Drinking Water Partnership: A Source Water Protection Strategy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Hughes Simpson Water Resources Coordinator Texas A&M Forest Service

The Texas Forests and Drinking Water Partnership:

A Source Water Protection Strategy

• $1 for source water

protection saves $27

• n water treatment

(Winecki 2012)

• NYC filtration

avoidance waiver - $2B in watershed vs projected $8B - $10B in treatment

Benefits of Source Water Protection

2004 TPL and AWWA Study

 27 water suppliers

surveyed

• For every 10% in

forest cover, treatment costs 20%

• 50–55% variation in

treatment costs explained by % forest cover

Why Forests?

 Stable source of

clean water

 Slows runoff /

erosion / flooding

 Buffer against

accidental spills

 Co-benefits

Forests can be Managed and Still Provide High Quality Water if BMPs are Used

 Developed in response to

the 1972 Clean Water Act.

 Guidelines vary by state,

research across the USA has shown that BMPs are effective

 BMPs have evolved over

time; based on continual improvement

Why Collaborate?

 Both sectors work in

natural resources

 Raw material comes

from same source

 Interdependent  Maintaining

economic vitality

What Does a Successful Collaboration Look Like?

• Utility personnel & forest landowners know

each other, meet regularly

• Forest lands are valued by utility & drinking

water customers

• Utility has dedicated funding for source

water protection

• Utility & forest land owners work together on

priorities for conservation, restoration and BMP’s

Raleigh, NC 40 cents/month $2 million/year Denver, CO 33 cents/month $3.3 million/year Little Rock, AR 45 cents/month ~$1 million/year Flagstaff, AZ $25 per $250k home, $50 per $500k home, etc. $10 million bond San Antonio, TX 1/8 cent sales tax $90 million cap San Francisco, CA Utility base budget $50 million/ 10 years Providence, RI 3 cents/100 gallons $1.5-2 million/year

Communities with Established Watershed Protection Revenue

Why aren’t all utilities jumping on the watershed protection “bandwagon”?

That’s not my backyard

SE Partnership for Forestry and Water Quality Meeting

Greenville, SC March 29, 2012

• Developed Partnership
• Part time Coordinator
• 4 state partnerships

(AR, GA, SC, TX)

• Three in development

(AL, FL, NC)

23 Forest Sector

 4 TFS  7 NRCS  4 USDAFS  2 US Endowment  1 Forest Landowner  1 SGSF  1 TFA  1 SFASU  1 Forest Industry  1 Cons. Group

Texas Forests and Drinking Water Forum

November 17-18, 2015 25 Water Sector

 4 TX Rural Water  8 Water Utilities  6 River Authorities  3 TCEQ  1 EPA  1 Cons. Groups  1 Local Gov. (HGAC)  1 TWRI

Texas Forests and Drinking Water Partnership

Goals

• Increase awareness, understanding, and

communication between sectors

• Identify mutual interests, challenges, barriers,

and opportunities for collaboration

• Designate critical priority watersheds
• Demonstrate forest / drinking water proof of

concept through pilot project

Accomplishments

 Follow up Partnership meeting May 2016  Developed working groups to advance Partnership  Strategic Partnerships  Economics  Communication  Priority Watershed Assessment  Targeted prescribed burn grant program to priority watersheds  Presented at various meetings to increase awareness

Geospatial Watershed Assessment

Parameters

• Public Surface Water Supply Watershed
• Population Served
• Forest Cover
• Threatened (Conversion, Fire, Insects/Disease)
• Existing Partnerships (Watershed Groups)

3/6/2017 17

Geospatial Watershed Assessment

 FWS / TFS

Partnership

 Financial assistance

for Rx burning

 Enhance wildlife

habitat / water resources

 Used priority

watersheds from assessment

Targeting Conservation Programs

Next Steps

 Continue to build support for the Partnership  Engage local watershed cooperators  Identify / pursue funding mechanisms  Implement pilot Forest / Drinking Water project

Hughes Simpson Texas A&M Forest Service 200 Technology Way College Station, TX 77845 (979) 458-6630 hsimpson@tfs.tamu.edu

Contact