The Bow River Project: Collaboration for Improved Water Management

1. The Bow River Project:  Collaboration for Improved Water Management Mike Kelly, Alberta WaterSMART A. Michael Sheer, HydroLogics Inc. Dan Sheer, HydroLogics Inc. Mike Nemeth, Alberta WaterSMART

2. Structure of our Discussion • Mike Kelly- introduction, project description, (what, where, who, why) • Mike and Dan Sheer- the model and modelling process, the development of the performance measures, and how data and models can improve decision making • Mike Nemeth- what we found, what’s next • Comments, questions, discussion

3. The Bow River Basin 9650 sq. Miles, 400 miles long, 1.2 million people

4. Water Challenges Require Attention Some problems we want to resolve • Lower natural summer flow (loss of glacier storage) • Rapid population and recreational demand growth • Bow Basin closed to new water allocations • Low dissolved oxygen concerns in Calgary (fish health) • Periodic very low flows downstream of Bassano • Reach-dependent impacts on fisheries (K-Country) • Global demand for irrigated agriculture production • No system to manage or mitigate drought or flood • No overarching regulatory or management framework

5. History Demonstrates Extreme Climate Variability South Saskatchewan River Basin Flows (Bow + Oldman) Source: David Sauchyn, University of Regina Historic and tree ring data indicatefuture flood/drought events could be far more severe than recent record

6. South Saskatchewan RegionEstimated Water Use by Sector Estimated Water Use 2.4 billion m3 per year

8. Lower Kananaskis Lake - October

9. Lower Kananaskis Lake - April

10. The Bow is a Managed River Bow River at Calgary - Natural vs. Managed Flows (38 years data) Source: BRBC State of Watershed Plan It can be managed for environmental and economic benefits

11. Bow River Project Consortium Member Organizations Participation from: Alberta Environment; Alberta Sustainable Resource Development; Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development; Alberta Tourism, Parks & Recreation Alberta Water Research Institute Alberta WaterSMART Bow River Basin Council Bow River Irrigation District Calgary Regional Partnership City of Calgary County of Newell Ducks Unlimited Canada Eastern Irrigation District HydroLogics Inc. Rocky View County Trout Unlimited Canada Water and Environmental Hub Western Irrigation District

12. Project Guided by Ten Principles • Causing no significant, measurable environmental harm • Assuming Bow River basin remains closed to new licenses • Respecting TransAlta’s reputation as an environmentally responsible and proactive corporation (fix problems not blame) • Not proposing TransAlta bear the cost of providing benefits to others • Meeting Alberta’s annual apportionment commitments to Saskatchewan • Maintaining minimum flow requirements for municipalities • Supporting the long term population/economic growth forecasts • Meeting Siksika First Nation’s needs • Respecting Alberta’s water priority system (FITFIR) • Achieving Alberta’s policy goals in Water for Life Strategy

13. The Bow River Project Modelling A collaborative project of water stakeholders holding over 95% of the licensed water on the Bow to assess changes to water storage and flows in the Bow System Objective: Model the Bow and its tributaries for environmental sustainability and improvement to enhance social and economic development opportunities throughout the basin to accord with the goals of the Water for Life Strategy Process: Intensive data review with interactive modelling workshops to develop practical, alternative scenarios for environmental, social and economic gains Tool: Interactive hydrologic simulation model (Bow River Operational Model – BROM) created by OASIS modelling software Data: WRMM, IDM, TAM, AESO, WCO, IOs, etc., demands/allocation, and all system operating rules

14. The Bow River Problem • Closed Basin (to licenses) • Increasing population • Increasing M&I pressures • Environmental flow concerns • Hydropower issues • Fishery concerns • Trust issues • And more. . .

15. The Bow River Problem • Infrastructure upgrades and hydropower relicensing provided a window of opportunity…. • But… only 6 months to do a 2-year project

16. The CAN, CADRe, CMDS, Process • Computer Aided Negotiaion, Computer Aided Dispute Resolution, Computer Modeling for Decision Support…. Many names, similar approaches • 4 Phases: • Performance Measures • Bow River Operations Model • Alternative Development and Testing • Reaching Consensus • We also precondition a win-win approach. No proposed solution can leave any party worse off than current policy

17. Water Management is NOT Zero Sum • Timing is as important as quantity • Quality is also important • Each stakeholder is likely to have multiple management objectives • Stakeholders share many objectives but have different priorities • Stated preferences for management alternatives often run counter to actual interests

18. Phase 1: Performance Measures • At HydroLogics we use Performance Measures for multiple purposes: • Creating a robust suite of metrics • Providing an opportunity to agree that each group is “allowed to have their own interests, and a chance to express those interests • Giving stakeholders an opportunity to discover what they really want • Performance measures are easy. People know what they want, right? • Occasionally, yes, more often, no. • Drilling down to what stakeholders really need can create a number of Eureka moments! • Defining these value in a group setting helps to build trust.

19. Phase 1: Performance Measures • Not all PMs can be affected by policy, but that’s still an important lesson. • Knowing what you can change and getting your needs heard by the rest of the group can be just as critical as finding the solution • We shy away from Single Composite Scores as it makes value-tradeoffs difficult • Here are a few of the major PMs that we ended up following in the Bow River Basin.

20. Bow River Overview Environmental Flow Regimes (Bassano Flows)

21. Performance Measures

22. Bow River Overview Lower Kananaskis Elevation Range (Relative to Target)

23. Performance Measures

24. Bow River Overview Irrigation District Shortages (Consecutive Day)

25. Performance Measures

26. Bow River Overview Average Annual Power Revenue (Generation and Ancillary Services)

27. Performance Measures

28. Phase 2: Build the Model • Oh yeah, that thing. Easy – right? • We had our own trials and tribulations on this front. • The most important thing, though, is continuous and continuing involvement of the stakeholders. • Keeping everyone involved makes the model itself more trustworthy and transparent.

29. Choosing a Model • The BRP was not obliged to use OASIS, but chose to use it as a modeling base to take advantage of a few key characteristics: • Short run time: From clicking “Run” to results was < 15 minutes • Operating rules are input in a “plain English” like language intelligible to operators • Easily modifiable “on-the-fly”: New operations, redeveloped schemes, or refined objectives can usually be quickly implemented and tested to allow for rapid progress

30. Phase 3: Alternative Development and Testing • Here’s where the Collaborative Modeling really comes into play. • The CMDS session is: • Several groups split up in a room, playing with the model (with technical support) and trying all kinds of operations to see if anything works.

31. Phase 3: Alternative Development and Testing • Lots of groups like these • Several days • Convene -> Regroup -> Retry -> Re-convene -> etc. • Then the modelers take it all home and clean it up/push the limits

32. Phase 3: Alternative Development and Testing Initial Ideas were not at all where we ended up • Spray repairs • Kananaskis requirements • Water Bank By the end of the CMDS days, stakeholders were all competing internally to find the best solution for the group 3 1 2

33. The Water Bank in the Bow River Basin • Policy Changes • Irrigation districts agree not to call water from Junior licenses • Stabilize Lower Kananaskis Reservoir • Stabilize Releases into the Kananaskis River • Purchase 60,000 AF of storage in existing upstream reservoirs for use in supplementing flows at Bassano • Purely an accounting measure • Refills using 10% of “capture-able” inflows

34. Water Bank? What’s a Water Bank? • Improving benefits in the Bow is all about timing • All the water goes downstream anyway • The water bank is a volume of water that can be used to make releases as needed, rather than on a schedule suited solely to TAU • Spread across all TAU reservoirs • A bank account is useless without something to put in it • % of inflows equal to % of storage is credited to the bank • Account can’t exceed the agreed storage volume

35. How is the Water Bank Used? • A bank account is useless unless you can make withdrawals • Withdrawals are made to maintain a flow of 800 cfs at Bassano (2x current minimum flow) • When a withdrawal is made TAU releases that much more than they would have released without the withdrawal • This requires a formula to determine “how much TAU would have released • Withdrawals are debited from the account

36. Operating Rules are Key • The benefits from the bank depend on when water is released • The impacts on TAU generating revenues depend on when the water is released • The amount in the bank depends on the accounting procedures • % of inflow • How much TAU would have released anyway • Negotiations on the Water Bank MUST focus on the operating rule if the Bank is to produce the expected benefits

37. Water Bank Operations

38. The Water Bank in the Bow River Basin

39. The Water Bank in the Bow River Basin

40. The Water Bank in the Bow River Basin

41. The Water Bank in the Bow River Basin

42. Phase 4: Consensus and beyond • By building trust during Phases 1 & 2, consensus works itself out during Phase 3 • With consensus on the Water Bank Policy, the Bow River Consortium (the formal name of our stakeholder group) took this suggestion to the Alberta Minister of the Environment • Received very favorably • Easy to see why, most of the major stakeholders who might object had already agreed • Other Alberta basins, including the larger South Saskatchewan River Basin, are under consideration for a similar process • Even led to a live day-by-day drought exercise with the Bow River Consortium using the Bow River Model • But that’s a story for another day…..

43. One More Note • When building these models, and engaging the stakeholders, it is absolutely important to come out with a specific plan and/or recommendation for policy • HOWEVER! • It is just as, if not more important, to recognize that bringing these stakeholders into continuing contact where they can practice adaptive management and continue to refine policies is a product in, and of, itself.

44. Making It Happen • The Bow River Project demonstrated that better, coordinated operations can produce benefits for all parties • The demonstrated scheme may not be the best scheme • Perfect is the enemy of good • Implementing any plan will require a negotiation of: • An amount of storage • A payment for storage and/or lost generation revenue • A set of operating rules and limitations for all parties so that each party is assured it will get what it expects • An institutional arrangement for implementing the rules • A procedure for modifying the rules as conditions change • Criteria for measuring success

45. Defining the Operating Rules • Operating Rules include: • Definition of TAU base release (how much they would have released anyway) – this needs to be workable and representative, not precisely correct • Basic rules and limitations on how much TAU can deviate from the definition • Definition of expected use for water in the Water Bank • Basic rules and limitations of deviations from Water Bank uses • Rules must be flexible

46. Institutional Arrangements: Responsibilities • Scheduling releases from the Water Bank • Accommodating user needs in real time • Performing the water accounting • Resolving disputes • Reviewing results • Evaluating success by measured results • Suggesting changes to improve the rules over time

47. Project Created Four Alternate Scenarios Scenario 2 Stabilized Kananaskis + “Water Bank” at 40,000 af Scenario 1 Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 4 Stabilized Kananaskis + Water Bank at 60,000 af + Increasing Spray by 61,000 af Scenario 3 Stabilized Kananaskis + “Water Bank” at 60,000 af current preferred scenario Many other scenarios could be tested using BROM

48. If We Manage The Bow River Differently, Collaboratively, We Can Have: • Protection of water sources for economic and municipal growth (50 years) • Healthier in-stream aquatic systems, fisheries and riparian zones • Sufficient water for irrigation needs and expansion (retain water access) • Renewal of Kananaskis tourism, recreation, & aquatic ecosystems • Achieve Water for Life Goals • None of this will occur without a negotiated deal with TransAlta

49. Benefits Contribute to All Water For Life Goals Water for Life Goal 1: Safe, secure drinking water supply for Albertans • Protected Calgary flow levels to protect fisheries and ensure water quality standards • Adequate, quality raw water supply for 50 year forecast growing population demands in the Bow Basin • Emergency-only drinking water supply reserved for downstream populations (Lower Kananaskis Lake) • Ability to model alternative water supply sources for 20+ towns and cities

50. Benefits Contribute to All Water For Life Goals Water for Life Goal 2: Healthy aquatic ecosystems • Dramatic improvements to aquatic health and fisheries in Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River • 80% reduction in lowest flow rates below Bassano and Bow River • Opportunity to monetize significant fish habitat offsets on Kananaskis System to pay for environmental improvements • Potential for modeling further aquatic benefits e.g. riparian improvements, dissolved oxygen parameters, fishery protection • Foundation for long-term protection of river ecology without impeding growth and development in the basin