Water Management Planning: Pros and Cons of the Methodologies Used in Four States

1. Water Management Planning: Pros and Cons of the Methodologies Used in Four States 2012 Alabama Water Resources Conference September 6 Orange Beach, Alabama Sabra Sutton/Montgomery Sabra.sutton@ch2m.com

2. Getting “water planning right” is critical to protecting existing uses and continued growth

3. Water Plan success requires an unparalleled understanding of water resources and the ability to balance stakeholder needs with public expectations

4. Assessment of state water and regional planning frameworks and management strategies

5. Lessons Learned in Four States

6. 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)

7. Georgia State Plan: a framework based on riparian water rights • Upper Oconee Basin Council • Conducted review of over40 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 • 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Texas Plan Management Strategies • 8.3 million acre-feet needed by 2060 • 562 unique strategies • $53 billion in capital costs

17. 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

18. 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 Hydrologic Boundaries Political/Planning Boundaries

19. 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

20. Colorado River Plan • What didn’t work: PHASE 1 Water Supply Assessment PHASE 2 Water Demand Assessment PHASE 3 System Reliability Analysis PHASE 4 Develop and Evaluate Opportunities Assess System Reliability Assess Current and Future Supply Develop, Evaluate, Refine, and Bundle Opportunities to Enhance CRS Reliability Assess Current and Future Demand

21. Colorado River Plan • What did work: Scenario Development PHASE 2 Water Demand Assessment PHASE 3 System Reliability Analysis PHASE 4 Develop and Evaluate Opportunities PHASE 1 Water Supply Assessment Assess System Reliability Develop, Evaluate, Refine, and Bundle Opportunities to Enhance CRS Reliability Assess Current and Future Demand Assess Current and Future Supply Develop Plausible Future Scenarios

22. 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 Scenario Development Opportunities Development

23. Resolution of water resource issue conflicts

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Facilitation of Stakeholder and Public Involvement in State Water Planning

28. 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

29. 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

30. Two main stakeholder categories respond to different outreach tactics General Public Key Stakeholders Focus is on information exchange, addressing specific issues, finding commonalities, exploring solutions, soliciting buy-in • Focus is on presenting the big picture with overall branding, education, communication and participation

31. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sabra Sutton/CH2M HILL – Montgomery sabra.sutton@ch2m.com (334) 215-9055 Doug Baughman/CH2M HILL – Atlanta doug.baughman@ch2m.com (770) 604-9182