Water Distribution

Peaking Factor

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD)

Reservoir Elevations as of December 28, 2014
S
Supply
l Reservoir
R
i

Conservation
C
ti
Pool Elevation

Currentt Elevation
C
El
ti
(msl)

D
Down

Lavon Lake

492.00

479.09

-12.91

Jim Chapman Lake

440.00

427.45

-12.55

Lake Tawakoni

437.50

425.49

-12.01

Lake Texoma

617.00

611.42

-5.58

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

Peaking Factor: Calculation based on the comparison of the

amount of water used on a maximum day versus an average
day. The 2011 CIP Update showed the peaking factor
declining
g to 2.5 by
y 2044 ((Buildout).
)
Historical:

2008(3.6), 2009(3.3), 2010(3.4),

2011(2.1),2012(2.0),
( )
( ) 2013(1.9)
( )

How to reduce the Peaking Factor: Water Conservation

Benefits to a reduction in the Peaking Factor:
1. Delay timing of CIP Infrastructure and decrease in size
of ultimate Town facilities.
2. Prevent future extreme take or p
pay
y limit on water
contract with provide.

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

Other Municipalities Peaking Factors:

City of Frisco = 2.5 for residential, 2.0 for non-residential
Little Elm = 2.2
Denton and Princeton = 2.0
20
McKinney doesnt use average day demand in planning
but based on their calculations their p
peaking
g factor is
around 2.4 2.5
* Town
Townss recently amended contact with NTMWD included a lower
peaking factor from the previous contract.

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

1. Delay timing of CIP Infrastructure and ultimate size of

Town facilities:
(example: decreasing peaking factor from 2.5 to 2.0)
Ground Storage

Pumping

Ultimately you would need 15 MG of ground storage instead of 18 MG shown in the

2011 CIP Update. With the recently constructed 5 MG GST, additional ground
storage isnt needed to be in service until 2030 compared to 2024 in the 2011 CIP
Update. ($1,250,000)
Ultimately need 25 MGD of firm pumping capacity to UPP instead of 30 MGD shown
in the 2011 CIP Update. ($250,000)
Ultimately need 35 MGD of firm pumping capacity to LPP instead of 40 MGD shown
in the 2011 CIP Update.
Update ($250,000)
($250 000)

Elevated Storage

Ultimately need 3 MG of elevated storage in the UPP instead of 4 MG shown in the

2011 CIP Update. Prosper Trail EST is recommended to be in service in 2018 instead
off 2015 as shown
h
iin th
the 2011 CIP U
Update.
d t ($1,000,000)
($1 000 000)
Ultimately need 5 MG of elevated storage in the LPP (same as 2011 CIP Update).

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

2. Prevent extreme take or pay limit on water contract:

y of Plano
City

Contract = 73.2 MGD

2001 Usage = 73 MGD
2013 Usage = 53 MGD
Difference of 7.373 Billion Gallons/Year paid for but not used. = $13.8 M

City of Richardson

(M b Ci
(Member
City R
Rate is
i currently
l $1.87/1,000
$1 87/1 000 gallons
ll
water))

Contract = 30.2 MGD

2000 Usage = 29.4 MGD
2013 Usage
U
= 21
21.8
8 MGD
Difference of 3.066 Billion Gallons/Year paid for but not used. = $5.7 M

City of Mesquite

Contract = 22.7 MGD

2000 U
Usage = 21
21.1
1 MGD
2013 Usage = 15.5 MGD
Difference of 2.628 Billion Gallons/Year paid for but not used. = $4.9 M

* City
y of Allen is g
great example
p of a municipality
p y nearing
g buildout that is taking
g Water
Conservation seriously to prevent this from happening.

Town of Prosper
a p
place where everyone
matters
y

Staff comments:

Water Conservation is needed to not only protect the water sources but to
encourage proper use of the water resources.

Once a week watering is adequate if done correctly.

Cost savings are immediate and long term.

P
Proposed
d Plan
Pl off Action:
A i

Continue to encourage Water Conservation in summer 2015 and monitor

through technology.
Update the Impact Fee and CIP in 2016 with a recommendation on a suitable
peaking factor and impact it will have on the Towns infrastructure.
Implement an updated policy of education and enforcement to control
peaking factor with 2016 Impact Fee and CIP Update.