Appendices

Appendix 1. Workgroup Members

Appendix 2. Links to Selected State Water Planning Documents

Appendix 3. State Plan Evaluation Questions

Appendix 3.1 Detailed State Plan Evaluation Questions

Appendix 3.1 State Plan Summary Questions

Appendix 4. Summaries of Selected State Water Plans

Appendix 5. A Survey of Water Planning Funding Strategies

Appendix 1. Workgroup Members

Co-Chairs

Patricia Bresnahan, Willimantic River Alliance Matt Pafford, CT Office of Policy and Management Members and Contributors

Tom Callahan University of Connecticut Alicea Charamut Connecticut River Watershed Council Virginia de Lima U.S. Geological Survey (retired) WPC Advisory Group Corinne Fitting CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Peter Galant Tighe and Bond John Hudak Regional Water Authority Richard Iozzo CT Department of Public Health Christine Kirchhoff University of Connecticut Gail Lucchina CT Office of Policy and Management Steve Pratt Metropolitan District Commission

David Radka Connecticut Water Company Bruce Rich Fisheries Advisory Council Brian Roach Aquarion Water Company Martha Smith West River Watershed Coalition Glenn Warner University of Connecticut

Appendix 2. Links to Selected State Water Planning Documents

State Links

California California Water Plan Website: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/

California Department of Water Resources: http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/

Managing California’s Water; From Conflict to Reconciliation:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211EHR.pdf

California Water Code Requirements:

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/technical/waterplancode.cfm

Colorado Colorado’s Water Plan: http://coloradowaterplan.com/

Colorado Water Conservation Board:

http://cwcb.state.co.us/Pages/CWCBHome.aspx

Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources, Statewide Water Supply Initiative –

2010: http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/water-supply-

planning/pages/swsi2010.aspx

Florida Florida Water Plan:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/fwplan.htm

Office of Water Policy:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/index.htm

Florida Administrative Code:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/rulesprog.htm#owp

The 2014 Florida Statutes:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut

e&URL=0300-0399/0373/Sections/0373.036.html

Georgia Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Plan:

http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org

Resource Assessments:

http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/resource_assessments/inde

x.php

Forecasting:

http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/forecasting/index.php

Regional Water Planning:

http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/pages/regional_water_planning/in

dex.php

Developing a Comprehensive State Water Management Plan; A

Framework for Managing Georgia’s Water Resources

http://southeastaquatics.net/resources/pdfs/state%20water%20manage

ment%20plan%20review_kundell%20et%20al%202005.pdf

Kansas Kansas Water Office:

http://www.kwo.org/Kansas_Water_Plan/Kansas_Water_Plan.htm

Kansas Water Plan 2014:

http://www.kwo.org/Kansas_Water_Plan/KansasWaterPlan2014.html

Massachusetts Massachusetts Water Policy (2004): http://www.mass.gov/eea/waste-

mgnt-recycling/water-resources/preserving-water-

resources/massachusetts-water-policy-2004.html

Minnesota The 2010 Minnesota Water Plan: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/2010_Minnesota_Water_Plan.pdf

The “Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework” developed by the University of Minnesota: http://wrc.umn.edu/watersustainabilityframework/

Nebraska Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division:

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/NDEQProg.nsf/%24%24OpenDominoDocume

nt.xsp?documentId=8BA94FC4B4953AEE86257B960069578F&action=ope

nDocument

2014 Annual Report and Plan of Work for the Nebraska State Water

Planning and Review Process:

http://www.dnr.ne.gov/2014-annual-report-and-plan-of-work-for-the-

nebraska-state-water-planning-and-reveiw-process

New Hampshire New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services:

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dwgb/wrpp/

New Hampshire water Sustainability Commission:

http://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/publications/index.htm

New Hampshire Lives on Water Initiative: www.nhlivesonwater.org

North Carolina North Carolina Division of Water Resources:

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq

Oregon Oregon Water Resources Department, Integrated Water Resources Strategy: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/law/integrated_water_supply_strategy.aspx

Oregon’s Integrated Water Resource Strategy: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS_Final_2.pdf

Oregon’s Integrated Water Resource Strategy Summary: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS/IWRS_One_Pager_Final.pdf

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Water Plan website:

http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/statewaterplan/docroot/default

.aspx

Pennsylvania Public Act 220 (2002):

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2002&se

ssInd=0&act=220

Pennsylvania Interstate Waters Office:

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/iwo/rbc/rbc.htm

Development of the Water-Analysis Screening Tool (WAST) Used in the

Initial Screening for the Pennsylvania State Water Plan Update of 2008:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1106/

Rhode Island Rhode Island Water 2030:

http://www.planning.ri.gov/documents/guide_plan/RI%20Water%202030

_06.14.12_Final.pdf

Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency: http://www.ricwfa.com/

Rhode Island Water Resource Board: http://www.wrb.ri.gov/

Tennessee Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Water

Resources Regional Planning:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/water_regional_planning.shtml

The Statewide Water Resource Planning – A Nine State Study – 2010:

http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Other_Issues/Statewide_Water_Reso

urces.pdf, pg. TN-1, TN-3, TN-12

Regional Water Resources Planning Guidelines for Tennessee – March

2013:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/docs/regionalplanning/regional_

water_resources_planning_guidelines.pdf, pg. 1, pg. 3., pg. 24

Water Withdrawal Registration Program:

http://www.tennessee.gov/sos/rules/1200/1200-05/1200-05-08.pdf , pg.

1

South Cumberland Regional Water Recourses Planning Study – June 2011:

http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/docs/regionalplanning/scrwrps20

11.pdf pg. i, pg. v., pg. 37, pg. 46

North Central Tennessee Regional Water Resources Planning Study –

December 2012. Pg. i, pg. iv., pg. 33-34, pg. 38

http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/docs/regionalplanning/ncrwrps20

11.pdf

Texas Texas Water Development Board, State Water Planning:

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/index.asp

What Does It Cost to Conduct Regional Water Planning Group (RWPG)

Activities? http://tgpc.state.tx.us/POE/FAQs/RWPGsFunding_FAQ.pdf

Water for Texas, Amending an Approved Regional Water Plan:

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/shells/Amending_Approved_R

WP2.pdf

Groundwater Conservation Districts, General Provisions:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/WA/htm/WA.36.htm

Utah Utah Division of Water Resources: http://water.utah.gov/

Utah State Water Plans: http://www.water.utah.gov/waterplan/

Utah State Water Plan:

http://www.water.utah.gov/planning/swp/ex_swp.htm

Virginia Virginia State Water Resources Plan:

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantit

y/WaterSupplyPlanning/StateWaterPlan.aspx

Virginia Water Plan Legislation § 62.1-44.36 through § 62.1-44.44:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+62.1-44.36

Virginia State Water Control Board Overview:

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/LawsAndRegulations/CitizenB

oards/WaterBoard/StateWaterControlBoardOverview.pdf

Washington Watershed Planning Act: http://www.mass.gov/eea/waste-mgnt-

recycling/water-resources/preserving-water-resources/sustainable-water-

management/framework/sustainable-water-management-framework-

summary.html

Island County: http://www.mass.gov/eea/waste-mgnt-recycling/water-

resources/preserving-water-resources/sustainable-water-

management/framework/sustainable-water-management-framework-

summary.html

Phone conversation with Doug Kelly, Island Department of Public Health

West Virginia The Water Use Plan:

http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Pages/default.as

px

ArcGIS web tool: http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/WVWaterPlan/

Appendix 3. State Plan Evaluation Questions

Appendix 3.1 Detailed Plan Evaluation Questions

Appendix 3.2 State Water Plan Summary Questions

Appendix 3.1 Detailed State Plan Evaluation Questions

Section Number

Question Answer

1.0 CONTACTS: Please list the names, affiliations and contact information for any people within the state that you feel would be able to answer any additional questions.

2.0 Who: Governance and Policy

2.1 What is the general water rights framework within the state, and how is that framework reflected in the way water authority is distributed to regulating entities?

2.2 In general, what are the authorities within the state responsible for water policy and planning? How do these organizations relate to each other?

2.3 To the extent that you can, please describe which entities do the following:

2.3.1 - planning

2.3.2 - implementation

2.3.3 - enforcement

2.3.4 - policy development

2.3.5 - legislation development

2.4 Please describe any conflict resolution process the state has specifically related to water issues.

2.5 What provisions are there for stakeholder participation in water planning and decision making?

2.6 What is the relationship between water planning, water policy development and legislation (does the plan include policy or support policy developed elsewhere)?

2.7 What interstate authorities do these groups work with? What regional entities or agreements does the state participate in?

2.8 Other: please list any other observations related

to water governance and policy within the state

3.0 Planning, Administration and Implementation

3.1 What is the planning horizon, how many years ahead do they plan for?

3.2 What is the planning cycle? How often is the plan updated?

3.2 How is water planning funded?

3.3 What data and models are used and how are they acquired?

3.4 How is water allocation policy connected to water planning and legislation development, formally?

3.5 What is the relationship to other planning processes within the state such as land use planning, economic development planning, etc.?

3.6 How are stakeholder interests incorporated into the planning process?

3.7 Are water information security and FOI concerns addressed?

3.8 Other: are there any other important aspects of this state’s planning process that we should note?

4.0 What Water?: Resource Scope

4.1 What spatial scale is the plan, are the planning units (basins, regions, and/or state)?

4.4 What water is planned: surface water, groundwater

4.3 Whose water is planned: Public vs. private? What is the relationship to water rights?

4.4 Please note how the following potential uses of water are planned for

4.4.1 withdrawals

4.4.2 discharges

4.4.3 stormwater

4.4.4 reuse & conservation

4.4.5 environmental/instream

4.4.6 industry

4.4.7 agriculture

4.4.8 recreation

4.4.9 power generation

4.4.10 other

4.5 How is water quality addressed in the planning process?

4.6 Other: any other important notes related to the

scope of water resources being planned

5.0 What water issues: are any of the following specifically, intentionally addressed in the planning process? To what extent?

5.1 flood

5.2 drought

5.3 climate change

5.4 water quality

5.5 instream flow

5.6 water use prioritization

5.7 other?

6.0 How/Is the need for public education related to water planning, water use, water issues addressed?

7.0 Differences with Connecticut: are there any significant differences between the state and Connecticut that may have influenced their plan?

7.1 political

7.2 geology/hydrology

7.3 regulation and allocation (permitting, streamflow)

7.4 water rights framework

7.5 other

8.0 How well does it work?

8.1 If you encounter any information as to how the planning process or the plan itself has actually worked for the state, please include that information here.

9.0 Anything else that you found interesting and would like to share?

Appendix 3.2 State Water Plan Summary Questions

The following questions were used to guide the OSPW in summarizing Water Plans from other States. Not all plan reviewers answered all of these questions.

PLAN ELEMENTS

1. What is the overall organization structure of the plan? 2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment.

PROCESS:

3. How did states actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan?

4. How did other states handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement?

5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible?

JURISDICTION:

6. How did other states deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? 7. How did other states deal with registrations or pre-existing water rights? Were they

grandfathered? Did it work/not work? 8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together

in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts?

PRIOITIZATION AND VALUES:

9. Did other states alter the way they managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work?

10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria for prioritization?

OTHER:

11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation?

12. List any attachments.

Appendix 4. Summaries of Selected State Water Plans

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Kansas

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Nebraska

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

California

BACKGROUND

Developed by the CA Dept of Water Resources

Steering Comm of 28 CA state agencies and tribal, federal agencies and “advisory committee, comprised of representatives of agricultural and urban water suppliers, local government, business, production agriculture, and environmental interests, and other interested parties,”

Based on Integrated Water Management

Water Plan, updated every 5 years, presents the status and trends of CA water demands, water supplies and plausible future scenarios

“…evaluates different combinations of regional and statewide resource management strategies to reduce water demand, increase water supply, reduce flood risk, improve water quality, and enhance environmental and resource stewardship.”

“…guides State investments in innovation and infrastructure; and advances integrated water management and sustainable outcomes”

Tied to California Water Code requirements.

SUMMARY QUESTIONS

1. Overall organizational structure: The 2013 Update of CA Water Plan uses an integrated water management approach. It builds on the 5 volume plan Strategic Plan including finance plan and critical priorities; a suite of resource management strategies; reports on CA hydrologic regions; references and technical guides.

2. See summary attached

3. Developed by CA Dept. of Water Resources; Funding evidently by legislation.

4. State agency steering and public advisory committees, with public input including target audiences and tribal communities. Has strong regional focus.

5. Unclear so far as how modeling efforts were used.

6. Class A and B not used; CA is one of leaders in water reuse; only reclaimed water can be used for certain purposes; ground water recharge is one focus; agriculture is biggest user.

7. CA is prior appropriation state with buying/selling of water rights. Large federal presence in infrastructure and water control.

8. Regional forums by hydrologic regions were developed. Ground water (GW) is handled separately. In 2014 a Sustainable GW Management Act was passed covering 515 basins with designation of high, medium, low or very low priority.

9. Unsure how well plan is working. Too early to say. Some criticism of GW Act.

10. Through regional basins.

11. Overall framework could apply to CT, but very different water government.

12. Fact sheet/summary attached.

CA WATER CODE: PERTINENT SECTIONS

461. “...the primary interest of the people of the state in the conservation of all available water resources requires the maximum reuse of reclaimed water in the satisfaction of requirements for beneficial uses of water.”

520. “... it is necessary to determine the quantities of water in use throughout the state to the maximum extent that is reasonable to do so.”

1205. “... the board may adopt a declaration that a stream system is fully appropriated. As used in this article, "stream system" includes stream, lake, or other body of water, and tributaries and contributory sources...”

10004.5. “...shall include in the plan a discussion of various strategies, including, but not limited to, those relating to the development of new water storage facilities, water conservation, water recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, and water transfers that may be pursued in order to meet the future water needs of the state. The department shall also include a discussion of the potential for alternative water pricing policies to change current and projected uses. The department shall include in the plan a discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages of each strategy and an identification of all federal and state permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to implement the various components of the strategy.

10004.6. “...shall conduct a study to determine the amount of water needed to meet the state's future needs and to recommend programs, policies, and facilities to meet those needs. For the purpose of carrying out this subdivision, the department shall release, at a minimum, assumptions and other estimates relating to all of the following:

(1) Basin hydrology, including annual rainfall, estimated unimpaired streamflow, depletions, and consumptive uses.

(2) Groundwater supplies, including estimates of sustainable yield, supplies necessary to recover overdraft basins, and supplies lost due to pollution and other groundwater contaminants.

(3) Current and projected land use patterns, including the mix of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and undeveloped lands.

(4) Environmental water needs, including regulatory instream flow requirements, nonregulated instream uses, and water needs by wetlands, preserves, refuges, and other managed and unmanaged natural resource lands.

(5) Current and projected population.

(6) Current and projected water use for all of the following:

(A) Interior uses in a single-family dwelling.

(B) Exterior uses in a single-family dwelling.

(C) All uses in a multifamily dwelling.

(D) Commercial uses.

(E) Industrial uses.

(F) Parks and open spaces.

(G) Agricultural water diversion and use.

(7) Evapotranspiration rates for major crop types, including estimates of evaporative losses by irrigation practice and the extent to which evaporation reduces transpiration.

(8) Current and projected adoption of urban and agricultural conservation practices.

(9) Current and projected supplies of water provided by water recycling and reuse.

(d) The department shall include a discussion of the potential for alternative water pricing policies to change current and projected water uses identified pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (c).

Colorado

Structure: This is currently a draft plan that is advisory in nature. It was requested by the governor in an executive order to address the state’s water deficit and to foster a more holistic approach to water management. Chapters 2 through 5 focus on the foundational elements that guide Colorado’s water management. These include descriptions of Colorado’s legal structure and critical facts about supply and demand. Chapters 6 through 11 establish action steps to help Colorado respond to future challenges. These sections show how Colorado can advance conservation, reuse, alternative agricultural transfers, and multi-purpose/collaborative projects while protecting the health of rivers, streams, and watersheds. Chapter 9 addresses increased funding opportunities, more efficient and effective permitting, and enhanced education for citizens. Chapter 11 suggests updating the plan in the future.

Process: The plan incorporates a long-term visioning process, “… the result of well over 850 meetings spanning 9 years and engaging hundreds of volunteer-participants statewide. Colorado’s Water Plan has generated over 13,000 comments from members of Colorado’s water community, interest groups, and the general public.” Plan development was mostly funded by the pre-existing Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the governor’s office. CWCB is the major agency for water planning and regulation and it draws no general fund money, being largely self-funded by the CWCB Construction Fund comprised of fees from water users and developers. Modeling was provided by the CO Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) report released by the CWCB in 2011 which creates a technical foundation and a common technical platform: http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/water-supply-planning/pages/swsi2010.aspx

Jurisdiction: Priority use of natural stream water is based on the “prior appropriation system” which is a seniority system that dates to when the first settlers staked claim to the most desirable river valley lands. These rights can be transferred, and the state has acquired some of them. Native American tribes and the federal government also have some water rights. Consequently, authority is complicated, and varies by basin, locality and type of water. CWCB is the primary state agency responsible for statewide water planning. Eight basin roundtables and the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) are participants in CWCB’s statewide water planning efforts. Their charge is to develop agreements among basins and to develop statewide policy issues. Legal conflict adjudication is by seven Water Courts, one for each major basin.

Prioritization and Values: No changes have yet resulted from this draft plan, which often discusses different approaches to a single issue. Basin Implementation Plans have been developed to: 1. Meet municipal water needs throughout Colorado; 2. Meet Colorado's agricultural water needs; 3. Meet Colorado's environmental and recreational water needs; and 4. Meet Colorado's water quality management needs. These needs are very challenging because CO consistently operates at a water deficit (or “water gap” as they call it) between supply and demand.

Relevant to CT: Despite their water deficit, CO maintains a high priority on environmental and recreational water uses. They have an effective bottom-up approach to planning that begins with the 8 basin roundtables funneling up to the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) for consensus building before informing the CO Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for regulations and public policy process.

Colorado’s Water Plan

Table of Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………. 1 2. Our legal & institutional setting………………………………………………………………………….……… 6 2.1 Colorado water law & administration………………………………………………………………. 6 2.2 Interstate compacts & equitable apportionment decrees………………………..…………. 12 2.3 Colorado’s local-control structure……………………………………………………………………. 20 2.4 Local, state, & federal water planning, approval, & permitting………………..…………. 22 2.5 Tribal & federal reserved water right issues within Colorado……………………………. 25 3. Overview of each basin…………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 32 4. Water supply……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53 5. Water demands……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 70 6. Water supply management for the future………………………………………………………..…………. 86 6.1 Scenario planning & development……………………………………………………………………. 86 6.2 Meeting Colorado’s water gaps……………………………………………………………..…………. 98 6.3 Conservation & reuse………………………………………………………………………………………. 148 6.3.1 Municipal & industrial conservation……………………………………………………. 148 6.3.2 Reuse………………………………………………………………………………………...…………. 162 6.3.3 Land use…………………………………………………………………………………….………… 169 6.3.4 Agricultural conservation, efficiency, & reuse……………………………...…………. 175 6.3.5 Self-supplied industrial…………………………………………………………………………. 184 6.3.6 State agency conservation…………………………………………………………..………… 191 6.4 Alternative agriculture to urban transfers……………………………………………..…………. 193 6.5 Municipal, industrial, & agricultural infrastructure projects & methods….…………. 194 6.6 Environmental & recreational projects & methods…………………………………………… 208 7. Water resource management & protection………………………………………………………………… 241 7.1 Watershed health & management………………………………………………………….………… 241 7.2 Natural disaster management……………………………………………………………….………… 249 7.3 Water quality……………………………………………………………………………………….…………. 252 8. Interbasin projects & agreements……………………………………………………………………………… 270 9. Alignment of state resources & policies…………………………………………………………...…………. 282 9.1 Protecting Colorado’s compacts & upholding Colorado water law…………..…………. 282 9.2 Economics & funding………………………………………………………………………………………. 285 9.3 State water rights & alignment……………………………………………………………...…………. 295 9.4 Framework on more efficient water project permitting processes………….…………. 302 9.5 Outreach, education, & public engagement…………………………………………….…………. 320 10. Legislative recommendations……………………………………………………………………….…………. 338 11. Updating Colorado’s Water Plan………………………………………………………………………………. 339

Florida PLAN ELEMENTS Don’t have a comprehensive and integrated statewide plan. Overarching state policy guidance is a series of uncoordinated memos.

General policies set by FL DEP; Detailed planning on regional level, providing flexibility to address specific concerns.

Originally, each WMD did a 20-year plan, with 5-year updates, now updates incorporated into WMD’s annual strategic plan.

Time to plan development: ~15 years between establishment of WMDs and appearance of first plans. During that time, data collection and modeling were done.

PROCESS State and district level planning is crisis-driven (lakes drying up; water shortages; falling aquifer

levels). Dedicated sources of funds through taxes (both district and state taxes). Also, General Assembly

set asides for specific pieces of the process, various “trusts”. Data collection is very strong and publically available.

Modeling is issue specific/water body specific.

Have technical capabilities ON STAFF in the districts for collecting, managing and modeling with data.

Districts use stakeholder workgroups to develop and update plans, then workshop format to bring for public review.

JURISDICTION

Existing uses had 2 years to apply for a permit when permit process was established - had to demonstrate “reasonable-beneficial use”.

Water supply plans use county boundaries (because census and agricultural data collected on that basis.) BUT watershed boundaries are used for most other things.

Focus is on LOCAL water use. Discourage transport across county lines.

Work cooperatively across WMD lines when the resource crosses boundaries. In the NFWMD, the multistate compact related to upstream impacts on estuaries.

Governance of the districts is through political appointees with no guaranteed balance of stakeholder interests.

Conflicts seem to be resolved by an adjudicatory process through the Governor’s office. PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

Don’t have “allocation policy” per se. Statute says: “Recognize need to allocate water”, but that allocations in the past “adversely affected water resources”. So encourage local use, alternative sources and give flexibility & discretion to WMDs.

“Reasonable-beneficial use” is the test (but pretty nebulous).

Have processes to establish minimum flows/minimum levels (surface and groundwater). Through that process can establish “reservation from use” (no more withdrawals) for water body.

Big focus on conservation, re-use and alternate sources of water (desalination, etc.).

GEORGIA –High Priority Questions About Other State Plans March 9, 2015 Reviewed by Martha Smith, Gail Lucchina, and Peter Galant PLAN ELEMENTS 1. What is the overall organizational structure of Georgia’s plan? State framework with regionally generated plans. (11 water planning districts) 2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment

http://www.georgiawatercouncil.org/Files_PDF/water_plan_20080109.pdf Regional WP TOC for Lower Flint Ochlockonee Regional Water Plan http://www.flintochlockonee.org/documents/LFO_Adopted_RWP.pdf

PROCESS 3. How did Georgia actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan? Funded through legislature with EPA Clean Water Act SRF. GA Environmental Protection Department led effort, with help from government policy Institute at Univ. of GA—supporting policy work and with consultant. Regional plans done by consultants overseen by GA EPD, but Regional Boards are Gov. Appointees. Initial state plan Cost ~$1Million. Total cost for Regional Plans is ~$30 Mill. Current state budget has line item for water planning. Ongoing funding is an issue. 4. How did Georgia handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement? Regionally & with Univ. of GA & Consultant assistance. Stakeholder involvement on state level & on regional level. Regional Council members (volunteers) were appointed by Governor. 5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible? Regional plans modeling done by state/consultants—to determine water quantity (surface & groundwater), quality, info given to regions. “Broad brush” modeling did not include all regional information. JURISDICTION 6. How did Georgia deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? Not applicable. 7. How did Georgia deal with registrations or pre-existing water rights? Were they grandfathered? Did it work/not work? Existing permits were grandfathered. No mention of resolution of grandfathered permits in violation of current instream guidance. 8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts? EPD oversees process and set format for plan; regions handled local issues. Regional council members were 95% male with few minorities. Disconnect with out of state entities with bearing on local issues. PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES 9. Did Georgia alter the way it managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work? Regulated riparian state; did not change. No changes to existing statutes. Not clear how this will affect future plans. 10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria for prioritization? No prioritization regarding SW. For GW, Southern aquifers heavily used and prioritized. OTHER 11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation? Website set up by consultant is problem. 2011 Regional Plans are a good first step in water resource planning; however general assumptions need to be addressed for “real” planning. Concerns over EPD using flawed data for permitting decisions. 12. Please list any attachments. GA Water Plan Table of Contents Lower Flint Ochlockonee Regional Plan Table of Contents

GEORGIA STATE WATER PLAN

--Approved in 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5

Section 1: Purpose 7

Section 2: Definitions 10

Section 3: Integrated Water Policy 12

Section 4: Water Quantity Policy 14

Section 5: Water Quality Policy 16

Section 6: Water Resource Assessment 17

Section 7: Water Quantity Management Practices 19

Section 8: Water Demand Management Practice 20

Section 9: Water Return Management Practices 23

Section 10: Water Supply Management Practices 25

Section 11: Water Quality Management Practices 29

Section 12: Enhanced Water Quality Standards and Monitoring Practices 30

Section 13: Enhanced Pollution Management Practices 31

Section 14: Regional Water Planning 35

LOW

ER

FLIN

T‐

OCH

LOCKO

NEE

Executive Summary ………….……………………………………………...….. ES-1

Section 1 1.1

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………... The Significance of Water Resources in Georgia……………….

1-1 1-1

1.2 State and Regional Water Planning Process………………….... 1-3 1.3 The Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Council’s Regional Vision and

Goals……………………………………………………………….. 1-4

Section 2

THE LOWER FLINT-OCHLOCKONEE WATER PLANNING

REGION.………………………………………………………….… 2-1 2.1 History and Geography…………………………………………….. 2-1 2.2 Characteristics of the Region……………………………………… 2-1 2.3 Local Policy Context……………………………………………… 2-4

Section 3

CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCES OF

3.1

THE LOWER FLINT-OCHLOCKONEE REGION……...……… Major Water Uses in the Region………………………………...

3-1 3-1

3.2 Resource Assessments………………………………………….. 3-4 3.2.1 Surface Water Availability…………………………......…… 3-4 3.2.2 Groundwater Availability………………………………….… 3-7 3.2.3 Surface Water Quality………………………………………. 3-10

3.3 Ecosystem Conditions and In-stream Uses……………………. 3-12 3.3.1 303(d) List and TMDLs……………………………………… 3-12 3.3.2 Fisheries, Wildlife, and Recreational Resources………… 3-12

Section 4

4.1

FORECASTING FUTURE WATER RESOURCE NEEDS……. Municipal Forecasts…………………….…………………………..

4-1 4-1

4.1.1 Municipal Water Forecasts…………………………….…… 4-1 4.1.2 Municipal Wastewater Forecasts………………………….. 4-1

4.2 Industrial Forecasts………………………………………………. 4-2 4.2.1 Industrial Water Forecasts…………………………………...

4.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Forecasts…………………………... 4-2 4-3

4.3 Agricultural Forecasts………………………………………………. 4-3 4.4 Thermoelectric Power Production Water Demand Forecasts…. 4-4 4.5 Total Water Demand Forecasts…………………………………… 4-5

Section 5

COMPARISON OF WATER RESOURCE CAPACITIES AND

5.1

FUTURE NEEDS..…………..……………………………………… Surface Water Availability Comparisons………….………………

5-1 5-1

5.2 Groundwater Availability Comparisons…………………………… 5-3 5.3 Surface Water Quality Comparisons……………………………… 5-5 5.4 Summary of Potential Gaps Between Resource Capacities and

Future Needs……………………………………………………… 5-8

Se p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1

LO

WER

FLIN

T

‐

MI DD

LEOC

MULGE

E

OCH

LOCKO

NEE

Section 6

6.1

ADDRESSING WATER NEEDS AND REGIONAL GOALS…………….………………………………………………… Identifying Water Management Practices………………………

6-1 6-1

6.2 Selected Water Management Practices for the Lower Flint- Ochlockonee Region……………………………………………...

6-3

Section 7

7.1

IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES…….. Implementation Schedule and Responsible Parties……………..

7-1 7-1

7.2 Fiscal Implications of Selected Water Management Practices… 7-1 7.3 Alignment with Other Plans……………………………………… 7-13 7.4 Recommendations to the State…………………………………. 7-14

Section 8

8.1

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRESS………...……… Benchmarks………………………………………………………….

8-1 8-1

8.2 Plan Updates…………………………………………………...…… 8-4 8.3 Plan Amendments……………………...………………………… 8-4 8.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 8-4

TABLES

3-1: Summary of Current Surface Water Availability Results: Flint and

Ochlockonee Rivers.…..…………...………………………………………… 3-6 3-2: Summary of Current Surface Water Availability Results: Chattahoochee

River…………………………...…..…………...……………………………… 3-7 3-3: Groundwater Results for Assessed Aquifers in Lower Flint-

Ochlockonee Region – Current Conditions……..…………...…………… 3-9 5-1: 2050 Surface Water Availability Results: Flint and Ochlockonee Rivers.. 5-2 5-2: 2050 Surface Water Availability Results: Chattahoochee River…………. 5-3 5-3: Groundwater Results for Assessed Aquifers in Lower Flint-

Ochlockonee Region – 2050 Conditions……..………….....……………… 5-4

6-1: Water Management Practices Selected for the Lower Flint- Ochlockonee Region……………………………………………………...….. 6-4

7-1: Implementation Schedule for the Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Region……..…………………………………………………………………… 7-2

7-2: Cost Estimates for Implementation Responsibilities……………………… 7-8 8-1: Benchmarks for Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Regional Water

Plan…………………………………………………………………………..… 8-1

FIGURES

1-1: River Basins and Water Planning Regions of Georgia……………………. 1-2 1-2: State Water Planning Process………………………………………………. 1-3

LOW

ER

FLIN

T‐

OCH

LOCKO

NEE

MI DD

LEOC

MULGE

E

2-1: Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Water Planning Region……….……………….. 2-2 2-2: Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Land Use…………….…………………………... 2-3 3-1: Current Water Supply by Source Type……………………………………... 3-2 3-2: Current Surface Water Withdrawal by Category..………………………… 3-2 3-3: Current Groundwater Withdrawal by Category..……...…………...……… 3-2 3-4: Current Wastewater Treatment by Category………………………………. 3-2 3-5: Assimilative Capacity Results from Dissolved Oxygen Assessment:

Flint and Ochlockonee Rivers (Current Conditions)..………………….…. 3-13 3-6: Summary of Impaired Waters in Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Region..….… 3-14 4-1: Water Demand in 2010 and 2050…………………………………………… 4-6 4-2: Wastewater Flow in 2010 and 2050………………………………………… 4-6 4-3: Total Water and Wastewater Forecasts…………………………………... 4-7 5-1: Assimilative Capacity Results from Dissolved Oxygen Assessment:

Flint and Ochlockonee Rivers (2050)……………………………………….. 5-7

LIST OF SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS1 Supplemental Document 1 Memorandum of Agreement Supplemental Document 2 Public Participation Technical Memorandum Supplemental Document 3 Council Meeting Summaries Supplemental Document 4 USGS Map of Georgia Aquifer Recharge Areas Supplemental Document 5 Subarea 4 of the Floridan Aquifer Map Supplemental Document 6 Existing Regulatory and Local Plan Summary Supplemental Document 7 2006 Flint River Basin Water Development and

Conservation Plan Supplemental Document 8 Agricultural Water Use Technical Memorandum Supplemental Document 9 EPD Technical Memorandum - Flow Gap Analysis (May 26, 2010) Supplemental Document 10 EPD Technical Memorandum: Surface Water

Availability Model Results July 2010 Supplemental Document 11 Map of Prioritized Aquifers Modeled in EPD

Resource Assessment Supplemental Document 12 Georgia OPB Population Projections March 2010 Supplemental Document 13 Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater

Forecasting Memorandum Supplemental Document 14 Management Practice Selection Technical Memorandum Supplemental Document 15 Water Conservation Technical Memorandum

Supplemental Document 16 EPD Technical Memorandum - Summary Future (2050) Resource Assessment in ACF River Basins Scenario MidChat_SWFA0001 – Storage Offset Estimate

1 All supplemental materials are provided on the Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Council’s website:

http://www.flintochlockonee.org/pages/our_plan/index.phpGe o gr ai S tat e w- di e Wa et r M na ga e me n Pt DA Y M

RA F T

ON T HY E A R

High Priority Questions About Other State Plans Kansas Water Plan – D. Radka

PLAN ELEMENTS

1. What is the overall organizational structure of the plan? Primary planning units 12 major river basins. Each basin has unique plan that fits within overall state framework. Recognition that potential for developing new supplies is limited and efficiency of use and conservation are needed to assure adequate supply.

2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment (see Attachment A)

PROCESS

3. How did states actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan? Kansas Water Authority created 1981, replacing Water Res. Board. KW Office responsible for Plan addressing water development, conservation and management. KWA 13 citizen & 11 agency members responsible for advising Gov., Legislature & KWO on water management issues, recommending legislation and coordination of water management activities. Funded by variety of fees ($17 – 20M annually).

4. How did other states handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement? Recognized as critical. Basin Advisory Committees (BAC), public hearings, Proposed Policy Papers released as drafts for public comment. Plan relies on public involvement, education and outreach to reach consensus on issues.

5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible? Surface & groundwater models.

JURISDICTION

6. How did other states deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? Not applicable.

7. How did other states deal with registrations or pre-existing water rights? Were they grandfathered? Did it work/not work? All waters considered waters of the state. Planning applies to all waters within constraints of water law doctrine of prior appropriation, as amended by subsequent laws. Complex issue addressed through various workarounds – incentives like Central Kansas Water Bank offers market-based approach to conservation. Locally Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs) allow local groundwater conservation plan development w/ force of law.

8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts? Unknown.

PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

9. Did other states alter the way they managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work? Active groundwater mining occurring in certain areas. Groundwater Management Districts formed to address.

10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria

for prioritization? Intensive Groundwater Control Areas (IGUCAs) established by chief engineer/public hearing process.

OTHER

11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation? Shift from water use/development to management and protection. Current emphasis on mitigating siltation, runoff, drought, flooding, over-pumping, etc. Plan is comprehensive in its scope and seems to do a good job identifying issues, goals and approaches to address needs (gaps). Recognition that planning must be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated and adaptive. Incremental change appears to be key to ability to move from status quo, as does stakeholder buy-in.

12. Please list any attachments. Table of Contents (A); Water Atlas (B); Basin Priority Issues (C)

ATTACHMENT A

Kansas Water Plan 2014

The Kansas Water Office, in coordination with local, state, federal and interstate partners, is developing the 5-year update of the Kansas Water Plan. The Kansas Water Plan is one of the primary tools used by the State of Kansas to address current water resources issues and to plan for future needs. Statutory authority and basic guidance for formulating the Kansas Water Plan is contained in the State Water Resources Planning Act.

As volumes of the 2014 Plan are drafted, they will be linked below.

executive summary

volume i - introduction & background

volume II - statewide and regional water assessment

Sections will be added as they are completed. Please note that hyperlinks will not be active until the document is final.

Water Budget of Kansas - Draft Water Demand - Municipal Water Demand - Draft Water Demand - Industrial Water Demand - Draft Water Demand - Irrigation Water Demand - Draft Water Demand - Stockwater Demand - Draft Water Demand - Recreation - Draft Water Supply - Groundwater Sources and Supply - Draft Water Supply - Surface Water Supply - Draft Water Supply - Non-Traditional Sources and Uses of Water Reuse - Draft Water Supply - Surface Water Quality - Draft Water Supply - Assessment of Infrastructure Condition and Needs - Draft

volume iii - guiding principles

Ensuring Each Citizen has Reliable Water Supply Conserving and Extending the High Plains Aquifer Securing, Protecting and Restoring our Kansas Reservoirs Improving our State's Water Quality Improving Recreational Opportunities Available to our Citizens Developing and Maintaining our State and Local Water Infrastructure Reducing our Vulnerability to Extreme Events Develop a Long-Term, Affordable and Sustainable Method to Provide Financing for the

Implementation of the Kansas Water Plan

volume iv - Statewide and regional goals and strategies

volume v - Kansas water plan atlas

ATTACHMENT B

Statewide and basin specific maps illustrating various resource conditions including aquifers, surface water, water use, major crops and livestock, and more.

Statewide Maps All maps are in format

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) Land Cover Major Aquifers Geology Population Precipitation Water Use

Irrigation Points of Diversion Municipal Points of Diversion Public Water Suppliers Federal lake Storage Customers Water Management Watershed Districts Crop Inventory Livestock Inventory

ATTACHMENT C

Massachusetts

High Priority Questions About Other State Plans Virginia DeLima, Peter Galant

PLAN ELEMENTS 1. What is the overall organizational structure of the plan?

MA doesn’t have a Plan, per se, but they have various interrelated planning

documents/efforts including most significantly the MA Water Policy, Guide to Water

Resource Planning and the Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI)

framework and regulations.

2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment Attached are TOCs from the Water Policy and SWMI Framework reports.

PROCESS 3. How did states actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan? Planning has been done by State employees and stakeholder volunteers; coordinated

through the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. General fund money has been

allocated for USGS studies, SWMI Pilot Test and SWMI Grant Program.

4. How did other states handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement? Policy developed by multi‐stakeholder Water Policy Task Force. Don’t know if it had public comment. SWMI regulations developed by multi‐stakeholder steering, technical and policy committees similar to CT streamflow regulations. Meetings were open to the public. Public comment taken on initial framework and on proposed regulations. Used consultant to pilot test program on four volunteer communities. EEA staff met with interested stakeholders. Website established. 5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible? Several USGS models (sustainable yield estimator, indicators of streamflow alteration, factors influencing fish assemblages). Using flow‐dependent fish as metric (typically more sensitive to stormwater than to withdrawals. The regression analyses are generally accepted. Sub‐basin level database of estimated flows, withdrawals and annual quantities publicly available. Used to estimate impact of increased withdrawals on flow category. Public GIS of water withdrawal locations, fish sample points, coldwater fisheries, basins, aquifers and categories.

JURISDICTION

6. How did other states deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? NA

7. How did other states deal with registrations or pre‐existing water rights? Were they grandfathered? Did it work/not work? SWMI program is incorporated into the Water Management Act permitting (MA version of diversion permitting – except for interbasin transfers). Registrations are not impacted.

8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts? Planning is being done at a State level with multi‐stakeholder input. Implementation is required at the municipal/water company level. Permitting is done on a basin basis so there is opportunity for evaluating cumulative withdrawals within a basin but no formal process for conflict resolution.

PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

9. Did other states alter the way they managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work? Changed the permit process but not the allocation process. 10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria for prioritization? After extensive study they prioritized based on Biological Category (estimated variation in fish abundance) and groundwater withdrawal levels based on withdrawals as % of Unimpacted August median flow. Prioritization done on a subbasin (HUC‐12) basis.

OTHER 11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation. Defined water available for withdrawal in each major basin. SWMI is a permitting program not a planning initiative – we need planning. Used a pilot program to test impact on representative communities. Grant program. Used incentives. Used same process both for new permits and renewals; requirements different depending on volumes. Emphasizes use reclaimed water and conservation.

12. Please list any attachments. MA Water Policy Recommendations

MA Water Policy Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Water Policy Task Force 5

Introduction 6

Challenges 6

The Charge 7

Principles of the Water Policy 7

Policy Context 8

A New Working Relationship 8

Policy Recommendations 9

Data 23

Implementation of Recommendations 24

Implementation Schedule 28

Appendix A. For Future Consideration 29

Appendix B. Glossary 31

MA SWMI Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 4

Why SWMI is Needed 4

Major Elements of SWMI 5

Part A: Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI) Process and Principles 6 The SWMI Process.................................................................................................................................... 6

SWMI Principles ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach .................................................................................................. 6

Part B: Sustainable Water Management Initiative Key Components

Introduction ……....................................................................................................................................... 8

1. Safe Yield - Method Summary ........................................................................................................ 9

2. Streamflow Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 13

3. Baseline........................................................................................................................................ 18

Part C: Sustainable Water Management Initiative Application to Water Management Act Permitting 18 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 19

1. Water Management Act Permitting for Groundwater- Tiers and Conditions.............................. 20

2. Water Management Act Permitting for Surface Water ............................................................... 25

3. Offsets and Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 26

4. Low Flow Statistic......................................................................................................................... 29

5. Redundant Wells ......................................................................................................................... 31

6. Basin Planning Consultation ........................................................................................................ 33

Part D: SWMI Implementation 36

1. Pilot Application of SWMI ........................................................................................................... 36

2. Financial Support and Incentives ............................................................................................... 39

APPENDICES (As a separate document)

A. Reservoir Storage Methodology for Safe Yield

B. Safe Yield Approach for Plymouth-Carver Aquifer, Cape Cod and Islands

C. Categorization of Massachusetts Streams and Rivers

D. Application of Streamflow Criteria in Unassessed Areas

E. Draft vs. Final USGS Fish and Habitat Report Results and their application

F. Designation of Cold Water Fisheries Resources

G. Outline of WMA Permit Conditions for Public Water Supply Permits

H. List of Acronyms

Implementation of Recommendations

REC #

ACTION

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

PARTNERS

1 Create a Stress Framework

WRC (via Task Force or

Subcommittees)

DCR, DEP, USGS, Watershed

Associations

a Define a Stress Framework that includes increasing efficiency of water use

b Define performance based mitigation strategies

c Revise and update Water Conservation Standards

d Develop policy on maintenance and repair of infrastructure

2 Help communities meet water needs via watershed solutions based on water budgets

EOEA, WRC DCR, DEP

a From water budgets, study and identify areas where net losses of water could negatively impact ecosystems

b Use tools to meet existing and future supply demands c Identify critical areas where water needs are best met by directing

growth away or by regional water systems

d Finalize the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP) Guidance

DEP

3 Develop policy and pursue legislation requiring use of enterprise accounts for objectives such as infrastructure maintenance and improvements, stormwater mitigation, etc.

EOEA

4 Increase treated wastewater recharge and reuse

a Review current wastewater disposal policies and practices and recommend recharge and reuse; research efforts in other states; identify suitable sites for

recharge; create incentives

WRC, DEP

Universities, DAR

b

Recommend Boards of Health track and regulate septic system maintenance

EOEA,

DPH

c Actively promote reclaimed water reuse WRC, DEP i Encourage use in ballparks, golf courses, for recreational

irrigation, state maintained properties, large scale development DCS

ii Develop guidance for distribution to DHCD interacting with developers, consultants, municipalities

REC #

ACTION

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

PARTNERS

5 Promote stormwater recharge

a Provide guidance on appropriate BMPs DEP LID Task Force, MMA,

Watershed Associations, MACC, MHD,

OCD, DAR

b Extend current guidance from wetlands to upland areas and beyond Phase II areas

DEP

c MEPA recommend incorporation of LID techniques for all projects MEPA d Promote establishment of Stormwater Utilities DEP

6 Advance effective water supply management a Create a state policy on water supply development WRC

b

Promote optimization of water withdrawals

EOEA

DEP, DCR, NEWWA/MWWA

7 Protect and Restore critical land and water resources

Watershed

Associations a Establish a grant program to protect critical land and water resources EOEA

Protect priority lands that protect water supply lands, Zone I, II etc.

Coordinate aquifer protection program with Commonwealth Capital b Protect and Restore Riverine and Estuarine habitat

Develop methodology for prioritizing restoration

DFG

Target Fish Community assessments for mainstems and major tributaries

Define fish community and habitat for small streams using IBI

Determine target river structure

Continue River Continuity pilot project

c Disseminate information on restoration, protection; Protect habitats by

implementing and integrating Living Waters and BioMap

DFG

Advance outreach and education and inform municipalities, landowners and organizations about tools to critical habitats

Incorporate Living Waters into State Programs

Support technical review group recommended by Citizen Advisory

Committee

for Lake GEIR

Advance an education and outreach effort to landowners and local decision makers-Conservation Commissions, planners, developers, WAs, stream teams

DFG, Vendor

REC #

ACTION

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

PARTNERS

8 Promote sustainable development & Fix-it-Early through CW and DW SRF

loan programs

EOEA, DEP

a Encourage ongoing maintenance of water and wastewater infrastructure

b

Adjust applications to revise caps on new capacity in targeted areas and reduce extensions

c Provide technical assistance and do outreach to stakeholders via OCD and its agencies

OCD d Require adequate metering of wastewater between system and users

e Consider requiring enterprise accounts as part of SRF application

9 Provide guidance to help municipalities advance development with reduced negative impacts on the environment. Provide single point of contact for technical assistance on permitting, development strategies, fast tracking, resource protection

EOEA

DAR

a Develop informational packet and technical assistance for towns on: i Stormwater and development

ii

Non-acquisition protection strategies for water resources, model zoning, by- laws, ordinances

iii

Redesign and distribute LID brochure

LID sub-committee

Homebuilders

Association iv Develop certification program RPA APA

v

Water issues - budgets, data, assessment, monitoring; centralize all documents, reports, data

Ongoing

vi Sustainable development and smart growth - on OCD, EOEA, MEPA websites; online brochures for developers

OCD, EOEA

b Seek legislative approval to expand OTA mission EOEA, OTA

c Assign staff to coordinate permits and provide technical and regulatory assistance from pre-planning to permit stage. Define pre-application process, coordinate public comment periods, develop consistent timelines for permits through a working group

EOEA

i Create working group through IWC to setup pre-application framework

REC #

ACTION

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

PARTNERS

ii Define interaction with pertinent non-EOEA agencies on permits

iii

Coordinate timelines, identify permitting, plan approval, single EIR process redundancies, reduce duplication, advance multi-agency coordination

iv Improve New Source approval process d Assign EOEA staff to act as Ombudsperson

EOEA

e Provide guidance on Growing Smart Toolkit, fast-tracking, non-acquisition land protection

EOEA, OTA

10 Advance effective planning with Mass Highways via OCD OCD, DOT, DFG

a Form working group to draft BMPs for habitat lands next to roadways DFG

b Improve DFW coordination with Mass Highways on road/water crossings

c

Work with MH to involve DFW early in design of roadways near crossings, and abutting habitat lands

DATA NEEDS

a Expand Stress Framework definitions WRC staff

Assemble flow data that can be used in regulations

Complete water assets study

Develop streamflow standards for each basin

Build water budgets for each basin/sub basin

Refine the different stress levels

Do outreach and provide information on natural flows

b

Collect data on target fish communities and develop methodology for establishing restoration targets

DFG

Gather information from Conservation Commissions to update cold water

resources

Complete regional development of target fish data for key watersheds

Conduct fish community and habitat analysis for small streams using IBI

Minnesota

BACKGROUND Two recent state-wide planning efforts are: The 2010 Minnesota Water Plan developed by the EQB, and the Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework developed by Water Resources Center at the Univ. of MN. The 2010 Minnesota Water Plan primarily focuses on water quality. The Water Sustainability Framework (MN WSF) is broader and covers both quantity and quality aspects of sustainability. The remainder of this review focuses on the MN WSF. HIGH PRIORITY QUESTIONS

1. Overall organizational structure: As with many states, water management and planning is fragmented among various agencies in MN, including MN Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR); MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); MN Environmental Quality Board (EQB), MN Dept. of Health (MDH), Clean Water Council, MNDOT and MN Dept. of Ag (MDA). The MN WSF consists of a 10 and 25 year plan with 2 phases in the first 10 years and an additional 3 phases in the remainder of the 25 years. The Framework identifies 10 major issues and then addresses strategies to meet desired future outcomes. For example, Issue A is: The need for a Sustainable and Clean Water Supply. The desired outcome is “A water supply that is protected for all future generations that is of high quality and that is sustainable for all uses of water”. The 3 strategies for accomplishing the outcome are A.1: Determine the state’s water balance and improve water appropriations permitting; A.2: Improve privately supplied drinking water quality; and A.3: Plan for water re-use. Other issues among the 10 include: Water pricing and valuation, public water infrastructure needs, and Governance and Institutions. Some general recommended levels of funding and implementation phasing are included, along with relative benefits to water resources. The plan is available at: http://wrc.umn.edu/watersustainabilityframework/ . Links to Background papers, e.g. Water Use in MN, Water Supply and Availability in MN and Technical Team reports; and category-specific Best Practices are listed at the web site. 2. See summary of major issues and strategies attached. 3. Developed by the Univ. of MN Water Resources Center by direction of MN Legislature. Funding from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the state constitution which provides a small portion of the state’ sales tax for the next 25 years to create the Clean Water Fund. 4. Major inputs from State and Federal agencies, “100,s” of scientists and water management professionals from Universities, citizens and interest groups met frequently to develop strategies for within major issue categories. There was some regional focus, given the high diversity of landscapes and WR in MN. 5. Modeling is mentioned for determining the water balances by region and problems associated with agricultural drainage and nitrogen export especially in the MN River basin. 6. Class A and B not used; The major rivers, e.g. Mississippi River is a major source of water for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; water reuse is mentioned as one possible strategy. 7. MN is riparian rights state and requires permits for both surface and ground water. There is not a grandfathered system, evidently. 8. Agencies worked through the committees along with citizen groups. 9. Based on a brief discussion with the Plan’s main author, some parts of the plan are starting to be used, while other parts are lagging in implementation. The plan is only about 2 years old. 10. The recommendation to design and complete water balance hydrologic models will have a regional basis. 11. Overall framework could apply to CT, but the MN WSF is very broad. The general approach may have merit. 12. Fact sheet/summary not available at this time. d. DID IT WORK too early to say.

Nebraska High Priority Questions: NEBRASKA

PLAN ELEMENTS & STRUCTURE

There are 2 types of plans developed jointly by NDNR and the 23 Natural Resource Districts. These are quite detailed, often written as if they were legal documents. Did not see any “Table of Contents” * “Integrated Management Plans” – by NDNR and a SINGLE NRD. Some are voluntary and some are required by the state. Specific data that must be considered is specified by law. * “Basin Plans” – involves coordination between NDR and multiple NRDs in a basin. NRDR must provide an annual report on expected long-term availability of hydrologically connected water supplies for every basin that is not fully or overappropriated or for which a status change had not occurred with the past 4 years.

PROCESS

* In 2000, 2 agencies, NRC and NDNR, merged and began implementing a collaborative water planning process. In 2004, the legislature established a formal, collaborative sate and local process that recognized the connectivity of groundwater and surface water. The planning process is now “decentralized.” * Over 12 of the 23 NRDs have approved plans * Legislative Funds and Grants administered by the Dept of Natural Resources with statutory authority for approving projects and funding levels rest with the Natural Resources Commission

Stakeholder engagement: * Extensive public hearing process. * Formal stakeholder participation, especially in the development of a definition of “sustainability” at the local level. * A series of meaningful, extremely informative newsletters about the process and issues.

Modeling: Various used

JURISDICTION

Classes of water: Did not investigate

Pre-existing rights: Over a 5 year period, a set of rules and a methodology for handling water management issues in “fully appropriated basins” were developed. (See attached timeline).

Interagency jurisdiction: * Integrated Water Management Division provides technical expertise and planning coordination for the participating agencies: NDNR, NRDs, NDA, NGPC (** Holds surface water rights for some instream flows**), DHHS, NDEQ. The IWMD is responsible for the “Integrated Management Plans.” * Delegation of responsibility depends on the management goal (quantity or quality) and the location of the water supply (surface or groundwater): QUANTITY: NE Dept Natural resources: surface water NRDs & NDNR: groundwater quantity; jointly responsible for surface water and groundwater integrated management planning. QUALITY: NE Dept Env. Quality: surface water quality. NRDs: groundwater quality, nonpoint source NEDQ: point source water pollution issues PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

Allocation: See “Preexisting Rights” above.

Basin prioritization: Not clear at this writing, but see “Basin Plans” above

OTHER

Attachments: Planning maps, FAB timelines, process flowchart

New Hampshire

PLAN ELEMENTS

Don’t yet have a statewide plan, but are in the process of developing one.

PROCESS

Started by having the NH DES put together a “Water Resources Primer”, which summarizes the state of knowledge on water resources in NH, and identifies data gaps; available on the web. Also had NH Geological Survey do an assessment on water withdrawals/ usage.

Working primarily through legislative commissions with good stakeholder representation.

Products of the commissions are being vetted through public listening sessions across the state.

Are in the process of trying to identify funding to begin the active planning piece through the “New Hampshire Lives on Water Initiative” (www.nhlivesonwater.org)

North Carolina PLAN ELEMENTS

1. What is the overall organizational structure of the plan? The State Water Supply Plan is a compilation of local water supply plans plus a detailed discussion of the major water supply issues currently affecting North Carolina, considerations for meeting future water supply needs, and guidance for sound water supply planning. While the local plans look out 20 years, the state water plan is current plus 5 – 10 years out. The State Water Supply Plan also includes general water supply planning information and summaries of water supply conditions for the major river basins in the State that have systems preparing Local Water Supply Plans. Appendix A lists, by county, the Local Water Supply Plan systems represented in the set of data used for this draft of the SWSP and identifies the river basins where the systems are located and the basins the systems depend on for water. Appendix B contains, by county, supplemental information from the Local Water Supply Plans for each water system submitting a plan for 1997.

The primary focus of the plan is on water for human needs though there are provisions to protect the water source and other water users from negative impacts (instream flows requirements on the withdrawal side and flooding for discharges/interbasin transfers). The NC Division of Water Quality develops Basin wide Water Quality Plans for each of the state’s major river basins. The program is a watershed-based management approach intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, consistency, and equitability of the state’s surface water quality program. The BWQPs enables basin wide permitting of wastewater discharges, and integration of existing point and non-point source programs within each basin. This approach enables DWQ to evaluate the water quality required for a range of uses from drinking water, irrigation, livestock watering, fisheries, recreation, habitat maintenance, and as well as for waste assimilation. These plans aim to evaluate the cumulative impact of water use on water quality. The plans communicate the state’s rationale, approaches, and long-term water quality management strategies for each basin. DWQ evaluates and updates each basin plan every five years.

2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment. Included.

PROCESS

3. How did states actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan? The NC Division of Water Resources prepared the state water plan. Individual water systems prepared the local water supply plans. The state legislature has given funds to DWR to provide technical assistance to local water supply plan developers in the past. The monies covered additional staff at DWR to provide technical assistance and review local water plans. The federal SDWA and other funds have been used to support LWSP development but increasingly financial assistance is a big issue reported in the 2001 SWP.

4. How did other states handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement? Stakeholder engagement, if any, is at the local level. The SWP does go out for public comment and the state agencies do engage stakeholders when new policies or issues arise. But the

planning process itself does not appear to be stakeholder driven since it is the local jurisdictions driving the LWSPs themselves.

5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible? The N.C. Division of Water Resources is developing a river basin water resources plan for each of the major river basins in the state to help assure the availability of adequate supplies of water in the future. These plans will support management of the state’s river basins and provide reliable, quantitative tools to plan for sustainable water use and support objective management and regulatory decisions. Data submitted to the division through the water supply planning program, the water withdrawal registration program, capacity use area reporting requirements and annual water use reporting provide critical information for the river basin planning program.

The hydrologic model provides a tool to analyze the effects of future water withdrawals and wastewater discharges during the range of river flow variability that occurred in the historical record. By analyzing the water needs expected in 2050, and evaluating these future demands with respect to known flow variability, DWR is able to identify areas where supplies may not be adequate to meet projected demands, as well as when and where water use conflicts may develop. The river basin water resources plans and associated hydrologic models will provide the division, local governments and other water users a reliable, quantitative framework within which to plan for sustainable and cost-effective water sources to meet future needs.

There are some plans/models already in place (e.g., Cape Fear River Basin) and others currently in review and development.

There are no statewide groundwater models being developed.

According to NC DWR documents, there is insufficient data to identify the required flows to protect aquatic ecosystems. There are also models for the basin wide water quality plans. According to NC documents, while DWQ and DWR talk to each other, the models for the river basin water resource plans and the basin wide water quality plans are not integrated.

JURISDICTION

6. How did other states deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? Not applicable. However, there is consideration for protecting drinking water supplies. Watersheds are classified into five classifications, ranging from WS-I, for an essentially undeveloped watershed in public ownership, to WS-V, which is the least restrictive water supply watershed classification. Local governments with land use jurisdiction in water supply watersheds are required to develop ordinances to protect water quality in the streams and water bodies receiving runoff from the protected areas. Restrictions vary depending on classification, but could require limits on development density, storm water management, and vegetated buffers along waterways. Limitations are most strict on WS-I watersheds. If a new surface water source is planned along a stream segment that is not already part of a water supply watershed, a reclassification must be conducted before that new water supply can be used.

7. How did other states deal with registrations or pre-existing water rights? Were they grandfathered? Did it work/not work? Not grandfathered. Appeared to work well. Only permits required for Capacity Use Areas (1 in the state with 1 more in process of being approved). Otherwise, only registrations required not regulated.

In 1991, the General Assembly required that any person who withdraws or transfers one million gallons per day or more of surface water must register those withdrawals with the Division of Water Resources (NCGS 143-215.22H). That initial round of registrations was based on surface water withdrawals in 1991 and included local government water systems that later prepared a LWSP. The law was changed in 1993 to require registration of ground water withdrawals also and to exempt local government water systems with local water supply plans from the registration requirement (they report use via their LWSPs; >3000 people or >1000 connections). A second round of registrations was then held that included both surface and ground water withdrawals for 1993. In 1998, the registration threshold for all water uses except agriculture was lowered from one million gallons per day (MGD) to 100,000 gallons per day. The withdrawal registration threshold for agricultural water uses is still 1.0 MGD. Registrations for 1999 water withdrawals were due March 1, 2000. Water users must update their water withdrawal registrations every five years. Registering water withdrawals provides water use information needed for water supply planning and management throughout the state.

8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts? NC refers to the planning process as a “bottom-up” process since the state water plan is a compilation of local water plans. This process started from legislation in the 1989. The first LWSPs were in 1992/1993 timeframe. Originally the process was more open ended and less prescriptive. The DWR recommended plan contents (present and projected population, present and projected water use, present and future water supplies, estimate of technical assistance needed) and the local jurisdictions prepared and submitted the plans to DWR for review. DWR reviewed LWSPs for internal consistency and consistency between interdependent water systems. In 2008, the law has changed to requiring DWR approval based on approval criteria and having more specificity in the local planning requirements.

The LWSPs are intended to provide information necessary for evaluating potential water supply plan conflicts. Together with the river basin water resources plans that helps DWR to analyze the water needs expected in 2050, and evaluate these future demands with respect to known flow variability, to identify areas where supplies may not be adequate to meet projected demands, as well as when and where water use conflicts may develop.

As issues are identified, the state DWR seems to work through different water groups (e.g., rural water associations, etc.), and local jurisdictions to discuss the issue and ways forward. In this way, the state doesn’t seem to decree a resolution but seeks to get input into next steps and then works to execute those steps. Ex. Original LWSPs—the legislation was passed but then DWR gave multiple presentations to different groups to discuss the planning process and gathered information through a survey about technical assistance needs. That resulted in the legislature providing funding for more staff to provide technical assistance, etc. Another more recent example concerns GW declines in Central Coastal Plain the DWR held workshops to review monitoring data and together they developed three step plan: monitoring, planning, regulations of withdrawals >100,000 gpd.

In terms of jurisdictions, an ongoing issue is coordinating between DWR and DWQ since quality and quantity are handled by different agencies. Also, land use planning in certain areas has to incorporate a water supply component. So these involve different jurisdictions working together.

PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

9. Did states alter the way they managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work? LWSPs and the SWP are updated on a 5 year cycle. An important aspect of the planning process is identifying current and potential future water supply issues. Identification of issues has meant that new regulations have been passed—not necessarily directly a result of the planning process but informed by the planning process. For example, there are new changes to laws for interbasin transfers. There is also a new law assigning DWR the task of developing BMPs to assist communities in their efforts to improve water use efficiency and water conservation. Moreover, it has meant exercising the Water Use Act of 1967 which provides a mechanism for regulating water withdrawals in areas where water use has to be coordinated to protect availability. The Environmental Management Commission creates a Capacity Use Area and then water permits can be issued for waters in these areas.

In 2009, the state commissioned a study to evaluate the state’s water policy since GW and SW are managed separately, little regulation of riparian rights, large water withdrawals.

According to NC documents, the state appears poised to take a larger role in water supply planning as regional solutions are developed to address the growing regional demands for water across the state.

10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria for prioritization? Criteria for prioritization is level of demand for water supply.

OTHER

11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation Very strong local jurisdiction focused with LWSPs. Process is evolving since the plan requires updating every five years. Since water supply and water quality are separate, the state is having to work to figure out how to combine the data/models.

12. Please list any attachments.

Contacts:

Water Supply Planning Branch, NC Water Supply Plan, Linwood Peele, 919-707-9024, linwood.peele@ncdenr.gov

Local Water Supply Planning, Vardry Austin, 919-707-9002, vardry.austin@ncdenr.gov

Oregon

High Priority Questions About Other State Plans Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy – D. Radka

PLAN ELEMENTS

1. What is the overall organizational structure of the plan? Strategy seeks to understand water resources today; understand instream and out-of-stream needs; understand the coming pressures that affect needs & supplies; and identify how to meet long-tern water resource needs.

2. Please provide a table of contents as an attachment (see Attachment A)

PROCESS

3. How did states actually do planning and how was it funded? With state employees or outside contractors or regional, bottom up efforts? Is funding model sustainable for an ongoing plan? Bottom-up approach w/ public input and formal 18 member advisory group. Oregon Water Resources Dept took lead working w/ other state agencies. In 2013, legislature approved 14 positions to support existing programs & implement IWRS; funded 13 monitoring wells and 16 stream gages.

4. How did other states handle stakeholder engagement, public communication and public involvement? Recognized as critical. Mandatory place-based integrated planning at local scale. Workshops have been held and guidelines are under development.

5. How do models used in the planning process get created? Is it a transparent process? Does the model have legitimacy (do people accept that it is accurate and appropriate to use in planning)? Is the model accessible? Unclear; modeling appears limited to some basins.

JURISDICTION

6. How did other states deal with different classes of water (e.g., Class A and B)? Not applicable, although there is a clear focus on greater understanding of groundwater dependent basins with quality concerns.

7. How did other states deal with registrations or pre-existing water rights? Were they grandfathered? Did it work/not work? Conserved water program incentivizes relinquishing certain rights by allowing portion of conserved water to be reallocated to new use, with balance going to instream flow maintenance.

8. How did existing agencies with different jurisdictions and responsibilities work together in the planning effort (local to regional to state, groundwater and surface water management, quality and quantity, environmental, etc.)? How were responsibilities shared? How are they managing conflicts? Lead agency (WRD) with support from other agencies. Conflicts not readily discernable.

PRIORITIZATION AND VALUES

9. Did other states alter the way they managed or allocated water through the planning process? How? Why? Did it work? IWRS stresses that existing authorities will be maintained and strategy is not intended to remove or jeopardize existing rights. Initial effort does identify areas where incentives can serve as tools for progress.

10. How do states identify and prioritize some basins over others and what are the criteria for prioritization? Not known.

OTHER

11. What elements of the plan struck you as being especially interesting and relevant to the Connecticut situation. IWRS focus is on understanding water resource needs and providing blueprint for future actions. Framework appears relevant, insightful and pragmatic. Identification of research needs throughout is noteworthy.

12. Please list any attachments. Table of Contents (A); High level Framework (B)

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B

Pennsylvania Summary of Water Resources Planning Act of 2002 (Act 220)

PA’s current State Water Plan (SWP) was completed in 2009, replacing the original plan from 1983, which many believed had become obsolete after the mismanagement of several droughts around the year 2000. Established by PA 220 in 2002, the enabling legislation for the new plan:

Requires DEP to update the State Water Plan in five years with subsequent updates every five years (which has not been fully achieved – see #3 below), in consultation with a statewide Water Resources Committee and six regional committees

requires public water suppliers and hydropower facilities, as well as all users of at least 10,000 gallons of water per day, to register and report their usage to DEP

allows for the identification for critical water planning areas (CWPAs) based on existing or projected shortfalls and outlines a procedure for creating specific critical area resource plans.

Major highlights of the 2009 SWP include:

a well-established framework for surface water allocation based on state permits

clear roles of and relationships among: o regional water resources committees, who work with municipalities, and local

stakeholder and interest groups to identify regional priorities; o a close relationship between the regional committees and the statewide water

resources committee/DEP structure to avoid duplicating efforts o a statewide water resources committee, which identifies statewide priorities and

recommends legislative actions; and o DEP

Organizational Structure:

3. Planning: The planning process is primarily a bottom-up approach, with the Regional Committees supplying input to the Statewide Committee, who then submits recommendations to the PA DEP. PA DEP ultimately makes decisions on policy and implementation based heavily on these recommendations.

Funding: PA 220 outlines the following:

Some funding to be allocated in DEP’s budget

Various DEP financial assistance programs can be capitalized

Fee system for use of Statewide Data Collection

Use of fees/penalties collected in the Water Resources Fund

Clean water Funds Sustainable Funding: Lori Mohr and Dave Jostenski, who assisted in creating the plan, stated that the current plan produced some good results, however they were quick to point out that it was hobbled by poor funding and consequently has hardly been updated. They used terms like "static information" and "it's been on hiatus for a while due to the economic downturn and political administrative changes".

1. Intersate Basin Commissions

2. Critical Water Planning Areas (CWPAs)

3. Public Stakeholders/Local Interest Groups

Six Regional Committees Statewide CommitteePennsylvania DEP & Public

Process

4. Public Involvement: Stakeholder and public involvement is largely incorporated in the recommendations of the Regional Committees, which are funneled up through the Statewide Committee and DEP. Public outreach and communication tools:

State Water Plan website, State Water Atlas publication, Mapping and Data tools, Project Showcase, Meeting Information, etc. http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/StateWaterPlan/docroot/Default.aspx

Water Atlas was very popular; although now out-of-print, it is still available at: http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/statewaterplan/docroot/WaterAtlasLinks.aspx

During creation of the Plan, 16 outreach forums were held to generate public input and grass-roots support

5. Modeling: USGS and PA DEP developed a Water Analysis Screening Tool (WAST) to assist in the identification of critical water planning areas. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1106/

Additional “data gathering improvements resulted from the plan” (Mohr and Jostenski)Online Mapping and Data Tools: http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/StateWaterPlan/docroot/Default.aspx#

6. Classes A/B not in the plan.

7. Pre-Existing Water Rights:

Under the WRP Act, DEP requires registration of all withdrawals exceeding 10,000 gpd averaged over a 30 day period, and of all public water supply and hydropower facilities, that includes periodic reporting requirements. No mention of anything being grandfathered.

Private water well construction remains unregulated as it was pre-plan. This only applies to wells drawing < 10,000 gpd and seems to be working.

Interviewees said “the original plan from the 1980's was better funded, but focused heavily on water supply issues to the exclusion of other issues”, causing it not to function well.

8. Collaboration and Conflict Management: Agencies and stakeholders collaborate through the Regional Committees to represent their various interests and manage conflicts. The Regional Committees also aid municipalities and smaller groups in water planning, and other water related issues.

9. Management/Allocation of Water: Previous water planning efforts in PA were very disjointed. The new SWP puts a focus on more integrated water resource management, using watershed boundaries to guide decision making. The new plan has faced a variety of obstacles, especially poor funding (See #3 Sustainable Funding), causing it not to function as well as intended.

10. Prioritization of Basins: The Water Resources Planning Act calls for the designation of Critical Water Planning Areas (CWPAs) where the demand for water exceeds, or is projected to exceed, available supplies. CWPAs will be identified on a multi-municipal watershed basis and once established, they will serve as the planning boundary for the creation of a more detailed Critical Area Resource Plan for that area. [credit to: PA Water Atlas]

Interviewees: Lori Mohr (worked with committees including those formed as part of the plan) Special Projects Director, Water Supply Planning Office 717-787-4628 laumohr@state.pa.us Dave Jostenski (worked on technical elements of the plan) currently Enviro. Proj. Mgr. for Coastal & Great Lakes (now focused on interstate water issues) 717-772-5659 djostenski@pa.gov Potential Executive Level Contact: Kelly Heffner, Deputy Secretary Water Management, 717-787-4693

Rhode Island

BACKGROUND

The Rhode Island Water 2030 plan was developed by the RI Dept. of Administration, Division of Planning which includes both a Statewide Planning Program and a Water Resources Board. The plan, completed in 2012, consolidates some previous documents and addresses the availability of, demand for, management and protection of drinking water, as well as the operation and maintenance of water systems. The goals of the plan are to assure that water systems meet or exceed public health and safety standards, sustain growth and development, and improve the overall quality of life in Rhode Island. This consolidation identifies the previously adopted goals, policies, and recommended actions that are based on sound strategies deemed essential to maintaining existing and protecting future water supplies. When construed and applied in conjunction with Land Use 2025 (State Guide Plan Element 121, 2006) this guidance is intended to advance the effectiveness of public and private stewardship of the state’s water supply resources. As an element of the State Guide Plan, this Plan sets forth goals and policies that must, under state law, be reflected in future updates of local comprehensive plans.

Funding: RI has a water use surcharge collected by water suppliers. The monies are “deposited in various water quality protection accounts overseen by the WR Board and the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB)” that are used for protection of drinking water sources. The surcharge rate is $ 0.0292 per 100 gallons used. There are set rates for distribution of the funds with some differences for the PWSB. The plan states that the suppliers remit to the WR Board 36.1% of the surcharge rate, except the City of Providence maintains a separate, and that the WR Board in turn remits 57% of the funds received to the General Fund of the State. But there is also wording that the suppliers keep 6.9% administrative charge, so it is a little unclear as to how the funds are The water quality protection charge is separated into three water quality protection accounts. The first two consist of any amounts as the State or the PSWB may from time to time appropriate and all water quality protection charges other than the 6.9% administrative charge. One account is administered by Treasurer of the WR Board. The WRBC borrows money and issues notes and bonds by pledging or assigning, in whole or in part, the revenues and other monies held or to be deposited in this fund. The second account is administered by the PWSB. A third account is administered by the General Treasurer of the State. It is a general revenue receipt account known as the "water resources operating fund". The general revenue appropriations made available from the general revenue receipts credited to "Water Resources Operating Fund" are supposed to be used for the administration and support of the WR Board and staff.

Clean Water Finance Agency (CWFA)

The CWFA was established in 1989 by the General Assembly. It was created to administer certain federal and state financial programs relating to municipal or community wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The Agency's operating expenses are funded solely from loan service fees generated from managing its programs. Relevant to water supply, the Agency administers the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF).

� Assist small systems in preparing applications for revolving fund assistance.

� Assist all public water supply systems in maintaining financial, managerial and technical abilities and maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.

� Assist small systems in meeting compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Division of Planning working with an advisory committee, completed Water 2030. This plan was adopted by the State Planning Council on June 14, 2012. It addresses planning for all drinking water used in Rhode Island, including private wells. The Plan stresses the need to plan and manage the available water, to reduce the overall demand for drinking water and increase the protection of drinking water sources. It also addresses the need for the operation of water systems to meet public health requirements, to support economic development and to protect the quality of life in Rhode Island. The Plan contains goals, policies and strategies for maintaining our existing water systems and protecting future water supplies. Ground and surface water resources are important parts of the overall water supply of the State. The need for careful consideration of water supply capacities and their delivery needs in comprehensive community plans are stressed, with land use and development based upon these capacities.

RI Nonpoint Source / Water Quality Management Plan Update

The Land Use Unit is working with the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) in updating the nonpoint source pollution management plan and creating a Rhode Island Water Quality Management Plan as an new / updated element of the State Guide Plan. This plan will involve updating and consolidating the following existing State Guide Plan Elements into a single document:

HIGH PRIORITY QUESTIONS

1. Overall organizational structure: As with many states, water management and planning is fragmented among various agencies in MN, including MN Dept of Natural Resources (DNR); MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); MN Environmental Quality Board (EQB), MN Dept of Health (MDH), Clean Water Council, MNDOT and MN Dept of Ag (MDA). The MN WSF consists of a 10 and 25 year plan with 2 phases in the first 10 years and an additional 3 phases in the remainder of the 25 years. The Framework identifies 10 major issues and then addresses strategies to meet desired future outcomes. For example, Issue A is: The need for a Sustainable and Clean Water Supply. The desired outcome is “A water supply that is protected for all future generations that is of high quality and that is sustainable for all uses of water”. The 3 strategies for accomplishing the outcome are A.1: Determine the state’s water balance and improve water appropriations permitting; A.2: Improve privately supplied drinking water quality; and A.3: Plan for water re-use. Other issues among the 10 include: Water pricing and valuation, public water infrastructure needs, and Governance and Institutions. Some general recommended levels of funding and implementation phasing are included, along with relative benefits to water resources. The plan is available at: http://wrc.umn.edu/watersustainabilityframework/ . Links to Background papers, e.g. Water Use in MN, Water Supply and Availability in MN and Technical Team reports; and category-specific Best Practices are listed at the web site. 2. See summary of major issues and strategies attached. 3. Developed by the Univ. of MN Water Resources Center by direction of MN Legislature. Funding from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the state constitution which provides a small portion of the state’ sales tax for the next 25 years to create the Clean Water Fund.. 4. Major inputs from State and Federal agencies, “100,s” of scientists and water management professionals from Universities, citizens and interest groups met frequently to develop strategies for

within major issue categories. There was some regional focus, given the high diversity of landscapes and WR in MN. 5. Modeling is mentioned for determining the water balances by region and problems associated with agricultural drainage and nitrogen export especially in the MN River basin. 6. Class A and B not used; The major rivers, e.g. Mississippi River is a major source of water for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; water reuse is mentioned as one possible strategy. 7. MN is riparian rights state and requires permits for both surface and ground water. There is not a grandfathered system, evidently. 8. Agencies worked through the committees along with citizen groups. 9. Based on a brief discussion with the Plan’s main author, some parts of the plan are starting to be used, while other parts are lagging in implementation. The plan is only about 2 years old. 10. The recommendation to design and complete water balance hydrologic models will have a regional basis. 11. Overall framework could apply to CT, but the MN WSF is very broad. The general approach may have merit. 12. Fact sheet/summary attached. DID IT WORK: too early to say.

Tennessee

In Tennessee there is not a state wide water supply plan for the use or allocation of water resources. Tennessee laid the groundwork for a regional or watershed area approach for supply planning with the passage of the Water Resources Information Act of 2002 (1) which was followed by the publication of Statewide Water Resource Planning – A Nine State Study published in 2010 which was authorized by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (2) to look at the needs of Tennessee and what other states had done in regards to water management. Compounding the water issue in Tennessee is the involvement of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Army Corp of Engineers in the operation of some of the waterways in Tennessee.

Tennessee regulates both groundwater (withdrawals greater than 10,000 gallons a day must be permitted and registered (3) and surface water falling under the purview of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation or TDEC (1) as they are both considered waters of the state. Inter-basin transfer of surface water between 10 designated basins and the transfer of ground water if it would adversely affect surface water is regulated. Under the TDEC there are three divisions which address various water issues: Water Pollution Control, Water Supply and Groundwater Protection (1). Additionally the Tennessee Department of Agriculture addresses land based water quality issues (5).

The Water Resources Information Act of 2002 also authorized the formation of the Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee formed in 2007 with the 15 member committee (11 members in 2013), made up of utility, state and federal representatives (TVA, Army Corp. of Engineers, USGS). The Committee was charged in 2007 with providing guidance on revising the State Wide Drought Management Plan of 1987, after the drought in Tennessee in 2007-2008, with the committee completing the revised plan in 2009 (1).

The TDEC, the Nashville division of the Army Corp of Engineers, the Water Resources Technical Advisory Group and various other planning agencies partnered together in 2008 to initiate pilot water resource planning in two management areas hardest hit by the drought of 20007-2008 (6). The TDEC recommended that the North Central Tennessee Region and the South Cumberland Region management area be selected as the pilot areas for water resource planning due to either the population growth (> than 75 % for North Central between 1980 and 2010 (8)) or water shortages experienced (7) in the South Cumberland Region.

To support the study the TDEC and the United State Army Corp of Engineers acquired a decision making model to assist in the evaluation of water sufficiency in the pilot study regions (OASIS – Operational Analysis and Simulation of Integrated Systems) which was supported by Tennessee Technical University (3) during the study and decision process.

After looking at the existing systems for pressure from population growth, existing water resources or firm yield, conservation practices, and unaccounted water losses (excess water losses of less than 35% is the target set by the Utility Management Review Board (7), both study areas water resources were to be evaluated under a two tier system established by the Advisory Committee, TDEC and the various other partners in the pilot studies.

Tier 1 criteria were comprised of; Sufficiency or comparing the yield of the system to the raw water needs of the management area. Cost of the options including regionalization, interconnections via

pipelines and new sources such as the Caney Fork Creek Reservoir in the North Central Study Area (10) (which had been previously denied a permit by TDEC under the Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit review). In the South Cumberland Regional Water Resource Planning area options included raising the level of the Big Fiery Gizzard Dam, the purchase of Ramsey Lake from a private entity and building the Big Creek Reservoir in addition to interconnections were all options considered. Implementability or the relative ease with which the options could be accomplished in a reasonable time frame was considered as one of the Tier 1 considerations. The last criteria in the Tier 1 analysis as was the Flexibility of the option or how the option could be implemented in phases with the costs spread over a period of time while still meeting the needs of the management study area.

Tier 2 criteria included all of the Tier 1 options and additionally included the storage remaining in a critical drought, with increased scrutiny of the sufficiency, refinement of the cost of the various options, the consideration of the quality of the raw and finished water, potential environmental benefits or impacts and any other considerations pertinent for the proposals.

Raising the Big Fiery Gizzard Dam in the South Cumberland Region Study area (11) and regionalization between utilities, Portland and White House Utility District (12) in the North Central Tennessee Study area were considered to be the most viable options by the contributors to both plans (13).

Implementing the best plan may take a number of years but in the interim water conservation and demand management was cited as the best strategy for utilizing the current and future supply resources. Regionalization as an alternate is supported by Tennessee’s Inter-local Cooperation Act. The commitment to a regional approach, engineering and rate studies with communication and community engagement were all considered critical to the plans since the water customers will be paying the debt services and operational costs of the most viable options.

Funding for the planning study areas was not identified (TDEC). Possible funding for the projects are outlined in a publication of the University of Tennessee’s Municipal Technical Advisory Service with a commitment by the TDEC to work with the regional partners for identifying funding for the projects. Using State Revolving Fund money for building dams is not an option. The Duck River Agency finances water projects to benefit multiple utilities with a region-wide 5 cents per 1,000 gallon surcharge on water bills collected by seven participating utilities in the South Cumberland Regional Study area (16).

Minimum mandatory stream flow releases were mentioned and delineated one the study area report with modification of the releases (1.0 CFS) possible in certain situations (18) and not in others (17).

The regional approach (spanning multiple watersheds) driven by the drought of 2007-08 with a timely and a well thought out approach to the regional area water supply resources and possible solutions to the issues of the study areas stood out.

Texas – (Note: State summary is not available at this time. Full evaluations attached(2)) State Water Plan Evaluation Framework – 2012 Texas State Water Plan (A.Charamut) Revised, November 25, 2014

Section Number

Question Answer

1.0 CONTACTS: Please list the names, affiliations and contact information for any people within the state that you feel would be able to answer any additional questions.

Andrew Sansom andrewsansom@txstate.edu Executive Director, Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University

1. Formerly Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2. The Nature Conservancy

2.0 Who: Governance and Policy

2.1 What is the general water rights framework within the state, and how is that framework reflected in the way water authority is distributed to regulating entities?

“First in Time – First in Rights”

2.2 In general, what are the authorities within the state responsible for water policy and planning? How to these organizations relate to each other?

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) – Responsible for the development of and revisions to the Water Plan Texas Water Conservation Advisory Council – Advises TWDB and TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) – Issues water rights and responsible for water quality and quantity issues with surface water Texas Department of Agriculture and Texas Parks and Wildlife are also involved as they sit on the Texas Water Conservation Advisory Council.

2.3 To the extent that you can, please describe which entities do the following:

2.3.1 - planning Regional Water Planning Groups and the Texas Water Development Board which consists of board members appointed by the governor.

2.3.2 - implementation Regional Water Planning Groups are responsible for implementing the plan

2.3.3 - enforcement It appears that supporting regulations are enforceable by the regulating agency such as TCEQ and Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.

2.3.4 - policy development Policy recommendations are given by the TWDB in the water plan.

TWDB’s statutory requirement to develop a state water plan every five years includes provisions that the plan should be a guide to state water policy that includes legislative recommendations that TWDB believes are needed and desirable to facilitate more voluntary water transfers.

2.3.5 - legislation development Legislature

2.4 Please describe any conflict resolution process the state has specifically related to water issues.

2.5 What provisions are there for stakeholder participation in water planning and decision making?

The regional planning groups represent at least 11 interests, as required by Texas statute, including agriculture, Industry, Public, Environmental, Municipalities, Business, Water Districts, River Authorities, Water Utilities, Counties and Power Generation. Each step of the process is open to the public and provides numerous opportunities for public input. The [National Research Council] advocates that stakeholder participation in the deliberation stage is critical because stakeholders have unique knowledge and perspectives, because they have a right to contribute to plans that will involve them, and because plan execution depends on everyone working together. A coordinated plan is more important than perfect foresight, so the most important planning strategy for reducing risk is stakeholder participation. The regional water planning process is fundamentally based on stakeholder participation by the inclusion of stakeholder interests groups as required by Texas statute.

2.6 What is the relationship between water planning, water policy development and legislation (does the plan include policy or support policy developed elsewhere)

Much of the support policy had been or is being developed elsewhere. Such as water rights and instream flow regulations. Policy recommendations are provided within the plan. Most policy recommendations provided are directly tied to legislation that hinders the plan’s ability to carry out the strategies recommended to increase water supply.

2.7 What interstate authorities do these groups work with? What regional entities or agreements does the state participate in?

Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (each of these also have non-voting seats on the Regional Planning Groups)

2.8 Other: please list any other observations related to water

governance and policy within the state

3.0 Planning, Administration and Implementation

3.1 What is the planning horizon, how many years ahead do they plan for?

50 years

3.2 What is the planning cycle? How often is the plan updated

5 years

3.2 How is water planning funded? Only funding for water management strategies and infrastructure are addressed in the 2012 plan. How the TSWB is funds data collection and administrative efforts is unclear. A strong assumption can be made that they are funded through the State Water Implementation Fund of Texas (SWIFT). In 2013, the Texas Legislature authorized transferring $2 billion from the state's "Rainy Day Fund" to create a new loan program, later approved by Texas voters, to fund projects in the state water plan. This original investment in the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) is designed to fund close to $27 billion in water supply projects over the next 50 years to ensure that Texas communities have adequate supplies of water during drought.

3.3 What data and models are used and how are they acquired?

Evaluation of population projections, water demand projections and existing water supplies. TWDB supplies this data to the regional planning groups

3.4 How is water allocation policy connected to water planning and legislation development, formally?

Water management strategies are formulated based on supply needs for each region.

3.5 What is the relationship to other planning processes within the state such as land use planning, economic development planning, etc

The water plan is tied to land use planning only in the sense of securing land for reservoir site acquisition. Economic development is closely tied to water supply issues.

3.6 How are stakeholder interests incorporated into the planning process?

The regional planning groups represent at least 11 interests, as required by Texas statute, including agriculture, Industry, Public, Environmental, Municipalities, Business, Water Districts, River Authorities, Water Utilities, Counties and Power Generation. Each step of the process is open to the public and provides numerous opportunities for public input.

3.7 Are water information security and FOI concerns addressed?

No. Not specifically

3.8 Other: are there any other important aspects of this state’s

actually planning process that we should note?

4.0 What Water: Resource Scope

4.1 What spatial scale is the plan, are the planning units (basins, regions, and/or state)

TWDB designated 16 regional water planning areas taking into consideration river basin and aquifer delineations, water utility development patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, existing regional water planning areas, state political subdivision boundaries, public comments, and other factors

4.4 What water is planned: surface water, groundwater

TWDB seems to have more jurisdiction over surface water. Groundwater is managed by local groundwater management authorities. Groundwater in the state is managed in an entirely different fashion than surface water. Historically, Texas has followed the English common law rule that landowners have the right to capture or remove all of the water that can be captured from beneath their land Today, Texas is the only western state that continues to follow the rule of capture However, local groundwater management plans can dictate limits.

4.3 Whose water is planned: Public vs. private? What is the relationship to water rights?

All surface water is held in trust by the state. The Texas State Water Plan is focused entirely on water supply for human use (drinking water, irrigation, etc)

4.4 Please note how the following potential uses of water are planned for

4.4.1 withdrawals Groundwater management plans differ by region.

4.4.2 discharges

4.4.3 stormwater

4.4.4 reuse & conservation

4.4.5 environmental/instream

4.4.6 industry

4.4.7 agriculture

4.4.8 recreation

4.4.9 power generation

4.4.10 other

4.5 How is water quality addressed in the planning process?

Surface water quality is monitored by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. TWDB monitors groundwater quality. The state surface water quality programs are based

on the federal Clean Water Act and the Texas Water Code, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality having jurisdiction over the state’s surface water quality programs, as delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

4.6 Other: any other important notes related to the scope of water resources being planned

5.0 What water issues: are any of the following specifically, intentionally addressed in the planning process? To what extent?

5.1 flood

5.2 drought Rather than preparing for every possible outcome, it is more efficient to focus on a benchmark risk. In Texas water planning, the benchmark is the drought of record of the 1950s. The drought of record is better understood than other projected drought risks because it actually happened. If we prepare for the drought of record, then the state will be better positioned to respond to future droughts.

5.3 climate change TWDB has taken a number of steps to address uncertainty related to climate variability in the regional planning process. The agency monitors climate science for applicability to the planning process, consults with subject experts, and solicits research. TWDB also cohosted the Far West Texas Climate Change Conference in 2008. TWDB will continue to monitor drought conditions to determine if a new drought of record occurs, which would change water planning assumptions.

5.4 water quality

5.5 instream flow This will not be addressed until the 2017 Water Plan

5.6 water use prioritization “First in Time. First in Right”

5.7 other?

6.0 How/Is the need for public education related to water planning, water use, water issues addressed?

7.0 Differences with Connecticut: are there any significant differences between the state and Connecticut that may have influenced their plan?

7.1 political

7.2 geology/hydrology

7.3 regulation and allocation

(permitting, streamflow)

7.4 water rights framework

7.5 other

8.0 How well does it work?

8.1 If you encounter any information as to how the planning process or the plan itself has actually worked for the state, please include that information here.

9.0 Anything else that you found interesting and would like to share?

Texas – (Note: State summary is not available at this time. Full evaluations attached(2))

State Water Plan Evaluation Framework – 2012 Texas State Water Plan (C.Kirchoff) Section Number

Question Answer

1.0 CONTACTS: Please list the names, affiliations and contact information for any people within the state that you feel would be able to answer any additional questions.

Texas Water Development Board (oversees planning): Jeff Walker jeff.walker@twdb.texas.gov water supply/infr, Jessica Zuba jessica.zuba@twdb.texas.gov regional water plng, Matt Nelson matt.nelson@twdb.texas.gov water use projections

2.0 Who: Governance and Policy

2.1 What is the general water rights framework within the state, and how is that framework reflected in the way water authority is distributed to regulating entities?

Surface water is prior appropriation—Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Groundwater is a mix of rule of capture/absolute dominion and limited regulation within groundwater management areas by Groundwater Conservation Districts (an exception is Edwards Aquifer)

2.2 In general, what are the authorities within the state responsible for water policy and planning? How do these organizations relate to each other?

Water policy is typically established by the State Legislature based on recommendations by experts (recently, the planning process has produced important legislative recommendations enacted by the legislature). The TCEQ has authority for water rights and permitting while the TWDB has authority for overseeing planning by regional planning groups and coordinating activities into an overall state water plan. Groundwater Conservation Districts are tasked with some limited regulation of groundwater within GMAs.

2.3 To the extent that you can, please describe which entities do the following:

2.3.1 - planning TWDB, regional water planning groups (16 total) that include relevant GCDs that overlap. TWDB provides technical assistance to the planning groups and GCDs but it is the regional planning groups and GCDs that actually do the planning.

2.3.2 - implementation TWDB provides funding to help implement different projects and recommendations of the plan; the state legislature enacts policy recommended by the plan; individual local governments and GCDs implement relevant local efforts reflected in the planning documents

2.3.3 - enforcement TWDB uses available funding to help with compliance. Entities who do not comply with the plans, lose eligibility for funding. TCEQ is similar—water rights need to be consistent with the plan. TWDB is less the enforcer and more the technical and financial

supporter for the plans. However, the GCDs have more teeth than the regional plan or SWP since they are a rule making authority. TCEQ provides technical assistance to the districts along with TWDB but also TCEQ enforces the adoption, approval and implementation of the management plans. The districts and TCEQ will potentially enforce desired future conditions as per the planning documents (these are new so still relatively untested).

2.3.4 - policy development The legislature develops policies; however, the recent important water policies have stemmed from the recommendations developed out of the planning process. In addition to the legislature, the GCDs develop rules and policies for their GMAs. Local governments develop policies relevant to their area.

2.3.5 - legislation development Similar to 2.3.4. Primary responsibility is the state legislature. The Texas Administrative Code for regional water planning includes rule 357.43 which explicitly directs the planning process to develop legislative recommendations.

2.4 Please describe any conflict resolution process the state has specifically related to water issues.

The GCDs are required to adopt a groundwater management plan. The Texas Administrative Code outlines conflict management procedures in the event the TWDB does not approve the GCD plan. The same code also outlines conflict management procedures for resolving conflicts raised by individuals in a district between the GCD plan and the state water plan (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/WA/htm/WA.36.htm). TAC Title 31, Part 10, Ch 357 outlines conflict resolution procedures for intra- and inter-regional conflicts and conflicts between the regional plans and groundwater management plans (see, http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=31&pt=10&ch=357&rl=Y).

2.5 What provisions are there for stakeholder participation in water planning and decision making?

The Texas Water Code outlines procedures for public comments on the plans (regional plan, GCD plans, state water plan). All meetings are public meetings. Regional water planning groups are supposed to be representative of a variety of regional interests (ag, counties, economic development, electric, environmental, GCDs, GMAs, industries, municipalities, real estate, small business, travel/tourism, water districts and utilities, etc.) and the public. As such, there are voting members on each RWPG that represent each area including “public”. Also, Individuals with standing can raise objections with

GMPs.

2.6 What is the relationship between water planning, water policy development and legislation (does the plan include policy or support policy developed elsewhere)

Yes, see above section 2.3.4 and 2.3.5

2.7 What interstate authorities do these groups work with? What regional entities or agreements does the state participate in?

The regional planning groups work with interstate authorities and regional entities as applicable. For example, Region E, the Texas Panhandle, planning group includes several non-voting members including the International Boundary Water Commission, USGS, Bureau of Rec, Fort Bliss, etc. There are also regional council of government representatives. And, since the region boarders the Rio Grande, there are links to the Rio Grande Compact Commission (though I didn’t see individuals from the Commission on the RWPG).

2.8 Other: please list any other observations related to water governance and policy within the state

3.0 Planning, Administration and Implementation

3.1 What is the planning horizon, how many years ahead do they plan for?

It is a 50 year planning horizon.

3.2 What is the planning cycle? How often is the plan updated

The plans are updated every five years (groundwater, regional, and state plans).

3.2 How is water planning funded? The legislature provides the funding for the plans through the TWDB to political entities which apply to undertake regional planning. This model originated with Senate Bill 1 back in 1997. Recently, the Texas voters approved Proposition 6 (2013) aimed at establishing a trust to fund water projects recommended in the SWP.

3.3 What data and models are used and how are they acquired?

The TWDB developed surface and groundwater models. Groundwater models are still being developed. These were originally funded under Senate Bill 1 (1997). Population projections by the Office of the State Demographer and the Texas State Data Center (demographic and related socioeconomic data). TWDB has a water use survey. TCEQ information about surface water rights/uses. Each RWP does the following requiring data (italicized):

- Describes planning area (major providers, current water use, sources of SW and GW, ag and NR, economy, and summaries of local

water plans - Quantify current and projected population and

water demand over 50 year horizon (for example, UT Bureau of Economic Geology completed study to project steam-electric power gen water use and projected demands. Different RWPGs conduct independent studies to estimate irrigation demands, etc. TWDB also hires firms to do projections like the Waterstone Environmental Hydrology and Engineering Inc and the Perryman Group to do projections for mining and manufacturing)

- Quantify current water supplies using the state’s surface and gw models where available

- Identify surplus and needs for water - Evaluate and recommend strategies to meet

needs including conservation, new reservoirs, transfers, reuse, etc.

- Evaluate impact of water management strategies on water quality (no mention of models here but believe this is related to environmental flows efforts, at least partially)

- Estimate environmental impacts of water management strategies (same as above)

- Recommend regulatory, administrative and legislative changes

- Discuss financing of projects-surveys of water providers and needs for state financing

- Adopting the RW plan with public meetings/hearings

3.4 How is water allocation policy connected to water planning and legislation development, formally?

See prior answers concerning this topic. The planning groups include regulatory, administrative, and legislative recommendations that they believe are needed to better manage water resources and to prepare for and respond to droughts. The latest recommendations include reservoir siting, designation of stream segments of unique ecological value for projection, acquisition of reservoir sites, easing restrictions on interbasin transfers, removing TWDB from reasonableness review of desired future conditions for groundwater except for technical review, requiring all retail public utilities to do water loss audits, and financing SWP projects.

3.5 What is the relationship to other planning processes within the state such as land use planning, economic development

Population and economic growth are part of the plan but not in huge detail. These are regional estimates used to relate to water demand projections and water availability estimates. One of the challenges is that

planning, etc growth is not explicitly tied to water availability. There is the assumption that water will be found to support the growth.

3.6 How are stakeholder interests incorporated into the planning process?

There are 16 planning groups. Each planning group consists of about 20 members that represent at least 11 interests, as required by Texas statute, including Agriculture, Industry, Public, Environment, Municipalities, Business, Water Districts, River Authorities, Water Utilities, Counties, and Power Generation. Representatives from each interest group are voting members of the RWPG. Also in the group are the groundwater management areas and groundwater conservation district reps.

3.7 Are water information security and FOI concerns addressed?

Individual identities are protected.

3.8 Other: are there any other important aspects of this state’s actually planning process that we should note?

4.0 What Water: Resource Scope

4.1 What spatial scale is the plan, are the planning units (basins, regions, and/or state)

Regions roughly watershed but actual county boundaries. Groundwater districts are roughly aquifer boundaries but actual county boundaries and are grouped within a region based on overlap.

4.4 What water is planned: surface water, groundwater

Surface and groundwater.

4.3 Whose water is planned: Public vs. private? What is the relationship to water rights?

Both public (the state owns surface water and provides permits for water rights) and private (groundwater).

4.4 Please note how the following potential uses of water are planned for

4.4.1 withdrawals Water uses are accounted for in the plan.

4.4.2 discharges Not explicitly accounted for in the plan. For example, surface water models account for uses but not for return flows so in this way they are conservative in their estimates of water availability.

4.4.3 stormwater

4.4.4 reuse & conservation Municipal and irrigation conservation and municipal reuse are water management strategies used extensively (more so now than in earlier versions of the plan) to bridge gaps between identified needs and available supplies. Conservation includes low flow shower heads and toilets as well as education. The TCEQ requires a permit for direct, non-potable water reuse. There was 1 such permit in 1990; now there are 187 (2010).

4.4.5 environmental/instream The Texas Instream Flow Program was created by the Texas Legislature in 2001 to assess how much water rivers need to maintain a sound ecological environment. The program is administered by three agencies: TCEQ, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and TWDB and is implemented in coordination with the public and experts. Six river sub-basins have been identified as priority instream flow studies. These sub-basins were selected based on potential water development projects, water rights permitting issues, and other factors. Studies for these sub-basins will be completed by the end of 2016. Meetings with the public and stakeholders began in 2008. This process was slow/labored so the 80th Texas Legislature (2007) established the Senate Bill 3 (SB3) process for environmental flows in order to determine environmental flow standards for all of the major river basins and bay systems in Texas. Senate Bill 3 was designed to be an accelerated, stakeholder-driven, scientific and consensus-based process to establish environmental flow recommendations from which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) could set standards. To date, seven of 11 river basins have completed or are in the process of developing instream flow and freshwater inflow recommendations.

4.4.6 industry Assess water uses and needs for manufacturing and other industries (e.g., mining) in the RWPs and SWP

4.4.7 agriculture Assess water uses and needs for agriculture/irrigation in the RWPs and SWP

4.4.8 recreation Not directly assessed

4.4.9 power generation Assess water uses and needs for steam-electric in the RWPs and SWP

4.4.10 other Management strategies other than reuse and conservation include conjunctive use, AQR, desalination, rainwater harvesting,

4.5 How is water quality addressed in the planning process?

Indirectly addressed. The primary focus is water availability/quantity but the instream flows process looks at this as does each RWPG through their evaluation of the environmental impacts and water quality impacts of management strategies. My sense is that it may be more descriptive than hugely scientific except for those priority basins where environmental flows are being directly assessed with science and modeling and through a collaborative process. NO management strategy estimated to have a “high” negative impact on water quality would make it through the planning process.

The TCEQ coordinates the cooperative multi-stakeholder monitoring of surface water quality throughout the state, regulates and permits wastewater discharges, and works to improve the quality of water body segments that do not meet state standards. Several state programs have been developed by the TCEQ in partnership with stakeholders to determine whether water quality standards have been attained in individual water bodies and to plan and implement best management practices in an effort to restore impaired water resources. These include the Surface Water Quality Monitoring program, the Clean Rivers program, the Total Maximum Daily Load program, and the Nonpoint Source Pollution program. The regional water planning groups use information and data from these programs during their water management strategy evaluation processes. The Texas Groundwater Protection program, administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, supports and coordinates the groundwater monitoring, assessment, and research activities of the interagency Texas groundwater Protection Committee, made up of nine state agencies as well as the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts. The Texas Groundwater Protection Committee publishes an annual report describing the status of current groundwater monitoring programs to assess ambient groundwater quality and also contains current documented regulatory groundwater contamination cases within the state and the enforcement status of each case.

4.6 Other: any other important notes related to the scope of water resources being planned

5.0 What water issues: are any of the following specifically, intentionally addressed in the planning process? To what extent?

5.1 flood Not expressly planned for. It is mentioned in the chapter on risks in that floods (as well as hurricanes, etc.) increase water availability but degrade water quality and may impact population (e.g., migration from Katrina to Texas).

5.2 drought Drought is a primary driver of the planning process.

5.3 climate change Climate change is not a huge focus but with each plan it

gets more play. The most current plan doesn’t actually use the words “climate change” together in a sentence (except in the final risk chapter) but discusses IPCC findings and other climate science research relevant to Texas in the chapter on Texas climate and climate variability.

5.4 water quality Water quality is not directly addressed except through the environmental flows process and assessment of potential impacts from management strategies on water quality and the environment.

5.5 instream flow This has evolved since 2001. A challenge is that most of the surface water is allocated to off-stream uses.

5.6 water use prioritization Texas law establishes priorities for use not the plan. The plan is consistent with Texas law.

5.7 other??? There is an entire chapter on risk and uncertainty. This is part of the rationale for continuous updating of the SWP on 5 year increments.

6.0 How/Is the need for public education related to water planning, water use, water issues addressed?

It isn’t directly addressed in the plan.

7.0 Differences with Connecticut: are there any significant differences between the state and Connecticut that may have influenced their plan?

7.1 political The state is very republican, prone to drought, population and economies are growing, water demand relative to supply is tighter, environmental regulations are not as strong

7.2 geology/hydrology It’s a huge state with different geology and hydrology in different parts of the state. Not sure what differences truly matter though.

7.3 regulation and allocation (permitting, streamflow)

Water regulations/allocations discussed in prior sections. Need someone more familiar with CT water laws to help define differences.

7.4 water rights framework Water rights discussed in prior sections. Need someone more familiar with CT water laws to help define differences.

7.5 other

8.0 How well does it work?

8.1 If you encounter any information as to how the planning process or the plan itself has actually worked for the state, please include that information here.

I really like the cyclical and ongoing nature of planning in Texas. The voters have bought in (evidenced by the passage of the trust fund for water infrastructure). They have routine droughts so I think people understand the importance of planning. It’s been getting better—more comprehensive, more data,

etc.—each year. They are still challenged by not wanting to tie growth to water availability directly (land use planning and water planning) but if the droughts continue, who knows. They seem to be able to work incrementally changing policy over time as the need and support for those changes grows.

9.0 Anything else that you found interesting and would like to share?

Utah The Utah state water plan was prepared by the Division of Water Resources. There exists a State Water Plan Coordinating Committee comprised of members from: Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of Wildlife Resources, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water, Division of Water Quality, Department of Agriculture and Food, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, Utah Water Research Laboratory. State water planning began in 1963 at the direction of the Utah Legislature. Additional legislation in 1984 and 1985 lead to an interagency planning team. The 1990 Utah State Water Plan developed a set of guiding principles. This document provided a basis for more detailed planning for the eleven hydrologic river basis that cover Utah.” These river basin plans inventory basin water supplies, provide present and future water use information, and address problems and issues facing local water resources stakeholders.” Statewide plan updated in Utah’s Water Resources Planning for the Future, May 2001. “The State Water Plan is an ongoing process to establish and implement the state's policy on water management. Agriculture, municipal and industrial water, pollution control, recreation, wildlife, flood control, and drought response are all recognized as important components. To be complete, this plan must give direction for moving water supplies to points of demand while it encourages system developers and users to be good stewards of the state's natural resources.” WATER SUPPLY AND USE “The goal of state water planning is to provide water to meet the changing needs of present and future generations. Since high-quality water is becoming scarce and more expensive, an important leadership role must be played by the state's elected officials.” “Utah's policy makers must also decide if water will be used as a growth management tool. This plan assumes it will not.” Plan addresses surface water, ground water, and available water supply. Plan looks specifically at water use trends and projections. “In most areas, water will not be a limiting factor of population growth .… in most places water could be made available if the necessary water transfers, agreements and infrastructure were in place.” Water use for agriculture, municipal and industrial, environment and recreation are all mentioned. MANAGEMENT “There are times when management decisions involve conflicts. These include demands in excess of supplies, water quality degradation, and recreational and environmental values. to efficiently manage water, existing and new technologies need to be utilized along with widespread conservation programs.” “Storage reservoirs can reduce streamflow fluctuations and provide late season water supplies.” “The development and use of surface water and groundwater supplies is by different water right owners. The conjunctive use of these water supplies is seldom encouraged.”

“Measurement of streamflows and reservoir storage are essential to good management.” “Water resources management can be enhanced in existing and future developments by incorporating uses for more than one purpose.” WATER CONSERVATION “In order to receive the full benefits of water conservation, Utah needs to implement water conservation measures and programs now, rather than wait for a crisis. Local water planners and managers need to customize their water conservation objectives to local needs and circumstances.” There are nine conservation related issues: (1) Water supply efficiency; (2) dual water systems; (3) irrigation water development and management; (4) home and municipal water savings; (5) pricing; (6) water reuse; (7) landscaping; (8) water supply timing; and (9) water education.” WATER TRANSFERS AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPED SUPPLIES “Six policy issues need to be resolved. These are: (1) Water rights transfers; (2) federal claims of reserved rights; (3) water rights enforcement; (4) underground injection control program; (5) stream channel alterations; and (6) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission policies.” “There is a question of the need for administrative controls to restrict transfer of large blocks of water. The current practices within the market place seem to adequately handle these transfers.” “Reserved water rights on federal and Indian lands are not fully defined or established under state water law. These claimed rights could impact existing water use and future water development.” “Currently, when a water use is illegally expanded, court action is required. This can be cumbersome and consuming. The State Engineer should seek legislation to strengthen and streamline enforcement procedures." “The Bureau of Water Pollution Control and the Division of Water Rights should continue to cooperate on geothermal injection control. Water quality issues of injection projects should continue to be assessed, and where warranted, increased regulatory requirements should be implemented. Water Quality should not be sacrificed for water quantity." “The Division of Water Rights should expand monitoring and enforcement capabilities for the stream channel alteration program and implement a statewide education program.” “Utah must continue, in cooperation with the other Western states to resist actions by FERC that supersede state law. This includes closer federal/state communication and coordination, negotiation, litigation, and Congressional involvement, if necessary." WATER DEVELOPMENT “The Utah Board of Water Resources through the Division of Water Resources and its staff, provides financial and technical assistance to guide and direct the state's water resources program. This includes assistance through three revolving fund programs, basin or areawide planning, data collection and inventories, and other specialized programs.” “There are four agricultural, water-related issues to be addressed. These are: (1) Irrigation water development and management; (2) competition for agricultural land and water; (3) agricultural-induced nonpoint pollution; and (4) use of saved water.” “Protection of drinking water supplies is a primary concern. An equal level of protection is not afforded to small communities as is available in more populated areas.” “Drinking water sources established early in the state's history are not always adequately protected. Protection zones need to be established to insure high quality water.”

“There are five water pollution control issues. These are: (1) Funding of wastewater treatment facilities; (2) water quality antidegradation policy and process; (3) water quality in major impoundments; (4) groundwater quality protection strategy; and (5) water quality management plans.” “Eight policy issues regarding floodwater control and management, and disaster, emergency, and drought response are addressed. These are: (1) Flood prevention and floodwater control; (2) state buildings in flood plains; (3) flood plain regulation; (4) lake flood plain regulation; (5) planning for disaster mitigation of water supplies; (6) disaster response and recovery; (7) public awareness of disaster program availability; and (8) state drought response plan.” Six issues related to fisheries and water-related wildlife. These area: “(1) Continuing loss of habitat; (2) protection of stream resources; (3) stream channel integrity and function; (4) reservoir construction impacts; (5) water delivery systems and wildlife conflicts; and (6) wetlands protection strategy.” Three issues related to water based recreation: “(1) Rivers assessment; (2) riverway enhancement program funding; and (3) interagency coordination for recreation.” “Six issues relating to industrial water use. These are: (1) Coordination in water resources planning; (2) existing regulatory authorities for industrial uses; (3) relationship of industrial water use to waste treatment; (4) cooling water; (5) energy resources development; and (6) industrial development.” Three issues related to groundwater: “(1) Groundwater and surface water conjunctive use; (2) groundwater mining; and (3) artificial groundwater recharge.”

(1) Surface water and gorundwater supplies are usually developed by different entities. This does not utilize the advantages of conjunctive use. Water suppliers, administrators, and users should be encouraged to manage groundwater reservoirs in conjunction with surface water supplies with technical support from the Division of Water Rights."

WATER QUALITY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Water quality concerns – TMDL, preservations and restoration of riparian and flood plain corridors, storm water discharge permitting, nutrient loading, concentrated animal feedlot operations, septic tank densities. Management of water quality requires significant coordination and cooperation among stakeholders. In 1996 developed a publication entitled “Utah Watershed Approach Framework” to provide a guide for implementing a watershed-based approach to improving water quality. Environment concerns – endangered species, wetlands, The Great Salt Lake, instream flow maintenance, instream water rights, wilderness designation, wild and scenic river designation. Other considerations include land management and water yield (federal government administers about two-thirds of Utah lands impacting the headwaters of almost all the watersheds), reserved water rights (need a method to quantify federal reserved water rights), and the Colorado River (allocation of waters in the Colorado River). WATER LAW Utah water law is based on the doctrine of “prior appropriation” (the first appropriator in time is first in right) and “beneficial use”. Water law was expanded in 1935 to include groundwater. The Division of Water Rights, under the direction of the State Engineer, regulates water allocation and distribution and carries out the dam safety program. FUNDING “There are many funding programs available at the state, federal, and local levels. Increased funding or additional funding programs may be needed to meet the accelerating costs and demands for water development.”

(1) Current legislative and congressional funding fluctuations make long-range water planning and development difficult. Local funding sources are not always adequate or available. "Recommendation - Studies should be conducted to determine ways to return part of federal water resources project grants to appropriate state agencies to increase existing revolving fund programs. State funding sources should be analyzed to determine reliable alternatives to increase existing revolving fund programs."

(2) The availability of federal funding for large developments is decreasing. This, along with increasing costs, makes additional state involvement necessary to provide water development needed by future generations. "Recommendation - State agencies with water-related programs should continue to seek additional funding."

(3) Uses for public purposes should be included in water development projects. This will usually require funding from public sources or special user groups. "Recommendation - Water resources conservation and development projects should be constructed to include multiple uses where feasible opportunities exist. Public purposes, such as flood control and recreation, should be financed with public funds or by beneficiaries of the designated use."

Virginia Plan Organization: The State Water Plan is currently under development. The concept for development is

to combine information from local and regional water supply plans with state water resource information. Required information includes water withdrawal and use estimates, and projections for significant water users, estimate of minimum in-stream flows necessary to maintain water quality and maintain aquatic life in streams, bays, and estuaries, evaluation of the ability of existing water resources to meet current and future uses, including minimum in-stream flows, during drought conditions, evaluation of current and future ability of public water systems to provide adequate water quantity and quality, identification of water management problems and alternatives for addressing such problems, and an evaluation of each alternative management strategy identified.

These plans and programs shall be prepared for each major river basin of this Commonwealth, and appropriate subbasins therein and annual reports for each basin shall be published by the State Water Control Board (SWCB). § 62.1-44.38

Process: The Code of Virginia as amended in 2003 (Section 62.1-44.38:1) requires the State Water Control Board (seven governor appointed citizens) to develop a comprehensive statewide water supply planning process to (1) ensure that adequate and safe drinking water is available to all citizens of the Commonwealth, (2) encourage, promote, and protect all other beneficial uses of the commonwealth's water resources, and (3) encourage, promote, and develop incentives for alternative water sources, including, but not limited to desalinization.

The Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulation (9VAC25-780), became effective in 2005 and requires that all counties, cities, and towns submit a local water supply plan or participate in the submittal of a regional water supply plan to the State Water Control Board. The State Water Control Board is responsible for administering the Virginia Water Control Law, including adopting regulations and resolving conflicts § 62.1-44.37. The Board is also authorized to represent the State in federal and interstate matters regarding water use and conservation § 62.1-44.41. Day to day administration is delegated to the Department of Environmental Quality Office of Water Supply. A relational database was constructed to organize and analyze data submitted with 10 local and 38 regional water supply plans and was used to prepare a draft State Water Resources Plan.

Models: DEQ staff has developed and maintained an operational model covering all streams and large impoundments in the Commonwealth for the purpose of performing a Cumulative Impact Analysis for surface water withdrawal permit applications. Each new or renewing permit is analyzed with the modeling system for its potential to impact downstream beneficial uses, and for its susceptibility to impacts from other water users located upstream. DEQ Staff use the output of these models to arrive at a set of operational rules that minimize impacts on all beneficial uses.

Registrations/Water Rights: DEQ administers a permit program for surface water withdrawals under the Virginia Surface Protection Permit program, which also includes activities such as dredging, filling, discharging, and impounding surface waters. There is a long list of exempted activities including grandfathering of pre-existing withdrawals and withdrawals from nontidal waters less than 10,000 gpd, and more relaxed requirements for agricultural activities. Annual reporting is required for withdrawals exceeding an average of 10,000 gpd in any month, except for crop irrigators which are only required to report withdrawals exceeding 1 million gallons in any single month. Groundwater permitting is required in two Groundwater Management Areas in the State for all persons withdrawing 300,000 gallons in any month. Existing groundwater users are granted limits related to historic withdrawal amounts for the first permit term and are charged a lower application fee, as well as reduced submittal requirements.

More information

State Water Plan Summary : http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/StateWaterPlan.aspx Annual DEQ Report, Virginia’s Water Resources Management Activities: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterSupplyPlanning/AWRP_090814FINAL.pdf -

§ 62.1-44.38:1. Comprehensive water supply planning process; state, regional and local water supply plans: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+62.1-44.38C1 Water supply planning overview: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx Fact sheet, withdrawing surface water: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterSupplyPlanning/VWP_VWUDS_handout_2013.pdf Groundwater withdrawal permitting fact sheet: http://www.deq.state.va.us/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/GroundwaterPermitting/Expansion%20fact%20sheet%20GWPP%20Final%2012%2019%2013.pdf State Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/AdvisoryCommittee.aspx State Water Control Board Overview http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/LawsAndRegulations/CitizenBoards/WaterBoard/StateWaterControlBoardOverview.pdf Appendices (from Annual Report)

Washington Problem/purpose/goals Growing population and economy

Commitment to proper stewardship Planning will reduce or resolve conflicts

Underlying philosophy Maximum net benefit for all people Quality of natural environment shall be protected and enhanced Retain base flows necessary for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic, and other environmental values; retain natural conditions; need overriding consideration of public interest to do otherwise Wastes should get maximum treatment so as not to reduce quality of receiving waters Prioritize multipurpose storage; improve streamflow Encourage conservation, efficiency, and use of reclaimed water (reduce regulatory barriers and provide funding) Recognize interconnection of surface & groundwater

Who: Governance and Policy

* Authorities Legislation 1971, (implemented 1991) revised late 90s

What are the authorities, and the interfaces, the responsibilities?

Relation to interstate or Federal authorities

Cooperation; resolve conflicts by increasing water quantity and improving water quality

What entities do (current and proposed)

- planning

- implementation

- enforcement

- policy development

- legislation development

Is there a conflict resolution process?

What provisions are there for stakeholder participation?

Given priority

What is the relationship to policy development and legislation?

Policy set in legislation

Does the plan include policy or support policy developed elsewhere?

What is the relationship to the state’s water rights framework?

Planning, Administration and Implementation

Who developed the plan? Priority for input from folks; department of ecology

Who is responsible for implementing/enforcing the plan?

Priority for state funding given to current needs over new requirements ; priority given to conservation projects that will result in the greatest water savings

What is the planning horizon?

What is the planning cycle?

How is it funded?

What data and models are used and how are they acquired? How are they paid for?

Recognized need for ongoing assessment of water availability, use and demand; need a thorough inventory of available resources; need a state water resources data program with data coordinated and consolidated into one data system with all relevant info from multiple agencies—use, protection, and management; inventory studies; develop new data and studies as needed State should explore alternative financing (accepting grants, etc.)

How allocation policy connected to planning

Allocation focus on securing the maximum net benefits for people of the state

What is the relationship to other planning:

Mandated review of all statutes—if ambiguous, unclear, unworkable, unnecessary, dep’t shall make recommendations to legislature for modifications or additions

- land use

- economic development Consider economic and social consequences as well as impact on natural environment

- drought plan

- Federal regulations State should vigorously represent their issues

How is effort to develop the plan funded? (current/proposed)

How is/will implementation of the plan funded?

What Water: Resource Scope Pilot project, 2 basins

What scale is the plan, are the planning units? (basins, regions, and/or state)

Regional (local) basins (62); significant regional differences; provide interested parties forum for input

What water: surface water, groundwater

Surface and groundwater

Purposes

- withdrawals Sole source aquifers of high priority; use penalties, incentives

- discharges Mandate max waste treatment to protect water quality

- stormwater

- reuse & conservation Emphasized (reduce regulatory barriers and finance); use appropriate mix of economic incentives, regulation, and technical and public information efforts; compare all costs to the savings from reuse and conservation; include info on water use efficiency into existing public information effors

- interbasin transfer

Whose water:

- public vs private sources (public water providers?)

- relationship to water rights

What water issues : Withdraw waters from development that don’t have adequate info available

- flood

- drought Reserve and set aside waters for future use

- climate change

- water quality

- instream flow

- water uses

- agriculture

- power generation

- private wells

Differences with Connecticut

- political

- geology/hydrology

- regulation and allocation (permitting, streamflow)

How well does it work?

Is the need for education addressed?

West Virginia

Plan organization: Preliminary section with lists of figures, tables, definitions, acronyms, Executive Summary, introduction followed by nine chapters: Water Resources; Water Use; Water Budget; Future Water Outlook; Other Conditions Affecting Water Availability; Regional Watershed Management & Critical Planning Areas; Summary, Future Pursuits, & Recommendations. Lastly is a bibliography and Appendices. Main report with bibliography totals 301 pages, 850 pages with appendices.

Process: The State Water Resources & Protection Act established the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on Water Resources, which authorized the funding of the DEP Water Resources Unit, which is the primary entity responsible for implementing the requirements of the Act. Other entities identified as having a role in water resources management include the State Geological and Economic Survey, the Division of Natural Resources, the Public Service Commission, the Bureau for Public Health, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Marshall University, West Virginia University and regional, county and municipal planning authorities, and regional, county and municipal planning authorities.

Stakeholder Engagement: Local meetings organized by USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-8) watersheds. The meetings were held in central locations within each watershed.

Models: DEP required to determine safe yield of each watershed for consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Water budget developed for each of 32 HUC-8 watersheds primarily using precipitation data, stream flow statistics, and LQU withdrawal data. An alternative method was applied for one watershed with Marshall University. Results of the methods were very different leading to some cautionary statements about application of results and the need for more field data. Plan states a computerized water budget model is under development.

Registrations/Water Rights: Common law riparian rights state; no permitting requirements. All “Large Quantity Users” register to register and report water use to the DEP. LQUs are defined as withdrawing >750,000 gallons/month (~25,000 gpd). Must report annually if withdrawals varied more than 10% of last reported value.

Prioritization: “Critical Planning Area” process where small areas/regions can be nominated to help facilitate region specific plans and projects. Local plans need to conform to state requirements. The state will assist with development of the plan to the extent practicable and with seeking funding sources.

Other: o Impressive on-line ArcGIS web tool http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/WVWaterPlan/ o Watershed units: HUC-8 basin units are used nationally & ignore state boundaries. As delineated in

CT, they are very similar to our state’s “major basin” boundaries. Use of HUC-8 or major basins to aggregate water availability and use data may pose advantages related to simplifying data analysis for purposes of our Plan & lessening water supplier security concerns;

o The Act includes confidentiality provisions for trade secrets, homeland security, and other FOI exemptions, including information that if made public would “present a threat to the safety and security of any water supply…” (see attached). Also, locations of drinking water intakes and wells were depicted as large blobs on the on-line mapping tool as opposed to distinct points

Appendix 5. A Survey of Water Planning Funding Approaches Used by Other States

Minnesota: Contact is Deborah Swackhamer, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Minnesota, (dswack@umn.edu)

The Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework was funded by the MN Legislature in a direct appropriation to the U of MN, with a mandate to devise a 25 year plan to achieve sustainable water management that addressed all uses of water (including ecosystem uses of water), groundwater and surface water, and quality and quantity. The appropriation was $750,000 for 18 months, but the interest in participation in the plan was so great that most people involved donated their time and they were able to come in under-budget. The MWSF was started in July 2009 and completed in January 2011.

Although the legislation gave the State of Minnesota its overall scope, the content of the document was ultimately left to Ms. Swackhamer as director of the Water Resources Center at University of Minnesota. There were over 200 participants, working in various technical teams, advisory groups, etc. The technical teams (based on water use categories) defined what they knew, what they didn't know, and identified gaps or issues in their areas. A final Synthesis Team worked in the final 6 months to put together and organize all the issues, and propose strategies for addressing them and finally recommended actions for how to implement the strategies. The latter is what sets Minnesota’s plan aside - it is very proscriptive and detailed on the "how" to achieve change, not just what has to happen. The final recommendations were endorsed in general by the Synthesis Team but were ultimately Ms. Swackhamer’s recommendations - this allowed for a bold document that was not diluted down to a consensus document, and it also gave cover to many of the Synthesis Team who worked for state agencies and did not want to publicly vote on every recommendation for political sensitivity reasons. The teams had many University of Minnesota faculty, state agency staff (all given permission to participate on work time by their Commissioners), private sector professionals including consultants (the state did not pay them as consultants, just invited them to be on a team), business thought leaders, agricultural thought leaders (they avoided lobbyists), advocacy leaders.

Ms. Swackhamer advised that the funding source was amazing. In 2006 a stakeholder group organized by the state pollution control agency (their state EPA) designed a 10 year plan for meeting its TMDL goals under the Clean Water Act, and it was going to cost an incredible amount of money. The Legislature passed a bill that embraced the plan but did not appropriate any funds. A stakeholder group then proposed an amendment to the state Constitution to add 3/8 of 1% sales tax and dedicate those funds for 25 years to 4 funds - a Clean Water Fund (1/3), a habitat protection fund (1/3), a parks and trails fund (1/6) and an arts and historical legacy fund (1/6). It passed in the election of fall 2008, and took effect July 2009. The Minnesota State Water Plan was the first appropriation from the Clean Water Fund, to hopefully inform their future investments from the fund. The appropriation of the fund is done by the Legislature every 2 years (Minnesota has a biennial budget). The water fund is equal to about $100 Million

per year. In Ms. Swackhamer’s opinion, they are very, very fortunate to have an electorate that cares so much about protecting and restoring the environment!

The authorizing legislation did not include updates, but the final recommendation in the MWSF is that it be reviewed and updated with the latest science and societal changes every 5 years. Minnesota is approaching that, but its current legislature is currently split (Rep House and Dem Senate) and it is unlikely anything could be done this session to have the state formally update it. More details on its development, the background documents, and the full Framework can be found at: http://wrc.umn.edu/watersustainabilityframework/index.htm .

Georgia: Contact is Gail Cowie, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Chief, Watershed Protection Branch of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

In 2004, the Georgia legislature called for a state water plan. This plan was a statewide, high-level, conceptual plan that did not include mapping or modeling. It had 13 sections and was adopted in 2008. It did have a section that called for resource assessments and it established the framework for Regional Assessments. This high-level statewide plan cost approximately $1 million. Between 2008-2011 approximately $30 million was spent on the Regional Water Plans. When I inquired about the funding, Ms. Cowie explained that some money was budgeted but most of the money came from the EPA’s Clean Water Act SRF. They were able to write a justification demonstrating that the SRF funds would be used for planning that would help meet drinking water capacity needs. This allowed them to receive funding for technical work. This should be investigated as a possible source of funding for CT. She also explained that last year was the first year they had a line item in the state budget of approximately $500,000 for the regional councils and over $1 million for the Regional Water Study Updates and Assessments.

I inquired about the Georgia State Water Plan website. It’s very informative and easy to navigate. Ms. Cowie stated that they are in the process of switching who owns the website. Initially, the state owned it. When Regional Plans were done, the contractors owned the website at that time. Now it is reverting back to the state of Georgia. She recommends keeping it under state ownership. I recommend this website as a model for its ease of use and the comprehensiveness of the information provided.

I also asked about consultants. For the state plan, both the University of Georgia and Newfield were involved in the writing of the report. Newfield is a national company based in Atlanta. They possessed no specific water knowledge but have an excellent technical writing background. They employed Black, Veatch and Jacobs for the development of the Regional Plans. All of the contractors are hired by the Georgia EPD.

Georgia’s Regional plans call for updates every five years. These updates are in the process of being published and they may be very informative for Connecticut. I believe that Georgia’s overarching State Water Plan which defined what the Georgia sought to accomplish and stated the need for accurate measurement, may be the first step for Connecticut, given current

funding expectations with more detailed modeling and mapping in subsequent possibly regional or smaller area reports.

The Georgia State Water Plan website is well organized, informative for stakeholders and the public and contains a link to the regional plans which would also be useful for Connecticut’s to review. Here is a link to Georgia’s Plan. http://www.georgiawaterplanning.org/index.php

New Hampshire: Contact is Paul Susca (PaulSusca@des.nh.gov)

I found that New Hampshire had together a Water Primer that was quite informative and I would recommend it as an excellent scoping document. I contacted Paul and asked where I might find the New Hampshire State Water Plan. He informed me that although the Primer was prepared to lay the groundwork for the development of a plan, the State of New Hampshire was unable to find funding and, therefore, they are not developing a plan. He added that there has been some subsequent work. Governor John Lynch appointed a Water Sustainability Commission in 2011 which produced a report in 2012. In addition, several members of the Commission have continued to pursue this work through the NH Lives on Water initiative. More information is available at: http://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/ and http://nhlivesonwater.org/

Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania plan was begun in January of 2003 and was completed June 30, 2009 at a cost of approximately $17.8 million. The scope of the plan was detailed in the Water Resources Planning Act, dated December 16, 2002. (P.L. 1776, No. 220). Further direction was provided by six Regional Water Resources Committees and one Statewide Water Resources Committee that were established by the Act. Public input was solicited at various points along the development of the plan.

The plan was funded by a combination of Special Funds, the redirection of staff supported by general funds and general funds directed by PA legislators to the two River Basin Commissions.

Special Funds utilized by DEP

$ 5.275 M from Clean Water Fund, Environmental Stewardship Fund and Coastal Zone Management Fund

DEP Staff Redirected to State Water Plan (general funds)

$8.9 M Estimated DEP staff resources (approx. 19 full time staff)

Total Estimated DEP Resources: $ 14.175 M

River Basin Commission Funds

In addition to the DEP resources identified above, there was specific funding from the State Legislators directed to the River Basin Commissions (RBC) for State Water Plan work that went beyond the baseline RBC funding. This funding was from the Commonwealth’s General funds.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) $2.3 M

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) $1.3 M

Pennsylvania entered into primarily Joint Funding Agreements with the PA Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey at a cost of approximately $2 million. There is not a continuing source of funding for the required updates to the plan.

Oregon: Information from the Oregon Integrated Water Resources Strategy

Oregon stated in its report that limited funding was available to develop the state’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy in 2009-2011 and again in 2011-2013. Oregon created two limited duration positions to convene and manage the public process, oversee the scientific and technical work products and develop and produce the content of the Strategy. The Water Resources Department is required to update the strategy every five years. The updates are intended to allow Oregon to evaluate whether it is achieving its goals of improving its understanding of Oregon’s water resources and meeting its instream and out-of-stream water needs. Implementation also includes development of further project details for legislative action, fulfillment of scientific, outreach and policy obligations and documentation of lessons learned.

Oregon states in its report that the goals, objectives, and recommended actions spelled out in the Integrated Water Resources Strategy would be meaningless without dedicated funding. The state believes that its implementation of the plan calls for coordination among state, local, federal and private partners. Oregon also states in its plan that in the coming years, an effective state-wide Strategy will require efforts at the local level as well, to develop “place-based” strategies that can guide projects over time. Oregon stress that funding should be available to help local communities conduct place-based planning and sustain the type of effort and expertise required to establish and implement the integrated strategies that emerge.

Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy also included a fairly detailed review of what other states have done to fund water planning efforts. The relevant information is detailed below: Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy, August 2012, pp. 114-119

Investment in Planning Efforts - What Other States are Doing

Several western states, including Washington, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, have taken on a formal approach to locally-led planning, with direction and financial investments coming primarily through state resources. In each of these cases, regional or basin councils are formally delineated, with staff and budget assigned, formal stakeholder positions filled, and workplan and reporting requirements in place. These regional plans then roll up and inform state-level plans, which have traditionally been focused on water supply issues, but increasingly, plans are being broadened to encompass water quality, ecosystem needs, and the

risks related to climate change. Other states that conduct statewide, long-term, water planning have invested considerably in staff and consultants to conduct this work as well. For example, Georgia had a one-time budget in 2009-11 of $36 million to conduct planning across 10 regions; Texas had a $3 million budget in 2009-11 for planning across 16 regions; and Wyoming has about $500,000 per year to conduct planning across seven basins.

Oregon’s neighbors to the north and south have also made significant investments. The State of California began developing long-term water plans 50 years ago, and is statutorily mandated to update them every five years. Although California has set aside a budget for these purposes, it has dwindled over time from $4.5 million in 2000 to $2.5 million in 2008, and even less today. About 40 part-time staff members work throughout the state on data collection and water budgeting, 15 more are located in district offices conducting data processing, and an additional 30 to 40 experts provide in-kind technical work.

In 2006, the State of Washington secured $200 million in general obligation bonds consistent with its legislative mandate to aggressively pursue development of water supplies to benefit both instream and out-of-stream water uses." The Washington Legislature directed the Washington Department of Ecology to allocate two-thirds of the money to out-of-stream uses and one third to augment instream flows. To date, Washington has used these monies primarily to study the feasibility of water supply projects. The accompanying map shows almost 40 projects under consideration in the Columbia River Basin, using these monies.

Funding Water Management at the State Level

Natural resources are critical to Oregon’s economy. Natural resource activities such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining, as well as recreational activities and tourism including fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife, camping, and hiking are major economic drivers in Oregon’s economy. Oregon’s natural resource agencies compiled the following facts for 2011:

The total combined economic activity of Oregon's natural resource industries exceeds $55 billion in output—37 percent of the state's annual domestic product.

Approximately 550,000 Oregonians work in natural resource-related fields, or jobs supported by those industries, comprising more than one-third of the state’s employment.

For every $1 in General Fund invested in natural resource agencies, $376 in economic activity is generated by Oregon’s natural resource sector.

The General Fund

Because General Fund monies are used for a variety of public purposes and the amount of General Fund is limited, there is intense competition for these monies. The General Fund is used most often to pay for education, human services, and public safety. Since the 1999-2001 biennium, the average General Fund investment across all state agencies has risen 31.33 percent; however, the investment in natural resource agencies has declined 2.5 percent. In

2009-11, Oregon’s General Fund investment in natural resource agencies equated to less than one percent, or $145 million, of Oregon’s $13 billion General Fund budget. In the most recent budget (2011-13), that share has fallen even further, to $129 million, with six natural resource agencies not receiving any portion of the General Fund. This includes the state’s drinking water program, which is responsible for providing oversight and assistance to public water systems to ensure safe drinking water and protect public health for Oregonians. Over the years, natural resource agencies have become more reliant on lottery funds and federal funds, which are often geared toward specific, local projects, rather than maintaining core functions and daily operations. Many natural resource agencies also rely on “fees for service;” however, these funds do not completely cover the real cost of conducting transactions and have suffered with the recent economic recession as well. These funding sources are also expected to decrease significantly in the coming years. Loss of funds at the state level creates a domino effect, where dollars removed from state agency budgets results in lost matching dollars at the federal level.

The state’s core responsibilities related to water, described in detail throughout this document, are underfunded and have been for years. The trend of declining General Fund investment must be reversed in order to ensure Oregon’s natural resource legacy for future generations and to implement our shared vision for the future. Natural resource agencies in Oregon are developing a number of ideas to stabilize their budgets from the steep decline in General Fund, and are watching other western states with interest, as they do the same.

Alternatives to the General Fund – Models from Other States

The State of California has been working for several years to establish a funding mechanism that relies less on the General Fund in order to pay for its day-to-day operations. In 2003, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1049, directing the California Water Resources Control Board’s Water Rights Division to charge annual user fees to fund its operations. Water permit and license holders are charged a fee of $100 or $0.03 per acre-foot of water, whichever is higher. This fee was designed to cover a budget of approximately $7 million. Although challenged in the courts by water users, the water right fee program was found to be “facially constitutional” by unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court in 2011, and is operating today. In Minnesota, $75 million in dedicated funds is available each year under Minnesota's 2008 Land, Water and Legacy constitutional amendment. The amendment increased the general sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percentage point to 6.875 percent. One-third of the proceeds are dedicated to water quality protection, one-third to restoration of wetlands and other wildlife habitat, and the remaining third to support parks, arts, and cultural heritage efforts. In Oregon, the Water Resources Commission appointed a subcommittee to work with staff in the development of funding options. After meeting with more than thirty stakeholder organizations, the subcommittee and staff generated a list of dozens of potential funding options, “to ensure the Department can fulfill its mission and legally mandated responsibilities successfully, in service to Oregon’s economy and environment.” The group evaluated these funding options against the following principles: (1) “user pays,” (2) fees should be equitably distributed, (3) fees should be used toward the purpose for which they are

collected, and (4) fee collection must be logistically reasonable. The subcommittee and staff continue to work with the Governor’s Office and Legislature to analyze and finalize options for legislative consideration.

Funding Investments in Local Projects

Oregon’s state agencies, several of its federal counterparts, and both commercial and investment banks have a variety of funding mechanisms available to pay for water resource projects, ranging from infrastructure finance, to feasibility study grants for water supply, conservation, and reuse projects, and grants for watershed protection and restoration activities.

Infrastructure Financing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates Oregon’s infrastructure needs at approximately $3 billion for municipal drinking water systems, based on its 2007 needs survey. Costs can include capital construction and maintenance, transmission, storage, treatment, and distribution. These costs involve routine construction and maintenance, and do not include the billions of dollars worth of seismic retrofits and emergency preparedness efforts that Oregon needs to undertake in the next 20 years. As previously mentioned in the infrastructure financing discussion (p. 70), Oregon communities have a number of opportunities to access infrastructure funding, from revolving loan funds, to state and federal grants, and the bond market. As one example, USDA Rural Development provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns of 10,000 or less. The Rural Community Assistance Corporation has a Wastewater Funding and Resource Guide containing additional state and federal funding sources. The League of Oregon Cities, Association of Oregon Counties, and Special Districts Association of Oregon each have funding mechanisms for their members, which are accessible through their respective associations. Private financial institutions also underwrite bond financing and loans.

Funding for Feasibility Studies

Local communities often find it difficult to secure feasibility study funding as part of their project development. Such studies help determine the environmental, engineering, economic, and social implications of proposed water supply projects. One way Oregon can help with costs is to bridge the existing funding gap for feasibility studies. In 2008, the Water Resources Department awarded approximately $1.3 million in feasibility study grants to 21 Oregon communities, plus funds for the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recovery Project. In 2011, the Oregon

Legislature provided another $1.2 million for this grant program, which funded feasibility studies in more than 20 Oregon communities.

Funding for Watershed Restoration

Since 1999, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board has awarded 5,500 grants totaling $434 million to partners in Oregon. OWEB grants are funded from the Oregon Lottery, federal dollars, and salmon license plate revenue. This has resulted in more than 5,100 miles of stream restoration, including improved stream habitat and removal of fish passage barriers. In addition, more than 5,400 miles of stream banks have received riparian forest restoration, benefiting salmon and steelhead. Oregon consistently reports about the same length of stream mile restoration as Alaska, California, Idaho, Washington, and Pacific Northwest Tribes, combined. Ninety percent of OWEB investments stay in Oregon. Restoration project managers typically hire local consultants, contractors, and employees to design, implement, and maintain projects. Consultants and contractors hire field crews, rent or purchase equipment, and buy goods and services. Employees spend wages on goods and services to support their livelihoods in their local communities. The payoffs of habitat restoration projects yield immediate jobs at a level very similar to traditional infrastructure investments. Oregon’s watersheds also benefit from significant annual investments by the Bonneville Power Administration. In fiscal year 2011, BPA spent about $56 million on fish and wildlife programs in Oregon. Under the Willamette Wildlife Agreement, BPA will provide $144 million over the next 15 years for habitat protection in the Willamette River Basin. These investments translate into an improvement in ecosystem conditions and enhancement of local economies.

Pooling Funding Sources

Navigating through different funding sources and requirements, while continuing to meet the objectives of the local community, can be a significant challenge for instream and out-of-stream projects. The Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative, described in the accompanying essay, was created to help project proponents make sense of the funding maze.

Cathy P. Kellon, Ecotrust Public and Private Organizations Working together to Fund Watershed Restoration

The Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative (WWRI) is a competitive salmon habitat restoration grant program in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The WWRI is a public-private partnership whereby state and federal agencies contribute restoration dollars to the Initiative and Ecotrust, a nonprofit, then makes these pooled funds available as grants to local groups for on‐the‐

ground restoration work. The goal is to restore natural ecosystem processes for the benefit of salmon and communities. The approach is to fund work where there is strong community support, effective collaboration, and high ecological value to salmon. The WWRI partnership was formed in 2007 and is comprised of Ecotrust, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Pacific Northwest Region of the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s Restoration Center, the Bureau of Land Management, and USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service.