2021 REGIONAL WATER PLAN July 1, 2020 SARA EATMAN, LAUREN GONZALEZ, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
2021 regional water plan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

2021 REGIONAL WATER PLAN July 1, 2020 SARA EATMAN, LAUREN GONZALEZ, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 19, 2023 161 likes •520 views

2021 REGIONAL WATER PLAN July 1, 2020 SARA EATMAN, LAUREN GONZALEZ, JUNIOR LAGADE, KATIE SNYDER AGENDA 7.A Status Reports on TWDB Contract Activities 1. Review Comments Received to Date on Region M IPP and Request Guidance for Response on

slide-1
SLIDE 1

July 1, 2020

SARA EATMAN, LAUREN GONZALEZ, JUNIOR LAGADE, KATIE SNYDER

2021 REGIONAL WATER PLAN

slide-2
SLIDE 2

AGENDA

7.A Status Reports on TWDB Contract Activities

1. Review Comments Received to Date on Region M IPP and Request Guidance for Response on Select Comments 2. Infrastructure Financing Report Update 3. Implementation Survey Update 4. Project Prioritization 5. Consider Addition of Non-MAG Gulf Coast Aquifer, Cameron, & Willacy Counties 6. Schedule for Completion of Regional Water Plan

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

7.A.1. REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE ON REGION M IPP

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Comments are mostly reporting requests of existing information and clarifications or corrections.

  • Level 1: comments

and questions that must be resolved to meet requirements

  • Level 2: comments

that may improve the readability of the plan

  • TWDB Provide Draft Comments

for Review on 5/29/20

  • B&V Responded with

clarification, follow-up questions, and proposed resolutions on 6/5/20

  • Final comments were provided

to B&V on 6/18/20

IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS

Black & Veatch

4

July 1, 2020

slide-5
SLIDE 5

High-level overview of select Comments: request feedback on those in blue

  • Expanded reporting on Major Water Providers (existing supplies,

secondary needs analysis, management supply factor)

  • Expanded quantitative analysis for each WMS, including:

environmental factors (not just impacts), reliability and water losses, impacts to agriculture, third-party social and economic impacts

  • Strategies recommended for 2020 must be constructed and delivering

water by January 5, 2023

  • RWPG must define “significant need” threshold for consideration of

ASR

IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS

July 1, 2020 Black & Veatch

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

High-level overview of select Comments: request feedback on those in blue

  • Include a discussion of whether drought contingency measures have

been recently implemented (will require follow-up with WUGs)

  • Include discussion of “unnecessary or counterproductive variations in

drought response strategies that may impede drought response efforts”

  • Include an assessment of the progress of the regional water planning

area in encouraging cooperation between WUGs for the purpose of achieving economies of scale and otherwise incentivizing strategies that benefit the entire region.”

IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS

July 1, 2020 Black & Veatch

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Comments received from RWPG members at the February 5th meeting

were incorporated into the IPP submitted in May

  • One Public Hearing was held online on May 6, comments were

received from two people:

  • Louis Peña, Brush Country GCD: falling oil prices may change

demands for oil drilling

  • Mayor Jim Darling, McAllen: COVID may cause some of the

projections to change, could require mid-cycle update or similar

  • B&V has provided follow-up emails with information to each WUG

with the supplies and recommended WMS from the IPP with a request for review – numerous corrections and small revisions received

  • Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board provided comments

6/18/20

IPP COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS

July 1, 2020 Black & Veatch

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

7.A.2. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT UPDATE

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

This information helps TWDB tailor funding to you, any info is helpful.

The Infrastructure Financing Survey is used to gather information about how project sponsors anticipate funding water supply projects recommended in the 2021 RWP including whether the sponsor intends to use financial assistance from the TWDB

  • Requests info on the amount of funding estimated

for planning, design, permitting and acquisition vs. construction funding

  • Estimated year that funding is needed

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT

July 1, 2020

9

Black & Veatch

slide-10
SLIDE 10

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY RESULTS

July 1, 2020

10

Black & Veatch

9 respondents provided info on 14 projects: 0-5% state funding anticipated

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • Surveys were sent to 80 WMS/project sponsors
  • Surveys can be accepted until August 1st, 2020 to be

reviewed and summarized in the RWP

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT

July 1, 2020

11

Black & Veatch

slide-12
SLIDE 12

7.A.3. IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY UPDATE

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

July 1, 2020

13

Black & Veatch

Helps to understand what projects are being implemented and where there are impediments.

The Implementation Survey is used to gather information about how projects that were recommended in the 2016 RWP have progressed:

  • Has the sponsor taken action, if so provide date
  • What level of implementation
  • If not implemented, why – describe impediments to

implementation

  • Estimated yield
  • Funding received, expected costs
  • If not yet implemented, in the 2021 Plan?
slide-14
SLIDE 14

7.A.4. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

July 1, 2020

15

Black & Veatch

  • Application of Uniform Standards for Prioritization
  • f all projects recommended in the Plan
  • TWDB has provided guidance for how to apply the

prioritization rankings

  • Assumptions specific to Region M were updated

from the 2016 cycle

  • Prioritization will be provided to TWDB alongside

the final RWP by 10/14/20

Most evaluations are straightforward, some require interpretation

slide-16
SLIDE 16

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE

July 1, 2020

16

Black & Veatch

Criteria 1: When is the project & funding needed?

MAXIMUM SCORES --->

10 10 20

400

WMS Name Capital Cost Rural/Agricultural Conservation? Conservation/Reuse?

Uniform Standard 1A - What is the decade the RWP shows the project comes online? [2070 = 0 points; 2060 = 2; 2050 = 4; 2040 = 6; 2030 = 8; 2020 = 10] Uniform Standard 1B - In what decade is initial funding needed? [2070 = 0 points; 2060 = 2; 2050 = 4; 2040 = 6; 2030 = 8; 2020 = 10] Criteria 1 Total Score Weighted Criteria 1 Total

Edcouch New Groundwater Supply 6,931,000 $

10 10 20 400

Edinburg Non-potable Reuse 17,177,000 $

X 10 10 20 400

HCID#1 ID Conservation 26,418,956 $

X X 10 10 20 400

Delta Lake ID Conservation 55,808,978 $

X X 10 10 20 400

Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending 1,240,000 $

10 10 20 400

Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir 10,250,000 $

10 10 20 400

Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2 19,805,000 $

10 10 20 400

Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District 1,119,000 $

10 10 20 400

Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination 5,753,000 $

2 2 4 80 Criteria 1 - Decade of Need for Project

slide-17
SLIDE 17

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE

July 1, 2020

17

Black & Veatch

Criteria 2: How much has feasibility been looked at (permits, water rights, engineering, sponsor involvement)?

MAXIMUM SCORES --->

5 5 10 5 25

100

WMS Name

Uniform Standard 2A - What supporting data is available to show that the quantity
  • f water needed is available? [Models
suggest insufficient quantities of water or no modeling performed = 0 points; models suggest sufficient quantity of water = 3; Field tests, measurements, or project specific studies confirm sufficient quantities
  • f water = 5]
Uniform Standard 2B - If necessary, does the sponsor hold necessary legal rights, water rights and/or contracts to use the water that this project would require? [Legal rights, water rights and/or contract application not submitted = 0 points; application submitted = 2; application is administratively complete = 3; legal rights, water rights and/or contracts
  • btained or not needed = 5]
Uniform Standard 2C - What level of engineering and/or planning has been accomplished for this project? [Project idea is outlinted in RWP = 1 point; feasibility studies initiated = 2; feasibility studies completed = 3; conceptual design initiated = 4; conceptual design completed = 5; preliminary engineering report initiated = 6; preliminary engineering report completed = 7; preliminary design initiated = 8; preliminary design completed = 9; final design complete = 10] Uniform Standard 2D - Has the project sponsor requested in writing that the project be included in the Regional Water Plan? [No = 0 points; yes = 5] Criteria 2 Total Score Weighted Criteria 2 Total

Edcouch New Groundwater Supply

3 5 7 5 20 80

Edinburg Non-potable Reuse

5 5 7 5 22 88

HCID#1 ID Conservation

5 5 9 5 24 96

Delta Lake ID Conservation

5 5 7 5 22 88

Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending

3 5 7 5 20 80

Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir

5 3 7 5 20 80

Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2

3 5 5 5 18 72

Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District

5 2 8 15 60

Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination

3 5 5 5 18 72 Criteria 2 - Project Feasibility

slide-18
SLIDE 18

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE

July 1, 2020

18

Black & Veatch

Criteria 3: How viable a water supply does the project provide?

MAXIMUM SCORES --->

100 10 100 10 5 5 30.00

250.00

WMS Name

Uniform Standard 3A - In the decade the project supply comes

  • nline, what is the % of the

WUG's (or WUGs') needs satisfied by this project? [Calculation is based on the needs of all WUGs receiving water from the project.] Converted Needs-based score for Uniform Standard 3A Uniform Standard 3B - In the final decade of the planning period, what is the % of the WUG's (or WUGs') needs satisfied by this project? [Calculation is based on the needs of all WUGs receiving water from the project.] Converted Needs-based score for Uniform Standard 3B Uniform Standard 3C - Is this project the only economically feasible source of new supply for the WUG, other than conservation? [No = 0 points; Yes = 5] Uniform Standard 3D - Does this project serve multiple WUGs? [No = 0 points; Yes = 5] Criteria 3 Total Score Weighted Criteria 3 Total

Edcouch New Groundwater Supply

100.00 10.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 166.67

Edinburg Non-potable Reuse

45.44 4.54 15.90 1.59 5 11.13 92.78

HCID#1 ID Conservation

0.60 0.06 1.59 0.16 5 5.22 43.49

Delta Lake ID Conservation

0.57 0.06 3.77 0.38 5 5.43 45.29

Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending

36.87 3.69 5.21 0.52 4.21 35.06

Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir

0.00 0.00 14.16 1.42 1.42 11.80

Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2

100.00 10.00 6.01 0.60 10.60 88.34

Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District

13.22 1.32 9.11 0.91 2.23 18.61

Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Criteria 3 - Project Viability

slide-19
SLIDE 19

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE

July 1, 2020

19

Black & Veatch

Criteria 4: How sustainable is the project? Criteria 5: How cost effective is the project?

FINAL SCORE FOR PROJECT MAXIMUM SCORES --->

10 5 15

150

5

100

1000.00 WMS Name

Uniform Standard 4A - Over what period of time is this project expected to provide water (regardless of the planning period)? [Less than or equal to 20 yrs = 5 points; greater than 20 yrs = 10] Uniform Standard 4B - Does the volume of water supplied by the project change over the regional water planning period? [Decreases = 0 points; no change = 3; increases = 5] Criteria 4 Total Score Weighted Criteria 4 Total Uniform Standard 5A - What is the expected unit cost of water supplied by this project compared to the median unit cost of all other recommended strategies in the region's current RWP? (Project's Unit Cost divided by the median project's unit cost) [200% or greater than median = 0 points; 150% to 199% = 1; 101% to 149% = 2; 100% = 3; 51% to 99% = 4; 0% to 50% = 5] Weighted Criteria 5 Total

Edcouch New Groundwater Supply

10 3 13 130 5 100 876.67

Edinburg Non-potable Reuse

10 3 13 130 5 100 810.78

HCID#1 ID Conservation

10 5 15 150 5 100 789.49

Delta Lake ID Conservation

10 5 15 150 5 100 783.29

Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending

10 3 13 130 5 100 745.06

Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir

10 5 15 150 5 100 741.80

Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2

10 3 13 130 1 20 710.34

Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District

10 5 15 150 2 40 668.61

Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination

5 3 8 80 4 80 312.00 Criteria 4 - Project Sustainability Criteria 5 - Project Cost Effectiveness

slide-20
SLIDE 20

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION - STATUS

July 1, 2020

20

Black & Veatch

  • Some projects are being revised based on survey

feedback

  • Some projects are being revised based on new

non-MAG groundwater availability

  • Updated list of projects will be prioritized

according to the guidelines and assumptions, provided prior to next meeting

  • Please review the Region M general and specific

assumptions document

slide-21
SLIDE 21

7.A.5. CONSIDER ADDITION OF NON-MAG GULF COAST AQUIFER

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER

July 1, 2020

22

Black & Veatch

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Pumping included in the MAG includes all modeled

areas, not just official extent

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER

July 1, 2020

23

Black & Veatch

slide-24
SLIDE 24

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER

July 1, 2020

24

Black & Veatch

slide-25
SLIDE 25

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER

July 1, 2020

25

Black & Veatch

slide-26
SLIDE 26

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER

July 1, 2020

26

Black & Veatch

Request approval to include new source in 2021 RWP with above availabilities

Pumping used in the model outside of the official extent of the aquifer has been requested as an additional source: “Non-MAG Gulf Coast Availability”

slide-27
SLIDE 27

NON-MAG SOURCE: GULF COAST AQUIFER WUG SUPPLIES & WMS

July 1, 2020

27

Black & Veatch

  • Cameron and Willacy County WUGs that were

previously reduced (SRWA, MHWSC)

  • Groundwater projects that had been included as

alternative recommended strategies

  • Working with TWDB & Sponsors to ensure that all

needs are met and projects are updated with the appropriate supply

slide-28
SLIDE 28

7.A.6. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF REGIONAL WATER PLAN

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

July 1, 2020

29

Black & Veatch

Public Hearing 5/6/20

Received 6/18/20

Ends 7/5/20 Ends 8/4/20 September Meeting

SCHEDULE

slide-30
SLIDE 30

8.A NEW REGIONAL AND STATE FLOOD PLANNING

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Texas Water Development Board will administer Flood Planning and Funding Efforts

  • Regional and State Flood Planning:
  • Similar to Regional and State Water

Planning

  • regional flood planning efforts and funds
  • Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF)
  • Provides loans and grants for flood

control, flood mitigation, and drainage projects

2019 TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED BILLS TO DEVELOP:

2 July 2020 Black & Veatch

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

REGIONAL FLOOD PLANNING PROCESS

2 July 2020

32

Black & Veatch

Establish Region Boundaries

  • Established April 2020

Develop Administrative Rules

  • Final rules adopted May 2020

Nominate Regional Flood Planning Group Members & Political Subdivisions

  • Due by July 2, 2020

Regions Develop and Submit Regional Flood Plan

  • Due by January 2023

TWDB Develops State Flood Plan

  • Due by September 1,

2024

slide-33
SLIDE 33

RE G I O N A L F L O O D P L A N N I N G RE G I O N S

2 July 2020

33

Black & Veatch

slide-34
SLIDE 34
  • Agricultural interests
  • Industries
  • River authorities
  • Counties
  • Municipalities
  • Water districts
  • Flood districts
  • Electric generating

utilities

  • Public
  • Water utilities
  • Environmental interests
  • Small businesses

REGIONAL FLOOD PLANNING GROUP MEMBERSHIP

2 July 2020

34

Black & Veatch

The Board will designate one individual for each of the 12 interest categories for the voting positions for each of the 15 flood planning

  • regions. The interest categories are as follows:
slide-35
SLIDE 35

www.bv.com