gulf coast green 2012 temple mckinnon
DESCRIPTION
Water Planning in TexasTRANSCRIPT
Water Planning in Texas Temple McKinnon, Regional Water Planning
Water Planning: Legislative
Response to Drought
Late 1950s Drought of Record – 1957: Creation of TWDB – $200 million Water Development Fund – 9 State Water Plans, 1961-2012
Late 1990s: Potential New Drought of Record – ~$6 billion economic losses in ‘96
(mostly agriculture) – ~300 entities with threat to water
supplies – 1997 & 2001: Passage of SB 1 & 2 which
created & refined regional water planning
2
3
4
5
Existing Water
Supplies
Projected Water
Demand
Surplus (+) or
Need (-)
Project future population and water demands Quantify existing and future water supplies Identify surpluses and needs Evaluate and recommend water management
strategies Make policy recommendations Adopt the plan
Regional Water Planning
6
Regional Water Planning
Statutory interests: Public Counties Municipalities
Water districts Water utilities Groundwater
management areas
Industries Agriculture Environment Small
businesses
Electric-generating utilities
River authorities
7
Regional Water Planning
8
Statutory interests: Public Counties Municipalities
Industries Agriculture Environment Small
businesses
Water districts Water utilities Groundwater
management areas
Electric-generating utilities
River authorities
Projected Texas Population
9
Projected Population Growth
in Texas Counties
10
Projected Water Demands
and Existing Supplies
11
Projected Need for Additional
Water in Times of Drought
12
Water Supplies from Water
Management Strategies
13
Relative Volumes of
Recommended Strategies
(2060)
14
< 1%
< 1%
Total Water Supply
Capital Costs: $53 Billion
15
Study was funded by TWDB
Performed by BBC Research & Consulting
Primary goal: Identify existing and potential
ways of measuring implementation of
conservation.
Water Conservation Savings
Quantification Study Background
Published Information on
Conservation in Texas – Key
Findings
• Increasing reliance on conservation to meet future
needs.
• Growing concern about lack of information on
actual progress towards meeting goals.
• Most assessments to date have focused on
“effort” rather than “achievement.”
Top-Down vs Bottom-Up
Measurement
Top-Down:
Estimation based on aggregate water use changes
Bottom-Up:
Quantification based on adding up savings estimates for individual conservation measures
Overall Findings
Estimating actual water conservation savings is not a simple task, and Texas is not alone in struggling with this challenge
Change in GPCD over time is a useful metric, but requires consistent data collection and adjustments for other factors affecting water use
Comparison of GPCD between providers is not helpful in assessing conservation savings
Providers currently use a variety of methods to estimate savings, with top down (GPCD-based) approaches being the most common
For More Information 2012 State Water Plan: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/wrpi/swp/swp.asp Water Conservation Savings Quantification Study http://www.twdb.texas.gov/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/1004831118_Conservation.pdf
[email protected] (512) 475-2057