water management planning: pros and cons of the methodologies used in four states 2012 alabama water...
TRANSCRIPT
Water Management Planning: Pros and Cons of the Methodologies Used in Four States
2012 Alabama Water Resources ConferenceSeptember 6
Orange Beach, Alabama
Sabra Sutton/[email protected]
Getting “water planning right” is critical to protecting existing uses and continued growth
Water Plan success requires an unparalleled understanding of water resources and the ability to balance
stakeholder needs with public expectations
ASSESSMENT OF STATE WATER AND REGIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORKS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Lessons Learned in Four States
Georgia State Plan: a framework based on riparian water rights Framework
Organized by planning basin
Water quantity and quality resource assessment completed
Individual basin plans developed
Cost $29 million (includes all
outside contracting and GA EPD staff time)
Management strategies Common requirement for
conservation Basin-specific strategies to
address gaps or hotspots Enforcement thru GA EPD
permitting review Implementation primarily
by local governments and utilities
Upper Oconee Basin Council• Conducted review of over 40
existing local and regional water management plans and related documents to frame the selection of strategies appropriate to their basin.
• Unique prioritization and ranking process that resulted in:• 13 water conservation• 6 water supply • 7 wastewater• 12 water quality strategies
Georgia State Plan: a framework based on riparian water rights
What worked: Basin/watershed focus Basin council structure for stakeholder involvement Establishment of assessment metrics up front
What didn’t work: Not defining decision process and relationship between
forecasts and other models upfront Not including resource agencies and NGOs in the formal
stakeholder process Lack of definitive process for reviewing compliance with
plan recommendations
Georgia State Plan: a framework based on riparian water rights
Colorado Statewide Water Supply Initiative: framework based on a centralized approach Framework
8 major river basins with “Basin Roundtables”
Centralized state-led approach—not a “plan”
Integrated technical and policy analyses
Phase 2 focused on topical areas (e.g., ag transfers)
Cost Phase 1 - $2.7M Phase 2 - $5M
Colorado SWSI Management Strategies Focus on “identified projects
and processes” Considered remaining M&I gaps New state funding program for
project implementation Phase 2 focused on statewide
technical topics: Addressing the M&I gap Alternatives to Ag transfers and
dry-up Effectiveness of conservation
Colorado Statewide Water Supply Initiative What worked:
Dialogue at basin level between vested opposing interest groups to find common ground
Funding program for implementation projects Identified projects and processes vs. remaining gap Tracking via Basin Needs Decision Support System
What didn’t work: Inter-basin compacts process
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan: a framework based on partnerships Framework
Strong USACE/state funding partnership
Common centralized approach across state (82 basins, 13 regions)
Intentionally separate technical/policy tracks
Cost Technical studies $6M,
public/policy $2M
Oklahoma Management Strategies Very diverse supplies,
demands, and needs Assessed effectiveness of 5
supply alternative types for each of 82 basins
Decisions rest with local planners
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan What worked:
82 basin level of detail to identify supplies, demands, gaps, and viable supply strategies
Technical tools and resources that directly support local planning and facilitate future statewide updates
Provided level of detail for demands and sources Provided planning guide for water supply Strong partnership between OWRB, USACE, and other support
agencies to leverage dollars and resources
What didn’t work: Separation of technical and policy work until late in the process Stakeholder work on certain details before policy issues were
vetted and resolved Greater focus on general public input vs. vested interests
Texas Plan: a framework based on a “bottoms up” approach Framework
“Bottom Up” approach in 16 planning regions
Regional water planning groups appointed by Texas Water Development Board
50-year projection for M&I, agriculture, mining, power and industrial by user group
Rolled up into State Water Plan Cost
First round: $20.1 million Technical services, public
information and public involvement
Texas Plan Management Strategies 8.3 million acre-feet needed by 2060 562 unique strategies $53 billion in capital costs
Texas State Plan What worked:
Technical assessment of “universe” of projects useful for permitting
Detailed assessments and costs Public involvement and awareness Establish unique reservoir sites and stream segments
What didn’t work: Additional work needed for permitting Disconnect between groundwater districts’ plans and
regional plans Implementation is lagging
Colorado River Plan: a framework based on leadership and integration Framework
Trusted leaders from the Department of Interior and USBR working with 7 states and major water users
All parties came together from shared water management challenges
Colorado River System serves 30 million people and diverse water users
Rapidly growing, arid region with existing supply and demand imbalances
Great future uncertainty in population, agriculture, energy, ecosystem and climate
Cost Total ~ $5 to 6 million, January 2010–2012
Political/Planning Boundaries
Hydrologic Boundaries
The goal is a defensible, transparent process that led to implementable solutions Management strategies
(four-phased approach)1. Stakeholder integration
2. Sound science and engineering
3. Innovative options and strategies for meeting demands
4. Decision processes for implementable solutions
Assess Current and
Future Supply
Assess Current and
Future Demand
Assess System
Reliability
PHASE 4
Develop and Evaluate
Opportunities
Colorado River Plan What didn’t work:
PHASE 1
Water Supply
Assessment
PHASE 2
Water Demand
Assessment
PHASE 3
System Reliability Analysis
Develop, Evaluate,
Refine, and Bundle
Opportunities to Enhance
CRS Reliability
Scenario Development
Assess Current and
Future Supply
PHASE 1
Water Supply
Assessment
Develop Plausible
Future Scenarios
Colorado River Plan What did work:
Assess Current and
Future Demand
Assess System
Reliability
Develop, Evaluate,
Refine, and Bundle
Opportunities to Enhance
CRS Reliability
PHASE 4
Develop and Evaluate
Opportunities
PHASE 3
System Reliability Analysis
PHASE 2
Water Demand
Assessment
Colorado River Plan What worked:
Frame the questions – ID the primary issues to be addressed
Identify the sources of uncertainty that influence future system reliability
Prioritize critical uncertainties—highly important and highly uncertain
Develop scenario descriptions
Quantify scenarios Develop and test solutions
Frame the Questions
Identify Sources of Uncertainty
Select and Prioritize Critical Uncertainties
Develop Scenario Narratives
Quantify Scenarios
Perform Systems Analysis
Evaluate System Performance
Develop and Test Solutions
Scen
ario
Dev
elop
men
tO
ppor
tuni
ties
D
evel
opm
ent
RESOLUTION OF WATER RESOURCE ISSUE CONFLICTS
Water issues can be complicated by legalistic conflicts Legalistic conflicts can occur between different methods
of control, such as common law rights vs government regulation
Equally complex may be conflict between the different legal regimes established to address water quantity or water quality issues
Sorting through the complexities of federal reserved rights, TMDLs, takings, common law riparian rights, the appropriate administrative procedures, etc., may be necessary to facilitate resolution
Resolution requires legal framework, decision strategies, and stakeholder engagement
Legal framework - water law can support resolution of water conflicts
Decision strategies - clearly defined approaches for decision making can preempt some conflicts
Stakeholder engagement - early and frequent stakeholder interaction helps improvement understanding and minimize conflicts
Water conflict resolution requires bigger picture understanding
Need a deep understanding of the issues from every perspective
Various stakeholders’ perspectives and interests must be understood
Issues related to water involve every level of government, every form of endeavor in the state (e.g., agriculture, industry, energy) along with organized environmental groups to individuals simply wanting to participate in the process
FACILITATION OF STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN STATE WATER PLANNING
Best practices from previous plans
Manage public education and awareness throughout process
Develop basin-specific advisory committees that include representation from all stakeholder groups
Use ad-hoc stakeholder group meetings/workshops to address specific topics
Leverage webinars and web- based feedback mechanisms
Confidence in the plan depends on stakeholder education and involvement The success of every major initiative begins with effective
community education and communication Positive public perception is built on clear, effective, and
consistent messaging as well as public participation in the decision-making process
Two main stakeholder categories respond to different outreach tactics
General Public Focus is on presenting the
big picture with overall branding, education, communication and participation
Key Stakeholders Focus is on information
exchange, addressing specific issues, finding commonalities, exploring solutions, soliciting buy-in
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Sabra Sutton/CH2M HILL – [email protected](334) 215-9055
Doug Baughman/CH2M HILL – [email protected](770) 604-9182