Region C Water Planning Group. February 25, 2008

Transcription

1 Region C Water Planning Group February 25, 2008

2 Action Items A. Technical Memorandum Summarizing Water Conservation and Reuse Survey Responses B. Technical Memorandum on the Effectiveness of BMPs

3 Technical Memorandum Summarizing Water Conservation and Reuse Survey Responses Rick Shaffer

4 Study 1 Task 1: Conservation and Reuse Survey Objectives of survey were to: Identify Best Management Practices (BMP s) that have been implemented Evaluate the effectiveness and costs of the BMP s being implemented Identify water reuse strategies that have been implemented or are being considered Identify public outreach programs Receive updates to water conservation and drought contingency plans

5 Study 1 Task 1: Conservation and Reuse Survey Multiple Technical Memorandums will be prepared TM #1 Region C Water and Conservation Reuse Survey TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Others to follow Technical Memorandums from Study 1 will be compiled into a final report

6 TM #1 Region C Water and Conservation Reuse Survey Mailed surveys on August 31 st Surveys received were as follows: Entities Mailed No. Received Percent WUGs WWPs Total % 71% 51% * 96 WUGs returned survey with useful information, and 17 WUGs responded that they were not involved with water supply and provided no data with the returned survey. 25

7 TM #1 Region C Water and Conservation Reuse Survey Summary of BMPs Of the 96 WUGs who responded 87 have implemented at least one BMP Most commonly implemented BMPs Low-flow plumbing fixture rules (33%) Public and school education (44%) Increasing water prices (61%) Water system audit, leak detection/repair (55%) Water conservation pricing structure (42%) Most effective BMPs (qualitative analysis) Water system audit, leak detection/repair Water conservation pricing structure Water waste prohibition Reuse

8 TM #1 Region C Water and Conservation Reuse Survey Summary of BMPs Of the 25 WWPs who responded 17 have implemented at least on BMP Most commonly implemented BMPs Low-flow plumbing fixture rules (52%) Public and school education (60%) Increasing water prices (40%) Water system audit, leak detection/repair (48%) Water conservation pricing structure (44%) Most effective BMPs (qualitative analysis) Increasing water prices Water conservation pricing structure Reuse

9 TM #1 Region C Water and Conservation Reuse Survey Summary of Reuse Projects Of the 96 WUGs who responded 8 have implemented reuse strategies (<0.3 MGD) 4 others are considering reuse strategies Of the 25 WWPs who responded 9 have implemented reuse strategies (<7 MGD) 4 others are considering reuse strategies

10 Technical Memorandum on the Effectiveness of BMPs Rick Shaffer

11 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Quantitative analysis Difficulties in analysis: WWPs/WUGs unable to directly monitor effectiveness of individual BMPs Only 16 WWPs and 77 WUGs provided complete data on population, water usage and BMP implementation Weather variability Drought restrictions Growth variability

12 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Method of analysis: Compare per capita water usage for years 2000 and 2006 Similar weather patterns Relatively dry, hot summers Annual rainfall was about average Account for implementation of drought contingency Account for implementation of BMPs

13 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Year Annual Rainfall Summer Rainfall # 100 F days Hist. Avg * Data obtained from the National Weather Service Forecast Office for D/FW Metroplex. Summer rainfall measured during June September months

14 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Total Respondents Incomplete Data Complete Data 25 WWPs WUGs Drought Restrictions Yes 9 No 7 Yes 39 No 38 BMPs Implemented Yes 9 No 0 Yes 6 No 1 Yes 37 No 2 Yes 34 No 4

15 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C 2000/2006 Comparison Results: 83% of the WWPs who implemented BMPs and did not implement drought restrictions had a reduced GPCD 62% of the WUGs who implemented BMPs and did not implement drought restrictions had a reduced GPCD Percentage for WWPs and WUGs who did not implement BMPs, did not implement drought restrictions, but still decreased GPCD is actually higher (but from a much smaller population, and less of reduction)

16 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C 2000/2006 Comparison Results: 56% of the WWPs who implemented BMPs and did implement drought restrictions had a reduced GPCD (would have expected this percentage to be higher) 62% of the WUGs who implemented BMPs and did not implement drought restrictions had a reduced GPCD

17 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C 2006/2010 Comparison: Attempt to take into account growth factors 100% of the WWPs who implemented BMPs and did not implement drought restrictions had a lower GPCD than the 2010 projection 71% of the WUGs who implemented BMPs and did not implement drought restrictions had a lower GPCD than the 2010 projection Percentage for WWPs and WUGs who did not implement BMPs, did not implement drought restrictions, and decreased GPCD is about the same (but from a much smaller population)

18 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Summary: Unable to quantify the effect of individual BMPs 69% of WWPs and 62% of WUGs say that they have reduced per capita water usage from 2000 to 2006, and the overwhelming majority of these water providers have implemented BMPs For each BMP, 60-70% of the water providers who implemented each strategy reduced per capita water usage No correlation has been made between the number of BMPs implemented, or the combination of BMPs implemented, and effect on per capita water usage.

19 TM #2 BMP Effectiveness in Region C Summary (cont.): Most common BMPs implemented by WUGs and WWPs who reduced per capita water usage: Water system audit, leak detection and repair, and pressure control Increasing water prices Public and school education Water conservation pricing structure Not an indication that one BMP performs better than another, although some inferences can be made.

20 Discussion Items A. Updates on Special Studies B. Overview of Key Messages C. TWDB Request for Proposals for Planning D. Presentation by John Nielsen-Gammon, Office of the State Climatologist E. Schedule Update

21 Updates on Special Studies 1. Study 1 Conservation and Reuse 2. Study 2 Toledo Bend 3. Study 3 Reuse Pilot Projects 4. Study 4 County Studies

22 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Changed Conditions in Conservation 59 new/updated plans received Compared conservation measures in new/updated plans to those in the 2006 Region C Plan 58 of these entities have implemented at least one of the measures in the 2006 Region C Plan 9 have implemented strategies not included in the 2006 Region C Plan

23 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Changed Conditions in Conservation Comparison of Implemented Measures to Basic Water Conservation Package Most common strategy is public/school education (42 entities) 30+ entities adopted low-flow plumbing fixture rules, increasing water prices, system audit and leak detection Least adopted strategy is Federal Residential Clothes Washer Rebate (8 entities)

24 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Changed Conditions in Conservation Comparison of Implemented Measures to Expanded Water Conservation Package 26 entities have water conservation pricing 25 entities have a policy prohibiting the waste of water

25 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Changed Conditions in Conservation New strategies being implemented 5 entities require rain/freeze sensors on irrigation systems 3 entities have time of day watering restrictions, including enforcement

26 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Comparison of Per Capita Goals Analyzed 5 and 10 year goals 28 plans clearly identified goals in terms of gallons per capita per day Average 5 year goal was 176 gpcd (2010) Average 10 year goal was 172 gpcd (2015)

27 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Comparison of Per Capita Goals Compared goals to the projected savings included in the 2006 Region C Plan 25 entities have 5 year goals with greater reduction than the 2006 Plan for entities have 5 year goals with les reduction than the 2006 Plan for entities have 10 year goals > 2006 Plan for 2020

28 Study 1 Conservation and Reuse Additional Reuse Projects Additional reuse projects have been permitted since the completion of the 2006 Plan 11 of 59 plans indicated that they used reuse Large wholesale water providers are seeking this strategy more frequently today

29 Study 1 Water Conservation and Reuse Strategies (APAI) Further Implementation of Water Conservation and Reuse Strategies Tasks Accomplished Selected 25 municipalities and water providers to interview for additional water conservation information Formulated supplemental questionnaire to the 2007 Region C Water Conservation Questionnaire Received responses from approximately 1/3 rd of the selected entities

30 Study 1 Water Conservation and Reuse Strategies (APAI) Next Steps Continue dialogue with selected entities Commence direct reuse data review Commence indirect reuse data review Technical Memorandum Draft memorandum detailing public education approaches, procedures for water loss and leakage, and costs associated with implementation of water conservation BMPs Draft memorandums for direct and indirect reuse projects

31 Study 2 Toledo Bend Reservoir Consultant kickoff meeting held in December Kickoff meeting with project participants in January FNI setting up meetings with project participants to discuss water supplies desired from project

32 Study 3 Athens Pilot Project 2006 Region C Water Plan: Athens Municipal Water Authority (AMWA) to augment its water supply in Lake Athens with treated wastewater effluent Tasks accomplished Analyzed Lake Athens water quality data Analyzed WWTP discharge quality data Developed Lake Athens water balance using hydrological information from Neches WAM Assessed potential treatment wetlands sites

33 Study 3 Athens Pilot Project Next steps Meet with AMWA to discuss detention time, percent blend, and treatment level criteria for reclaimed water in Lake Athens Identify design reclaimed water rates based on the established criteria Evaluate potential pipeline routes for conveying reclaimed water to Lake Athens Develop conceptual designs for polishing treatment Draft report due in November 2008

34 Study 3 Fort Worth Pilot Project The 2006 Region C Water Plan recommended that Fort Worth implement four direct reuse projects: Mary s Creek Central Business District/Southern Industrial Area Village Creek Alliance Corridor

35 Study 3 Fort Worth Pilot Project Kickoff meeting held 2/19/08 Projects selected for study focus Central/Southern project Village Creek Next steps Prepare outline of guidance document Develop information for focus projects Follow-up meeting with City Draft report due December 2008

36 Study 4 Four County Study Met with four regional providers within study area in December Draft population and demand projection memo Discussed operational and contracting issues with TRWD Wrapping-up comparison of current supply to projected demand Developing water management strategies for study area

37 Study 4 Four County Study Draft Population and Demand Memo Met with 20 entities to get input Sent surveys to 26 entities, 15 responded Most entities responded that population is greater than what Region C projected but less than NCTCOG s projection Developed range of population projections, including a recommended projection

38 Ellis County Population Projections 500, , , ,000 Population 300, , , , , Year High Recommended Low

39 Johnson County Population Projections 450, , ,000 Population 300, , , , Year High Recommended Low

40 Population Projections for Study Area 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 Population 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000, Year High Recommended Low

41 Study 4 Four County Study Draft Population and Demand Memo Developed a range of demand projections Looked a recent per capita water use and adjusted projected per capita needs as appropriate Multiplied the projected population and the projected per capita to get projected demand

42 Ellis County Total Demand Projections 100,000 90,000 80,000 Demand (Acre-Feet per Year) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20, Year High Recommended Low

43 Johnson County Total Demand Projections 100,000 90,000 80,000 Demand (Acre-Feet per Year) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20, Year High Recommended Low

44 Demand Projections for Study Area 400, , ,000 Demand (Acre-Feet per Year) 325, , , , , , , , Year High Recommended Low

45 Study 4 Four County Study Draft Population and Demand Memo Determined population and demand attributed to wholesale water providers in study area Conclusion Population and demand growing faster than projected in 2006 Region C Plan but slower than projected by NCTCOG

46 Study 4 Four County Study Draft Population and Demand Memo Comparison of current supply to demand and recommendations of water management strategies will be discussed in separate document

47 Study 4 Parker-Wise Study Met with 16 entities in January/February Have calls into 8 entities to seek input Two entities do not want to participate Overall entities are growing faster than Region C projected Beginning analysis of population and demand information to develop recommended projections for study

48 Study 4 County-Wide Meetings Target audience water suppliers and cities Present information from 2006 Region C Water Plan Population projections for county Demand projections for county Recommended water management strategies Obtain input on recent growth and changed conditions Information will be used in developing scope of work for update

49 Study 4 County-Wide Meetings Fannin County Meeting February 28 at 4 PM 210 South Main Street, Bonham, TX Presentation is part of the agenda for the Fannin County Water Board meeting Letters sent to water user groups and wholesale water providers in Fannin County

50 Study 4 County-Wide Meetings Navarro County March 6 at 2 PM 200 N. 12th Street, Corsicana, TX Letters will be sent to water user groups and wholesale water providers in Navarro County

51 Study 4 County-Wide Meetings Freestone County March 6 at 6 PM 118 E Commerce, Room 203, Fairfield, TX Letters will be sent to water user groups and wholesale water providers in Freestone County

52 Study 4 County-Wide Meetings Being scheduled in March Cooke County Grayson County Kaufman County Terrell Kaufman

53 Public Participation Update Colby Walton Cooksey Communications

54 Key Message Review Document included in your meeting packets Should be used as a reference in case of media queries, if you re asked to speak or write on Regional Water Planning, if you have questions about specific issues We would like feedback on the draft messages, as we hope to emphasize these messages in all communications over the current planning cycle Messages will also be turned into an FAQ document for Region C website

55 Key Message Review New members and other Planning Group members participated in media training and message review session Goal is to keep educating the public about what we re doing, why it s important and how they can support Regional Water Planning as we revise the plan during this cycle and as planned supply strategies start moving forward

56 Key Message Review General key messages about Region C Water Planning We value the public s input We are a Planning Group but have no implementation or regulatory authority Current two-year period being spent on special studies to examine particular water strategies, identify changed conditions Coordination within the region is an area of emphasis Long-term objective: continue improving our plan to avoid a water crisis

57 Key Message Review Major accomplishments since Regional Water Planning began Two rounds of planning; now in third round All projects seeking permits/state funding must be in Regional Water Plan We have contributed towards implementation of nearly 2 million acre-feet of new supply Reuse projects (over 730,000 AF) Connection to existing supplies (over 1,070,000 AF) New reservoirs/supply sources (over 168,000 AF) Increased conservation efforts in Region C

58 Key Message Review The existing Region C Water Plan Adopted in 2006 and includes a variety of strategies No one strategy alone can meet our region s needs Region C s population will more than double over the next 50 years Population projections continue to be revised upwards Failure to develop supplies = we will fall short of 2060 water needs by 1.9 million AF/Y

59 Key Message Review The existing Region C Water Plan, continued We must develop a reasonable surplus supply, from a variety of sources, to guard against: Worse-than-anticipated droughts Unanticipated population growth Unforeseen problems with implementation of planned strategies

60 Key Message Review The existing Region C Water Plan, continued The impact of failing to meet future demands would be devastating to North Texas 7% reduction in population (over 1 million people) 17% reduction in employment (700,000 jobs) 21% reduction in regional income ($58.8 billion) $160 billion loss of income and taxes

61 Key Message Review The existing Region C Water Plan, continued Conservation and reuse are a major part of the existing plan 26% of total supplies planned for 2060 (versus only 18% from new reservoirs) Region C is doing more than any other region in the state Implementation will reduce our average per capita municipal water demand by nearly 30% over the next 20 years Implementation will achieve the goal set by the Texas Water Conservation Implementation Task Force by 2020

62 Key Message Review Other issues addressed in the key message document Marvin Nichols Reservoir Lake Fastrill Lake Ralph Hall Lower Bois d Arc Creek Reservoir GPCD comparisons with other regions/cities Likelihood of drought, comparison to Atlanta Global warming and climate change issues Reuse (direct and indirect) Study Commission on Region C Water Supply

63 Key Message Review Other issues covered in the key message document, continued Interregional coordination Instream flows, bays and estuaries Groundwater monitoring and regulation Water leaks and aging infrastructure Potential supplies not currently recommended: Lake Livingston Sam Rayburn Reservoir/Lake B.A. Steinhagen Ogallala groundwater Desalination of Gulf of Mexico water Oklahoma water

64 Public Participation Activities Please complete and return Presentation Form when you are invited to speak about Region C Water Planning We can help with guest articles, letters to the editor and other writing or public education opportunities Speakers bureau and updated presentation template are in development we will be seeking volunteers to speak in various parts of Region C Next newsletter tentatively planned for May 2008 draft to be prepared/circulated for review by April

65 TWDB Request for Proposals for Tom Gooch

66 TWDB Request for Proposals Update of the Region C Water Plan What is involved? Include results of special studies Water conservation and reuse Toledo Bend Athens and Fort Worth reuse pilot projects Four County study Parker-Wise study County-wide meetings

67 TWDB Request for Proposals Update of the Region C Water Plan What is involved? Address changed conditions Population and demand projections Increased mining demands (Barnett Shale) Adjusted steam electric power demands (available August 2008) New entities that qualify as water user groups and/or wholesale water providers Removal of wholesale water providers that no longer provide wholesale supplies New water management strategies Water management strategies no longer being pursued

68 TWDB Request for Proposals Update of the Region C Water Plan What is involved? Update cost estimates for all strategies in 2006 Plan and any new strategies Include managed available groundwater (MAG) in the Woodbine and Nacatoch aquifers (possibly the Trinity aquifer as well) Update TWDB database (time intensive)

69 TWDB Request for Proposals Update of the Region C Water Plan Data to be provided by TWDB Groundwater supply for Nacatoch and Woodbine aquifers (possibly Trinity aquifer) New steam electric power water needs

70 TWDB Request for Proposals Schedule Published RFP 2/15/08 Draft proposal to RCWPG to review 3/31/08 Public hearing and draft document posted 30 days in advance of hearing mid-april Public hearing mid-may Due date 6/13/08

71 Presentation on Texas Climatology John Nielsen-Gammon Office of the State Climatologist

72 Schedule Update Stephanie Griffin

73 Updated Schedule May 2008 Updates on special studies Present draft report on Parker-Wise County study Present memos on Other County Meetings Public hearing to discuss proposed scope of work and funding application (due 6/13/08) Approval of application for work

74 Updated Schedule September 2008 Present draft report on the Conservation and Reuse study Present draft report for Four County study Present final report for Parker-Wise County study Update on TWDB contract status for work

75 Updated Schedule November 2008 Present final report for Conservation/Reuse study Present draft report for Athens Reuse study Update on Fort Worth reuse study Present final report for Four County study Update TWDB scope of work and contract status for work

76 Updated Schedule February 2009 Present final report on Athens Reuse study Present draft report and discuss revisions for final report for Fort Worth Reuse study Update on final TWDB scope of work for work

77 Other Discussion Jim Parks

78 Other Discussion Updates from the Chair Report from Regional Liaisons Report from GMA8 Liaisons Report from Texas Water Development Board Report from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Report from Texas Department of Agriculture Confirmation Date and Location of Next Meeting Other Discussion Acknowledgement of Guests Public Comments

79 Thank you for attending. Materials are available at