CALFED Water Management Strategy Evaluation Framework

1. CALFED Water Management Strategy Evaluation Framework Water Supply Subcommittee Briefing March 20, 2002 Kenneth W. Kirby, Ph.D.

2. Why We are Here • Provide update of WMS Evaluation Framework activities • Discuss needs for consistent evaluation methods across individual project investigations • Suggest roles for WMS Evaluation Framework • Get input from Subcommittee

3. Presentation Outline • Background of Water Management Strategy Evaluation Framework (Evaluation Framework) • Evaluation of System vs. Individual Project Investigations • Recent Evaluation Framework Activities

4. Presentation Outline • Results from New Draft Report • Potential Roles for Evaluation Framework • Feedback and Next Steps

5. Executive Summary A Four Slide Version

6. Three Questions • What is a Water Management Strategy Evaluation Framework? • Why do we need one? • What do we want you to do?

7. WMS EF Revealed

8. Path to Implementation Record of Decision CALFED Solution Area CALFED Participants Value Conflict Value Conflict Value Conflict Value Conflict Value Conflict CALFED Participants CALFED Participants External Factors Implementation

9. What We Need From You • Preferences? • TV will do • Nothing less than digital home theater • If want home theater • Communicate the need for a good receiver • Help us find the money to provide the best available (with periodic upgrades)

10. Any Questions? Before We Really Get Started

11. I. Background Origins of WMS Evaluation Framework

12. Motivation for WMS EF • Revised Phase II Report (June 1999) identified three goals for a Water Management Strategy to guide implementation of water management tools through Phase II of the CALFED Program • Develop menu of water management tools • Identify tools to implement in Stage 1 • Provide long-term decision-making framework for evaluating the success of implementation efforts

13. Developing a Framework • Mid to late 1999: CALFED and member agencies worked with stakeholders to describe a potential “long-term decision making framework” • Released Water Management Strategy Evaluation Framework draft report in December 1999

14. Conceptual Approach • Define fundamental objectives • “Why do we (CALFED agencies or stakeholders) need to do something?” • Establish performance measures • Identify means-ends objectives • “How can fundamental objectives be met?” (alternative strategies) • Predict performance of alternative strategies • Evaluate predicted performance relative to fundamental objectives

15. Functions of the Evaluation Framework The WMS Evaluation Framework provides a consistent way to: • Generate potential water management strategies • Compare performance of potential water management strategies • Identify strategies that best meet water management objectives

16. Definitions • Water Management Actions – individual physical or policy changes to existing water management system (e.g., new storage or conveyance facilities, or revised operating procedures) • Water Management Strategy – a combination of water management actions designed to improve performance (i.e., better satisfy fundamental objectives) of entire water management system

17. II. Current Needs Evaluation of System vs. Individual Project Investigations

18. Goal for WMS Evaluation Framework • Need to provide long-term decision-making support for the teams and agencies implementing components of the CALFED storage and conveyance program to ensure the CALFED objectives are met

19. Regional Strategies • CALFED is committed to implementing the program through regional strategies • Continued development and application of the Evaluation Framework will rely on input from local interests to help set assumptions, operational goals and priorities, and interpret analysis results

20. Individual Investigations Each project investigation must: • Identify the purpose and need for the project being investigated • Establish clear project objectives • Make assumptions about the rest of the water management system to evaluate expected performance of the project being investigated

21. Potential Conflicts • If not well coordinated, individual project investigations can: • Make unreasonable assumptions when put in the context of the larger system • Distort benefits from projects considered in isolation (positively or negatively) • Confuse stakeholders and decision-makers regarding predicted performance • Detract from other projects

22. System-Wide Focus • Some issues may be best considered at the program-wide level such as: • Synergies or conflicts between individual projects • Economic costs and benefits of programs • Financing programs

23. III. Recent Activities Recent and Ongoing Evaluation Framework Activities

24. Predicting Performance • Mid 1999 - Began developing approach to predict performance of alternatives as part of the Evaluation Framework • March 2002 – Release draft report describing: • methods to predict performance and • interesting results from example alternatives

25. Allocating Costs and Benefits • A process started mid-2001 to develop guidelines and methods for allocating economic costs and benefits • This allocation is a necessary step to move towards a specific finance plan • Working with an expert panel of resource economists to provide peer-review and input

26. Analytical Tool Development • Unprecedented level of cooperation towards developing modeling software and model assumptions to model SWP and CVP (CALSIM II) • Continuing expansion and refinement of economics models (LCPSIM and CALAG) • Continue work to use models together for more comprehensive analysis

27. Managing Data • Starting a new effort to better understand work-flows and data needs • Identifying ways to improve data collection, sharing, archiving, analysis and visualization • This is a very important part to many activities underway that requires long-term planning and investment

28. IV. Results from New Report Evaluating and Comparing Proposed Water Management Actions February 2002

29. To Predict Performance • Need data about system • Need assumptions about alternatives • Need tools to predict system response

30. Where This Fits Within Evaluation Framework • Define objectives • Define performance measures • Define discrete alternatives • Predict performance of alternatives • Evaluate alternatives against objectives • Define new alternatives and repeat

31. Learning by Example Competing Packages Facility Mix A (WUE Emphasis) Ground Rules Score Card Facility Mix B (Storage Emphasis) Planning Assumptions Predicted Measures of Performance Facility Mix C (WUE/Storage Emphasis) Other Alternatives (to be developed) No Action

32. Modeling Approach Assumptions Urban Economics Costs Ag Economics Benefits System Model Water Quality Pricing Groundwater Compare Performance Measures vs. Objectives and Solution Principles

33. Modeling Process System Operations (DWRSIM) Groundwater (CVGSM) Urban Economics (LCPSIM) Water Transfers & Allocation Ag Economics (CVPM) Water Quality (DSM2) Third Party Impacts (IMPLAN)

34. Formulating Alternatives Delta Fisheries Improvement Objective No Action Water Quality Improvement Objective Water Supply Improvement Objective Transfers Surface Storage Alt. A Groundwater Storage Alt. B Alt. C Water Allocation Strategy

35. For Example • Alternatives analyzed in report are examples • Example alternatives are based on extensive stakeholder input (in 1999 and 2000) • Many assumptions have been refined about specific projects since examples formed • Future analyses will reflect more recent (and evolving) thinking

36. Description of Resource Mixes

37. Regions for Analysis Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Delta Tulare Central & South Coast Bay Area System

38. Sample Results Perhaps Worth Noting

39. All Increase Deliveries

40. Comparing Tradeoffs

41. Is There Water Available?

42. Flows Above Requirements

43. Some Performance Measures

44. Relative Contributions

45. Transfer Revenues

46. Economic Changes for BS1 (Transfer Payments of $21.3 Million)

47. Summary of Findings • There appears to be sufficient water available to benefit from more storage • All example alternatives provide benefits for multiple objectives • More storage provides more flexibility • Almost all example alternatives are cost effective

48. V. Recommendations Potential Roles for Evaluation Framework

49. Remember the Goal • Need to provide long-term decision-making support for the teams and agencies implementing components of the CALFED storage and conveyance program to ensure the CALFED objectives are met • Issues relate to balancing comprehensive system-wide perspective with regionally focused individual project investigations

50. Providing Potential Elements for Success • Information clearinghouse • Most current and best available data • Develop and support analytical tools • Provide infrastructure for peer review • Introduce and integrate latest science • Support maintenance of common assumptions