This document provides an overview of water loss control and effective utility management. It discusses setting strategic planning goals and objectives related to non-revenue water management. These include being financially viable, optimizing resources, providing quality service, prioritizing asset management, reporting key performance indicators, and encouraging team ownership. The document also covers water loss control drivers like drought, public trust, economics, and regulations. States are increasingly requiring water loss reporting and moving away from percentage-based performance targets. Finally, it presents a model for implementing a statewide water loss management program over multiple phases and years to improve data validity and water loss performance.
Disaster risk reduction management Module 4: Preparedness, Prevention and Mit...
Water Loss Control and Effective Utility Management
1. Water Loss Control in
Effective Utility Management
M. Steve Cavanaugh, Jr., PE
steve.cavanaugh@cavanaughsolutions.com
Feb 22, 2017
2. Be Financially
Viable/Fiscally Prudent
Optimize Financial
Resources for Operational
Support of Existing Assets
from “Source to Tap”
Provide Quality Service
Prioritize Asset
Management to Support
Effective CIP
Report Online, Near
Real-Time KPIs via
Dashboard to Support
Management Decision
Making
Encourage Team
Ownership
Source: Arcadis
Strategic Planning/Core Values include
Relevant Goals and Objectives for NRW Management
3. Quiz
According to the AWWA M36 Water Audit
Method, an acceptable level of Unaccounted For
Water is:
A. 15%
B. 10%
C. 5%
D. 0%
25. 33 States are reviewing their
Water Loss Control reporting
Requirements. Most are
reconsidering failed % based
performance targets
26. No water loss
reporting
Rudimentary
water loss
reporting
AWWA M36
terminology &
metrics
AWWA
M36
software
AWWA M36 software
with validation
(Level 1)
WA
OR
TX
WI
MN
IL IN
WV
MD
PA
NH
TN
GA
FL
CA
NM
MO
KY
VA
NC
SC
NY
OH
ID
NV
UT
AZ
MT
OK
WY
CO
ND
SD
NE
KS
IA
MI
ME
MA
ALMS
AR
LA
AK
HI
DE
NJ
CT
RI
DRBC
27. 27
Phase 1
Establish Annual M36
Water Auditing
Achieve Minimum
Standard of Audit
Reliability
Manage Water Loss
Performance for Long-
Term Reduction
Phase 2 Phase 3
Auditing
Outreach
Training &
Tech Asst
Data
Manage-
ment
Validation
Certification
Benchmarking
Improvement
Statewide Data Validity
Statewide Water Loss
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Resource Management Grade C Resource Management Grade B Resource Management Grade A
Establish annual M36 Water
Auditing for all utilities
Educate Regulatory
Community on M36 Method
and appropriate use of
performance indicators
Establish Statewide Water
Loss Control Committee
Develop State Manual and
Training Framework
Provide extended, progressive
training to utilities (funded)
Develop and implement data
management system
Establish posting system and
communication protocols
Establish minimum standards of
validation for quality assurance
Determine by Agency or 3rd Party
Establish validation program until
certification program is in place
Design and implement a
Certified Water Audit program
for sustained quality control
Statewide Water Loss Control
Committee provides support
Suite of Performance and
Process Measures
System specific improvement
over time in a cost-effective
manner
No universal targets
Excessive thresholds
established
Annual audit submission
threshold exceedances
System specific progress
review at designated
regulatory touchpoints
Statewide Water Loss Management Program – Model Implementation
28. 28
Phase 1
Establish Annual M36
Water Auditing
Achieve Minimum
Standard of Audit
Reliability
Manage Water Loss
Performance for Long-
Term Reduction
Phase 2 Phase 3
Auditing
Outreach
Training &
Tech Asst
Data
Manage-
ment
Validation
Certification
Benchmarking
Improvement
Statewide Data Validity
Statewide Water Loss
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Resource Management Grade C Resource Management Grade B Resource Management Grade A
Establish annual M36 Water
Auditing for all utilities
Educate Regulatory
Community on M36 Method
and appropriate use of
performance indicators
Establish Statewide Water
Loss Control Committee
Develop State Manual and
Training Framework
Provide extended, progressive
training to utilities (funded)
Develop and implement data
management system
Establish posting system and
communication protocols
Establish minimum standards of
validation for quality assurance
Determine by Agency or 3rd Party
Establish validation program until
certification program is in place
Design and implement a
Certified Water Audit program
for sustained quality control
Statewide Water Loss Control
Committee provides support
Suite of Performance and
Process Measures
System specific improvement
over time in a cost-effective
manner
No universal targets
Excessive thresholds
established
Annual audit submission
threshold exceedances
System specific progress
review at designated
regulatory touchpoints
Statewide Water Loss Management Program – Model Implementation
30. VALIDATION
LEVEL
DEFINITION
self-reported
• Water audits have not been validated
• Water audit accuracy/reliability is not well understood
1
• Validated water audits have been examined for errors evident in summary
data and application of methodology
• The data validity grades assigned to inputs accurately reflect utility practices
2
• Validated water audits have been corroborated with investigations of raw
data and archived reports of instrument accuracy
• The best sources of data to inform the water audit have been identified
3
• Validated water audits have been bolstered by field tests of instrument
accuracy
• Minimum night flow analysis and/or pilot leak detection supplement the
water audit
31. focus: accurate assignment of data validity grades
correct application of audit methodology
GOALS: confirm interpretation of methodology
identify evident errors
assign correct data validity grades
OUTCOMES: correct data validity grades
recommendations for higher-level validation activity
LIMITATIONS: does not correct errors in raw data
does not study instrument performance
32. 32
Phase 1
Establish Annual M36
Water Auditing
Achieve Minimum
Standard of Audit
Reliability
Manage Water Loss
Performance for Long-
Term Reduction
Phase 2 Phase 3
Auditing
Outreach
Training &
Tech Asst
Data
Manage-
ment
Validation
Certification
Benchmarking
Improvement
Statewide Data Validity
Statewide Water Loss
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Resource Management Grade C Resource Management Grade B Resource Management Grade A
Establish annual M36 Water
Auditing for all utilities
Educate Regulatory
Community on M36 Method
and appropriate use of
performance indicators
Establish Statewide Water
Loss Control Committee
Develop State Manual and
Training Framework
Provide extended, progressive
training to utilities (funded)
Develop and implement data
management system
Establish posting system and
communication protocols
Establish minimum standards of
validation for quality assurance
Determine by Agency or 3rd Party
Establish validation program until
certification program is in place
Design and implement a
Certified Water Audit program
for sustained quality control
Statewide Water Loss Control
Committee provides support
Suite of Performance and
Process Measures
System specific improvement
over time in a cost-effective
manner
No universal targets
Excessive thresholds
established
Annual audit submission
threshold exceedances
System specific progress
review at designated
regulatory touchpoints
Statewide Water Loss Management Program – Model Implementation
34. Wisconsin Pilot
6 systems, 6 months
Colorado Pilot
50 systems, 3 months
New Mexico Full Scale
134 systems, 11 months
Georgia Full Scale
230 systems, 5 years (and counting)
California Full Scale
460 systems, 2 years
Utah Pilot
20 systems, 6
months
North & South Carolina Pilot
18 systems, 12 months
38. IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance
Real
Losses
Apparent
Losses
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Billed
Authorized
Consumption
Non-
Revenue
Water
Revenue
Water
Leakage & Overflows at Storage
Billed Unmetered Consumption
Billed Metered Consumption
Billed Water Exported
Leakage on Service Lines
Leakage on Mains
Systematic Data Handling Errors
Customer Metering Inaccuracies
Unauthorized Consumption
Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
Unbilled Metered Consumption
Water
Imported
Own
Sources
Total
System
Input
( allow
for
known
errors )
Water
Losses
Authorized
Consumption
Water
Exported
Water
Supplied
39. Authorized
Consumption
Water
Losses
Real
Losses
Apparent
Losses
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Billed
Authorized
Consumption
Non-
Revenue
Water
Revenue
Water
Leakage & Overflows at Storage
Billed Unmetered Consumption
Billed Metered Consumption
Billed Water Exported
Leakage on Service Lines
Leakage on Mains
Systematic Data Handling Errors
Customer Metering Inaccuracies
Unauthorized Consumption
Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
Unbilled Metered Consumption
Water
Imported
Own
Sources
Total
System
Input
( allow
for
known
errors )
Water
Exported
Water
Supplied
Physical loss - leakage
Cost impacts at ‘wholesale’ rate
Tools for control include leakage and
pressure management
Non-physical / revenue loss - slow meters,
billing issues and theft
Cost impacts at ‘retail’ rate.
Tools for control include data management,
quality control policies/practices, & meter
testing & repair
Fire Dept Usage
Operational Flushing
Tools for control include efficient flushing
practices and awareness campaigns
Management of NRW
40. Audience Poll
According to the AWWA M36 Water Audit
Method, an acceptable level of Unaccounted For
Water is:
A. 15%
B. 10%
C. 5%
D. 0%
41. According to the AWWA Water Audit Method, an
acceptable level of Unaccounted For Water is:
A.15%
B.10%
C.5%
D.0%
Audience Poll
42. 42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
MGD Water Loss as a Percentage of Supply is not an Indicator of Performance
Water Supplied (MGD)
Authorized Consumption (MGD)
Water Loss (MGD)
Development Boom
Great Recession,
Rate Increases,
Conservation
New Normal
46. 46
2003
Inconsistent use and
interpretation
Unreliable indicator of
performance
Fails to segregate loss into
its components for effective
management
52. Four Pillars of Managing Apparent Loss
Unavoidable
Apparent
Losses
Theft
Data
Transfer / Archive
Errors
Data
Billing
Errors
Existing Apparent Losses
Economic Level
As each component receives
more or less attention, the
losses will increase or
decrease
Customer
Meter
Accuracy
Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee
53. Cost of Revenue Protection
LOSSES (MG)
UnavoidableApparent
Loss
COST
Economic Level of Loss
Where the total cost is at a minimum
Validated Target Setting
54. Four Pillars of Managing Leakage
Unavoidable
Real Losses
Speed & Quality
of Repairs
Pressure
Management
Maintenance
Rehab
Repair
Existing Real Losses
Economic Level
As each component receives
more or less attention, the
losses will increase or
decrease
Active
Leakage
Control
Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee
55. Cost of Leakage Control
LOSSES (MG)
BackgroundLeakage
andReportedBreaks
COST
Economic Level of Loss
Where the total cost is at a minimum
Validated Target Setting
56. Cost of Intervention
NRW (Volume)
COST($M)
Cost of NRW
Total NRW Cost
Reactive Intervention is Over-Spending
Example: fixing only leaks that surface,
replacing meters only when they stop
Economic Optimum NRW
& Intervention
Economic target from
benefit-cost design (M36)
Aggressive Intervention is
Over-Spending
Example: replacement of
pipes and meters before their
optimal useful life
New Supply
New
$M
The GAP
57. 1. Create a water balance: separate Non-Revenue Water
into Unbilled Consumption, Apparent Loss and Real
Loss.
2. Test the validity: Data Validity Score & Metrics
screening, gremlin hunting
3. Analyze the components of Unbilled Consumption,
Apparent Loss and Real Loss. Use volumes & values.
4. Prioritize the components to make a plan of attack.
Basic Concepts
58. 1. Create a water balance: separate Non-Revenue Water
into Unbilled Consumption, Apparent Loss and Real
Loss.
2. Test the validity: Data Validity Score & Metrics
screening, gremlin hunting
3. Analyze the components of Unbilled Consumption,
Apparent Loss and Real Loss. Use volumes & values.
4. Prioritize the components to make a plan of attack.
Basic Concepts
59. AWWA Free Water Audit Software
Functions of the AWWA
Software:
• Complete a water balance
• Document data validity
grades
• Calculate performance
indicators
• Identify areas for
improvement
60. AWWA Free Water Audit Software
VOLUMESDATA
VALIDITY
GRADES
DEFINITIONSCOMMENTS
for each input into the audit software…
61. Data Validity Grades
• qualitative but
specific
• 1 through 10
• capture utility
practices
62. Filling out the Software
1. Gather data and supporting documents
2. Review data for each input:
complete? consistent? accurate?
3. Enter the input.
4. Comment on source of data, quality of data, etc.
5. Select a data validity grade for each input
65. 1. Create a water balance: separate Non-Revenue Water
into Unbilled Consumption, Apparent Loss and Real
Loss.
2. Test the validity: Data Validity Score & Metrics
screening, gremlin hunting
3. Analyze the components of Unbilled Consumption,
Apparent Loss and Real Loss. Use volumes & values.
4. Prioritize the components to make a plan of attack.
Basic Concepts
66. 1. Assemble supporting documents
2. Develop the data inputs
3. Check the metrics
Must-have docs
Good-to-get docs
Build it from supporting docs
Look for gremlins
Inside typical ranges
Metrics versus practices
Sanity check
Validation of Inputs – A Simple Approach
67. 67
Small Water System Technical Assistance –
Finished Water Meter Flow Verification (FWM)
39
7
19
2
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FWM Global Statistics Summary
total # meters
Pass
Fail
Inconclusive
total # meters not tested
18% PASS
49% FAIL
33%
UNTESTABLE
Finished Water Meter Flow Verification
Pass Fail Inconclusive or Untestable
70. Production flow data should
be reviewed every business
day for data gaps
Gaps occur due to:
Unplanned interruption:
lightning strike, power
failure
Planned interruption:
instrumentation calibration
Gaps in water flow data
should be quantified and
added back to the daily total
(Source: AWWA M36 Publication, 4th
8/15/2012,
hrs
High Service
Pumping Rate, mgd
actual flow
High Service
Pumping Rate, mgd
raw recorded data
Hig
Pumpin
adju
0:00 8.69 8.69
1:00 8.65 8.65
2:00 8.32 8.32
3:00 8.11 8.11
4:00 7.94 0
5:00 8.02 0
6:00 8.44 0
7:00 8.98 0
8:00 9.34 0
9:00 9.25 0
10:00 9.17 0
11:00 9.12 9.12
12:00 9.27 9.27
13:00 9.22 9.22
14:00 9.08 9.08
15:00 8.99 8.99
16:00 9.14 9.14
17:00 9.18 9.18
18:00 9.25 9.25
19:00 9.22 9.22
20:00 8.82 8.82
21:00 8.78 8.78
22:00 8.75 8.75
23:00 8.71 8.71
0:00 8.68 8.68
Total 212.43 151.29 2
Average 8.85 6.30
Difference 2.55
Example of Water Pumping Data Gaps and Adjus
71. “Checking the Meter”
Flow Testing vs. Calibration
• Flow (Accuracy) Testing confirms the
accuracy of the primary device – the
element that measures the flow of
water
• Signal Calibration confirms the
functions of the secondary device –
which is a data transfer device,
typically a differential pressure cell,
chart recorder, or similar device
• Many water utilities regularly
calibrate their secondary devices, but
do not regularly verify the primary
device by regular flow accuracy
testing. Thus, inaccuracies can be
carried through to reports
Bank of Differential Pressure Cells connected to
flowmeters
(Courtesy of Louisville Water Company)
Orifice Plate Flowmeter components
(Source: AWWA M36 Publication, 4th
Ed.)
72. Step 3 – Check the Metrics
Metrics versus Practices
Inside the range – are they high, mid, or low?
How does that compare to the water loss management practices?
Apparent Losses: 208.225 MG/Yr
+ Real Losses: 736.495 MG/Yr
= Water Losses: 944.720 MG/Yr
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 83.69 MG/Yr
Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $821,449
Annual cost of Real Losses: $139,934 Valued at Variable Production Cost
Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 26.0%
Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 10.4% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 46.78 gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per service connection per day: 165.45 gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A
Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 2.55 gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 736.49 million gallons/year
8.80
systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 62 out of 100 ***
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton
?
?
Typical Ranges*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 51 out of 100 ***
20 – 200
4 – 40
400 – 4000
2 – 10
73. 1. Create a water balance: separate Non-Revenue Water
into Unbilled Consumption, Apparent Loss and Real
Loss.
2. Test the validity: Data Validity Score & Metrics
screening, gremlin hunting
3. Analyze the components of Unbilled Consumption,
Apparent Loss and Real Loss. Use volumes & values.
4. Prioritize the components to make a plan of attack.
Basic Concepts
76. Customer Meter Accuracy Testing
• Routine or periodic meter accuracy testing will
quantify the accuracy level of the meter population
• Meter testing can be performed by testing
companies or in-house by utilities with a test
bench or portable test equipment
Only skilled personnel should do testing;
meter testing is a precision activity
Make sure procedures are followed – always
test at the low flowrate first
• Set clear meter testing goals, such as:
Test for high bill complaints
Meters serving high water using customers
Test a sample of meters retired from service
Test high through-put meters (longevity)
Test samples of newly purchased meters
Suspect meters
Utility Test Bench for testing water
meters of size less than 3-inch
80. Graphic Courtesy WRF
From a formula. Need
to provide the ICF.
From your repair
records.
• Pressure Management • Pressure Management • Pressure Management
81. The Life of a Leak:
Awareness, Location & Repair Times
This is the basis for Leakage Component Analysis
82. Basic Data Needed for Component Analysis
1. Break type: reported or unreported
2. Main or service
3. Location
4. Line size
5. Date/time the break became known
6. Date/time the break was fixed
7. Storage tank volume (total)
8. Average age of pipe network (approx.)
9. Data from your AWWA water audit
Failure Data
Other Data
83. Real Loss Component Analysis Results
System Component
Background
Leakage
Reported Failures
Unreported Failures
(Hidden Losses)
Total
(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)
Reservoirs 3 - - 3
Mains and Appurtenances 77 574 - 651
Service Connections 144 11 - 154
Total Annual Real Loss 224 584 - 808
1,612
804
REAL LOSS COMPONENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Real Losses as Calculated by Water Audit
Hidden Losses/Unreported Leakage Currently Running Undetected
84. Graphic Courtesy WRF
Which Tools to Choose?
Unreported ReportedBackground
• Pressure Management • Pressure Management • Pressure Management
86. Graphic Courtesy WRF
Which Tools to Choose?
Unreported ReportedBackground
• Pressure Management • Pressure Management • Pressure Management
87. 1. Create a water balance: separate Non-Revenue Water
into Unbilled Consumption, Apparent Loss and Real
Loss.
2. Test the validity: Data Validity Score & Metrics
screening, gremlin hunting
3. Analyze the components of Unbilled Consumption,
Apparent Loss and Real Loss. Use volumes & values.
4. Prioritize the components to make a plan of attack.
Basic Concepts
88. The Toolbox (Basic) Helps to Address Level of Cost
1 - Validation of supply & consumption
volumes
Low Data Validity Score,
Gremlins
Low-Mid
2 - Estimating and tracking unmetered
use
Validity, Unmetered Use None-Low
3 - Installing meters on unmetered
connections
Unmetered Use Mid
4 - Billing system audit Systematic Data Handling
Errors
Low-Mid
5 - Meter testing & replacement Customer metering inaccuracy Mid-High
6 - Unidirectional flushing program Unbilled unmetered Low
7 - Acoustic leak survey Unreported leakage Mid
8 - Improve speed/quality of repairs Unreported, Reported leakage Low
9 - Locate & eliminate pressure
transients (surges, hammers)
All 3 types of leakage Low-Mid
10 - Reduce peak and overall pressure All 3 types of leakage Mid-High
89. Water Audit Report for: EXAMPLE - Tallapoosa (1430002)
Reporting Year:
System Attributes:
Apparent Losses: 3.787 MG/Yr
+ Real Losses: 47.362 MG/Yr
= Water Losses: 51.149 MG/Yr
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): See limits in definition MG/Yr
Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $18,860
Annual cost of Real Losses: $123,614 Valued at Variable Production Cost
Performance Indicators:
Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 26.5%
Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 16.5% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 6.05 gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per service connection per day: 75.66 gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A
Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.95 gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 47.36 million gallons/year
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 69 out of 100 ***
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
2014 1/2014 - 12/2014
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumption
?
?
Financial:
Operational Efficiency:
Unreported Reported
Background
90. The Toolbox (Basic) Helps to Address Level of Cost
1 - Validation of supply & consumption
volumes
Low Data Validity Score,
Gremlins
Low-Mid
2 - Estimating and tracking unmetered
use
Validity, Unmetered Use
3 - Installing meters on unmetered
connections
Unmetered Use Mid
4 - Billing system audit Systematic Data Handling
Errors
Low-Mid
5 - Meter testing & replacement Customer metering inaccuracy Mid-High
6 - Unidirectional flushing program Unbilled unmetered Low
7 - Acoustic leak survey Unreported leakage Mid
8 - Improve speed/quality of repairs Unreported, Reported leakage Low
9 - Locate & eliminate pressure
transients (surges, hammers)
All 3 types of leakage Low-Mid
10 - Reduce peak and overall pressure All 3 types of leakage Mid-High
91. Unreported ReportedBackground
Water Audit Report for: #2 - City of Cave Spring (GA 150000)
Reporting Year:
System Attributes:
Apparent Losses: 4.041 MG/Yr
+ Real Losses: 29.998 MG/Yr
= Water Losses: 34.039 MG/Yr
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 28.55 MG/Yr
Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $30,992
Annual cost of Real Losses: $6,476 Valued at Variable Production Cost
Performance Indicators:
Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 23.8%
Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 4.8% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 6.91 gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per service connection per day: N/A gallons/connection/day
Real Losses per length of main per day*: 944.67 gallons/mile/day
Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: N/A gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 30.00 million gallons/year
1.05
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
2014 1/2014 - 12/2014
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumption
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 52 out of 100 ***
?
?
Financial:
Operational Efficiency: