacity of over 42 mil gal; these help to
balance the water supply and demand. Treated water is pumped into these
reservoirs during periods of slack consumption. When the demand for water is
heavy, the water flows from the reservoirs into the mains supplementing sup-
plies pumped directly into the system from the treatment plants.
In the nine pumping stations, 28 electric motors from 50 to 700 hp are
attached to centrifugal pumps varying in capacity from 1,750 to 10,000
gallons/minute. In addition, at most pumping locations there are large diesel
engines ready to take over the water delivery in the event of a general power
failure.
A 42-in. pipeline under the Arkansas River links the Gardner and McCabe
pumping stations together to allow emergency flexibility. During peak loads,
water can be transferred either north or south, as the need arises.
Additional storage is provided by concrete subsurface and ground tanks,
steel standpipes, and elevated tanks. A description of the storage capability
is given in Table 132.
COST ANALYSIS
The demand for water from 1965 through 1974 is shown in Figure 74.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 133, 134, and 135.
250
-------
TABLE 132. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY STORAGE FACILITIES
Name of facility
Watts Reservoir
J. 0. Jones (4 Tanks)
Belmont (2 Tanks)
Belmont
Watts Elevated
Aberdeen
Lavista
Hellbeck Elevated
Westmoor
Airport
Overflow elevation
(ft)
4903
4919
5008
5065
5029
4915
4987
4975
5150
4650
Capacity
(mil gal)
6
12
6
1
1
1
8
2
6
1
251
-------
10
CO f
a 6
o
3
C5 f-
5
o
c/i
o 4
M
d
M
ffl ^
RPW
0
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 74. Pueblo Water Utility water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
252
-------
TABLE 133. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Category
Support services:
Administration
Accounting and collection
Engineer ing
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Supervision and labor
Water development
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
ho Supervision and labor
<-" Chemicals
<-° Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping :
Supervision and labor
Power and fuel
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distr.
Total operating cost
Equipment rental credit
1965
$146,483
163,585
46,119
356,187
15,019
12,881
27,900
118,852
125,759
38,124
282,735
117,268
163,731
26,877
280,876
183,402
44,025
25,157
252,584
1,200,282
1966
$170,247
149,739
44,539
364,525
6,471
11,403
17,874
124,827
142,178
44,972
311,977
118,902
142,672
25,434
287,008
211,780
36,988
24,974
273,742
1,255,126
1967
$141,821
186,806
45,580
374,207
5,595
5,953
11,548
119,123
150,652
61,264
331,039
128,394
142,054
39,425
309,873
199,061
18,155
48,527
265,743
1,289,201
1968
$170
175
38
49
433
22
11
34
125
135
70
330
131
144
42
318
156
49
58
264
1,381
-
,169
,545
,293
,194
,201
,524
,894
,418
,429
,000
,301
,730
,292
,732
,154
,178
,207
,754
,568
,529
,056
—
1969
$149,303
188,538
45,118
50,753
433,712
15,663
16,894
32,557
130,797
136,337
80,920
348,054
128,192
151,443
44,728
324,363
178,359
55,765
77,750
311,879
1,450,565
52,462
1970
$176,539
214,604
55,187
43,584
490,914
23,855
11,714
35,569
146,756
161,413
76,081
384,250
116,916
151,673
35,626
304,215
186,656
54,618
82,687
323,961
1,538,909
41,002
1971
$155,408
248,000
58,485
89,554
551,447
18,686
29,135
47,821
158,494
165,200
92,711
416,405
115,947
150,485
45,221
311,653
200,128
68,035
81,370
349,533
1,676,859
47,866
1972
$166,159
274,611
73,767
113,986
628,523
24,403
22,367
14,087
60,857
164,001
168,459
77,532
409,992
120,237
159,748
39,660
319,645
248,516
69,071
94,258
411,845
1,830,862
49,250
1973
$204,314
288,007
93,316
85,861
671,498
29,871
32,097
25,455
87,423
188,695
166,166
113,314
468,175
120,605
167,750
45,722
334,007
280,891
89,812
136,938
507,641
2,068,814
79,840
1974
$189,632
322,647
92,677
118,124
723,080
42,935
36,586
123,326
202,847
203,810
216,515
107,880
528,205
113,657
205,127
43,303
362,087
322,787
152,204
161,287
646,278
2,462,497
83,448
Must be deducted to produce operating and maintenance costs used in Tables 138 and 139.
-------
TABLE 134. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY UNIT OPERATING COSTS/($/mil gal RPW)
Category
Administration
Accounting and collect ion
Engineering
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Supervision and labor
Water development
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping:
Supervision and labor
Power and fuel
Other
Total pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission, and distribution
Total unit operating cost
Equipment rental credit
1965
$24.
27.
7.
59.
2.
2.
4.
19.
21.
6.
47.
19.
27.
4.
46.
30.
7.
4.
42.
200.
50
36
71
57
51
15
67
88
03
36
29
51
38
50
98
67
36
21
45
75
1966
$25.
22.
6.
54.
0.
1.
2.
18.
21.
6.
46.
17.
21.
3.
42.
31.
5.
3.
40,
187.
47
41
66
55
97
71
67
68
27
73
68
79
35
81
95
69
53
74
96
81
1967
$21
28
—
7
57
0
—
0
1
18
23
9
51
19
21
6
47
30
2
7
41
198
—
.88
.82
-
.03
.75
.86
-
.92
.78
.38
.24'
.45
.07
.81
.92
.08
.81
.71
.80
.49
.00
.89
-
1968
$28
29
6
8
72
3
—
1
5
21
22
11
55
22
24
7
53
26
8
9
44
231
—
.51
.41
.42
.24
.59
.77
-
.99
.77
.02
.62
.78
.42
.00
.25
.06
.31
.17
.34
.81
.32
.41
-
1969
$24
30
7
8
71
2
—
2
5
21
22
13
57
21
24
7
53
29
9
12
51
237
8
.47
.90
.39
.32
.08
.57
-
.78
.34
.44
.34
.26
.04
.01
.82
.33
.16
.23
.14
.74
.11
.72
.60
1970
$29
35
9
7
80
3
—
1
5
24
26
12
63
19
24
5
49
30
8
13
53
252
6
.00
.41
.06
.16
.64
.92
-
.92
.84
.11
.51
.50
.12
.20
.91
.85
.97
.66
.97
.58
.21
.78
.73
1971
$25
40
9
14
89
3
—
4
7
25
26
15
67
18
24
7
50
32
.33
.42
.53
.59
.87
.05
-
.75
.79
.83
.92
.11
.86
.90
.52
.37
.79
.62
11.09
13
56
273
7
.26
.96
.28
.80
1972
$27
45
12
18
104
4
3
2
10
27
27
12
68
19
26
6
53
41
11
15
86
304
8
.60
.62
.35
.93
.41
.05
.72
.34
.11
.24
.98
.88
.10
.97
.54
.59
.10
.28
.47
.66
.41
.13
.18
1973
$34
47
15
14
111
4
5
4
14
31
27
18
77
20
27
7
55
46
14
22
84
344
13
.02
.95
.54
.30
.80
.97
.34
.24
.56
.42
.67
.87
.95
.08
.93
.61
.62
.77
.95
.80
.52
.46
.29
1974
$27.92
47
13
17
106
6
5
18
29
30
31
15
77
16
30
6
53
48
22
23
95
362
12
.50
.64
.39
.44
.32
.39
.15
.86
.00
.87
.88
.76
.73
.20
.37
.30
.99
.41
.74
.14
.51
.28
Must be deducted to produce operating and maintenance costs used in Tables 138 and 139.
-------
TABLE 135. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY OPERATING COSTS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL
t-0
Ul
Ul
Category
Support services :
Administration
Accounting and collection
Engineering
Other
Total support services
Acquisition:
Supervision and labor
Water development
Other
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Supervision and labor
Chemicals
Other
Total treatment
Power and pumping :
Supervision and labor
Power and fuel
Other
Total pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Supervision and labor
Maintenance
Other
Total transmission and distribution
1965
12.
13.
—
3.
29.
1.
—
1.
2.
9.
10.
3.
23.
9.
13.
2.
23.
15.
3.
2.
21.
20
63
—
84
67
25
—
07
33
90
48
17
56
72
64
24
40
28
67
10
05
1966
1966
13.56
11.93
3.55
29.05
0.52
0.91
1.42
9.95
11.33
3.58
24.85
9.47
11.37
2.03
22.87
16.87
2.94
1.99
21.81
1967
11
14
-
3
29
0
-
0
0
9
11
4
24
9
11
3
24
15
1
3
20
.00
.49
—
.53
.04
.43
—
.46
.89
.24
.68
.75
.68
.96
.02
.06
.04
.44
.41
.77
.61
1968
12.32
12.71
2.77
3.56
31.37
1.63
0.36
2.49
9.08
9.77
5.09
23.95
9.51
10.48
3.05
23.04
11.31
3.60
4.24
19.15
1969
10.29
13.00
3.11
3.50
29.90
1.08
1.17
2.25
9.02
9.40
5.58
23.99
8.84
10.44
3.08
22.36
12.30
3.84
5.36
21.50
1970
11.47
14.01
3.58
2.83
31.90
1.55
0.76
2.31
9.54
10.49
4.95
24.97
7.60
9.85
2.31
19.77
12.13
3.55
5.37
21.05
1971
9.27
14.79
3.49
5.34
32.89
1.12
1.74
2.85
9.45
9.85
5.53
24.83
6.92
8.97
2.70
18.59
11.94
4.06
4.85
20.84
1972
9.08
15.00
4.03
6.22
34.33
1.33
1.22
0.77
3.32
8.96
9.20
4.24
22.39
6.57
8.73
2.17
17.46
13.57
3.77
5.15
28.41
1973
9.88
13.92
4.51
4.15
32.46
1.44
1.55
1.23
4.23
9.12
8.03
5.48
22.63
5.83
8.11
2.21
16.15
13.58
4.34
6.62
24.54
1974
7
13
3
4
29
1
1
5
8
8
8
4
21
4
8
1
14
13,
.70
.10
.76
.80
.36
.74
.49
.01
.24
.28
.79
.38
.45
.62
.33
.76
.70
.51
6.18
6,
.55
26.24
-------
Table 136 examines labor costs. The cost/man-hour increased 54% over
the 10-year period, whereas the total payroll hours required to produce 1 mil
gal of RPW remained approximately constant. During that time, there was some
fluctuation above and below the manpower requirement in 1965, with most of
the fluctuation less than the 1965 requirements. However, in 1974, require-
ments returned to almost the same value. Thus at least a large portion of
the operating cost increased at the same rate as labor cost in a per-man-hour
basis.
Table 137 summarizes the operating, depreciation, and interest expenses
for the 10-year period of analysis. Table 138 computes capital and operating
expense ratios. The operating expenses are those shown as a total of the
values in Table 133, the expenses incurred in the normal day-to-day operations
of the system. The capital expenses are the total periodic expenditures for
major equipment items and facilities plus interest charged on money borrowed
for those purposes.
A comparison of the operating and capital expenses as a percent of total
shows that in the Pueblo Water System, more expenses are associated with
operations than with capital. Over the 10-year period, the trend changed in
the direction of capital. In 1965, 65% of the total expended was for operat-
ing expense, and 35% was for capital. This ratio changed gradually over the
10 years, with an increased portion of the expenses going toward capital.
By 1974, the ratio was 57% for operations and 43% for capital.
The Pueblo Water System's basic equipment, including much of the distri-
bution system and the treatment facilities, is relatively old. During the
last 10 years, however, a sizable capital expenditure has been made for water
rights and also some for facility improvements. Most of the capital expendi-
tures have been associated with water rights that have little effect on the
present operating system but would cause a significant impact on the depre-
ciated capital. These water rights certainly do put the system in a solid
position for future operations. A condition such as this, with increasing
capital costs compounded with increasing operational costs, causes rapid
escalation in total cost for the production of water. This trend can be seen
by examining the total cost/mil gal of RPW (Table 137) . Examination of the
figures for the total 10-year period points up this trend, especially from
1972 through 1974, when the cost of producing water increased rapidly.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of the costs on a functional basis is only part of the toatl
picture. Because the purpose of the water utility is to deliver water to a
customer, it is important to present costs as they relate water delivery to
the demand point within the distribution system. The functional categories,
both operating and capital, are therefore reaggregated and assigned to physi-
cal components in the water delivery system. This section contains such an
analysis of the water supply system cost.
Locations of the Pueblo Water System's facilities are shown in Figure 75-
Unfortunately, data were not available in the utility's records that would
256
-------
TABLE 136, PUEBLO WATER UTILITY LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item
Total payroll ($)
Total hours on payroll
(mil gal)
total payroll/mil gal RPW ($)
Total hours/mil gal RPW
Average cost /man-hour ($)
to
Ul
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
653,721 684,597 666,851 670,876 701,103 759,714 821,138 911,971 1,037,755 1,139,840
257,920 257,920 257,920 255,840 260,000 237,120 245,440 260,000 282, «80 293,280
5,979 6,683 6,482 5,968 6,102 6,088 6,136 6,020 6,006 6,793
109.34 102.44 102.88 112.41 114.90 124.79 133.82 151.49 172.79 167.80
43.14 38.59 39.79 42.87 42.61 38.95 40.00 43.19 47.10 ' 43.17
2.53 2.65 2.59 2.62 2.70 3.20 3.35 3.51 3.67 3.89
Item 1965
Operating expense ($)
Depreciation ($)
Interest
Total cost
Total unit cost/($/mil gal RPW) 306.85
TABLE 137. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1,200,282 1,255,126 1,289,201 1,381,056 1,398,103 1,497,907 1,628,993 1,781,612 1,988,974 2,379,049
356,407 382,861 463,505 507,538 557,091 568,425 585,038 620,704 657,430 692,620
277,956 264,575 249,671 235,081 228,919 248,540 270,053 318,430 801,726 1,115,858
1,834,645 1,902,562 2,002,377 2,123,675 2,184,113 2,314,872 2,484,084 2,270,746 3,448,130 4,187,527
284.69
308.91
355.84
357.93
380.24
404.84
451.95
574.11
616.45
-------
TABLE 138. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
to
Ul
00
Item
Operating expense ($)
Capital expense ($)
Total ($)
Operating expense as % of total
Capital expense as % of total
1965
1,200,282
634,363
1,834,645
65.42
34.58
1966
1,255,126
647,436
1,902,562
65.97
34.03
1967
1,289,201
713,176
2,002,377
64.38
35.62
1968
1,381,056
742,619
2,123,675
65.03
34.97
1969
1,398,103
786,010
2,184,113
64.01
35.99
1970
1,497,907
816,965
2,314,872
64.71
35.29
1971
1,628,993
855,091
2,484,084
65.57
34.43
1972
1,781,612
939,134
2,720,746
65.48
34.52
1973
1,988,974
1,459,156
3,448,130
57.68
42.32
1974
2,379,049
1,808,478
4,187,527
56.81
43.19
-------
K3
Ul
oo —op—oo — oo—oo—oo—oo——
.. ivi
""•—-•Hr"" TT r* : : " ; i '
yt MAIM i.m»)
«* lum l.ni»
'•• — • — •-(•«—'»•" ,-
p*—•—•—«-t_ _, x Figure 75. Pueblo Water Utility system facilities.
-------
make it possible to aggregate capital and operating cost down to a specific
utility; therefore, no schematic diagram is drawn for the Pueblo Water System.
Data were available to establish the operating cost within categories of
services provided—acquisition, treatment, pumping, transmitting and distri-
buting water, and general services necessary to support the operation from
the standpoint of operations and maintenance and from the standpoint of
depreciated capital. To complete the total cost picture, interest also had
to be allocated. Because it was difficult to identify specific interest costs
with any of the above categories, it was decided to allocate the entire
interest amount against all the water produced. By identifying the total cost
in the above categories and dividing that total by the amount of RPW, it was
possible to identify the unit costs/($/mil gal) for those categories
(Figure 76).
In addition these unit costs include depreciated capital allocated to
the categories; the cost of interest must also be included.
A linear assumption is made to allow unit cost/($/mil gal) to be added
as the water moves from one component of the system to another. Adding the
cost of various components, it is possible to determine the average cost/mil
gal of water delivered to the customer during the year. Total unit cost is
$616.46/mil gal. This figure includes an additional $98.88/mil gal overhead.
These data are summarized as follows:
Costs:
Incremental cost ($/mil gal) $187.77
Distribution cost ($/mil gal) 165.54
Interest cost ($/mil gal) 164.27
Overhead ($/mil gal) 98.88
Total cost ($/mil gal) 616.46
Metered consumption (mil gal) 6,793
Revenue ($) $4,187,612.78
Once these calculations are made, the cost/mil gal can be compared with
the amount charged to the customers for water delivery. Tables 139, 140, and
141 summarize the typical monthly consumption rates charged by the Pueblo
Water System.
Table 142 lists the RPW for the 10 largest consumers served by the
Pueblo Water System. Examination of the amount billed to the 10 top users
shows the Pueblo system is not recovering the cost of the water produced.
260
-------
ACQUISITION
TREATMENT
PUMPING
$38.19
$83.51
$66.07
Figure 76. Pueblo Water Utility allocation of capital and operating expenses
to water system components ($/mil gal RPW).
-------
TABLE 139. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY WATER RATES, MARCH 1974
Rate/1,OOP gallons
Monthly usage (gallons) Inside city Outside city (Co.)
First 1,000 Minimum charge Minimum charge
Next 98,000 $0.55 $0.83
Over 100,000 .45 .68
TABLE 140. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE BY METER SIZE
Meter size (in.)
5/8
1
Ik
ih
2
3
4
6
8
Inside city
$ 2.96
3.59
4.11
4.68
6.24
13.10
20.90
40.35
59.80
Outside city (Co.)
$ 4.44
5.39
6.17
7.02
9.36
19.65
31.35
60.53
89.70
262
-------
TABLE 141. RATES FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, INSIDE CITY*
Minimum monthly Next Over
Unit charges 98,000 gallons 100,000 gallons
First unit Minimum charge $0.55 $0.45
(above)
Each additional unit $1.10 .55 .45
County charges are 1.5 times inside-city charges.
263
-------
TABLE 142. PUEBLO WATER UTILITY WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS (1974)
Major users
Colorado State Hospital
C F & I Steel
C F & I Steel
Triplex of America
ho
g; Parkview Episcopal
Hospital
Ramada Inn
Alpha Beta Packing
M. Occhiato
Corwin Hospital
Pueblo Golf and Country
Club
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
7
2
2
10
4
10
8
10
3
4
9
2
4
9
7
1
8
6
7
1
Units used
(mil gal)
33.2
11.6
32.5
22.9
3.5
0.7
2.7
2.1
1.5
0.9
1.6
0.7
2.5
1.4
1.9
1.2
2.4
0.8
16.8
0.3
Amount
billed*
$15,188.34
5,235.54
14,130.00
10,475.77
2,558.98
542.78
1,229.82
977.37
714.89
472.79
753.97
304.75
1,140.40
658.90
874.90
542.03
1,141.40
419.60
7,631.59
222.43
Unit charge
($/mll gal)
$457.48
452.28
434.82
457.14
721.86
798.21
584.79
464.75
473.12
498.20
465.70
468.13
462.07
471.32
465.87
454.34
470.29
537.26
455.59
724.53
Cost
zone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent
year studied are as follows:
$/mil gal
Support services 99
Acquisit ion 38
Treatment 84
Distribution 232
Interest—• 164
Total 617
265
-------
SECTION 16
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
The Seattle Water Department provides water to nine out of 10 residents
of King County, Washington. In 1974, the department provided retail service
to over 558,000 customers, and through its wholesale customers provided ser-
vice to an additional 360,000. Population in the service area increased
rather rapidly in the 1960's but leveled off during the 1970's, showing a
total increase of about 5% over the 10-year period of study. Some system
facts are given in Table 143.
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREA
The Seattle Water Department provides water on a retail basis to all
classes of customers in the City of Seattle and in an area of a few square
miles north of the city and some small areas south of the city. In addi-
tion, water is wholesaled to other water distributors. Currently, the de-
partment provides service to one water district and a portion of the City of
Edmonds in Snohomish County. No additional service area is anticipated in
Snohomish County. The retail service area encompasses approximately 94 sq
miles, and the wholesale area is more than double that size. The service
area is shown in Figure 77.
Service is provided to water districts encompassing the more densely
populated areas east of Lake Washington. Eventual expansion of service to
the east is anticipated to include most of the Snoqualmie River Valley.
The service area is bounded on the south by a line generally extending
westerly from the southern boundary of the department's Cedar River water-
shed. Several communities in the southern portion of the county will con-
tinue to be served by the Tacoma Municipal Water System.
Further extension of the service area is anticipated in the future.
Therefore, even with a relatively stable population growth, the anticipated
expansion will add a significant population to the service area.
ORGANIZATION
The Seattle Water Department utility is a department of the City of
Seattle and operates a system for the purpose of supplying water only. The
operation is relatively free from other city operations in that it generates
its own revenue, including bond issues for capital improvements.
266
-------
TABLE 143. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT, BASIC FACTS (1974)
Item
Amount
Population:
SMSA
County
Retail service area
Size of retail service area (sq miles)
Recognized customer classes:
No. of meters
Residential
Business
Commercial
Government
Educational and charitable
Wholesale
Purchased water
Source water
Pipe in system (miles)
Elevation of treatment plants (ft above mean sea level):
Tolt
Cedar
Elevation of service area (min-max ft)
Revenue-producing water (mil gal)
Treated water (mil gal)
Maximum day/maximum hour (MGD)
1,413,307
1,146,207
558,200
94.5
152,021
5,193
6,022
2,271
1,364
150
None
100% Surface
1,547
760
540
0-550
45,967
55,480
300/600
267
-------
s
Present Service Area
Potential Service Ares^
COUNTY BOUNDBt
Figure 77. Seattle Water Department service area. \
-------
The organization is somewhat different from most city departments in
that it is under the City Board of Public Works. The mayor of Seattle
appoints the members of the Board of Public Works subject to confirmation by
the city council. The Superintendent of Water, one of the five members of
the Board, is charged with the operation of the City Water Department.
The Seattle Water Department prepares an annual budget that must be
recommended for approval by the mayor and approved by the council. Major
construction projects are first submitted to the Board of Public Works
which administers the bidding process and the construction contracts for
capital improvements. If the cost of the project cannot be defrayed from
current revenues, a bond issue is authorized by the council and the Corpor-
ation Council prepares a plan or systems ordinance.
As shown in Figure 78, seven divisions report to the Superintendent of
Water. Three of these divisions are somewhat different from the usual water
organization: Water Resource Management, Office of Management and Planning,
and Forestry and Watershed Management. The first two offices show the im-
portance placed on managing the resources and planning ahead to assure that
adequate water and service will be available to all areas desiring the ser-
vice. The Forestry and Watershed Management Division is a function of the
source of supply of the Seattle water. All of the raw water from the de-
partment comes from watershed areas that are heavily forested and tightly
controlled to maintain the quality of the source water.
ACQUISITION
The raw water comes from watersheds located at a considerable distance
east of Seattle. The two sources are the Cedar River and the Tolt River.
The area of the Cedar River watershed, approximately 143 sq miles, is
forest covered and receives the entire run-off for the Cedar River and its
tributaries from an elevation of 540 ft to the summit of the Cascade Moun-
tains, over 6,000 ft in elevation. Precipitation ranges from an annual
average of 55 in. at the intake to 110 in. at the headwaters of the river.
Almost the entire area is forested with a commercial type forest ranging in
age from reproduction to old growth.
The Tolt watershed includes both the north and south forks of the Tolt
River and has an area of 40,407 acres, most of which is forest covered.
Both of these watershed areas have a combined ownership by the City of
Seattle, private industry (Weyerhauser Company), and the Federal government.
The majority of the Cedar River watershed is owned by the City of Seattle,
whereas most of the Tolt watershed is owned by private industry. The city
and private industry entered into a perpetual agreement to provide the full-
est possible use of both the water resources for domestic supply and the
land resources for sustained yield lumber products in a comparable manner.
In the case of the Cedar River watershed, all access is controlled and un-
authorized persons are not allowed entry. No camping or housing facilities
are permitted and sanitary provisions are laid down and enforced by the city.
269
-------
SUPERINTENDENT
OF
WATER
Water
Resource
Management
N3
~4
o
Office of
Management
And Planning
1
Administrative
Division
Operations
Division
1
Support Services
Division
Water Quality
Division
Forestry
And Watershed
Management
Division
Figure 78. Seattle Water Department organizational chart,
-------
Usable storage in impounding reservoirs is maintained in both watershed
areas. The Cedar River shed maintains 40,000 acre ft and the Tolt River res-
ervoir maintains 58,000 acre ft. At present, the transmission capacity from
the Cedar River area amounts to 240 MGD and the lines from the Tolt River
area have a capacity of 100 MGD, providing a total delivery capability of 340
MGD.
TREATMENT
The Seattle Water Department has no specific treatment facility as such
and depends heavily on controlling the quality of the source water.
Copper sulfate is added at some of the reservoirs and regulating basins
and sodium thiosulphate is added for dechlorination purposes. Sodium hypo-
chlorite is used to disinfect new mains and calcium hypochlorite is used to
maintain quality control.
Chlorine and fluoride are added to the water as it leaves the watershed
areas and additional chlorine is added at 13 points in the supply system as
water is delivered to retail customers. Water delivered to wholesale custo-
mers is chlorinated only at the watershed area. Figure 79 shows the points
where chlorine and fluoride are added.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The transmission and distribution system consists of approximately 1,547
miles of pipe most of which is underground. The general topography of the re-
tail service area is between 0 and 500 ft in elevation. Only small portions
of the direct service lie in areas over 500 ft in elevation. There are three
levels of pressure zones, generally referred to as low (up to 200 ft), inter-
mediate (200 to 350 ft), and high (350 to 500 ft). Generally, the low and
intermediate zones are supplied by gravity and the high service zones are
supplied by pumping^
Table 144 shows the capacity and elevation of the system's storage fa-
cilities. The storage capability in the distribution system consists of 12
reservoirs, nine standpipes, and eight tanks, providing a total storage of
over 445 mil gal. Most of this is in reservoirs. Even during maximum con-
sumption periods, the water system maintains storage at about 84% of total
capacity.
COST ANALYSIS
Growth in consumer demand for water from 1965 to 1974 is illustrated in
Figure 80. Demand for water increased through 1967 and remained relatively
stable from that point on.
Using the standard cost categories, data were collected and reported as
shown in Tables 145, 146, and 147. Since a major portion of the operating
budget was expended for labor, Table 148 was developed to examine labor costs
of the operations and maintenance of the department. The cost/man-hour
271
-------
N3
•^J
N)
Cl - Chlorine
F - Fluoride
Figure 79. Seattle Water Department location of system treatment facilities,
-------
TABLE 144. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT STORAGE FACILITIES
Facility
Reservoirs :
Beacon Hill North
Beacon Hill South
Bow Lake
Green Lake
Lincoln
Magnolia Manor
Maple Leaf
Volunteer Park
S.W. Myrtle St.
West Seattle
Bitter Lake
Lake Forest
Standpipes :
S.W. Barton St.
S.W. Charleston St.
Foy
Queen Anne
Queen Ann
S.W. Trenton St.
S.W. Trenton St.
Volunteer Park
Woodland Park
Tanks :
Beverly Park
S. Leo St.
Magnolia Bluff
Maple Leaf
Richmond Highlands
Richmond Highlands
S.W. Myrtle St.
S.W. Myrtle St.
Capacity
(mil gal)
61
49
6
50
21
5.5
58.5
20
7
68
21.5
60
1.4
1
1
0.3
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1
n s
U . J
1
2
0.5
— _ . _____-—
Overflow
elevation
(ft)
316
316
458
316
316
320
420
420
488
430
499
540
316
488
580
520
c i r\
520
320
320
520
420
575
•/ / —•
372
/ "7 f\
470
520
580
580
575
575
-^-— . - - -.H^— NT 1 —
273
-------
to
13
O
,-1
h-l
PQ
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
TREATED
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEAR
Figure 80. Seattle Water Department water flow:
treated water versus RPW.
274
-------
TABLE 145. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
—I
Ul
Category
Support services:
Administration
Employee pension and benefits
Commercial
Taxes
Miscellaneous undistributed
Other
Acquisition:
Acquisition
Transmission
Total acquisition
Treatment:
Power and pumping :
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Superintendence
Mains , hydrants , and fountains
Services
Meters
Other
Total transmission and distr.
Total operating cost
1965
$243,940
*
553,068
1,011,909
205,071
49,802
2,063,790
310,471
325,624
636,095
227,966
131,111
27,695
158,806
121,762
388,954
292,325
200,505
276,089
1,279,635
4,366,292
1966
$242,
*
544,
1,089,
202,
52,
2,131,
319,
283,
603,
266,
121,
29,
151,
142,
310,
282,
205,
310,
1,252,
4,404,
601
748
770
719
122
960
427
601
028
233
825
551
375
630
777
849
005
901
162
758
1967
$227,889
507,533
424,285
1,232,892
228,383
49,360
2,670,342
295,447
263,828
559,275
258,862
98,145
22,769
120,914
130,791
349,321
263,765
179,207
285,710
1,208,794
4,818,187
1968
$248,669
561,000
455,084
1,288,440
268,487
55,604
2,877,284
328,272
308,527
636,799
263,627
103,511
23,188
126,699
156,926
386,710
330,491
207,285
318,888
1,400,300
5,304,709
1969
$258,719
685,341
473,273
1,375,555
275,932
112,823
3,181,643
465,523
275,704
741,227
329,040
123,330
30,521
153,851
173,144
435,888
312,957
212,954
383,268
1,518,211
5,923,972
1970
$255,808
971,523
471,345
1,438,671
284,768
(67,944)
3,354,171
392,376
306,710
699,086
495,615
107,125
26,453
133,478
206,270
448,450
400,242
234,209
431,397
1,720,568
6,403,018
1971
$283,293
1,108,134
506,786
1,680,017
291,126
(17,496)
3,851,860
449,227
347,777
797,004
529,730
104,167
25,558
129,725
206,014
537,644
410,595
257,459
467,297
1,879,009
7,187,328
1972
$295,206
1,236,080
568,360
1,724,002
335,402
(15,635)
4,143,415
455,251
402,438
857,689
539,280
132,923
24,004
156,927
216,770
598,318
559,131
294,110
372,953
2,041,282
7,738,593
1973
$348,973
1,438,805
536,445
1,779,936
395,690
78,631
4,578,480
448,903
382,544
831,447
582,333
140,004
23,934
163,938
267,091
593,301
524,806
311,654
354,836
2,051,688
8,207,886
1974
$490,454
1,442,510
608,736
1,793,864
407,839
67,031
4,810,434
491,373
442,319
933,692
584,998
173,236
21,962
195,198
488,042
572,097
424,704
304,097
262,906
2,051,846
8,576,168
Distributed to operating expense accounts.
-------
TABLE 146. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT UNIT OPERATING COSTS ($/mil gal RPW)
Category
Administration
Employee pension and benefits
Commercial
Taxes
Misceallaneous undistributed
Other
Total support services
Acquisition :
Acquisition
Transmission
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Power and pumping:
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Superintendence
Mains, hydrants, and fountains
Services
Meters
Other
Total transmission and distr
Total operating cost
1965
$6
13
24
5
1
50
7
8
15
5
3
0
3
3
9
7
4
6
31
J07
.01
A
.62
.91
.05
.23
.81
.64
.02
.66
.61
.23
.68
.91
.00
.58
.20
.94
.80
.50
.50
1966
$5
12
25
4
1
49
7
6
14
6
2
0
3
3
7
6
4
7
29
103
.68
*
.75
.50
.74
.22
.89
.48
.64
.11
.23
.85
.69
.54
.34
.27
.62
.80
.28
.30
.08
1967
$4.67
10.41
8.70
25.29
4.68
1.01
54.77
6.06
5.41
11.47
5.31
2.01
0.47
2.48
2.68
7.16
5.41
3.68
5.86
24.79
98.82
1968
$5,
12,
9,
27,
5.
1,
61,
7,
6,
13.
5,
2.
0.
2,
3,
8.
7.
4.
6,
30,
113.
.34
.04
.77
.66
,76
.19
.77
.05
.62
.67
,66
.22
.50
.72
,37
,30
,10
,45
,85
,06
.89
1969
$5,
13.
9.
27.
5.
2,
63,
g
5,
14.
6.
2.
0,
3.
3.
8.
6.
4,
7,
30.
118,
,16
.66
.43
.42
.50
.25
.42
,28
.50
.77
.56
.46
.61
.07
.45
.69
,24
,24
.64
.26
.08
1970
$5,
19,
9,
28,
5,
-1,
67
7
6
14
9
2,
0,
2
4
9.
8.
4,
8
34,
128,
.15
.55
.48
.94
.73
.37
.48
.89
.17
.06
.97
.16
.53
.69
.15
.02
05
.71
.68
.61
.82
1971
$6,
23
10
36
6,
-0,
82
9,
7
17
11
2
0
2
4
11
8,
5,
.10
.87
.92
.18
.27
.38
.96
.68
.49
.17
.41
.24
.55
.79
.44
.58
.84
.55
10.06
40
154
.47
.80
1972
$6.
26,
12.
37.
7.
-0.
89,
9,
8.
18,
11,
2.
0,
3,
4,
12,
12.
6.
8
44,
167,
,40
.81
.33
.40
,28
.34
.88
.88
.73
.61
.70
.88
.54
.40
,70
.98
,13
,38
.09
.28
.87
1973
$7,
31,
11,
38,
8,
1,
99
9
8,
18,
12
3
0
3
5
12
11,
6,
7
44
179
.61
.38
.70
.82
.63
.71
.86
.79
.34
.13
.70
.05
.52
.58
.83
.94
.45
.80
.74
.75
.02
1974
$10.
31.
13,
39,
8.
1
104,
10
9
20.
12
3,
0
4
10
12
9,
6,
5
44
186
.68
.42
.26
.08
.88
.46
.79
.70
.64
.34
.74
.77
.48
.25
.63
.46
.25
.62
.73
.70
.82
A Distributed to operating expense
The above figures are not additive.
accounts,
They are obtained by dividing yearly mil gal RPW into the annual costs shown in the preceding table.
-------
TABLE 147. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL OPERATING COST
Category
Support services :
Administration
Employee pension and benefits
Commercial
Taxes
Miscellaneous undistributed
Other
Acquisition:
Acquisition
Transmission
Total acquisition
Treatment :
Power and pumping :
Pumping
Other
Total power and pumping
Transmission and distribution:
Superintendence
Mains , hydrants , and fountains
Services
Meters
Other
Total transmission and distr
1965
5.59
*
12.67
23.16
4.70
1.14
/ 7 91;
>4 i , £u
7.11
7.46
14.57
5.22
3.01
0.63
3.64
2.79
8.91
6.70
4.59
6.32
29.31
1966
5.51
*
12.37
24.74
4.60
1.18
AR Aft
4 o . *+U
7.25
6.44
13.69
6.04
2.77
0.67
3.44
3.24
7.06
6.42
4.65
7.06
28.43
1967
4.
10.
8.
25,
4.
1.
c C
JJ .
6.
5 ,
11.
5,
2,
0.
2.
2,
7,
5
3
5.
25
,73
.53
,81
,59
,74
.02
/, 9
. H£
.13
.48
.61
.37
.04
.47
.51
.71
.26
.47
.72
.93
.09
1968
4
10
8,
24.
5,
1
c /
_>4 ,
6
5,
12,
4.
1
0.
2,
2
7
6.
3
6.
26
.68
.57
.57
.30
.06
.05
9 ^
i £. J
.19
.82
.01
.97
.95
.44
.39
.96
.29
.23
.91
.01
.40
1969
4
11
7
23
4
1
c •}
JJ •
7
4
12.
5.
2
0.
2.
2,
7,
5
3
6,
25.
.37
.57
.99
.22
.66
.90
7 1
. / i.
.86
.65
.51
.55
.08
.52
.60
.92
.37
.28
.59
.47
,63
1970
4.00
15.18
7.36
22.46
4.45
-1.06
co qn
D£, jy
6.13
4.79
10.92
7.74
1.67
0.41
2.08
3.22
7.01
6.25
3.65
6.74
26.87
1971
3.94
15.42
7.05
23.35
4.05
-0.24
c i c 7
JJ t 3 I
6.25
4.84
11.09
7.37
1.47
0.36
1.83
2.87
7.47
5.71
3.58
6.51
26.14
1972
3.81
15.97
7.34
22.29
4.33
-0.20
c-5 c/
J J . J<4
5.88
5.20
11.08
6.97
1.72
0.31
2.03
2.80
7.73
7.23
3.80
4.82
26.38
1973
4.25
17.53
6.54
21.67
4.82
0.96
c c 77
JJ . / /
5.47
4.66
10.13
7.09
1.71
0.29
2.00
3.26
7.24
6.39
3.80
4.32
25.01
1974
5
16
7
20
4
0
cc
DO
5
5,
10,
6,
2.
0.
2.
5.
6.
4.
3.
3.
23.
.72
.82
.10
.92
.75
.78
no
. uy
.73
.16
.89
,82
02
26
28
69
67
95
55
06
92
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-------
TABLE 148. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT LABOR COST ANALYSIS
Item 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Total payroll ($) 2,755,495 2,815,573 3,168,326 3,590,589* 4,012,852 4,404,520 4,675,882 4,931,418 5,178,590 5,298,896
^5 Total hours on payroll* 883,353 861,621 899,788 1,018,178 980,137 1,014,563 1,016,644 1,033,079 1,002,604 906,261
Revenue-producing water (mil gal) 40,618 42,731 48,759 46,578 50,169 49,706 46,429 46,099 45,849 45,967
Total pyaroll/mll gal RPW ($) 67.84 65.89 64.98 77.09 79.99 88.61 100.71 106.97 112.95 115.28
Total hours/mil gal RPW 21.75 20.16 18.45 21.86 19.54 20.41 21.90 22.41 21.87 19.72
Average cost/nan-hour ($) 3.12 3.27 3.52 3.53 4.09 4.34 4.60 4.77 5.17 5.85
-------
increased over the 10 years by 88% and the total payroll hours required to
produce 1 mil gal RPW^decreased by approximately 9%. Thus the operating costs
for producing water did not increase as rapidly as the labor cost/man-hour.
However, when it is no longer possible to gain increased efficiencies with
respect to manpower, the payroll cost will increase at least at the same rate
as the labor cost.
Table 149 summarizes the operating, depreciation, and interest expenses
for the 10-year period of analysis. Table 150 computes capital and operating
expenditure ratios. The operating expenses in these tables are those shown
as totals of the values in Table 145, expenses incurred in the normal day-to-
day operation of the system. Capital expenses are the total expenses for pro-
viding major equipment and facilities plus the interest charged on money bor-
rowed for those purposes.
A comparison of operating and capital expenses as a percent of total
cost shows that in the Seattle Water Department, greater expense is incurred
in operations than in capital outlay. This trend continued over the 10-year
period primarily as a result of continued increases in the cost of items nec-
essary to operations, such as increasing salaries. No capital expenditures
were made during this period and the ratio of capital to operating expense
shifted from 62% operating versus 38% capital to 71% operating versus 29%
capital.
The Seattle Water Department's system is relatively old; therefore, the
capital depreciated was expended when costs were significantly lower than at
present. On the other hand, the operating expense is in current dollars.
This ratio will increase as capital investments are made by the utility. For
example, maj or capital expense may be required in the future to expand the
source of water supply or additional treatment facilities may be needed to
meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Should either of these
eventualities occur, the ratio of capital to operating expense will increase
significantly.
SYSTEM COSTS
Examination of costs on a functional basis is only a part of the total
picture. Because the purpose of a water supply utility is to deliver water
to the customers, it is important to be able to present costs as they relate
water delivery to a demand point in the distribution system. For this rea-
son, the functional categories, both operating and capital, are reaggregated
and assigned to physical components in the water delivery system. This sec-
tion contains such an analysis.
Locations of the service area and the watersheds in the mountains to the
east of the service area are shown in Figure 81. Because the watersheds pro-
vide water primarily by gravity to the northern extremity of the distribution
system and on toward the middle of the service area, there is little incremen-
tal cost for providing water to the distribution system other than the differ-
rences in the cost of the sources and in moving the water from the source to
the distribution system.
279
-------
TABLE 149. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
NJ
OO
o
Item
Operating expense $4
Depreciation 1
Interest
Total 7
Total cost/mil gal RPW
Item
Operating expense ($) 4
Capital expense ($) 2
Total ($) 7
Operating expense as % of total
Capital expense as % of total
1965
,366,292
,761,320
954,300
,082,412
174.37
TABLE
1965
,366,292
,716,120
,082,412
61.65
38.35
1966
$4,404,758 $4
1,819,344 1
942,601
7,166,703 7
167.71
150. SEATTLE
1966
4,404,758 4
2,761,945 2
7,166,703 7
61.46
38.54
1967
,818,
,858,
927,
,603,
155
1968
187 $5,304,709 $5
194 1,883,228 1
385 977,691 1
166 8,165,628 8
.95 175.31
WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL
1967
,818,
,784,
,603,
63
36
1968
187 5,304.709 5
979 2,860,919 3
166 8,165,628 8
.37 64.96
.63 35.04
1969
,923,972
,924,747
,082,324
,931,043
178.02
VERSUS
1969
,923,972
,007,071
,931,043
66.33
33.67
1970
$6,403,018
1,995,275
1,051,397
9,449,690
190.11
1971
$7,187,328
2,064,071
1,046,567
10,297,966
221.80
1972
$7,738,593
2,122,696
1,187,107
11,048,396
239.67
1973
$8,207,886
2,236,003
1,266,572
11,709,466
255.39
1974
$8,576,168
2,285,054
1,234,900
12,096,122
263.15
OPERATING EXPENSE RATIOS
1970
6,403,018
3,046,672
9,449,690
67.76
32.24
1971
7.187,328
3,110,638
10,297,966
69.79
30.21
1972
7,738,593
3,309,803
11,048,396
70.04
29.96
1973
8,207,886
3,501,580
11,709,466
70.10
29.90
1974
8,576,168
3,519,954
12,096,122
70.90
29.10
-------
Figure 81. Seattle Water Department distribution area,
281
-------
Figure 82 shows the allocation of operating and capital costs to the var-
ious components of the Seattle system. Because the major cost variation is
based on the specific source of the water, the cost of the delivered water is
associated with the source rather than any specific point or pressure zone of
delivery to the customer.
To analyze the cost impact of the two sources, the total operating and
capital cost for each of the components is identified and established in $/mil
gal of RPW. A linear assumption is made to allow cost/mil gal to be added as
water moves from one component of the system to another. For example, the ac-
quisition cost at the Cedar River watershed is $3.78/mil gal. An additional
$29.87/mil gal is added to transmit the water from the source to the distribu-
tion system. A treatment cost of $4.50/mil gal is incurred with the insertion
of chlorine and fluoride into the water near the source, and another $5.70/mil
gal is incurred in adding chlorine and other chemicals in the distribution sys-
tem. An additional average cost of $5.06/mil gal is incurred in pumping the
water. The total incremental cost is thus $48.91/mil gal for providing water
from the Cedar River watershed (Table 151). Added to these incremental costs
are the distribution, interest, and support services costs. Calculation of the
distribution cost is based on the assumption that these unit costs ($/mil gal)
are constant throughout the system; therefore, the total capital and operating
cost for distribution is divided by the number of gallons of RPW in the year
under consideration, yielding a figure of $72.16/mil gal. The same approach is
used to calculate interest and support services costs. When these are added,
the total cost of water from the Cedar River source is $257,05/mil gal.
Tables 152, 153, and 154 summarize typical monthly water rates charged by
the Seattle Water Department.
Table 155 shows the cost of water delivered to the 10 largest customers of
the department. Comparing each user's location with the cost allocation table
makes it possible to identify the actual allocated cost of delivering water to
a specific customer. Locations of major users are shown in Figure 83. Most of
them are in the central or southern portion of the service area, predominantly
supplied by the Cedar River watershed.
The average unit costs for all water supplied during the most recent year
studied are given as follows:
$/mil gal
Support Services 109
Acquisition 37
Treatment 13
Distribution 77
Interest 27
Tr\ t- a 1 —-. — — —.—. — — ——__«-. — — _„_.___
i\J UdJ. —————.—.
282
-------
N3
oo
OJ
SOURCE
TRANSMISSION
TREATMENT
PUMPING
TOLT RIVER
CEDAR RIVER
$2.58
$3.78
$42
.86
$16.12
$5 .70
$29.87
1
$4.50
Figure 82. Seattle Water Utility allocation of capital and operating
expenses to system components ($/mil gal RPW).
-------
TABLE 151. SEATTLE WATER UTILITY COST ELEMENTS BY SOURCE
00
-p-
Water
Source
Tolt River
Cedar River
Total
Incremental
cost
($/mil gal)
72.32
48.91
Distribution
cost
($/mil gal)
72.16
72.16
Interest
($/mil gal)
26.86
26.86
General
Services
($/mil gal)
109.12
109.12
Total
unit cost
($/mil gal)
280.46
257.05
RPW
(mil gal)
11,967
34,000
45,967
Revenue
3,356,265
8,739,700
12,095,965
-------
TABLE 152. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT MINIMUM CHARGE BY METER SIZE
INSIDE CITY LIMITS
Meter Monthly
size volume base
(in-) (cu ft)
3/4 300
1 600
1% 1,200
2 2,000
3 3,400
4 4,900
6 7,100
8 10,000
10 14,000
12 20,000
Minimum
charge
$ 2.10
2.80
4.10
5.80
8.70
12.00
16.50
23.00
31.50
44.00
285
-------
TABLE 153. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT MINIMUM CHARGE BY METER SIZE
OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS*
Meter
Size
(in.)
3/4
1
1%
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
Monthly
volume base
(cu ft)
300
600
1,200
2,000
3,400
4,900
7,100
10,000
14,000
20,000
Minimum
charge
$ 3.15
4.20
6.15
8.70
13.05
18.00
24.75
34.50
47.25
66.00
Other than water districts or cities.
286
-------
TABLE 154. SEATTLE WATER RATES FOR ALL METER SIZES
Use level Rate
Inside city limits:
Each 100 cu ft over your volume base, to 30,000 cu ft $0.213
Each 100 cu ft after 30,000 cu ft .142
Each separate building or premises supplied
through the same connection (except trailer parks),
minimum charge for 500 cu ft, volume base 2.50
Outside city limits:
Each 100 cu ft over your volume base,
to 30,000 cu ft .32
Each 100 cu ft after 30,000 .213
Each separate building or premises supplied
through the same connection (except trailer parks),
minimum charge for 500 cu ft, volume base 3.75
287
-------
TABLE 155. SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT WATER COSTS FOR 10 MAJOR USERS
CD
00
Major users
Boeing
University of
Washington
Port of
Seattle
Bethlehem
Todd Shipyards
Sicks Ranier
Northwestern
Glass
E.M. Jorgensen
Seattle Steam
Corporation
Monsanto
High or low
month
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Month
10
12
11
2
2
5
6
12
7
1
7
2
8
5
2
4
1
9
10
5
Units used
(mil gal)
121.3
89.6
64.5
42.5
53.1
36.8
38.8
26.2
34.6
15.9
32.0
15.9
21.1
14.2
28.0
3.9
26.2
7.1
22.7
9.9
Amount
billed
$19,606
14,260
8,702
5,768
7,396
5,135
5,231
3,547
4,660
2,368
4,349
2,193
2,868
1,947
5,684
852
1,466
981
4,610
2,010
Unit charge
($/mil gal)
$161.64
159.16
134.93
135.56
139.29
139.64
134.92
135.51
134.61
148.65
135.71
137.78
135.94
137.09
203.23
220.00
55.90
138.29
201.63
203.20
Cost
zone
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-------
NJ
OO
' Boeing
*• University of
Washington
3- Port of Seattle
4- Bethlehem
5- Todd Shipyards
6- Sicks Ranier
7* Northwestern Glass
°' E.M. Jorgenson
9- Seattle Steam
Corporation
®' Monsanto
Figure 83. Locations of Seattle Water Department major users.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-77-015b
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
THE COST OF WATER SUPPLY AND WATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Volume II
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
James I. Gillean, W. Kyle Adams and
Robert M. Clark
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
ACT Systems, Inc.
807 West Morse Blvd.
Winter Park, Florida 32789
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1CC614, SOS 1
11. CONTRACT/eiBAHT NO.
68-03-2071
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Extramural
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also Volume I, EPA-600/5-77-015a
Project Officer: Robert M. Clark, WSRD, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, 513/684-7209
16. ABSTRACT
A study of 12 selected water utilities was undertaken to determine the
economics of water delivery. Data were collected from at least one Class A water
utility (revenues greater than $500,000/year) in each of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's 10 regions. These data are summarized in two volumes.
Volume II contains the basic data from each of the 12 utilities studied. Services
of each utility were divided into five functional areas common to all water supply
delivery systems - support services, acquisition, treatment or purification,
distribution and power and pumping. These categories provided a common basis for
collecting and comparing data. Costs were categorized as operating or capital
expenditures.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Benefit Cost Analysis; Cost Analysis;
Economic Analysis; Forecasting;
Mathematical Models; Regional Planning;
Svsterns Analysis; Urban Planning; Water
Distribution; Water Supply.
Organic Standards;
Standardized Cost Cate-
gories; Trends—
Supply Costs; Water
Production Costs; Water
Utility Management
13 B
14 A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
308
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
290
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977— 757-140/6610
------- |