Water Planning in Texas Temple McKinnon, Regional Water Planning

Water Planning: Legislative

Response to Drought

Late 1950s Drought of Record – 1957: Creation of TWDB – $200 million Water Development Fund – 9 State Water Plans, 1961-2012

Late 1990s: Potential New Drought of Record – ~$6 billion economic losses in ‘96

(mostly agriculture) – ~300 entities with threat to water

supplies – 1997 & 2001: Passage of SB 1 & 2 which

created & refined regional water planning

2

3

4

5

Existing Water

Supplies

Projected Water

Demand

Surplus (+) or

Need (-)

Project future population and water demands Quantify existing and future water supplies Identify surpluses and needs Evaluate and recommend water management

strategies Make policy recommendations Adopt the plan

Regional Water Planning

6

Regional Water Planning

Statutory interests: Public Counties Municipalities

Water districts Water utilities Groundwater

management areas

Industries Agriculture Environment Small

businesses

Electric-generating utilities

River authorities

7

Regional Water Planning

8

Statutory interests: Public Counties Municipalities

Industries Agriculture Environment Small

businesses

Water districts Water utilities Groundwater

management areas

Electric-generating utilities

River authorities

Projected Texas Population

9

Projected Population Growth

in Texas Counties

10

Projected Water Demands

and Existing Supplies

11

Projected Need for Additional

Water in Times of Drought

12

Water Supplies from Water

Management Strategies

13

Relative Volumes of

Recommended Strategies

(2060)

14

< 1%

< 1%

Total Water Supply

Capital Costs: $53 Billion

15

Study was funded by TWDB

Performed by BBC Research & Consulting

Primary goal: Identify existing and potential

ways of measuring implementation of

conservation.

Water Conservation Savings

Quantification Study Background

Published Information on

Conservation in Texas – Key

Findings

• Increasing reliance on conservation to meet future

needs.

• Growing concern about lack of information on

actual progress towards meeting goals.

• Most assessments to date have focused on

“effort” rather than “achievement.”

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up

Measurement

Top-Down:

Estimation based on aggregate water use changes

Bottom-Up:

Quantification based on adding up savings estimates for individual conservation measures

Overall Findings

Estimating actual water conservation savings is not a simple task, and Texas is not alone in struggling with this challenge

Change in GPCD over time is a useful metric, but requires consistent data collection and adjustments for other factors affecting water use

Comparison of GPCD between providers is not helpful in assessing conservation savings

Providers currently use a variety of methods to estimate savings, with top down (GPCD-based) approaches being the most common

For More Information 2012 State Water Plan: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/wrpi/swp/swp.asp Water Conservation Savings Quantification Study http://www.twdb.texas.gov/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/1004831118_Conservation.pdf

Temple.McKinnon@twdb.texas.gov (512) 475-2057