UPDATE: SNWA Groundwater Development Project Activities. August 20, 2009

Transcription

1 UPDATE: SNWA Groundwater Development Project Activities August 20, 2009

2 History Southern Nevada s Population (1980s) 2,000,000 1,000, , ,

3 History Competition for Colorado River water Water agencies were operating independently no coordination of resources, demands, etc. Each agency was negotiating its own best deal for future supplies with the Colorado River Commission every-man-for-himself. No coordinated conservation plan There was no incentive to save water - agencies were allocated water based on the prior year s use the more they used, the more they got. If an agency used less than its allocated amount, its water share was reduced accordingly.

4 Historic Water Demands 600, ,000 Acre-feet per year 400, , ,000 Colorado River 100,000 Spring Flow 0 Groundwater

5 Due to unprecedented growth in the late 1980s, the Las Vegas Valley Water District filed 146 groundwater applications* in 1989 for undeveloped groundwater in eastern Nevada. Due to environmental concerns and existing appropriations, the LVVWD withdrew applications from 9 basins. Since 1989, the LVVWD and/or the SNWA have withdrawn or transferred 49 of the original applications. *These applications were later transferred to the SNWA.

6 The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was formed in 1991 to acquire and manage water resources, build and operate facilities, and promote conservation on a regional level.

7 City of North Las Vegas City of Henderson City of Boulder City Big Bend Water District Southern Nevada Water Authority Board of Directors (seven members, one from each agency) City of Las Vegas Clark County Water Rec. District Las Vegas Valley Water District

8 Colorado River Resources Nevada receives return-flow credits for all water that is used indoors; this water is treated and then returned to Lake Mead, stretching the state s Colorado River allocation.

9 Board of Directors Internal Work Groups SNWA Managers SNWA Principals Member Agency & SNWA Staffs Conservation Finance Technical Operations

10 IRPAC Process The Integrated Resource Planning Advisory Committee (IRPAC) process was launched in 1994 to assist the SNWA in developing an Integrated Resource Plan for regional water resources. Process considerations: Current and projected water demands Resource and facility needs Conservation Cost/Funding Environmental Impacts Process goal: To develop recommendations regarding the most viable and desirable set of options to meet future water demands.

11 IRPAC Recommendations (Adopted by the Board in 1995) Based on IRPAC recommendations, the SNWA: Developed a water resource plan to project future demands and resources available to meet those demands over time; placed top priority on Colorado River resources. Implemented a water facilities program that is phased and expandable to respond to future uncertainties. Expanded treatment and transmission capacity and constructed a new treatment and transmission facility to improve system reliability. Implemented a conservation goal and incentive programs. Utilized diverse funding sources, based on a growth-pays-forgrowth philosophy.

12 The SNWA Resource Plan, first adopted in 1996, reflects changing developments in Southern Nevada s water resource picture. The plan includes a projection of current and future demands, and anticipated supplies available to meet those demands over time.

13 The SNWA Resource Plan has evolved over time, but has always included a portfolio of resource options. Options are assessed and prioritized based on need, accessibility, availability and cost Resource Portfolio Colorado River Resources Basin Apportionment Return-Flow Credits Unused Apportionment Flood Control Surplus Domestic Surplus Intentionally Created Surplus Banked Resources Augmentation Transfers/Exchanges Conservation Reclaimed Water Resources Groundwater Las Vegas Valley Groundwater In-State Groundwater Resources

14 2009 Water Resource Plan Adopted by the Board May 21, ,400,000 Water Demands (acre-feet) 1,200,000 1,000, , , ,000 Drop 2 Arizona Bank and Augmentation ICS (Muddy/Virgin Rivers and Coyote Spring) Colorado River and Las Vegas Valley Groundwater Conservation In-State Groundwater 200,

15 The SNWA s 1996 Resource Plan projected possible use of these resources between 2025 and Water Resource Plan

16 Interim Colorado River supplies were the highest priority for use at that time due to availability, accessibility and cost.

17 In 1996, the Arizona Banking Authority was formed to fully utilize the state s Colorado River resources, reducing Nevada s ability to access unused Lower Basin apportionments. By 1999, the seven states nearly finished an agreement that established guidelines for the use of Interim Surplus Colorado River supplies. Interim Surplus and other limited-term supplies were expected to meet a portion of Southern Nevada s demands until at least 2015, while permanent supplies were being developed. Interim Surplus, however, is still dependent on Lake Mead water levels being at elevation 1145 or above.

18 The 1999 Water Resource Plan projected that Southern Nevada s near-term demands could be met by limited-term, available Colorado River supplies Water Resource Plan 700, , ,000 AZ Demonstration Project* Interim Surplus* Unused AZ Apportionment* AZ Groundwater Bank* Virgin River Southern NV Groundwater Bank* Muddy River 400, ,000 Colorado River Water 200, ,000 Las Vegas Valley Groundwater *Interim supplies

19 96% Lake Mead, 1999

20 From , average inflows were only 50% of normal. 120% 100% Normal 80% 60% 62% 59% 53% 51% 40% 20% 0% 25%

21 Lake Mead, % 43%

22 In 2004, the SNWA initiated an integrated water planning process to identify the appropriate combination of in-state resources, facilities and conservation needed to meet demands and protect the community from drought. The SNWA Board approved an Integrated Water Planning Concepts Document and Work Plan for the development of in-state resources and directed staff to initiate process activities. The SNWA convened a citizen s advisory committee to make recommendations on how to integrate in-state resources in overall planning efforts.

23 IWPAC Stakeholder Groups SNWA Board Appointments Nevada Taxpayers Association (1) Gaming Industry (1) Homebuilder (1) Master Planner (1) Developer (1) Industrial/Commercial Business (1) Small Business (2) Paiute Tribe (1) Financial Industry (1) Union (2) Environmental (2) Senior Citizens (2) Southern Nevada Residents (5) Other Participants Lincoln County Resident (1) White Pine County Resident (1) Nye County Resident (1) Moapa Valley Water District (1) Virgin Valley Water District (1) Ex Officio Members Chair, Colorado River Commission Chair, Committee on Public Lands Office of the Governor (1)

24 Key Considerations Other Water Resources, 10% Colorado River, 90% Southern Nevada depends on the Colorado River to meet 90% of its water resource needs.

25 Groundwater Development

26 In 2003, the SNWA and Lincoln County resolved long-standing concerns over applications in that county. The Lincoln County Agreement divided the Lincoln County s applications into three categories: - SNWA (I) - Lincoln County (II) - Shared (III) The agreement also established a cooperative relationship that includes sharing resources and data.

27 Key Considerations Non-Colorado River water supplies are necessary for Southern Nevada to diversify resources.

28 In 2005, the SNWA Board of Directors accepted the Advisory Committee s Recommendations Report. The report contained 22 recommendations regarding how best to integrate in-state resources into Southern Nevada s overall planning and management activities.

29 Conservation Pursue more aggressive promotion of water conservation and regulation of water use through methods such as the reduction of turf Rebated $150 million dollars for more than 136 million square feet of turf converted, saving Southern Nevada more than 7.5 billion gallons of water annually Decrease total water demand from 272 GPCD to 250 GPCD by 2010 and to 245 GPCD by 2035 Reduced water demand to less than 250 GPCD in 2008 Assess conservation achievement annually, investigate the potential for further GPCD reductions and revise conservation goals accordingly Set new conservation goal of 199 GPCD by 2035

30 Resource Development Pursue development of all the resource options considered in the IWPAC planning scenarios AZ Water Bank Coyote Spring Valley Groundwater Rights Pre-Compact Water Rights (Virgin and Muddy Rivers) Three Lakes Valley Groundwater Rights Virgin River Water Rights Augmentation Credits Additional Conservation Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties Groundwater Applications Provide additional safeguards for communities and the environment in areas where in-state groundwater resources are developed Entered into monitoring, mitigation and protection plans for federal basins Work with the Colorado River Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation to implement augmentation credits for in-state, non- Colorado River resources Revised return-flow credit methodology to include in-state groundwater

31 Resource Development (Con t.) Pursue delivery of pre-compact Muddy and Virgin River water rights through Lake Mead and the existing Southern Nevada Water System ( lake conveyance ) Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead Record of Decision allows for up to 50,000 AFY Utilize the Southern Nevada Water Bank and California Water Bank as bridge resources to help meet any supply deficits Banked more than 300,000 AF in Southern Nevada and 70,000 AF in California, in addition to 1.25 million AF banked in Arizona Utilize surplus and interim surplus Colorado River water, if and when they are available Lake Mead above elevation Nevada s allocation increases to 400,000 AFY Continue to pursue ocean desalination as a long-term resource 7 states pursuing augmentation and Nevada will get first 75,000 AF

32 In 2005, following acceptance of the Advisory Committee s recommendations, the Board signed a Resolution supporting the development of in-state, non-colorado River water resources. The governing boards of SNWA s member agencies, along with the Clark County Board of County Commissioners and the Colorado River Commission signed similar resolutions.

33 Since 2000, average inflows have been only 68% of normal. 120% 100% Normal 105% 102% 90% 80% 60% 62% 59% 53% 51% 73% 68% 40% 20% 0% 25% Projected

34 Lake Mead water levels have dropped to record lows. 1,225 1,200 Top of Spillway 1,175 1,150 1,125 1,100 1,075 Shortage 1,050 1,025 1,000 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

35 The SNWA could lose facility access if drought conditions continue. Lake Mead Elevation, in feet above MSL 1,200 1,150 1,100 69% of Average Runoff 1,050 SNWA Intake No. 1 1,000 SNWA Intake No. 2 and

36 The SNWA could lose supply access if drought conditions continue. Lake Mead Elevation, in feet above MSL 1,200 1,150 1,100 1,050 1,000 Shortage SNWA Intake No. 1 SNWA Intake No. 2 and 3 69% of Average Runoff Current Elevation: 1,094 ft.

37 Lake Mead Levels Impacts to Lake Mead Intakes with six year period of 65 percent average runoff 1,225 Lake Mead Elevation, in feet above mean sea level 1,100 1,000 Lake Mead Elevation 1,111 ft. on 1/1/2009 First Level Shortage Second Level Shortage; Elevation of SNWA Intake No. 1 Third Level Shortage; Initiation of Reconsultation Elevation of SNWA Intakes No. 2 and No. 3 Potential decline in Lake Mead elevation with 6-year period ( ) of 65% average runoff

38 2009 Water Resource Plan Severe Shortage Plan Lake Mead Elevation 1,075 to 1,025 ft. Goal Preserve lead time for new facility development. Action Construct Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project. Examine demand-management needs over and above existing conservation goals/annual targets. Reconsult with the Secretary of the Interior and Basin States on additional Colorado River shortage management strategies. 1,025 to 1,000 ft. Preserve Lake Mead elevation of 1,000 ft. Implement additional demand-management measures through mandatory policies to offset further Colorado River Basin supply shortages. Examine potential for temporary infrastructure to extend the operational capabilities of SNWA s intakes in Lake Mead. Below 1,000 ft. Preserve water supply for health and safety uses. Maximize use of available groundwater supplies (Southern Nevada Groundwater Bank and in-state resources). Significantly limit non-essential uses.

39 Proposed Facilities Groundwater production wells Pipelines Pumping stations Regulating tanks Water treatment facilities Power lines/facilities Support facilities

40 Environmental Permitting Process & Schedule National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Public Scoping - April to August 2005 Public Scoping - July to August 2006 Draft EIS anticipated public review early 2010 Record of Decision anticipated end of 2010 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Assessment (BA) early 2010 Biological Opinion middle to end 2010 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Programmatic Agreement - early 2010 Field Surveys 2010 to 2012

41 Federal Stipulation Activities Implementing hydrologic and biologic monitoring plans for Spring Valley (finalized February 2009) Developing hydrologic and biologic monitoring plans for Dry Lake, Delamar and Cave Valleys Planning to collect and analyze water chemistry of more than 40 wells, piezometers and surface water sites Operating and maintaining a discharge monitoring site on Big Springs Creek and Cleve Creek Defining biologic and hydrologic baseline conditions Working with the Technical Review Panel, Biological Work Group and Executive Committee to oversee and implement the monitoring plans Monitoring and collecting data from 25 sites in Spring Valley including wells, springs and ecosystems

42 As of 2009, the majority of water supplies available to our community consist almost exclusively of Colorado River resources. 1,400,000 Water Demands (acre-feet) 1,200,000 1,000, , , ,000 Drop 2 Arizona Bank and Augmentation ICS (Muddy/Virgin Rivers and Coyote Spring) Colorado River and Las Vegas Valley Groundwater Conservation In-State Groundwater 200,

43 Resource Diversification Current Future Other 10% Other 40% Colorado River 90% Colorado River 60%

44 Potential Desalination Sites

45 Carlsbad, California Energy Requirements (150,000 acre-foot supply) Energy for Treatment Plant Energy for Conveyance System Total Energy Need 210 MW 250 MW * 460 MW Total Annual Energy Cost ($M) (Based on $.10 per KWH) $400 Puerto Penasco, Mexico 210 MW 210 MW * 420 MW $370 Rosarito Beach, Mexico 210 MW 310 MW * 520 MW $460 In-State Project 2 MW 72 MW 44 MW $65-30MW hyd. - $18 hyd. 42 MW $47 * Potential for hydroelectric generation exists, but not analyzed

46 Capital Costs (Billion $) (150,000 acre-foot supply) Capital Cost for Treatment Plant Capital Cost Conveyance System Total Capital Cost Carlsbad, California $1.5 - $2.0 $8.1 $9.6 - $10.1 Puerto Penasco, Mexico $1.5 - $2.0 $8.2 $9.7 - $10.2 Rosarito Beach, Mexico $1.5 - $2.0 $9.5 $ $11.5 In-State Project $.02 $3.5 $3.5

47 Issues California California Need for Water Permitting (Carlsbad 8yrs) Environmental (inlet and brine outlet designs, conveyance alignment) Coastal Land Energy Needs, Resources and Carbon Footprint Annual Operation Costs Mexico Bi-National Relationship Along the Border Treaties, Water Laws and Agreements Funding requirements Certainty of Investment Energy Resources Annual Operation Costs

48 Staff Recommendations Proceed with state and federal permitting processes, including the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement and State Engineer water rights processes Fulfill the requirements of stipulated federal agreements Complete the necessary biologic and hydrologic monitoring efforts to support these activities

49