← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

← Back to messages

Stadium Volumes and Water Conservation

Posted by Robert Czachorski on 15 May, 2014
Category: No category

Folks,

Last night we got into a discussion to try to visualize how big the volumes are that Murat was coming up with for storage in his "scale of improvements" discussion.  I gave an answer to the volume in Michigan Stadium that did not make much sense, so I though I would clarify (it was late, and I must have been getting tired).  For reference, Murat was coming up with volumes that were in the range of 9 to 12 million gallons (MG).  If you assume that Michigan Stadium was a rectangle with dimensions of 300 feet by 500 feet and was 100 feet tall, that would be 112.2 MG.  For comparison purposes, a 10 MG storage tank that was 20 feet deep would be a square with an edge length of 260 feet. You can recreate these volumes yourself by multiplying the dimension out and using 7.48 gallons per cubic feet. We thought that these examples would help you visualize the size of the storage tanks we are talking about.

----------

During public comment, there was a comment made that I thought might be misleading and that I should address with the CAC.

The comment was made regarding the water conservation idea, with the inference that we have somehow refused to examine this idea further. It is important for me that you understand that we will examine and each idea and alternative.  We do not want to be dismissive of any idea, and want to encourage all of you and the members of the public to feel free to offer any idea, no matter how "zany" it might seem (to use a concept from last night). I promise you that we will not judge you for the idea, we will not think any worse of you if the idea turns out to not be effective, and we will not be dismissive of ideas.  To do those things would defeat the whole purpose of what we are trying to accomplish and why we are engaging you and the public.

Some ideas will be examined in greater details than others. Some items may become real obvious right away that they do not merit much effort to examine, and others may take a more detailed evaluation to look at.  Our goal is to gain concurrence from you on how far to go and when to stop, like we have on many other items, like the legal issue, the WWTP capacity, how to look at climate change, the public disclosure of Basecamp, and the use of "scenario B" to do the first loop on alternatives. I would hope that you would see the pattern for how we are operating and that we have built up some confidence with you that we are dedicated to this process.

----------

With all that being said, I will elaborate a little further specifically on the water conservation idea.  Now that the model is established, and we are looking at alternatives, it is the appropriate time to evaluate how water conservation measures might help towards solving the problems.  If the CAC feels that this is an important item to understand, we can put reductions in water use from water conservation in the model and see how that affects the system.

In my discussions with Frank Burdick and others on this topic, I indicated that we would look at this in more detail when we got to the alternative, and I also indicated my concerns on both a) the ability of that idea to address system capacity issues, and b) the acceptability of this idea to the general public. As representative of the public, item b is up to you to weight in on. The idea would involve a mandatory program throughout the City of retrofitting faucets, fixtures and other equipment to low flow devices to reduce water use.

I would like to illustrate to you the technical reasons why I have concerns about the ability of this solution to address the capacity issues. Recall that last night Murat presented that the base flow at the WWTP was about 29.7 cfs.  Typically about 50-60% of this flow is from the use of water and subsequent discharge to the sewer system, and the rest is from ground water infiltration or other constant leaks into the sanitary sewers.  So let's assume that about 18 cfs is discharged to the sewer from water use. There are a variety of sources regarding how effective water conservation measures may be, but let's assume that a comprehensive program in Ann Arbor could cut the water demand by half, which I would think would be quite aggressive.  That would reduce the flow reaching the sanitary sewer by 9 cfs.

Recall that last night, Murat's presentation showed that "scenario B" had a peak flow about 120.9 cfs.  This means that aggressive water conservation would reduce the peak flow in this scenario by 9 cfs, or about 7%.  It is pretty clear from these values, that even an aggressive water conservation strategy is unlikely to solely address system problems.

However, aggressive water conservation could be one component of a multi-pronged approach to tackle the issue. Such conservation measures would also result in cost reductions in the operation of the City's water facilities, which would also be beneficial.  Clearly, there are a lot of moving parts, and we do not want to be dismissive of the idea without examining it, if the CAC thinks that such an aggressive water conservation strategy warrants further investigation. 

Murat and I could see what we can do in the alternatives evaluation to illustrate the impact that this idea may have on the alternatives. It would be good to hear your thoughts on this topic before doing so.  I don't want to investigate it further, if the CAC does not think that it would be a palatable idea for the public.

Take care,
Robert

Comments

Robert Czachorski on 16 May, 2014:

Folks,

I have already heard from one member of the public regarding input on the above post - see below. I would love to hear from the CAC on this topic.

To the CAC member who forwarded this email to Frank Burdick:  

This is the 4th or 5th time that one of our communications has been forwarded to Frank Burdick or Irv Mermelstein by you, and has elicited similar responses from Mr. Burdick and Mr. Mermelstein.    We already know the opinion of Mr. Burdick and Mr. Mermelstein.  We would love to hear from you. I believe that the rest of the CAC would love to hear your input too. I think that the project team and the rest of the CAC has made it abundantly clear that every opinion and so-called "zany" idea will be considered. 

This is the reason we formed the CAC - so that this group could exchange ideas and concerns and share them with the City and our team. We want to explore all options and ideas for the future of the City's wet weather program for sanitary sewers, and hear all opinions.  This process of forwarding our communications to others to speak through third parties is not very productive, especially considering the content of the responses being generated by those third parties, which has only served to chastise and belittle the project team. 

If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion with the project team or the CAC, I suggest that you please contact Charlie or Nick and discuss with them candidly the reasons for the discomfort and what we can do to to help.

Take care,
Robert

-----------

Begin forwarded message:

From: <fburdick1@aol.com>
Subject: pathetic response to a pathetic focus group for pathetic study...
Date: May 15, 2014 at 10:11:34 PM EDT
To: <robert.czachorski@ohm-advisors.com>

Robert,
This is too many words to convey ...."ohm does not support this ....so OHM will lay down our opinion to discredit it .... then ask all of non-professional-civilian-"what is I & I, or what is a SSO"  Focus Group Members to tell us if they want us (OHM) to evaluate it further.

I suspect OHM is running out funds and only wants to study what the OHM can fit in their remaining budget.

Pathetic.

-----------

Kathy Boris on 18 May, 2014:

It seems to me that three people have mentioned water conservation.   Frank Burdick talked about it early on, and again at the last meeting.  Craig Hupy mentioned it, saying that U-M was very successful at it.  Jen Lawson said that people are not using as much water these days and that new development might not use as much water as we imagine.  Personally, I was very surprised by this, because I thought it would be darned near impossible to get the public to conserve water.  But if the public is already using less water than in the past, it seems to me that water conservation could be one piece of the puzzle in any plan to reduce the sanitary flow.   Let's keep in mind that the Base Flow could be lowered somewhat, just like the Wet Weather Flow.

kb 

Michelle Lovasz on 19 May, 2014:

Towards water conservation, we could think about working toward suggesting the establishment of a boundary for usage.  If the "standard" is x per household at this point (I don't know what we might base it on) we could suggest water UP to that standard usage is $x per unit, and $x+ after.  This goes a long way toward limiting usage, as can be seen in electric utility usage awareness.  As a utility providance, it could be an incentive issue.

This, however, might fall outside of community standards.  Or within it.  Something to contemplate.

Judy Hanway on 20 May, 2014:

There is already a tiered water usage system on the City's water bill. The more water you use, the higher the rate per unit used. I'm not convinced that we can count on people using less water. For example, on my street, when I moved in 27 years ago, the majority of homeowners were families with school age children. Now the majority is empty nesters and single people. Just because of that, the water usage would be less. But as we older people downsize and move out, younger families will move in and the water usage on our street will most probably go up. 

One thing to consider could be incentives for installing low flow fixtures--similar to the incentives on the bill for "Rain Safe" homes, rain barrels, and rain gardens. Or the City could compensate people for installing such fixtures.

As I recall there has been much discussion in the past few months about a multi-pronged approach in trying to solve the problem. The "one size fits all" approach hasn't seemed to work so far.