Region C Water Planning Group. December 5, 2016

Transcription

1 Region C Water Planning Group December 5, 2016

2 ACTION ITEMS

3 A. Announcement of Vacancy for Robert Scott s Position Representing Environmental Interests; Call for Nominations to Fill Vacancy, and Vote to Fill Vacancy Kevin Ward Region C Secretary

4 Election to fill Vacancy Bob Scott recommendation, Grace Darling Other nominations Elect to fill vacancy

5 B. Announcement of Vacancies for thirteen Expiring Terms; Call for Nominations to Fill Vacancies, and Vote to Fill Vacancies Kevin Ward Region C Secretary

6 Election to fill Expiring Terms Currently Held by Interest Seeking Re-Election John Carman Municipalities Yes James Hotopp Municipalities Yes Tom Kula Water Districts Yes John Lingenfelder Public Yes Jim McCarter Water Utilities No Steve Mundt Small Business Yes Jody Puckett Municipalities Yes Bob Riley Environment Yes Drew Satterwhite Water Districts Yes Tom Woodward Agriculture Yes Harold Latham GMA8 N/A Gary Douglas GMA11 N/A David Bailey GMA12 N/A Nominations Elect to fill Expiring Terms

7 C. Appoint Nominating Committee for Slate of Officers for 2017 Kevin Ward Region C Secretary

8 Committee Committee to consist of: Current Officers 2 members at-large (rotating basis) Appoint Committee

9 D. Consider Authorizing Trinity River Authority to Provide Public Notice and Submit a Grant Application to the TWDB On Behalf of Region C for Funding to Complete the Fifth Round of Regional Water Planning, and to Negotiate and Execute the Amendment to the TWDB Contract Kevin Ward Region C Secretary

10 TRA Authorization Post public notice Submit grant application Execute contract amendment with TWDB Execute contract amendment with FNI Vote to Authorize

11 E. Consider Ratifying changes to the draft WUG list submitted to TWDB Jeremy Rice Freese and Nichols, Inc.

12 WUG list TWDB revised definition of WUG No longer cities > 500 Water Providers > 100 acre-feet/year TWDB provided draft list FNI reviewed, suggested changes RCWPG reviewed (via ) Submitted to TWDB by Sept 30 deadline One Update - Kemp Consider ratifying WUG list

13 DISCUSSION ITEMS

14 A. Schedule Overview for 2021 Planning Cycle Jeremy Rice Freese and Nichols, Inc.

15 Schedule Planning Cycle Key Dates Jan Population/Demand Projections due March 2, 2020 Initially Prepared Plan due Sept 2, 2020 Final Plan due ~12 RCWPG meetings over next 4 years

16 TWDB Update August 2016: TWDB WSC contracted study for the purpose of meeting the municipal water conservation goals of the 2012 State Water Plan; contractor will be contacting RWPGs for info & meeting schedules. September 30 th : Was the deadline for RWPGs to submit comments on new WUG lists. November 3 rd : TWDB Board approved the 2 nd RFA Funding & the RFA was posted to the Texas Register on November 18 th ; effective December 8 th November 4 th : TWDB sent out Non-Municipal Demand Methodologies for RWPG member and stakeholder review November 17 th : TWDB Board approved the proposed planning rule revisions (31 TAC 357); the approved rules will automatically become effective 20 days after they have been sent to the Texas Register.

17 November 17 th : Afternoon TWDB Board Worksession with all of the RWPG Chairs to get feedback directly on RWPG structure and operation issues (ex: June 20 th Senate Ag Rural Affairs Committee Hearing) Early 2017: Execute RWPG Contract Amendments to incorporate remaining funding/sow to complete 5 th Round RWPlanning. RWPGs can then begin scoping efforts for WMS evaluations for future amendments. January-June 2017: All Draft Population & Demand Projections will be released for review by RWPGs; as well as reconfigured historical GPCDs. January 23 rd 25 th : Water for Texas 2017 Conference - Innovation at Work; Austin, Texas. [ ] January June 2017: Texas Legislature in Session. TWDB Update

18 B. TWDB Presentation Regional Planning 101 Connie Townsend TWDB

19 Regional Water Planning in Texas Introduction to the 5 th Cycle Name Connie Townsend, P.E. Water Use, Projections, & Planning Texas Water Development Board Updated November

20 The following presentation is based upon professional research and analysis within the scope of the Texas Water Development Board s statutory responsibilities and priorities but, unless specifically noted, does not necessarily reflect official Board positions or decisions. 2

21 Overview Background on regional and state water planning in Texas Overview of regional water planning groups Fundamentals of water planning Foundation of the State Water Plan 3

22 Water Planning: Legislative Response to Drought 1950s Drought of Record 1957: Creation of TWDB $200 million in Water Development Fund 4

23 State Water Planning

24 Why do we plan? October 4,

25 4 Worst Statewide Texas Droughts Zero line* 2 Palmer Drought Severity Index Months

26 Meteorological Agricultural Hydrological Socioeconomic Types of Drought October 11, 2016 *regional water planning focuses on drought impacting water supplies 8

27 Overview of Regional Water Planning Groups 9

28 16 Regional Water Planning Areas 10

29 Diverse interest groups represented 11

30 Voting Member Categories Statutory interests: Public Counties Municipalities Electric-generating utilities River authorities Industries Agriculture Environment Small businesses Water districts Water utilities Groundwater management areas (varies by region) There are approximately 370 voting members in the 16 groups 12

31 Key Responsibilities of Planning Group Members Represent interest category and region Develop a plan that serves region and state Consider local water plans Ensure adoption of a regional water plan by the statutory deadline that meets all requirements 13

32 How do planning groups function? Select a host political subdivision Select technical consultants Self-govern (maintain own bylaws and membership) Hold regular public meetings and sub-group meetings as necessary Consider stakeholder input and make decisions in accordance with bylaws 14

33 Public Notice Requirements Subject to Texas Open Meetings Act Follow specific public notice requirements that vary depending on activity Must hold initial preplanning public meeting for input on the next plan Must present how the planning group will identify potentially feasible WMSs at a public meeting 15

34 Funding the Planning Process Legislative appropriations RWPGs apply for funding (based on 5-year cycles) Funding through TWDB contract with political subdivision Political subdivisions subcontract with technical consultants RWPGs direct work of consultants 16

35 Relevant Documents Statute Administrative rules Contract Scope of Work/Task budget Contract Exhibit C general guidelines for regional water plan development Contract Exhibit D guidelines for data deliverables 17

36 Public Roles 16 Regional Water Planning Groups Legislature TWDB 16 technical consultants CONTRACTS 16 political subdivisions 18

37 Incentives to Participate TWDB funding TCEQ permitting 19

38 Fundamentals of Water Planning 20

39 Basic Planning Parameters Meet drought of record water needs 50-year planning horizon 5-year planning cycle 6 categories of water use: municipal, manufacturing, mining, irrigation, livestock, and steam-electric power Geographic breakdown of water user group information by region, river basin, and county 21

40 Planning Units & Key Terms Drought of Record (DOR) = period of time when historical records indicate that natural hydrological conditions would have provided the least amount of water supply Data is decadal (over a 50-year period) Water volumes are in acre-feet (AF) (1 AF = 325,851 gallons or ~ football field 1 foot deep) Water User Group = WUG Wholesale Water Provider = WWP Major Water Provider = MWP (new) 22

41 Key Planning Terminology Availability* = maximum amount of raw water that could be produced by a source during a repeat of the DOR Existing Supply* = maximum amount of water that is physically and legally accessible for immediate use by a WUG under a repeat of DOR conditions *See handout page 1: Section 6.1 comparison of terms from the 2017 State Water Plan 23

42 Key Planning Terminology Demand = volume of water required to carry out the anticipated domestic, public, and/or economic activities of a WUG during DOR conditions Need = a potential water supply shortage, based on the difference between water demands and existing water supplies (can be met by implementing recommended water management strategies) Unmet Need = the portion of an identified water need that is not met by recommended water management strategies 24

43 Key Planning Terminology Water Management Strategy (WMS) = a plan to meet a need for additional water by a discrete WUG, through increasing total water supplies or maximizing existing supplies, including through reducing demands Water Management Strategy Project (WMSP) = a water project that has a capital cost and when implemented, would develop, deliver, or treat additional water supplies or conserve water for WUGs or WWPs 25

44 WUGs in the 2016 Regional Water Plans Demand Category Municipal WUGs Number of WUGs Cities & Utilities 1,364 County-Other 254 Non-municipal WUGs Manufacturing 183 Mining 228 Steam-Electric Power 85 Irrigation 241 Livestock 254 Total number of WUGs 2,609 26

45 Municipal Water User Group Categories 27

46 Project population Water Planning Basics Water availability (by source) Project water demands Existing water supplies (by entity) Compare to identify surpluses or needs Identify, evaluate, and recommend water management strategies and projects 28

47 Path to Recommending Strategies and Associated Projects identify* potentially feasible strategies and projects evaluate potentially feasible strategies and projects compare evaluated strategies and projects recommend strategies and projects that are costeffective and environmentally sensitive 31 TAC (b) *See handout page 2: list of potentially feasible WMSs to be considered by RWPGs 29

48 Potentially Feasible Water Management Strategies WMS s that must be considered: Expanded use of existing supplies New supply development Conservation and drought management measures Reuse of wastewater Interbasin transfers of surface water Emergency transfers of surface water Water conservation and drought management measures must be considered for every water user group with an identified water need 30

49 Evaluation of Strategies and Associated Projects Evaluations are based on: water quantity and reliability financial costs impacts to environment and agriculture impacts to water quality other factors such as regulatory requirements, time required to implement, etc. 31

50 Water Management Strategy vs. Project Source (aquifer) WMS Brackish Groundwater Development treatment plant - $ pipeline - $ wells - $ WMSPs WUG 1 WUG 2 WMSs 32

51 Prioritization of Projects Regional and state level prioritization of WMSPs are required by SWIFT Legislation Each recommended WMSP must be prioritized by RWPG Regional prioritization based on uniform standards developed by stakeholder committee (RWPG Chairs) State prioritization system based on statute and TWDB administrative rules 33

52 Regional Planning Deliverables Standard contract tasks associated with 11 Chapters Populate Online State Water Plan database (DB22) Report documents: Technical Memorandum, Initially Prepared Plan, and Final Plan List of prioritized projects 34

53 Standard RWP Chapters* 1. Planning area description 2. Population and water demand projections 3. Water supply analysis 4. Identification of water needs 5. Water management strategies and projects 6. Impacts of plan and consistency with protection of the State s water, agricultural, and natural resources *See handout page 3: General Document Cross-Reference Table 35

54 Standard RWP Chapters 7. Drought response information, activities, and recommendations 8. Unique stream segments, unique reservoir sites, and policy recommendations 9. Infrastructure financing analysis 10. Adoption of plan 11. Implementation and comparison to previous regional water plan 36

55 Foundation of the State Water Plan 37

56 Bottom Up Approach 2022 State Water Plan Online state water plan database (DB22) 16 adopted regional water plans 38

57 Regional & State Planning Cycles 39

58 Audience The State Water Plan is delivered to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public Key aspects for their consideration: Long-term projections of water supplies, demands, and needs Project costs and funding needs Policy recommendations 40

59 Snapshot of the 2017 State Water Plan 5,500 strategies 2,500 projects Capital cost of $63 billion 41

60 The State Water Plan is Online and Interactive 42

61 Additional TWDB Presentations Update on revised 31 TAC Chapter 357 rules What's new in the 5 th cycle of planning Detailed plan requirements Others based on planning group requests 43

62 44

63 Questions? Texas Water Development Board Connie Townsend, P.E. 17

64 C. TWDB Presentation Recent Rule Changes Connie Townsend TWDB

65 Texas Regional Water Planning Update on Revised 31 Texas Administrative Rules Chapter 357 Name Connie Townsend, P.E. Water Use, Projections, & Planning Texas Water Development Board Updated November

66 The following presentation is based upon professional research and analysis within the scope of the Texas Water Development Board s statutory responsibilities and priorities but, unless specifically noted, does not necessarily reflect official Board positions or decisions. 2

67 Purpose of 2016 Rule Revisions Implement legislative changes Address stakeholder concerns Improve the planning process Increase flexibility in planning requirements Reduce certain unessential reporting requirements Clarify rules and refine definitions 3

68 2016 Rule Revision Process Obtained Stakeholder Input State agencies RWPG members Other stakeholders Proposed Draft Rule Revisions Board approved proposal on July 21st Published in Texas Register on August 5 th Public hearing was held on August 24 th Comments were accepted through September 6 th Revised and adopted final rules Board adopted rules on November 17 th Rules will be effective on December 8 th 4

69 Revised Water User Group (WUG) Definition (41) Reflects the utility-based planning approach for municipal WUGs Sets a new threshold of 100 acre-feet per year provided by the utility Privately-owned utilities must provide an average of 100 acre-feet per year across all owned systems County-Other definition revised to be consistent 5

70 Definitions of WWP and MWP (42) and (19) Wholesale Water Provider (WWP) Eliminates the annual 1,000 acre-foot delivery or sales threshold The RWPG will identify the WWPs in its region to be evaluated Major Water Provider (MWP) Significant public or private WUG or WWP To be designated by the RWPG MWP is a category to be used for reporting purposes in regional and state water planning instead of previous WWP-based reporting requirements 6

71 WMSPs and Prioritization of Projects (39) and Water Management Strategy Project (WMSP) = a water project that has a capital cost and when implemented, would develop, deliver, or treat additional water supplies or conserve water for WUGs or WWPs May be required to implement a water management strategy (WMS) Defined to distinguish from a WMS and to clarify what RWPGs are to prioritize at the end of their planning efforts New requires each RWPG to prioritize recommended WMSPs for SWIFT 7

72 Public Notice Revisions RWPGs may now post notices: Online on the RWPGs website, OR With each County Clerk in the RWPA New (e) Pertains to notice for requesting research and planning funds from the TWDB 8

73 Existing Surface Water Supply Analysis (c) Availability requirements for existing supplies of stored and run of river water are split out as (c)(1) and (c)(2) Evaluation of existing run of river surface water availability for municipal WUGs must be based on the minimum monthly diversion amounts that are available 100% of the time, if it is the only supply for the municipal WUG 9

74 Groundwater Availability Analysis (d) Clearly stipulates that for an RWP to be consistent with a desired future condition (DFC), the groundwater availability in the RWP must not exceed the modeled available groundwater (MAG) If there is no groundwater conservation district within the RWPA, then the RWPG will determine the availability of groundwater for regional planning purposes (in response to SB 1101) 10

75 MAG Peak Factor (d)(3) & (20) (new) MAG Peak Factor = a percentage (e.g., greater than 100%) that is applied to a MAG value reflecting the annual groundwater availability that, for planning purposes, shall be considered temporarily available for pumping consistent with DFCs. Developed in response to stakeholder input Provides temporary accommodation of increased groundwater demands by accommodating anticipated fluctuations in pumping Does not limit permitting or guarantee approval of any future permit applications. Requires review and approval by relevant GCDs, GMAs and the TWDB EA 11

76 Additional Rule Changes New and Revised Definitions (1) Agricultural Water Conservation (new) (3) Availability (revised) (13) Existing Water Supply (revised) (10) Drought Management WMS (new) (11) Drought of Record (revised) (14) Firm Yield (revised) (21) Planning Decades (new) (26) RWPG-Estimated Groundwater Availability (new) 12

77 Additional Rule Changes New and Revised Definitions (continued) (28) Reuse (new) (32) State Water Planning Database (new) (33) Unmet Water Need (new) (34) Water Conservation Measures (revised) (35) Water Conservation Plan (revised) (36) Water Conservation Strategy (new) (37) Water Demand (new) (40) Water Need (new) 13

78 Additional Rule Changes (continued) (a) (revised) to add impacts on public health, safety, or welfare [SB 1101] (c) (revised) to require seawater and brackish GW desal be considered as potentially feasible WMSs [HB 30] (d) (new) to clarify that WMSs and WMPSs must reduce consumption, loss, or waste; improve efficiency; or develop, deliver, or treat additional water supply volumes (g)(2) (revised) term management supply factor used instead of safety factor 14

79 Additional Rule Changes (continued) (j) (new) to explain the elements required to justify inclusion of unmet municipal needs in an RWP (a) (revised) to more explicitly describe how the board considers and acts upon a petition to amend an RWP, if the RWPG does not act upon the petition (b) and (c) (revised) to allow unmet needs in major and minor amendments (same as allowed in RWP adoption) (e) (revised) to specify how RWPGs may substitute alternative WMSs for recommended WMSs (revised) to add clarifying language for Consistency of RWPs 15

80 16

81 Questions? Name Connie Townsend, P.E. Water Use, Projections, & Planning Texas Water Development Board 45

82 Other Discussion A. Updates from the Chair B. Report from Regional Liaisons C. Report from Texas Water Development Board

83 Other Discussion D. Report from Texas Department of Agriculture E. Report from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department F. Other Reports

84 Other Discussion G. Confirm Date and Location of Next Meeting H. Public Comments

85 Adjournment

86 Thank you for attending. Materials are available at