1 / 27

State Perspective… Water Reliability, Conservation, Recycling

State Perspective… Water Reliability, Conservation, Recycling. Bill Bennett Department of Water Resources (bennett@water.ca.gov) NBWA Conference, Napa April 7, 2006. Making progress on WUE… and the future looks promising. Water conservation part of “the culture”

maree
Download Presentation

State Perspective… Water Reliability, Conservation, Recycling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Perspective… Water Reliability, Conservation, Recycling Bill Bennett Department of Water Resources (bennett@water.ca.gov) NBWA Conference, Napa April 7, 2006

  2. Making progress on WUE… and the future looks promising • Water conservation part of “the culture” • Ag Water Mgt Council @ 4.5 m-acres • Urban Water Conservation Council @ 327 • Biggest potential providing future water • WUE cheaper than most alternatives • Part of environmental compliance • Cornerstone of the State’s Water Plan

  3. Previous WUE Programs ** Real and applied savings

  4. Future Needs • Population: • 2005 36 million • 2030 48 million

  5. Future changes

  6. Shifting uses

  7. REGIONAL Regions have different problems/resources INTEGRATED All water needs/issues considered together All neighbors and partners addressed in the plan together

  8. Portfolio of Tools

  9. Proposition 50, Chapter 8 Integrated Regional Water Management • Joint program: DWR and SWRCB • Public agencies and non-profits • Projects to protect communities from drought, protect and improve water quality, and reduce dependence on imported water. • Both planning and implementation grants

  10. IRWM Grants $25 M • Current cycle: $150 Million; $50 M per region • 50 Implementation Grant Applications Received: • proposals requested $1.4 Billion • Projects totaled over $4 Billion. • Some disqualified and consolidated • Total of 438 Projects applied • 58 (13%) Water conservation, recycling projects • 16 Implementation Grants on Stage 2 call-back list • Due June 8; award November 2006 • Second (and Final) Cycle ~ $215 Million in 2007

  11. Proposition 50, Chapter 7 • $180 Million for expenditures and grants for urban and agricultural water conservation, recycling, and other water use efficiency projects. • Projects shall be consistent with the CALFED Programmatic ROD.

  12. DWR WUE Grants: FY 2004-5 Cycle • Applications accepted: 168 • Agriculture: 62 • Urban: 106 • Recommended for funding: NumberAmount Local Match • Ag: 28 $11.2 Million $19.8 Million • Urban: 46 $16.9 Million $16.9 Million 74 $28.1 Million $36.7 Million

  13. 28 Projects

  14. 46 Projects

  15. DWR WUE Grants: • Next Cycle: • PSP draft starting this summer • Applications due next fall • ~$ 37.3 Million • Another round in 2008 • ~$ 31.9 Million

  16. Agricultural Water Conservation Loan Program • Applicant: Public agencies and incorporated mutual water companies Projects: Agricultural capital outlay measures to increase water savings and improve water use efficiency Funding: Up to $5 million per eligible project Due Date: continuous Workshops: None scheduled at this time.Total Program Funds: $35 million for agricultural projectsTotal Funds Available: $31.7 millionFund Source:Proposition 13, Chapter 8, Article 3

  17. Water Conservation/Energy Efficiency • Opportunities: Save water = Save Energy • Collaborations and resources • California Energy Commission • California P.U.C

  18. Future Water Bond?

  19. Issues: • Funding: • CALFED Record of Decision that called for an investment of $1.5 billion to $2 billion from 2000-2007. • Measuring “benefits” • What are real water savings? • Where does the saved water go? • How do we better monitor projects?

  20. Issues: • Are we getting the results that we need? • Target grant efforts to “Gaps” • Balancing opportunities vs. “water saved” goals • Participation • Locally cost effective • Ag projects with statewide benefits • Project environmental consequences Careful/detailed project review

  21. Bay Area Consolidated Contra Costa WD Greater LA Mojave WA Monterey CWRA North Coast Orange Co. Pajaro VWMA Plumas Co. Sacramento Co. Consolidated Sacramento Valley Consolidated San Luis DMWA Santa Ana Consolidated Santa Cruz Co. Tahoe RCD Ventura Consolidated Call Back List

  22. Schedule • Applicant Workshops • March 20 & 21 Riverside • March 23 & 24 Sacramento • March 29 Santa Nella • Applications due June 8, 2006 by 5 p.m. • Awards – November 2006

  23. Supply varies by year

  24. Statistics- funding Category Available Recommended Agricultural Section A $12,671,249 $ 7,013,849 Agricultural Section B $4,223,749 $ 4,223,942 subtotal $16,894,998 $11,237,791 Urban Section A $12,671,249 $12,671,249 Urban Section B $4,223,749 $ 4,223,942 subtotal $16,894,998 $16,895,191 Total $33,789,996 $28,132,982 Local Match: Ag: $19.8 million Urban: $16.9 million

More Related