RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) …€¦ · Black & Veatch for providing lunch....

1

AGENDA RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP

(RGRWPG) (REGION M)

10:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2020

LRGVDC MAIN CAMPUS GOTOMEETING VIDEO CONFERENCE

INITIATED AND CHAIRD AT 301 W. RAILROAD ST., WESLACO, TEXAS

PRESIDING: SONNY HINOJOSA, VICE CHAIR

1. Call to Order & Roll Call ................................................................................................................... Chairman

2. Consideration and ACTION to Approve February 5, 2020 Meeting Minutes ................................... Chairman

3. Public Comment .................................................................................................................................. Chairman

4. Presentation on Lower Rio Grande Water Quality Initiative ...................................................... Roger Miranda TCEQ

5. Discussion and ACTION to Consider Petitions from Voting Members to Serve Additional Term .. Chairman

6. Discussion and Consider ACTION on Status of Solicitation for Voting Member inElectric Generating Utilities Category ................................................................................................ Chairman

7. Status Reports

A. Status on Current TWDB Contract Activities (IPP) ................................................................. Sara Eatman

1. Review Comments Received to Date on Region M IPP and Request Guidance for Response onSelect Comments

a. TWDB Draft and Final Comments

b. Public and RWPG Comments

2. Infrastructure Financing Report Update

3. Implementation Survey

ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

2

4. Project Prioritization

5. Consider Addition of Non-MAG Gulf Coast Aquifer, Cameron & Willacy Counties

a. Additional Groundwater Availability

b. Existing WUG/WWP Supplies

c. Revision of WMS to Include Increase Supplies or Inclusion of Recommended WMSConsidered Alternative WMS in IPP

6. Schedule for Completion of Regional Water Plan (RWP)

a. Next Meeting(s)

B. Financial Report .................................................................................................................... Blanca Davila LRGVDC

1. Consideration and ACTION to Approve of Budget & Expenditure Report – May 2020

2. Status Report on Request for Local Funds

C. Status of Joint Groundwater Area Planning in GMA’s 13 & 16 .......................................... Armando Vela GMA 16

D. Status of No Charge Releases from the San Juan River ..................................................... Sonny Hinojosa Vice Chair

E. Reports from Other Regional Water Planning Groups

1. Reports from Liaisons with: Region J, Chairman Tomas Rodriguez; Region L, Don McGhee,and Region N, Commissioner David Fuentes

F. Report on Water Conservation Plans and Drought Management Plans Filed with Region ......... Chairman

G. Report on Notices of Applications for Funding and Grants ......................................................... Chairman

H. Report on Regional Water Resources Advisory Committee (RWRAC) ..................... Com. David Fuentes RWRAC Chairman

8. Reports from Federal and State Agencies

A. Status of TWDB Regional Flood Planning .................................................................................. Chairman

ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

3

B. TWDB ..................................................................................................................................William Alfaro Regional Water Planning

1. TWDB Agency Rulemaking Efforts

2. Final Plan Process

3. Interregional Planning Council Status

C. IBWC ..................................................................................................................................... Jayne Harkins Commissioner

D. TCEQ Watermaster ......................................................................................................... Jose “Lupe” Luna Rio Grande Watermaster

E. TPWD ........................................................................................................................................ Willy Cupit Coastal Ecologist

9. Discussion, Consideration, and ACTION on Date for Next Business Meeting ................................. Chairman

10. New or Unfinished Business ............................................................................................................... Chairman

11. Adjourn

Agenda items may be considered, deliberated and/or acted upon in a different order than numbered above. The Board of Directors of the Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (RGRWPG) (Region M) reserves the right to adjourn into Executive (Closed) Session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the items listed on this agenda as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. No final action will be taken in Executive Session.

PUBLIC INPUT POLICY

Public Input Policy: “At the beginning of each RGRWPG meeting, the RGRWPG will allow for an open public forum/comment period. This comment period shall not exceed one (1) hour in length, and each speaker will be allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes to speak. All individuals desiring to address the RGRWPG must be signed up to do so, prior to the open comment period. The purpose of this comment period is to provide the public an opportunity to address issues or topics that are under the jurisdiction of the RGRWPG as outlined within final implementation guidelines of Senate Bill 1, 75th Legislative Session (SB-1). For issues or topics which are not otherwise part of the posted agenda for the meeting, RGRWPG members may direct staff to investigate the issue or topic further. No action shall be taken on issues or topics which are not part of the posted agenda for the meeting. Members of the public may be recognized on posted agenda items deemed appropriate by the Chairman as these items are considered, and the same time limitation (3 minutes) applies.”

ITEM 2.

MINUTES

Minutes, RGRWPG, February 5, 2020, Page 1 of 6

MINUTES MEETING OF THE

RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) (REGION M)

10:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020

LRGVDC MAIN CAMPUS KEN JONES EXECUTIVE BOARD ROOM

301 W. RAILROAD STREET PRESIDING: TOMAS RODRIGUEZ, CHAIR

- DRAFT -

1. Call to Order and Roll CallChairman Tomas Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. He announced that the meeting had been posted as required by statute, and that a quorum of the voting membership was present.

The following voting members were present:

Board Members Category Tomas Rodriguez, Chairman Public Sonny Hinojosa, Vice Chairman Water Districts Don McGhee, Secretary Industries Nick Benavides, Executive Committee Small Business Glenn Jarvis Other John Bruciak Municipalities Mayor Jim Darling River Authorities Carlos Garza Small Business Dennis Goldsberry Water Utility Jaime Flores Environmental Armando Vela Groundwater Management Area Dr. Neal Wilkins Agriculture Jorge Flores Municipalities Commissioner David Fuentes County Tom McLemore Water Districts

The following voting members were not in attendance:

Frank Schuster, Executive Committee Other Judge Joe Rathmell Counties Riazul Mia Municipalities Dale Murden Agriculture

2. Consideration and Action to Approve December 18, 2019 Meeting MinutesMr. Dennis Goldsberry made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2019 meeting as presented. Mr. Sonny Hinojosa seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

3. Hear Public CommentThere were no requests to make public comment.


4. Discussion and Action on Annual Election of Officers The current officers are:

Chairman – Tomas Rodriguez Vice Chair – Sonny Hinojosa Secretary – Don McGhee Member-at-Large – Frank Schuster Member-at-Large – Nick Benavidez

Chairman Rodriguez stated that he contacted the current officers and reported that they are all willing to serve another term. He then opened the floor for nominations to give other members the opportunity to serve. Mr. Glenn Jarvis made a motion to elect the same officers to serve in 2020. Mr. Jorge Flores seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously. 5. Discussion and Consider Action on Status of Solicitation for Voting Member in Electric Generating Utilities Category Chairman Rodriguez reported that no nominations in the Electric Generating Utilities category have been received. Mr. John Bruciak stated that he would contact Calpine to inquire about potential candidates to fill the vacancy. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Liaison William Alfaro has informed the Group that the TWDB advises that this vacancy should remain open and, on the agenda, until it is filled. 6. Status Reports

A. Status on Current TWDB Contract Activities Ms. Sara Eatman, Black & Veatch was recognized and informed the Group that all chapters of the Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) are posted on Region M’s website, riograndewaterplan.org, and the TWDB website, twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning. She added that this meeting will be the last opportunity to make substantive edits to the IPP, and that the IPP will be open to public comments for the next several months. She then began her presentation covering the following topics:

1. Review Schedule and Status Update (Deadline for Comments is 2/5/2020)

Ms. Eatman emphasized that the IPP is a draft to which revisions and corrections can be made until it is finalized on October 14, 2020.

2. Review Executive Summary Ms. Eatman went over the content of the Executive Summary, and upon conclusion, she encouraged the Group to let her know if there are any revisions they would like to suggest.

3. Summary of the following Chapters: a. Chapter 5 - Water Management Strategies

Ms. Eatman summarized the topics in Chapter 5 that have not previously been presented and encourage members to review their area(s) of interest and advise her of any suggested revisions.

b. Chapter 6 - Impacts of Regional Water Plan

This chapter covers the Impacts of Water Management Strategies, Protection of Resources, Unmet Needs, and the Socioeconomic Impacts of Shortages.


c. Chapter 8 - Policy Recommendations Ms. Eatman reported that the Policy Committee met on January 31, 2020 and went through the recommendations in Chapter 8. Requests for revisions to this chapter include appropriate accounting for deliveries from Mexico, definition of “Extreme Drought” in the 1944 Treaty, recommendation of further study of pumping in the Pecos and Devils Watersheds, Watermaster program fee assessment and budgeting rules, and support funding for ongoing water availability/quality study.

Upon conclusion of discussion on Chapter 8, and in consideration of schedule constraints, it was the consensus of the Group to hear some reports from item 6. – Status Reports and item 7. – Reports from Federal and State Agencies out of order. Mr. Anthony Stambaugh was recognized to report on item 7. D. – TCEQ Watermaster and provided the current status of the reservoir system. Upon conclusion of the Watermaster Report, Commissioner David Fuentes was recognized and provided a report on item 6. H. – Regional Water Resource Advisory Committee (RWRAC). Commissioner Fuentes is the Chair of the RWRAC and reminded the Group that at last November elections propositions 7 and 8 were passed which include flood infrastructure funding and regional flood planning components administered by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). TWDB provided a map of the proposed Regional Flood Planning boundaries that were drawn throughout the state of Texas. They proposed that the Rio Grande Region stretch from the Gulf Coast all the way up to El Paso. Commissioner Fuentes stated that conceptually a region this vast does not make sense. The RWRAC responded to the proposed map with the recommendation to divide the Rio Grande Region in two with the dividing point at Amistad Dam. The RWRAC also made comments on the proposed rules for flood planning and requested the inclusion of drainage districts as part of the political subdivisions that are eligible for grants, they were not included in the originally proposed rules. Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Fuentes for his report and agreed that the proposed Rio Grande Region needs to be divided, but suggested the division be at the Rio Conchos which is above Amistad Dam. Mr. Glenn Jarvis recommended the dividing point be at Fort Quitman because this is the location designated by International Treaty as the beginning point of the flows in the Rio Grande representing the Lower Rio Grande’s water supply, which could be impacted by flood control projects. It was the consensus of the Group to write a letter to TWDB recommending this as a dividing point of the Rio Grande Flood Planning Region. Upon conclusion of the RWRAC Status Report and discussion, Chairman Rodriguez called for a recess for lunch at 11:55 am. The meeting was reconvened at 12:19 pm and Chairman Rodriguez thanked Ms. Eatman and Black & Veatch for providing lunch. Chairman Rodriguez next recognized Mr. Francisco Martinez from the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to report on item 7. C. - IBWC. He provided updates on the El Morillo Drain, the water debt deliveries from Mexico, and levee improvement projects. Upon conclusion of these reports, Ms. Eatman was recognized to continue her presentation.

d. Chapter 9 - Infrastructure Financing Ms. Eatman stated that Chapter 9 is currently a place holder and this information will become available as a part of the Water Management Strategies Implementation Survey results that will become available sometime between the release of the IPP and finalization of the Plan.


e. Chapter 10 Public Participation Public participation is the basis of the regional water planning process and the Group must include a broad cross-section of stakeholders representing communities throughout the region.

f. Chapter 11 – Implementation and Comparison to Previous Water Plan

Ms. Eatman reported that each update to the Plan is an opportunity for the Group to evaluate changes in water use and conservation goals and to determine how to meet future water needs. Changes from the previous plan are listed in this chapter.

4. Discussion and ACTION to Adopt and Certify as Complete the Region M 2021

Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) Chairman Rodriguez explained the next steps needed to adopt the IPP, and then asked for a motion to approve the plan. Mr. Sonny Hinojosa made a motion to adopt and certify as complete the Region M 2021 Initially Prepared Plan. Mr. Nick Benavides seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

5. Discussion and ACTION to Authorize Black & Veatch to Make Non-substantive

revisions and Any Revisions Requested by the RGRWPG Mr. Glenn Jarvis made a motion to authorize Black & Veatch to make non-substantive revisions to the Initially Prepared Plan and any revisions requested by the Group. Mayor Jim Darling seconded, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

6. Discussion and ACTION to Authorize Black & Veatch to Submit the Initially

Prepared Plan (IPP) to the TWDB on behalf of Region M Mayor Jim Darling made a motion to authorize Black & Veatch to submit the Initially Prepared Plan to the TWDB on behalf of Region M. Mr. Jorge Flores seconded, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

7. Discussion and ACTION to Schedule Public Hearing(s) for Initially Prepared Plan

(IPP) Nick Benavidez made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing in Eagle Pass on April 1, 2020 based on meeting room availability, and a second public hearing in Weslaco on May 6, 2020 at the LRGVDC. Mr. Sonny Hinojosa seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

8. Discussion and ACTION to Authorize LRGVDC to Post the IPP Public Hearings

Notice Mr. Tom McLemore made a motion to authorize the LRGVDC to post the Public Hearing notices for the Initially Prepared Plan. Mr. Jorge Flores seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

B. Financial Report

1. Consideration and Action to Approve Budget & Expenditure Report – January

2020 Ms. Debby Morales, LRGVDC, was recognized and reported that the current budget balance as of December 31, 2019 is $11,823.17 from the annual budget of $17,250.00,


and there is an available cash balance of $129,222.96. Dr. Neal Wilkins made a motion to approve the Budget & Expenditure Report as presented. Mr. Nick Benavides seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

2. Discussion and Consideration on Request of Local Funds

Ms. Morales reminded the Group that at the December meeting they took action to make a request for local funds. Staff has developed the local match request formula presented in the meeting packet, based on 2019 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Using a $0.05 per capita formula, the request from cities is just under $65,000, and the request for the unincorporated areas of the eight (8) counties is about $23,000 for a total request of just under $88,000. Mayor Jim Darling made a motion to send the invoices and cover letters with the request as presented. Mr. Don McGhee seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously.

C. Status of Joint Groundwater Area Planning in GMA’s 4, 5, 7, 13, & 16

Mr. Armando Vela was recognized and reported that GMA 16 held a meeting on January 28 and updated the Group on their recent activities. The next meeting is scheduled for April 28.

D. Status of No Charge Releases from the San Juan River

There was no new information to report on this item.

E. Reports from Other Water Planning Groups

1. Reports from Liaisons with Other Regions: Region J, Chairman Tomas Rodriguez; Region L, Don McGhee, and Region N, Commissioner David Fuentes Mr. Carl Schwing, liaison from Region J, was recognized and reported on weather conditions and projects in that area.

F. Report on Water Conservation Plans and Drought Management Plans Filed with Region

An updated list of plans that have been received was provided in the meeting packet.

G. Report on Notices of Applications for Funding and Grants A current list of notices was provided in the meeting packet.

H. Report on Regional Water Resource Advisory Committee (RWRAC)

This item was given out of order prior to the lunch recess. At this time there was further discussion and Chairman Rodriguez reported that Region E – Far West Texas Planning Area that includes El Paso, had sent a letter to the TWDB recommending the Rio Grande Flood Planning Region be divided at the Amistad Reservoir. He reiterated the recommendation for Region M to do the same.

7. Reports from Federal and State Agencies

A. TWDB Proposed Flood Planning Region Boundaries This item was discussed under item 6. H. Further discussion took place at this time regarding concerns about the point of separation to recommend for the proposed Rio Grande Flood Region. Mr. Sonny Hinojosa suggested the division be at Ft. Quitman or the Presidio. Upon conclusion of discussion Mr. Don McGhee made a motion to send a letter to TWDB recommending the separation of the Rio Grande Flood Region. Mr. Nick Benavides seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Glenn Jarvis will research the appropriate location for the division and draft a letter for Chairman Rodriguez.


B. TWDB Mr. William Alfaro, TWDB Liaison, was recognized to address the following:

1. 2020 Agricultural Water Conservation Grants

Mr. Alfaro informed the Group that TWDB will accept applications for FY 2020 Agricultural Water Conservation projects until February 19 at 2:00 pm. This funding is for projects that improve irrigation efficiency, advance soil health initiatives, and promote innovation in agriculture. The selected projects will support the implementation of water conservation strategies identified in the state and regional water plans.

2. Interregional Planning Council

Mr. Alfaro reported that on January 16 the TWDB appointed members to the Interregional Planning Council, and the purpose of this council is to improve coordination among RWPGs and TWDB in meeting the goals of the water planning process. Chairman Rodriguez was appointed to represent Region M on the council. The TWDB anticipates holding at least two (2) meetings in 2020, the dates and logistics of which have yet to be determined.

3. Potential Interregional Conflict Letter

A letter and information sheet were emailed to RWPG Chairs on January 13 that provided information on the definition of Interregional conflicts in regional water planning. It also encouraged coordination prior to identification of potential interregional conflicts and the process and timeline if a conflict is identified.

4. Items for Administratively Complete IPP

Mr. Alfaro stated that an email was sent on January 21 that had a list of items that the IPP must include to be considered administratively complete.

C. IBWC

This report had been given previously right after the lunch recess.

D. TCEQ Watermaster This report had also been given earlier in the meeting.

E. TPWD There was no new information to report at this time.

8. Discussion, Consideration, and Action on Date for Next Business Meeting It was the consensus of the Group to schedule the next business meeting on Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:30 am.

9. New or Unfinished Business

A. Interregional Planning Council

This item was covered under the TWDB section. 10. New or Unfinished Business

There being no further business to come before the Group the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

1.13.48 _____________________________________

Tomas Rodriguez, Chair

ITEM 5.

CONSIDER PETITIONS TO

SERVE ADDITIONAL

TERM

*Tomas RodriguezLaredo, Chairman

*Sonny HinojosaHCID #2, San Juan, Vice-Chairman

*Donald K. McGheeHydro Systems, Inc., Harlingen

*Frank SchusterVal Verde Vegetable Co., McAllen

*Nick BenavidesNick Benavides, Company, Laredo

Glenn Jarvis Attorney, McAllen

John Bruciak Brownsville PUB

James Darling Rio Grande Regional Water Authority

Carlos Garza, P.E. AEC Engineering, LLC., Edinburg

Dennis Goldsberry North Alamo WSC, Donna

Joe Rathmell Zapata County Judge

Jaime Flores Arroyo Colorado Partnership, Weslaco

Armando Vela Red Sands GCD, Linn

Dale Murden Texas Citrus Mutual, Mission

Riazul Mia City of Laredo, Engineer

Neal Wilkins, Ph.D. East Foundation

Jorge Flores Eagle Pass Water Works

David L. Fuentes Hidalgo County Commissioner

Tom McLemore Harlingen Irrigation District

*Executive Committee

Stewards of water resources from Amistad to the Gulf

Administrative Agent: Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council, Ron Garza, Executive Director 301 W Railroad – Weslaco, Texas 78596

Telephone: 956-682-3481 Fax: 956-631-4670 Website: riograndewaterplan.org

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJ:

MEMORANDUM

RGRWPG Voting Members

Manuel Cruz, LRGVDC Executive Director

June 25, 2020

Item 5 – Petition to Serve Additional Terms

According to the Region M Bylaws:

“Section 2. Terms of Office The terms of all initial voting members shall expire on September 1, 2001. Upon the expiration of the initial terms, all voting members shall draw lots for additional terms of five years or two years, such that half of the voting members’ terms will expire in two additional years and the other half in five additional years. If there is an odd number of voting members at the time the lots are drawn, one more than half shall draw lots for the two-year terms. No later than ninety calendar days prior to the end of the two-year terms, the voting members shall initiate procedures to appoint successors for the voting members drawing two-year terms, utilizing the process set forth under Section 4 of this Article. Outgoing voting members shall be given the opportunity to fully participate in the selection process for their successors and shall serve until their successors take office. At the conclusion of the two-year terms described above, all subsequent terms of office for voting members shall be five years, the goal of staggering the terms of office having been accomplished. All persons shall be eligible to serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive five-year terms as a voting member of the RGRWPG. (Amended 7/16/2003). Those persons completing two consecutive terms may petition the RGRWPG to serve additional terms. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the voting members present is required for approval of a petition for additional terms.”

Please see attached list of Member Term Lengths to consider those who are eligible for additional terms.

RGRWPG - REGION M - MEMBERS AND TERM LENGTHS for 2020 – revised 9/2019

Name Category 1st Term Began Current Term Ends September 1st of:

5 Year Term Currently Serving

# of 5 Year Terms

Completed

1. Glenn Jarvis Other 03/25/1998 2020 5th 4 2. Sonny Hinojosa Water Districts 03/25/1998 2020 5th 4 3. Donald K. McGhee Industries 06/27/2001 2023 5th 4 4. John Bruciak Municipalities 06/27/2001 2020 4th 3 5. Mayor James Darling River Authorities 11/17/2004 2024 4th 3 6. Tomas Rodriguez Municipalities 07/30/2008 2023 3rd 2 7. Carlos Garza Small Business 07/30/2008 2023 3rd 2 8. Dennis Goldsberry Water Utilities 08/04/2010 2020 2nd 1 9. Judge Joe Rathmell Counties 06/01/2011 2021 2nd 1 10. Jaime Flores Environmental Interests 08/03/2011 2021 2nd 1 11. Armando Vela GMA Category 10/05/2011 2021 2nd 1 12. Frank Schuster Other 01/04/2012 2022 2nd 1 13. Nick Benavides Small Business 06/05/2013 2023 2nd 1 14. Dale Murden Agriculture 03/09/2016 2021 1st 15. Riazul Mia Municipalities 03/09/2016 2021 1st 16. Dr. Neal Wilkins Agriculture 07/13/2016 2021 1st 17. Jorge Flores Municipalities 01/24/2018 2023 1st 18. Commissioner David Fuentes Counties 08/01/2018 2023 1st 19. Tom McLemore Water Districts 03/20/2019 2024 1st

ITEM 7. A.

STATUS ON CURRENT TWDB

CONTRACT ACTIVITIES

1. COMMENTSRECEIVED ON IPP

Section Commenter Comment Proposed Response

1 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

2. Page 1-30, Table 1-7. Please clarify if 2010 water loss audit data was

used for the data presented Table 1-7. If not, please update the table

name. If so, please summarize water loss audit data provided during the

current planning cycle in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC

§ 357.30(11)]

Response - Year "2010" in title was incorrect, it

will be corrected to "2017".

3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

5. Chapter 3. The plan does not appear to include the evaluation results

of existing supplies for major water providers (MWP). Please report

existing supplies for MWPs by decade and category of use in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC § 357.32(g)]

This information will be added.

4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

7. Chapter 4. The plan does not appear to include a secondary needs

analysis for MWPs. Please present the results of the secondary needs

analysis by decade for MWPs in the final, adopted regional water plan.

[31 TAC § 357.33(e)]


5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

14. Chapter 5. The alternative strategy evaluation for the 1 Million

Gallon Water Tower WMS (page 5.4-19) states that the strategy

provides storage but does not provide any additional supply. Please

ensure that all recommended WMSs and projects increase the volume of

water supply that is delivered to a WUG (e.g., via transmission). The final

adopted regional water plan may include a separate section for

additional recommendations that do not increase the volume of water

supply, but these may not be considered recommended WMS. [31 TAC

357.43(d); Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.5.3]

The strategy will be reevaluated or removed.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

17. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to include the list of potentially

feasible WMSs identified for the region. Please include this information

in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC § 357.34(b)]

The complete list of potentially feasible WMS

will be included.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

18. Chapter 5. Please clarify whether potentially feasible WMSs were

evaluated under drought of record conditions and document this

information in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.35(a)]

Potentially feasible WMS were evaluated

under drought of record conditions. Language

will be added.


5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

19. Chapter 5. WMS and associated project evaluations presented in the

plan do not appear to include quantitative reporting of reliability or

anticipated strategy water losses. Please provide this information for all

strategy evaluations in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.34(e)(3)(A)]

Quantitative reliability and water loss

estimates will be added to each WMS and

project evaluations.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

20. Chapter 5. The WMS evaluations do not appear to include a

quantitative reporting of all environmental factors, even when there

may not be impacts. For example, the environmental evaluations do not

appear to include a quantitative reporting of effects to environmental

water needs and upstream development on bays, estuaries, and arms of

the Gulf of Mexico. Please include a quantitative reporting of impacts to

environmental water needs and upstream development on bays,

estuaries, and arms of the Gulf of Mexico in the final, adopted regional

water plan. [31 TAC § 357.34(e)(3)(B)]

Additional evaluation will be included,

including impacts to bays, estuaries, and arms

of the Gulf of Mexico.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

21. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to include a quantitative

analysis for impacts to agricultural resources for the strategies

evaluated. Please include a quantitative impacts analysis for agricultural

resources for each WMS in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31

TAC § 357.34(e)(3)(C)]

This evaluation will be included in each WMS.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

22. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to include consideration of third-

party social and economic impacts resulting from voluntary

redistributions of water, including analysis of third-party impacts of

moving water from rural and agricultural areas in the evaluation of

potentially feasible WMSs. Please include this information in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC § 357.34(e)(7)]

This evaluation will be included.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

23. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to present the reservoir-

associated land costs separately. Please include separated reservoir-

associated land costs as applicable to reservoir WMSs in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.5]

Reservoir-associated land costs will be added

as a separate line item.


5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

24. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to present management supply

factors for MWPs. Please report management supply factors for all

MWPs by decade in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.35(g)(2)]

Management supply factors will be provided

for all MWPs in the final plan.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

35. Please clarify whether the plan development was guided by the

principal that designated water quality and related uses as shown in the

state water quality management plan shall be improved or maintained.

[31 TAC § 358.3(19)]

Language will be added to clarify.

5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

1.d) Please be advised that, in accordance with Senate Bill 1511, 85th

Texas Legislature, the planning group will be expected to rely on its

next planning cycle budget to amend its 2021 Regional Water Plan

during development of the 2026 Regional Water Plan, if recommended

WMSs or projects become infeasible, for example, do to timing of

projects coming online. Infeasible WMSs include those WMSs where

proposed sponsors have not taken an affirmative vote or other action to

make expenditures necessary to construct or file applications for permits

required in connection with implementation of the WMS on a schedule

in order for the WMS to be completed by the time the WMS is needed

to address drought in the plan. [Texas Water Code § 16.053(h)(10); 31

TAC § 357.12(b)]

The comment is noted.

5.2 Jaime Flores,

Arroyo

Colorado

ASR not feasible in LRGV The comment is noted. Feasibility for ASR will

be discussed for the region as a whole as per

rules and guidelines.

5.2 Glen Jarvis Table 5.2-31 lists Donna as associated with Maverick CO WCID, but

Donna is not anywhere near Maverick county

Donna will be removed and the table adjusted

accordingly.

5.2 WA Remove brush control general as a recommended WMS, include

language that it's generally recommended and maintain recommended

arundo donax reduction. This planning cycle, 31 TAC §357.34(d), all

recommended WMSs must produce a measurable yield in at least one

planning decade.

Brush control as a general WMS will be

removed, but the biological control of Arundo

donax will remain as a specific brush control

WMS.

5.2 TWDB, Level 2

Comments

6. Page 5-9, Table 5.2-3. The Adams Garden ID row is the same as the

Bayview ID row below it. Please verify the data in these rows and revise

as appropriate.

Adams Garden ID has been dissolved and

incorporated into other districts. The data will

be revised.


5.2 TWDB, Level 2

Comments

8. Page 5-27, Table 5.2-11. Column A for County-Other, Cameron is zero

and Column B, which should be 110 percent of column A, is 10. Also, in

Table 5.2-11, Irrigation, Jim Hogg, Column A is 3 and column B, which

should be 110 percent of column A, is 6. Please correct these values as

appropriate.

The table will be corrected.

5.3 Tomas

Rodriguez

Laredo section mentions chemical leaching from warehouses, work with

Tomas & Ria to re-word

The language will be revised.

5.3 Sharyland WSC Revise projects to include plant expansions with RO and leak prevention

program, based on submitted information.

The WMS for Sharyland WSC will be revised to

include the projects listed in the submitted

survey documents.

5.3 Sonny Hinojosa Page 82, table 5.3-98 HCID #2 does NOT deliver water to Falcon Rural

WSC. Please remove them.

HCID#2 supply balance table, and Falcon WSC's

supply (Table 5.3-223, p. 159) were corrected

for the IPP.

5.3 Jorge Flores

(Eagle Pass)

Change supplies to 14,041 acft/yr Supply data for Eagle Pass has been adjusted

and provided for review.

5.3 KS - Sonia Change CCID#2 contract from Steam Electric Power to Industrial if

possible.

The WUG recipient of CCID#2 industrial water

right will be changed from Steam Electric to

Manufacturing.

5.3 KS - Sonia Change CCID#2 Steam Electic Power to Cameron County instead of

Hidalgo

The WUG recipient of CCID#2 industrial water

right will be changed from Cameron to Hidalgo

County.

5.3 Riazul Mia

(Laredo)

Update Zacate WWTP strategy to provided South Laredo WWTP write-

up

The Potable Reuse project will be changed so

that the source is the South Laredo WWTP

rather than Zacate Creek WWTP.


5.3 Robert Tamayo

(Olmito WSC)

Sent conservation plan, drought contingency plan, and information

about purchased water rights. Also, sent info about projects: water

tower, WTP expansion, and new WWTP (1.25 MGD)

- "Attached are the conservation and drought plans.

Currently converting 400 ag. to 200 mun. and looking to purchase equiv.

of 200 more mun. W/R by year end.

New water tower will be operational within 6 months.

WTP expansion needed in about 2 years, depending on new subdivisions

development.

Waiting on application for funding approval from USDA (within 6

months) for new mechanical WWTP (1.25MGD).

Currently have 1,970 water meters. Depending on new subdiv.

Development, could have 1500 to 2000 more meters in ten years."

Olmito WSC supplies and WMS will be revised

to reflect the informaton provided.

5.3 Raul Garcia

(Los Fresnos)

Correct supplies based on reduction of SWRA from 267 ac-ft to 238.9 ac-

ft; WTP upgrade to 1.5 MGD

SWCA supplies will be reviewed and the WTP

upgrade will be considered as a potential

WMS; B&V will contact Los Fresnos for more

information if needed.


5.3 Charles Ortiz

(LMWD)

8 May 2020 Email - "LMWD owns pipelines for raw water delivery from

Rio Grande to Laguna Vista and Port Isabel as shown in the attached

exhibits. We don’t have estimates on the efficiency of our pipelines. We

would need to restore our meter at Cuates Pump Station and install a

new meter at Reservoir #4 to monitor for water losses along our 25 mile

raw water conveyance system. We are in the process of upgrading

existing SCADA where we communicate from our Water Plant #2 control

room in Laguna Vista to all of our raw water pump stations (River pump

station, Reservoir #4 pump station, and Cuates Pump Station). Map is

attached for reference. The 36” line from Reservoir No. 4 to Cuates

Pump Station is low pressure pipe that has had a history of leaks at

joints. We are cautious with pushing high flow out of Reservoir No. 4 to

prevent line breaks in this section of pipe."

16 June 2020 Email w/ provided documents

- Request to include WTP Expansion Project


- Update Port Isabel Reuse WMS description

- Potential WMS: 1) WTP No. 1 Improvements; 2) Elevated Storage Tank

Improvements; and 3) Water Distribution System Improvements

LMWD will be revised to show a direct source

volume in from the Rio Grande diversion point

to the LMWD system. The WMS submitted

which meet criteria to be included in the plan

will be reviewed and included as feasible.

5.3 NAWSC - Delta

Watershed

Requested Delta Watershed project to be included, serving NAWSC

demands.

Delta Watershed project as submitted will be

reviewed for completeness to be included as a

recommended WMS. Additional information

will be requested as required, and data from

the 2016 RWP may be used to complete the

WMS analysis.


5.3 Tim Skoglund

(HWWS)

Summarized from email/phone correspondence (June 2020)

DB22 & IPP: Supplies and contracts

- New DMI WR not reported in TCEQ yet, but would get HWWS up to

2829 ac-ft/yr

- Class B WR planned to be converted to DMI

Combes has multiple contracts to account for

- HWWS unsure what Combes contract volume is

- Contract shows 20% (canals) + 20% (from WTP to wholesale meter)

losses

ERHWSC: DB22 Change - 221 ac-ft as detailed in Tim Skoglund's email

--~2800 ac-ft max contract expires Aug 2054

Primera: Change contract to 400; change transferred to 272

-Do not show effluent as supply to power plant demand

-Keep reuse vol in plan to provide funding eligibility for a reuse project

for HWWS later on

Sales: ERHWSC will remain

-Remove other WUGs' sales and accompanying supplies

-Re-evaluate contracts/demands of WUGs to figure out if excess 221 AF

line item is needed

-- If there is available water, distribute volumes – otherwisereach out to

Tim again

HWWS supply and WMS data will be revised to

reflect the responses.

5.3 Ben Medina

(Rio Hondo)


- Inclusion of fresh groundwater well project

- Text and cost estimate revisions

Requested revisions will be made to Rio

Hondo's WMS.


5.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

11. Section 5.3. Please clarify whether the Resaca Restoration WMS is

subject to TCEQ's adopted environmental flow standards and document

this information in in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.34(e)(3)(B); 31 TAC § 358.3(22); 31 TAC § 358.3(23)]

The resacas that are considered in the Resaca

Restoration WMS are oxbow lakes in the

former channel of the Rio Grande, which have

been cut off from the river for decades and are

outside of the Rio Grande basin as a result of

the levees that have since been constructed to

control flood waters along the Rio Grande.

They do not have flowing inlets or outlets to

either the Rio Grande or the Arroyo Colorado,

and are therefore not subject to TCEQ

environmental flow standards.

5.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

12. Section 5.3, page 15. The firm yield for the proposed Banco Morales

Reservoir when running the Water Availability Model (WAM) files

provided is 1,561 acre-feet/year, which differs from the 3,835-3,906

acre-feet/year listed for water right number 1838. Please reconcile the

difference in firm yield for Banco Morales Reservoir in the final, adopted

regional water plan. [Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.2.1]

The firm yield will be reconciled and corrected.

5.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

1.a) Please confirm that all strategies shown as providing supply in 2020

are expected to be providing water supply by January 5, 2023. [31 § TAC

357.10(21); Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.2]

The WMS will be reviewed to ensure that all

are feasibly able to provide water by this date

and revised as necessary.

5.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

1.b) Please provide the specific basis on which the planning group

anticipates that it is feasible that the seven groundwater desalination,

one seawater desalination , and five other surface water WMSs will all

actually be online and providing water supply by January 5, 2023. For

example, provide information on actions taken by sponsors and

anticipated future project milestones that demonstrate sufficient

progress toward implementation. [31 § TAC 357.10(21); Contract

Exhibit C, Section 5.2]

The WMS will be reviewed to ensure that all

are feasibly able to provide water by this date

and revised as necessary.


5.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

1.c) In the event that the resulting adjustment of the timing of WMSs in

the plan results in an increase in near-term unmet water needs, please

update the related portions of the plan and DB22 accordingly, and also

indicate whether ‘demand management’ will be the WMS used in the

event of drought to address such water supply shortfalls or if the plan

will show these as simply ‘unmet’. If municipal shortages are left ‘unmet’

and without a ‘demand management’ strategy to meet the shortage,

please also ensure that adequate justification is included in accordance

with 31 TAC § 357.50(j). [TWC § 16.051(a); 31 § TAC 357.50(j); [31 TAC §

357.34(i)(2); Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.2]

Depending on the results of the WMS review

for feasible implementation decade, revisions

will be made to the plan and DB22 accordingly.

5.4 Brian

MacManus,

(ERHWSC)

ERHWSC's Bean Road Transmission line, uv disinfection, and HWWS

interconnect have been implemented, so it can be removed from the

RWP

ERHWSC's projects have been updated,

included in the implementation survey, and

the supply balance revised to reflect current

and future supplies.

5.4 SRE Southmost RWP and microfiltration project are missing - should be

alternatives

SRWSC WMS will be added

5.4 SRE North Cameron WTP expansion from 2016 RWP should be considered. North Cameron WTP WMS from 2016 will be

reivewed and owners contacted to update

WMS using new non-MAG Gulf Coas

availability.

5.4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

13. Section 5.4. The plan does not appear to provide complete strategy

evaluations for alternative WMSs. For example, the alternative Delta

Watershed WMS is briefly mentioned in Section 5.2.9 but does not

appear to be evaluated in Section 5.4 (Alternative WMSs). Additionally,

some alterative WMSs reported in DB22, for example, the Eagle Pass

New BGD Plant alternative WMS do not appear to be included in the text

of the plan. Please include complete evaluations for all alternative WMS

and projects in the final, adopted regional water plan or remove them

from the alternative WMS list. [31 TAC 357.35 (g)(3)]

The alternative WMS will be further evaluated

in accordance with requirements.


6.3 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

25. Section 6.3 and Table 4-14. The plan states that there are no unmet

Municipal/County-Other needs. However, the summary of unmet needs

presented in Table 4-14 includes Municipal and County-Other unmet

needs. Additionally, the unmet needs data presented in Table 4-14

appears to be inconsistent with data reported in DB22. For example, in

DB22, there are no unmet Municipal needs, however County-Other

unmet needs in DB22 range from 13 ac-ft/yr in 2020 to 18 ac-ft/yr in

2070. Table 4-14 presents these County-Other unmet needs as 162 ac-

ft/yr in 2020 and 597 ac-ft/yr in 2070. Please reconcile this data as

necessary and provide an adequate justification of unmet needs for

Municipal and/or County- Other WUGs as outlined in rule and contract

guidance in the final, adopted regional water plan [31 TAC § 357.50(j);

Contract Exhibit C, Section 6.3]

DB22 and the final report will be updated and

reconciled to ensure the same values are

shown in the needs estimates for every WUG.

7 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

28. Chapter 7. Model drought contingency plans were not provided for

review. Please ensure that model drought contingency plans submitted

with the final, adopted regional water plan at a minimum have triggers

and responses to 'severe' and 'critical/emergency' drought conditions.

[Contract Exhibit C, Section 7.6]

Model Drought Contingency Plans were

provided in Appendix E.

7 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

29. Chapter 7. The plan does not appear to include a discussion of

whether drought contingency measures have been recently

implemented (for example, since adoption of the last regional water

plan) in response to drought conditions. Please describe this in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [Contract Scope of Work, Task 7, subtask

3]

DCP implementation will be included.

7.4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

26. Section 7.4. Please confirm whether the entities evaluated for

emergency responses to local drought conditions or loss of municipal

supply were assumed to have 180 days or less of remaining supply.

[Contract Exhibit C, Section 7.4]

All entities evaluated for emergency responses

would have 180 days or less of water supply if

they experienced a "loss of existing water

supplies (Contract Exhibit C, Section 7.4).

Language will be added to describe this.


7.5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

27. Section 7.5, page 7-27. The plan does not appear to include copies of

the model drought contingency plans as referenced in Attachment 7.B.

Please include the model plans (two plans minimum) in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC § 357.42(j)]

Model Drought Contingency Plans will be

included.

7.5 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

30. Chapter 7. The plan does not appear to include discussion of

unnecessary or counterproductive variations in drought response

strategies that may impede drought response efforts. Please include

discussion of any unnecessary or counterproductive variations in

drought response strategies that were identified by the planning group

in the final, adopted regional water plan. [TWC § 16.053(e)(3)(E); 31 TAC

§ 357.42(b)(2)]

This disucssion will be added to Chapter 7.

10.1 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

31. Chapter 10. Please address how the planning group complied with

the Texas Open Meetings Act and Texas Public Information Act in the

final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §357.21; 31 TAC §357.50(f)]

Section 10.1 will be revised to include a more

detailed discussion of how the RWPG complied

with Texas Open Meetings Act and Texas

Public Information Act.

11 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

33. Chapter 11. Please provide a brief summary of how the 2016 Plan

differs from the 2021 Plan with regards to recommended and alternative

WMS projects in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.45(c)(4)]

Section 11.4 describes how WMS were

evaluated in each plan, and a comparison of

recommended WMS in the 2016 and 2021

plans is included as Table 11-2, p. 11-23. The

section will be revised to include both WMS

and WMS projects.

11 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

34. Chapter 11. The plan does not appear to assess the progress of the

regional water planning area in encouraging cooperation between water

user groups for the purpose of achieving economies of scale and

otherwise incentivizing strategies that benefit the entire region. Please

provide a general assessment of these items in the final, adopted

regional water plan. [TWC § 16.053(e)(12); 31 TAC § 357.45(b)]

An assessment of the progress in encouraging

cooperation and regionally beneficial

strategies will be discussed.


11.4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

32. Chapter 11, Section 11.4. The plan did not include implementation

survey data collected to date in Appendix E. Please ensure that the

template and data used for the implementation survey in the final,

adopted regional water plan are based on the survey template and data

that the TWDB provided in June 2019. [31 TAC § 357.45(a)]

Implementation survey data in the required

template will be included in the final plan.

3.1.4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

3. Section 3.1.4, page 3-20. Please confirm whether the local surface

water supplies listed in Table 3-5 are firm supplies that will be available

under drought conditions in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31

TAC § 357.32(a); Contract Exhibit C, Section 3.7]

Surface water availabilities presented are firm

supplies available under the drought of record

conditions. Language will be added.

3.2.4 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

4. Section 3.2.4, page 3-30. The plan references the GAM Run 17-027

MAG report as the citation for the non-MAG availability presented in

Table 3-10. GAM Run 17-027 MAG does not report availability

projections for the Yegua-Jackson aquifer. Please clarify the data source

for these values as appropriate and document the information in the

final, adopted regional water plan. [Contract Exhibit C, Section 3.5.2]

Language will be revised to indicate that the

Yegua-Jackson aquifer availabilities are DFC

compatible non-relevant availability estimates,

generated in the GR17-027_MAG model run,

as reported in the

"NonRelevantGroundwaterDFCCompatibleWat

erVolumes" workbook provided by TWDB

dated 5/2/2018. (GR17-030_MAG is also listed

in the non-relevant workbook for the Region M

counties with Yegua-Jackson, but that model,

from GMA12, does not cover any counties in

Region M.)

4.3.1 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

6. Section 4.3.1, page 4-7. The plan does not appear to include

identified water needs for MWPs reported by category of use including

municipal, mining, manufacturing, irrigation, steam electric, mining, and

livestock. Please report the results of the needs analysis for MWPs by

categories of use as applicable in the region in the final, adopted

regional water plan. [31 TAC § 357.33(b)]


5.1.1 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

16. Chapter 5. The plan does not appear to include the documented

process used by the planning group to identify potentially feasible

WMSs, as presented to the planning group in accordance with 31 TAC §

357.21(b). Please include this information in the final, adopted regional

water plan. [Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.1]

The process discussion from the Technical

Memorandum will be included. Section 5.1.1.

documents the process by which potentially

feasible WMS were identified and evaluated,

as well as section 11-4, page 11-10.


5.2.10 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

10. Section 5.2.10. Please confirm that the quantified supply estimates

for the Arundo Donax Biological Control WMS is available during drought

of record conditions in the final, adopted regional water plan. [31 TAC §

357.34(b); 31 TAC §357.34(e)(3)(A)]

Text will be added to indicate that this volume

is available during the drought of record.

5.2.11 TWDB, Level 1

Comments

8. Section 5.2.11, page 5-83. The plan does not appear to define a

threshold for significant water needs related to the potential for

aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects to meet those needs.

Please include information on how the planning group defines

significant water need for the potential for ASR projects to meet those

needs in the final, adopted regional water plan. [TWC § 16.053(e)(10);

31 TAC § 357.34(h)]

"Significant need" will be determined by the

RWPG and the requested information will be

added.

5.2.5,

DB22

TWDB, Level 1

Comments

9. Section 5.2.5 and DB22. The plan includes rainwater harvesting as a

recommended demand reduction WMS for La Feria. For regional water

planning purposes rainwater harvesting is considered a separate source

and should not be classified as conservation in accordance with contract

guidance. Please include a specific WMS evaluation for rainwater

harvesting, including assumed rainfall under drought of record

conditions, and revise the WMS classification in DB22 in the final,

adopted regional water plan. [Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.10]

This WMS will be revised as a separate source.

5.2.9 Jaime Flores,

Arroyo

Colorado

re-word tailwater recovery section so that it does not list the Arroyo

Colorado as a "drainage canal" but a river to which drainage canals

discharge

The language was revised for the IPP.

8.3.2 Glen Jarvis In the last sentence instead of Minute Order No. 234 it should state

Minute Order No. 309 which deals with water saved by conservation

effort in Mexico be dedicated to obligations under Treaty. In other

words in last sentence, strike "234" and insert "309". (#21)

The language was revised for the IPP.

P.O. Box 13231, 1700 N. Congress Ave. Austin, TX 78711-3231, www.twdb.texas.gov Phone (512) 463-7847, Fax (512) 475-2053

Our Mission

To provide leadership, information, education, and support for planning, financial assistance, and outreach for the conservation and responsible

development of water for Texas

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Board Members

Peter M. Lake, Chairman │ Kathleen Jackson, Board Member │Brooke T. Paup, Board Member

Jeff Walker, Executive Administrator

Mr. Tomas Rodriguez, Jr., Chair Mr. Manuel Cruz 310 Chetumal Dr Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council Laredo, Texas 78045 301 W Railroad Weslaco, Texas 78596 Re: Texas Water Development Board Comments for the Rio Grande (Region M) Regional

Water Planning Group Initially Prepared Plan, Contract No. 1548301841 Dear Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cruz: Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) staff have completed their review of the Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) submitted by March 3, 2020 on behalf of the Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (RWPG). The attached comments follow this format:

• Level 1: Comments, questions, and data revisions that must be satisfactorily addressed in order to meet statutory, agency rule, and/or contract requirements; and,

• Level 2: Comments and suggestions for consideration that may improve the readability and overall understanding of the regional water plan.

Please note that rule references are based on recent revisions to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 357, adopted by the TWDB Board on June 4, 2020. 31 TAC § 357.50(f) requires the RWPG to consider timely agency and public comment. Section 357.50(g) requires the final adopted plan include summaries of all timely written and oral comments received, along with a response explaining any resulting revisions or why changes are not warranted. Copies of TWDB’s Level 1 and 2 written comments and the region’s responses must be included in the final, adopted regional water plan (Contract Exhibit C, Section 13.1.2). Standard to all planning groups is the need to include certain content in the final regional water plans that was not yet available at the time that IPPs were prepared and submitted. In your final regional water plan, please be sure to also incorporate the following:

a) Completed results from the RWPG’s infrastructure financing survey for sponsors of recommended projects with capital costs, including an electronic version of the survey spreadsheet [31 TAC § 357.44];

Mr. Tomas Rodriguez, Jr. Mr. Manuel Cruz Page 2

b) Completed results from the implementation survey, including an electronic version of the survey spreadsheet [31 TAC § 357.45(a)];

c) Documentation that comments received on the IPP were considered in the development of the final plan [31 TAC § 357.50(f)]; and

d) Evidence, such as a certification in the form of a cover letter, that the final, adopted regional water plan is complete and adopted by the RWPG [31 TAC § 357.50(h)(1)].

Please ensure that the final plan includes updated State Water Planning Database (DB22) reports, and that the numerical values presented in the tables throughout the final, adopted regional water plan are consistent with the data provided in DB22. For the purpose of development of the 2022 State Water Plan, water management strategy and other data entered by the RWPG in DB22 shall take precedence over any conflicting data presented in the final regional water plan [Contract Exhibit C, Sections 13.1.3 and 13.2.2]. Additionally, subsequent review of DB22 data is being performed. If issues arise during our ongoing data review, they will be communicated promptly to the planning group to resolve. Please anticipate the need to respond to additional comments regarding data integrity, including any source overallocations, prior to the adoption of the final regional water plans. The provision of certain content in an electronic-only form is permissible as follows: Internet links are permissible as a method for including model conservation and drought contingency plans within the final regional water plan; hydrologic modeling files may be submitted as electronic appendices, however all other regional water plan appendices should also be incorporated in hard copy format within each plan [31 TAC § 357.50(g)(2)(C), Contract Exhibit C, Section 13.1.2 and 13.2.1]. The following items must accompany, the submission of the final, adopted regional water plan:

1. The prioritized list of all recommended projects in the regional water plan, including an electronic version of the prioritization spreadsheet [31 TAC § 357.46]; and,

2. All hydrologic modeling files and GIS files, including any remaining files that may not have been provided at the time of the submission of the IPP but that were used in developing the final plan [31 TAC § 357.50(g)(2)(C), Contract Exhibit C, Section 13.1.2, and 13.2.1].

The following general requirements that apply to recommended water management strategies must be adhered to in all final regional water plans including:

1. Regional water plans must not include any recommended strategies or project costs that are associated with simply maintaining existing water supplies or replacing existing infrastructure. Plans may include only infrastructure costs that are associated with volumetric increases of treated water supplies delivered to water user groups or that result in more efficient use of existing supplies [31 TAC § 357.10(39), § 357.34(e)(3)(A), Contract Exhibit C, Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3]; and,


2. Regional water plans must not include the costs of any retail distribution lines or other infrastructure costs that are not directly associated with the development of additional supply volumes (e.g., via treatment) other than those line replacement costs related to projects that are for the primary purpose of achieving conservation savings via water loss reduction [§ 357.34(e)(3)(A), Contract Exhibit C, Section 5.5.3].

Please be advised that, within the attached document, your region has received a comment specifically requesting that the RWPG provide the basis for how the RWPG considers it feasible that certain water management strategies will actually be implemented by January 5, 2023 (see Level 1, Comment 1), especially for projects with long lead times. This comment is aimed at making sure RWPGs do not present projects in their plans to provide water during the 2020 decade that cannot reasonably be expected to be online, and provide water supply, by January 5, 2023. For project types whose drought yields rely on previously stored water, the 2020 supply volume should take into consideration reasonably expected accumulated storage that would already be available in the event of drought. The RWPG must adequately address this Level 1 comment in the final, adopted regional water plan, which might require making changes to your regional plan. It is preferable that RWPGs adopt a realistic plan that acknowledges the likelihood of unmet needs in a near-term drought, rather than to present a plan that overlooks reasonably foreseeable, near-term shortages due to the inclusion of unrealistic project timelines. If a ‘2020’ decade project cannot reasonably be expected to come online by January 2023, for example if a reservoir has not started the permitting process, it should be moved to the 2030 decade. Any potential supply gaps (unmet needs) created by moving out projects to the 2030 decade may be shown as simply ‘unmet’ in the 2020 decade or be shown as met by a ‘demand management’ strategy. Doing so will appropriately reflect the fact that some entities would likely face an actual shortage if a drought of record were to occur in the very near future despite projects (that may be included in the plan but associated with a later decade) that will eventually address those same potential shortages in future years. It is imperative that you provide the TWDB with information on how you intend to address this comment and all other comments well in advance of your adoption the regional water plan to ensure that the response is adequate for the Executive Administrator to recommend the plan to the TWDB Board for consideration in a timely and efficient manner. Your TWDB project manager will review and provide feedback to ensure all IPP comments and associated plan revisions have been addressed adequately. Failure to adequately address this comment (or any Level 1 comment) may result in the delay of the TWDB Board approval of your final regional water plan. As a reminder, the deadline to submit the final, adopted regional water plan and associated material to the TWDB is October 14, 2020. Any remaining data revisions to DB22 must be


communicated to Sabrina Anderson at [email protected] by September 14, 2020.

If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to discuss your approach to addressing any of these comments, please do not hesitate to contact William Alfaro at (512) 463-4741 or [email protected]. TWDB staff will be available to assist you in any way possible to ensure successful completion of your final regional water plan.

Sincerely,

Jessica Zuba Date: 6/15/2020 Deputy Executive Administrator Water Supply and Infrastructure

Attachment

c w/att.: Ms. Debby Morales, Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council Ms. Sara Eatman, Black & Veatch

mailto:[email protected]


Barry Mahler, Chairman David Basinger, Member

Marty H. Graham, Vice Chairman Tina Y. Buford, Member

Scott Buckles, Member Carl Ray Polk, Jr., Member

José O. Dodier, Jr., Member Rex Isom, Executive Director

TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD

Protecting and Enhancing Natural Resources for Tomorrow

1497 Country View Lane • Temple, TX 76504-8806

Phone: 254-773-2250 • Fax: 254-773-3311

http://www.tsswcb.texas.gov

June 18, 2020

Mr. Tomas Rodriguez

Region M Chair

Dear Mr. Rodriguez;

For the past 2 years the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) has been

participating in the Texas Water Development Board’s (TWDB) Regional Water Planning

meetings as directed by Senate Bill 1511, passed in the 2017 legislative session. We appreciate

being included in the process and offer these constructive comments to the regional water plans

and ultimately the State water plan.

As you may know 82% of Texas’ land area is privately-owned and are working lands, involved

in agricultural, timber, and wildlife operations. These lands are important as they provide

substantial economic, environmental, and recreational resources that benefit both the landowners

and public. They also provide ecosystem services that we all rely on for everyday necessities,

such as air and water quality, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat.

With that said, these working lands are where the vast majority of our rain falls and ultimately

supply the water for all of our needs, such as municipal, industrial, wildlife, and agricultural to

name a few. Texas’ private working lands are a valuable resource for all Texans.

Over the years, the private landowners of these working lands have been good stewards of their

property. In an indirect way they have been assisting the 16 TWDB’s Regional Water Planning

Groups in achieving their goals through voluntary incentive-based land conservation practices.

It has been proven over time if a raindrop is controlled where it hits the ground there can be a

benefit to both water quality and water quantity. Private landowners have been providing

benefits to our water resources by implementing Best Management Practices (BMP) that slow

water runoff and provide for soil stabilization, which also slows the sedimentation of our

reservoirs and allows for more water infiltration into our aquifers.

1497 Country View Lane • Temple, TX 76504-8806

Phone: 254-773-2250 • Fax: 254-773-3311

http://www.tsswcb.texas.gov

Some common BMPs include brush management, prescribed grazing, fencing, grade

stabilization, irrigation land leveling, terrace, contour farming, cover crop, residue and tillage

management, and riparian herbaceous cover.

The TSSWCB has been active with agricultural producers since 1939 as the lead agency for

planning, implementing, and managing coordinated natural resource conservation programs for

preventing and abating agricultural and sivicultural nonpoint sources of water pollution.

The TSSWCB also works to ensure that the State’s network of over 2,000 flood control dams are

protecting lives and property by providing operation, maintenance, and structural repair grants to

local government sponsors.

The TSSWCB successfully delivers technical and financial assistance to private landowners of

Texas through Texas’ 216 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) which are led by

1,080 locally elected district directors who are active in agriculture. Through the TSSWCB

Water Quality Management Plan Program (WQMP), farmers, ranchers, and silviculturalists

receive technical and financial assistance to voluntarily conserve and protect our natural

resources. Participants receive assistance with conservation practices, BMPs, that address water

quality, water quantity, and soil erosion while promoting the productivity of agricultural lands.

This efficient locally led conservation delivery system ensures that those most affected by

conservation programs can make decisions on how and what programs will be implemented

voluntarily on their private lands.

Over time, lands change ownership and many larger tracts are broken up into smaller parcels.

Most new landowners did not grow up on working lands and therefore may not have a

knowledge of land management techniques. The TSSWCB is writing new WQMPs for these

new landowners who are implementing BMPs on their land. Education and implementation of

proper land management and BMPs continues to be essential. Voluntary incentive-based

programs are essential to continue to address soil and water conservation in Texas.

These BMPs implemented for soil and water conservation provide benefits not only to the

landowner but ultimately to all Texans and our water supply.

Respectfully,

Barry Mahler Rex Isom

Chairman Executive Director

ITEM 7. A. 2.

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

REPORT

ProjectName IFRElementName IFRElementValue YearOfNeed

DELTA LAKE ID CONSERVATION PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $20,000.00 2023

DELTA LAKE ID CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $500,000.00 2024

DELTA LAKE ID CONSERVATION PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 5%

URBANIZATION - HARLINGEN PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $100,000/yr 2040

URBANIZATION - HARLINGEN CONSTRUCTION FUNDING N/A N/A

URBANIZATION - HARLINGEN PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

DESALINATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANTPLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $6,043,500.00 2048

DESALINATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANTCONSTRUCTION FUNDING $34,246,500.00 2050

DESALINATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANTPERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

LAGUNA MADRE POTABLE REUSE PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $1,570,000.00 2025

LAGUNA MADRE POTABLE REUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $12,043,000.00 2028

LAGUNA MADRE POTABLE REUSE PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

URBANIZATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $0.00 N/A

URBANIZATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $0.00 N/A

URBANIZATION - LAGUNA MADRE WATER DISTRICT PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE I PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $6,286,120.00 2035

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE I CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $17,620,400.00 2038

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE I PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE II PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $5,000,000.00 2055

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE II CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $20,000,000.00 2058

LAREDO ZACATE WWTP POTABLE REUSE - PHASE II PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

URBANIZATION - LAREDO PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $500,000.00

URBANIZATION - LAREDO CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $1,300,000.00

URBANIZATION - LAREDO PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

DESALINATION - LYFORD BRACKISH GROUNDWATER WELL AND DESALINATIONPLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $1,638,000.00 2022

DESALINATION - LYFORD BRACKISH GROUNDWATER WELL AND DESALINATIONCONSTRUCTION FUNDING $4,115,000.00 2023

DESALINATION - LYFORD BRACKISH GROUNDWATER WELL AND DESALINATIONPERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

URBANIZATION - OLMITO WSC PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $0.00 N/A

URBANIZATION - OLMITO WSC CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $0.00 N/A

URBANIZATION - OLMITO WSC PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

RIO HONDO NON-POTABLE REUSE PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING $380,000.00 2023

RIO HONDO NON-POTABLE REUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING $8,000,000.00 2025

RIO HONDO NON-POTABLE REUSE PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY 0%

URBANIZATION - SEBASTIAN MUD PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING N/A N/A

URBANIZATION - SEBASTIAN MUD CONSTRUCTION FUNDING N/A N/A

URBANIZATION - SEBASTIAN MUD PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY N/A

URBANIZATION - WEBB COUNTY PLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING N/A N/A

URBANIZATION - WEBB COUNTY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING N/A N/A

URBANIZATION - WEBB COUNTY PERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY N/A

WEBB COUNTY WATER UTILITY EXPAND EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLYPLANNING, DESIGN, PERMITTING & ACQUISITION FUNDING N/A N/A

WEBB COUNTY WATER UTILITY EXPAND EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLYCONSTRUCTION FUNDING N/A N/A

WEBB COUNTY WATER UTILITY EXPAND EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLYPERCENT STATE PARTICIPATION IN OWNING EXCESS CAPACITY N/A

ITEM 7. A. 3.

RECEIVED IMPLEMENTATION

SURVEY RESPONSES

WM

S o

r WM

S P

roje

ct Na

me

Da

tab

ase

On

line

De

cad

e

Re

late

d S

po

nso

r En

tity a

nd

/or B

en

efittin

g

WU

Gs

Ha

s Sp

on

sor ta

ke

n a

ffirma

tive

vo

te o

r

actio

ns?

* (T

WC

16

.05

3(h

)(10

))

If ye

s, in w

ha

t ye

ar d

id th

is occu

r?

If ye

s, by

wh

at d

ate

is the

actio

n o

n sch

ed

ule

for im

ple

me

nta

tion

?

At w

ha

t lev

el o

f imp

lem

en

tatio

n is th

e

pro

ject cu

rren

tly?

*

ERHWSC HARLINGEN

WW INTERCONNECT 2020

EAST RIO HONDO

WSC Yes

All phases fully

implemented

ERHWSC MUNICIPAL (UV

DISINFECTION FM 510

WTP) 2020

EAST RIO HONDO

WSC Yes

All phases fully

implemented

HARLINGEN ADVANCED

MUNICIPAL

CONSERVATION 2020 HARLINGEN Yes 2017 Ongoing

HIDALGO COUNTY ID NO.

1 CONSERVATION 2020

HIDALGO

COUNTY

IRRIGATION

DISTRICT #1 Yes 2015 3/31/2020

Under

construction

LAGUNA MADRE

POTABLE REUSE 2020

LAGUNA MADRE

WD Yes 2017 2019

Under

construction

MCALLEN ACQUISITION

OF WR FROM IDS 2040 MCALLEN Yes 2018 9/1/2019

All phases fully

implemented

RIO HONDO EMERGENCY

INTERCONNECTS 2020 RIO HONDO Yes 2014 2022

Acquisition and

design phase

UNITED ID OFF-CHANNEL

STORAGE 2020

UNITED

IRRIGATION

DISTRICT Yes 2016 5/30/2020

Under

construction

HARLINGEN WWTP 2

POTABLE REUSE 2040 HARLINGEN No

LAGUNA MADRE NEW

BGD PLANT 2020

LAGUNA MADRE

WD No

Not

implemented

LYFORD BGD 2020 LYFORD No

Not

implemented

WM

S o

r WM

S P

roje

ct Na

me

ERHWSC HARLINGEN

WW INTERCONNECT


DISINFECTION FM 510

WTP)

HARLINGEN ADVANCED

MUNICIPAL

CONSERVATION


1 CONSERVATION

LAGUNA MADRE

POTABLE REUSE

MCALLEN ACQUISITION

OF WR FROM IDS

RIO HONDO EMERGENCY

INTERCONNECTS


STORAGE

HARLINGEN WWTP 2

POTABLE REUSE

LAGUNA MADRE NEW

BGD PLANT

LYFORD BGD

If no

t imp

lem

en

ted

, wh

y?

* (W

he

n "If o

the

r,

ple

ase

de

scribe

" is sele

cted

, ple

ase

ad

d th

e

de

scriptiv

e te

xt to

tha

t field

)

Wh

at im

pe

dim

en

ts pre

sen

ted

to

imp

lem

en

tatio

n?

* (W

he

n "If o

the

r, ple

ase

de

scribe

" is sele

cted

, ple

ase

ad

d th

e

de

scriptiv

e te

xt to

tha

t field

)

Cu

rren

t wa

ter su

pp

ly p

roje

ct yie

ld (a

c-ft/yr)

Fu

nd

s ex

pe

nd

ed

to d

ate

($)

Pro

ject C

ost ($

)

Ye

ar th

e p

roje

ct is on

line

?*

112

11

941 2020

627 $ 10,685,000 $ 10,685,000

3000

$ 200,000

2000

Undetermined $ - Unknown

Financing

WM

S o

r WM

S P

roje

ct Na

me

ERHWSC HARLINGEN

WW INTERCONNECT


DISINFECTION FM 510

WTP)

HARLINGEN ADVANCED

MUNICIPAL

CONSERVATION


1 CONSERVATION

LAGUNA MADRE

POTABLE REUSE

MCALLEN ACQUISITION

OF WR FROM IDS

RIO HONDO EMERGENCY

INTERCONNECTS


STORAGE

HARLINGEN WWTP 2

POTABLE REUSE

LAGUNA MADRE NEW

BGD PLANT

LYFORD BGD

Is this a

ph

ase

d p

roje

ct?*

(Ph

ase

d) U

ltima

te v

olu

me

(ac-ft/y

r)

(Ph

ase

d) U

ltima

te p

roje

ct cost ($

)

Ye

ar p

roje

ct rea

che

s ma

xim

um

cap

acity

?*

Wh

at is th

e p

roje

ct fun

din

g so

urce

(s)?*

Fu

nd

ing

Me

cha

nism

if Oth

er?

No

No

Other Self-funded

No TWDB - SWIFT

Yes 892 $ 17,545,000 2040 Other

Tax Bonds, Revenute

Notes (SRF);

Reclamation Title XVI

Eligible

No TWDB - SWIFT

No TWDB - SWIFT

No Unknown Unknown Unknown

1480 $ 5,753,000 2030 Other Grant Funds

WM

S o

r WM

S P

roje

ct Na

me

ERHWSC HARLINGEN

WW INTERCONNECT


DISINFECTION FM 510

WTP)

HARLINGEN ADVANCED

MUNICIPAL

CONSERVATION


1 CONSERVATION

LAGUNA MADRE

POTABLE REUSE

MCALLEN ACQUISITION

OF WR FROM IDS

RIO HONDO EMERGENCY

INTERCONNECTS


STORAGE

HARLINGEN WWTP 2

POTABLE REUSE

LAGUNA MADRE NEW

BGD PLANT

LYFORD BGD

Inclu

de

d in

20

21

pla

n?

*

Do

es th

e p

roje

ct or W

MS

inv

olv

e re

allo

catio

n

of flo

od

con

trol?

*

Do

es th

e p

roje

ct or W

MS

pro

vid

e a

ny

me

asu

rab

le flo

od

risk re

du

ction

?*

Op

tion

al C

om

me

nts

No No No

No No No

Yes No No

No No

No No No

Advanced Water Treatment is unfunded; Online in

2030; Port Isabel WWTP Phase II Improvements

under design are Lift Station Upgrades to

accommodate Peak Flow; cost not included in

estimate

No No

No No

No

Potentially, but no

technical flood

analysis performed

Long-range project that won't be implemented for

20+ years

No No No

District has focused on higher priority projects;

Brackish Groundwater Desalination Plant is not part

of our current Capital Improvement Plan

Yes No No

ITEM 7. A. 4.

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

1 TWDB

As updated November 28, 2018

Recommended Guidance to Ensure Uniformity of Final Prioritization Submissions

The following guidance is being provided to regional water planning group (RWPG) stakeholders at the request of the Stakeholder Committee to assist RWPGs in achieving an acceptable degree of uniformity in the application of the uniform standards adopted by the stakeholder committee on November 28, 2018 and to be approved by TWDB at a future date. This guidance was developed based on: a generic interpretation of the language of the uniform standards; the limits of the information contained within the regional water plans; the time and resources available to the RWPGs; clarifications made to the uniform standards by the Stakeholder Committee on November 28, 2018; and with an acknowledgement of the flexible nature of the prioritization process moving forward. This guidance is strictly limited to recommending how the existing uniform standards should be applied within the confines of their existing scope as most recently adopted by the Stakeholder Committee. This guidance does not attempt to address any overall concerns about the uniform standards themselves or matters not currently taken into consideration by the uniform standards.

This guidance is subject to the Stakeholder Committee’s discretion. Coordinate with your Stakeholder Committee representative before applying these guidelines.

1. GENERAL - Grouping Projects for Scoring Guidance: (As indicated in previous guidance provided on October 9, 2013) Projects cannot be bundled if they are considered separate water management strategy projects (WMSPs) and are presented as such in the regional plans and will or can be implemented separately. For example, two groundwater well projects that would serve two different entities and are entirely separate physically shouldn’t be prioritized together. The reason for this is that each project could be built independently and there would not be a single borrower to implement those two projects. Moreover, with separate entities, the projects may receive different scoring under the criteria specified by House Bill (HB) 4 (83rd Leg. Session) due to entity-specific circumstances (e.g., decade of need, availability of water rights, cost-effectiveness, taking into consideration the expected unit cost). In instances when it is appropriate to bundle projects for scoring, please leave all the associated project line items in place (with their shared prioritization scores) and clearly note in the final submission where this occurred and which projects were related to each other.

2. GENERAL – Tie-breakers

Background: There are likely to be some ties in scoring projects at the regional level. Guidance: In order to ensure uniformity in applying the uniform standards across all 16 regions, RWPGs should not introduce new variability into the scoring of projects by developing regional tie-breaking criteria. Ties at the regional level may not remain after a state-level prioritization.

3. GENERAL – SWIFT funding category “flags”

Background: The Stakeholder Committee included flags in the Uniform Standards document to allow RWPGs to indicate potential funding categories. Guidance: These labels will not affect funding opportunities or priorities of projects requesting funding from TWDB. TWDB will determine what categories of funding each

RECOMMENDED GUIDANCE FOR APPLYING THE UNIFORM STANDARDS

2 TWDB

project will qualify for at the time that funding applications are submitted, regardless of these flags.

4. Uniform Standard 1A - What is the decade the RWP shows the project comes online?

Background: (The choices for response to standard 1A include only the planning decades 2020-2070.) Guidance: All the regional water plans present water supply information in the common form of the 2020-2070 planning decades. The online date of a project is the earliest planning decade presented in the published regional water plan in which there is a water supply volume shown, regardless of the date of water needs of any participants. A project that has zero supply shown for the 2020 decade, for example, could not be considered online in 2020 since there is not a supply volume in the 2020 decade. (Note that the online date of a project cannot be changed from what is in the regional water plan without a formal regional water plan amendment.)

5. Uniform Standard 1B - In what decade is initial funding needed?

Background: There were questions about how to determine the score if there was no response to the Infrastructure Financing Survey or other information in the published plan regarding a date that initial funding will be needed. Several standards (including 1B, 2B and 2C) include a footnote indicated by a double asterisk that states: “** indicates that additional data may have to be collected by RWPG in order to score projects.” Guidance: The footnote (**) suggests that not all the uniform standard scores would be based on water plan information obtained at a single, common point in time (e.g., from 2021). Data sources for this score should be limited as much as possible to the published plan and Infrastructure Financing Survey responses (survey data and forms provided by TWDB). In the absence of information directly related to the 2021 regional water plans, the RWPG should seek other published information and, in the absence of published information, the RWPG should apply a reasonable and consistent assumption for all project types. In any case, the decade that funding is needed should never be indicated later than the decade the project comes online in the plan.

6. Uniform Standards (2A-C):

2A - What supporting data is available to show that the quantity of water needed is available? 2B - If necessary, does the sponsor hold necessary legal rights, water rights and/or contracts to use the water that this project would require? 2C - What level of engineering and/or planning has been accomplished for this project? (Points based on progress on scientific data collection, stage of studies and design)

Background: There were questions about whether the scoring had to be based on conditions at the time of the plan (adoption) or current conditions. Several uniform standards (including 2B and 2C) include a footnote indicated by a double asterisk that states: “** indicates that additional data may have to be collected by RWPG in order to score projects.” Guidance: The addition of a new project through an amendment, for example, will likely require scoring the additional project based on currently available information. Therefore, we recommend currently available information whenever possible. Because the regional project prioritizations are not considered part of the regional water plans, they may be updated by the RWPGs in the future (e.g., if the uniform standards are modified). The effort and frequency with which RWPGs acquire updated information and update their regional water plan prioritizations is for each RWPG to determine. Any such updates to regional

3 TWDB

water plan prioritizations would be subject to RWPG approval. Uniform standard 2A specifically was clarified by the Stakeholder Committee on November 28, 2018 to include project specific studies as a measure for sufficient quantities of water in the score of five points awarded. This clarification was to address concern that surface water projects could only be modeled and were thus limited to a maximum score of three points.

7. Uniform Standard 2D - Has the project sponsor requested that the project be included

in the Regional Water Plan? Guidance: Clarification was provided that project sponsors providing written requests during any cycle of regional water plan would be scored as “yes”.

8. Uniform Standards (3A and B):

3A - In the decade the project supply comes online, what is the % of the WUG's (or WUGs') needs satisfied by this project? 3B - In the final decade of the planning period, what is the % of the WUG's (or WUGs') needs satisfied by this project?

Background: The basis for obtaining points in these standards is meeting a percentage of identified water needs in the plans. Guidance:

• If the entities served by a strategy in the plan have no needs in a decade of interest, that strategy would not be meeting any water needs and should therefore score zero points.

• County-wide water user groups are considered a single water user group for the purpose of applying this standard.

• RWPGs will need to perform an additional assessment to estimate the volume of supply from recommended projects. This may include but is not limited to reviewing the water management strategy volumes related to the project (data provided by TWDB).

9. Uniform Standard 3C - Is this project the only economically feasible source of new supply

for the WUG, other than conservation? Guidance:

• Since this particular uniform standard developed by the stakeholder committee does not directly consider conservation for scoring under this criteria, conservation would always score zero points based on the language.

• For projects that are the only economically feasible strategy other than conservation for at least one of the WUGs served by the project (in the case of a project sponsored by a wholesale water supplier and that serves multiple WUGs) it should score five points.

10. Uniform Standard 3D - Does the project serve multiple WUGs?

Guidance: • A wholesale water provider project will only score 5 points if the water plan data

indicates that multiple water user groups rely on the project. • County-wide water user groups are considered a single water user group for the

purpose of applying this standard. • Water user groups split by river basin and/or regional water planning area are

considered a single water user for the purpose of applying this standard.

4 TWDB

11. Uniform Standard 4B - Does the volume of water supplied by the project change over the

regional water planning period? Guidance: Standard applies only to the associated “regional water planning period” (i.e., 2020 to 2070)

12. 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) Background: There were questions about a) whether strategies with zero unit costs should be included in the calculation, and b) which decade should be used as the basis for the calculation when determining the cost of the project relative to the median unit cost of all the recommended strategies. Guidance:

• TWDB’s Regional Water Planning rules have been revised since the development of the Uniform Standards such that projects are required to have a non-zero capital cost. Therefore, there should not be any projects with zero unit costs.

• The unit cost should be calculated using the first decade online unit cost of the project of interest relative to the median of the first decade online unit costs of all recommended strategies.

≈

2021 RWP Prioritization Notes, Assumptions, and Comments

Sources used: 2021 Regional Water Plan, Uniform Standards All assumptions are used where specific information regarding the project is not available.

SWIFT funding category “flags”

TWDB has noted that these labels will not request funding opportunities or priorities of projects; will be

determined by TWDB for each project when an application is submitted.

Rural/Agricultural Projects

• Assume all Irrigation WUGs, County-other WUGs, Irrigation Districts

• Added all WSCs: East Rio Hondo, El Jardin WSC, NAWSC, Olmito WSC, Rio WSC, Sharyland WSC, Military Highway WSC, Union WSC, Webb County Water Utility, and Zapata County Waterworks, as they serve primarily rural connections.

Reuse/conservation Projects

• Irrigation District conservation

• Advanced municipal conservation

• Direct potable and non-potable reuse Criteria 1A & 1B

A. What is the decade the RWP shows the project comes online? B. In what decade is initial funding needed?

• 1A is based on the first decade of supply indicated for the WMS in DB22

• 1B has been based on the decade funding is required, indicated in the published plan, IFR data (tab in the spreadsheet), or other published information. When no specific information is available, the decade of implementation is assumed to be the decade that funding is required.

Criteria 2A

What supporting data is available to show that the quantity of water needed is available? 0 Models suggest insufficient quantities of water or no modeling has been performed

3 Models suggest sufficient quantity of water

5 Field tests, measurements, or project specific studies confirm sufficient quantities of water

• Advanced municipal conservation includes toilet, showerhead, and aerator retrofits, clothes washer rebates, irrigation water audits, rainwater harvesting and rain barrels, and commercial general rebate. These are measureable, known means toward water conservation, so the water is said to be available. (5)

• Conversion of water through urbanization is based on the Water Availability Model Firm Yield coupled with historical rates of urbanization, so the water is known to be available. (5)

• ID conservation is based on measurements of current losses. (5)

• New groundwater wells (fresh or brackish desalination) are assumed to only have modeling done (3), unless it is known that test/monitoring wells have been drilled.

• Expansion of groundwater wells assumes that monitor well data is available. (5)

• Direct reuse (both potable and non-potable) WMS have been developed with field data supporting drought year firm yield (5)

• All weirs and reservoir yields are based on WAM modeling, firm yield of water rights and project-specific studies (5)

• Sufficient quantities of water for Seawater desalination are available (5)

• For Resaca restoration, it is assumed there is a sufficient quantity of water (5)

• Distribution and transmission projects that provide either measured loss reduction or supplies to new end users are assumed to be field tested (5)

• New/Expanded surface water treatment plant yields are based on either existing supplies (limited by treatment capacity) or include purchase of converted water rights (5)

• Rio Grande City meter replacement yield is based on measured water savings (5) Criteria 2B

If necessary, does the sponsor hold necessary legal rights, water rights and/or contracts to use the water that this project would require?

0 legal rights, water rights and/or contract application not submitted 2 application submitted 3 application is administratively complete 5 legal rights, water rights and/or contracts obtained or not needed

• Water rights and/or contracts not needed for Advanced Municipal Conservation (5)

• Water rights and/or contracts not needed for ID Conservation (5)

• Conversion of water right through urbanization may be available; all entities with this WMS implemented in 2020 are assumed to have initiated an application (2). All others are assumed not to have submitted an application (0) unless the conversion is for agricultural rights already held by the entity (5)

• New or Expansion of groundwater wells and brackish desalination were given 5 because no GCDs are actively managing the area (5)

• No water rights are needed for seawater desalination (5)

• Banco Morales water rights are considered as “have been applied for” but have not been approved yet by Mexico (3)

• No water rights are required for Brownsville resaca restoration (5)

• Direct Potable and Non-Potable Reuse are assumed to already have water rights obtained or are not needed (5)

• Donna reservoir and pump station is assumed to have applied for storage permit (2)

• Expansion of surface WTP are assumed to require water rights, and have been applied for in 2020 and not applied for in future decades (0) unless known otherwise.

• Transmission and distribution projects (interconnects, pipelines) are assumed to not require water rights (5)

• Meter replacement requires no water rights (5) Criteria 2C

What level of engineering and/or planning has been accomplished for this project? (Points based on progress on scientific data collection, stage of studies and design)

1 Project idea is outlined in Regional Plan. 6 Preliminary engineering report initiated.

2 Feasibility studies initiated. 7 Preliminary engineering report completed.

3 Feasibility studies completed. 8 Preliminary design initiated.

4 Conceptual design initiated. 9 Preliminary design completed.

5 Conceptual design completed. 10 Final design complete.

• Brownsville Resaca restoration is under way (10 pts)

• Seawater Desalination – Feasibility studies initiated (2)

• Advanced municipal conservation assumed to be only outlined in the regional plan (1) unless specific studies were submitted (e.g. La Feria rainwater harvesting, meter replacement for Rio Grande City (5))

• Assuming the preliminary engineering report is completed (7) for all of the distribution and transmission, storage, surface water treatment projects, groundwater wells and treatment that were submitted with sufficient detail to be included.

• Preliminary engineering report completed for all non-potable reuse projects submitted (7)

• Conceptual design completed for all submitted potable reuse projects (5)

• Irrigation Districts that submitted conservation projects were considered preliminary design complete (9):

o Brownsville ID o CCID 2 o Delta Lake ID o Donna ID o Engleman ID o Harlingen ID o HCCID 9 o HCID 1 o HCID 16 o HCID 2 o HCID 5 o Hidalgo WID 3 o Santa Cruz ID o United ID

• Non-submitting IDs were assigned (2) for feasibility studies initiated

• Acquisition of water rights (urbanization), because it requires no engineering, is given (8) for conceptual design complete

• Brackish Groundwater Desalination submitted (5) conceptual design completed, BGD developed by RWPG (1)

• Expand existing ground water wells – assume feasibility studies initiated (2), (preliminary costs in RWP)

• Assuming the PER for the Banco Morales reservoir is completed (7)

• Donna reservoir has initiated preliminary engineering reports (6)

• Supply and infrastructure WMS developed by the RWPG were considered as outlined in the regional plan (1)

Criteria 2D Has the project sponsor requested in writing that the project be included in the Regional Water Plan? [No = 0 points; yes = 5]

• Yes – Examples: email, letters, published statements (5)

• No – Examples: No correspondence, submitted/developed by RWPG (0) o Typical for Conversion of Water Rights (urbanization), unless directly stated

Criteria 3A & 3B

In the decade the project supply comes online/final decade of planning, 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.]

• Entities with 0 needs when project is implemented receive 0% for 3A & 3B

• 3A and 3B are calculated using the volume of the WMS related to the project (when the project is a component of a WMS)

Criteria 3C

Is this project the only economically feasible source of new supply for the WUG, other than conservation?

0 no

5 yes

• Entities with only conservation strategies are given (0) points. Criteria 3D

Does the project serve multiple WUGs? • All projects serving multiple WUGs are given 5 pts

Criteria 4A

Over what period of time is this project expected to provide water (regardless of the planning period)?

5 less than or equal to 20 years

10 greater than 20 years

• Decades of supply are shown for each project, used to calculate the duration of supply

Criteria 4B

Does the volume of water supplied by the project change over the regional water planning period?

0 decreases 3 no change 5 increases

• If the water supply for a project increase and decreases, use the overall trend from decade of implementation to last decade of supply (or last decade of planning horizon)

Criteria 5

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)

0 200% or greater than median

1 150% to 199% of median


3 100% of median



• Project unit costs and median unit cost are based on complete unit costs (debt service on

capital, O&M) at the decade of implementation for each strategy.

WMS Name

Ed

cou

ch N

ew

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

pp

ly

Ed

inb

urg

No

n-p

ota

ble

Re

use

HC

ID#

1 ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

De

lta La

ke ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

Rio

Gra

nd

e C

ity Wa

ter

Me

ter R

ep

lace

me

nt

We

slaco

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

De

velo

pm

en

t an

d B

len

din

g

Bro

wn

sville B

an

co M

ora

les

Re

servo

ir

Sh

aryla

nd

WS

C W

ell a

nd

RO

Un

it at W

TP

#2

Lag

un

a M

ad

re W

ate

r

District - A

cqu

isition

of

Wa

ter R

igh

ts

Lyford

Bra

ckish

Gro

un

dw

ate

r We

ll an

d

De

salin

atio

n

Capital Cost

$6

,93

1,0

00

$1

7,1

77

,00

0

$2

6,4

18

,95

6

$5

5,8

08

,97

8

$3

,94

5,0

00

$1

,24

0,0

00

$1

0,2

50

,00

0

$1

9,8

05

,00

0

$1

,11

9,0

00

$5

,75

3,0

00

Rural/Agricultural Conservation? X XMAX

SCORE Conservation/Reuse? X X X X

10

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] 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2

10

Uniform Standard 1B - In what decade is initial funding

needed? [2070 = 0 points; 2060 = 2; 2050 = 4; 2040 = 6;

2030 = 8; 2020 = 10] 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2

20 Criteria 1 Total Score 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 4

400 Weighted Criteria 1 Total 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 80

Crite

ria 1

- De

cad

e o

f

Ne

ed

for P

roje

ctF

LAG

S

WMS Name

Ed

cou

ch N

ew

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

pp

ly

Ed

inb

urg

No

n-p

ota

ble

Re

use

HC

ID#

1 ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

De

lta La

ke ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

Rio

Gra

nd

e C

ity Wa

ter

Me

ter R

ep

lace

me

nt

We

slaco

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

De

velo

pm

en

t an

d B

len

din

g

Bro

wn

sville B

an

co M

ora

les

Re

servo

ir

Sh

aryla

nd

WS

C W

ell a

nd

RO

Un

it at W

TP

#2

Lag

un

a M

ad

re W

ate

r

District - A

cqu

isition

of

Wa

ter R

igh

ts

Lyford

Bra

ckish

Gro

un

dw

ate

r We

ll an

d

De

salin

atio

n

5

Uniform Standard 2A - What supporting data is available to

show that the quantity of 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 of water = 5] 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

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 obtained or not needed = 5] 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 2 5

10

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] 7 7 9 7 5 7 7 5 8 5

5

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] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5



Crite

ria 2

- Pro

ject F

ea

sibility

WMS Name

Ed

cou

ch N

ew

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

pp

ly

Ed

inb

urg

No

n-p

ota

ble

Re

use

HC

ID#

1 ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

De

lta La

ke ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

Rio

Gra

nd

e C

ity Wa

ter

Me

ter R

ep

lace

me

nt

We

slaco

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

De

velo

pm

en

t an

d B

len

din

g

Bro

wn

sville B

an

co M

ora

les

Re

servo

ir

Sh

aryla

nd

WS

C W

ell a

nd

RO

Un

it at W

TP

#2

Lag

un

a M

ad

re W

ate

r

District - A

cqu

isition

of

Wa

ter R

igh

ts

Lyford

Bra

ckish

Gro

un

dw

ate

r We

ll an

d

De

salin

atio

n

100

Uniform Standard 3A - In the decade the project supply

comes online, 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.] 100 45 1 1 21 37 0 100 13 0

10 Converted Needs-based score for Uniform Standard 3A 10 5 0 0 2 4 0 10 1 0

100

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.] 100 16 2 4 8 5 14 6 9 0

10 Converted Needs-based score for Uniform Standard 3B 10 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

5

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] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5Uniform Standard 3D - Does this project serve multiple

WUGs? [No = 0 points; Yes = 5] 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0



10

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] 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5

5

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] 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3



Crite

ria 3

- Pro

ject V

iab

ilityC

riteria

4 - P

roje

ct

Su

stain

ab

ility

WMS Name

Ed

cou

ch N

ew

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

pp

ly

Ed

inb

urg

No

n-p

ota

ble

Re

use

HC

ID#

1 ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

De

lta La

ke ID

Co

nse

rvatio

n

Rio

Gra

nd

e C

ity Wa

ter

Me

ter R

ep

lace

me

nt

We

slaco

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

De

velo

pm

en

t an

d B

len

din

g

Bro

wn

sville B

an

co M

ora

les

Re

servo

ir

Sh

aryla

nd

WS

C W

ell a

nd

RO

Un

it at W

TP

#2

Lag

un

a M

ad

re W

ate

r

District - A

cqu

isition

of

Wa

ter R

igh

ts

Lyford

Bra

ckish

Gro

un

dw

ate

r We

ll an

d

De

salin

atio

n

5

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] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 4


1000 FINAL SCORE FOR PROJECT 877 811 789 783 776 745 742 710 669 312

Crite

ria 5

- Pro

ject C

ost

Effe

ctive

ne

ss

ITEM 7. A. 5.

CONSIDER ADDITION OF

NON-MAG GULF COAST

AQUIFER, CAMERON &

WILLACY COUNTIES

GMA 16-Region M Updated Memo- 20200508.docm 1

D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .

Memorandum

To: Sara Eatman

From: Andrew Donnelly

Date: May 11, 2020

Subject: Modeled available groundwater in GMA 16

We have reviewed GAM Run reports from the first and second rounds of joint groundwater planning

and the output files from the GAM run that was used to generate the modeled available groundwater

(MAGs) currently being used for regional water planning.

The original MAGs for GMA 16 from the first round of joint groundwater planning for Cameron and

Willacy Counties from GAM Run 10‐047 (Hassan, 2011) are shown in Table 1. The current MAGs for

GMA 16 for Cameron and Willacy Counties taken from GAM Run 17‐025 (Goswami, 2017) are shown in

Table 2. As noted in the GAM Run 17‐025 report (Goswami, 2017, p. 7), “Drawdown averages and

modeled available groundwater values are based on official aquifer boundaries”. However, the official

aquifer boundary does not appear to have been taken into consideration in the calculation of the MAGs

for the previous (first) round of joint groundwater planning. The result of this difference in approaches

is a significant decrease in the MAGs for Cameron and Willacy Counties for round two of planning (Table

2) relative to those determined during the first round of joint groundwater planning (Table 1). The

discrepancy occurs because groundwater pumping is included in the GAM across the entire county, but

only that portion of pumping that falls within the official aquifer boundary is included in the current

MAG, whereas in the prior round of planning all pumping in the county was included.

The water budget from the model simulation output for the run used to calculate the current MAGs was

provided by the TWDB. We evaluated these files to determine the pumpage included in Cameron and

Willacy Counties. The TWDB conducted an independent analysis of the output file after receiving our

original request and determined slightly different pumpage in the GAM run output files. To facilitate the

approval of this request, we are using the TWDB pumpage calculations in this updated report.

Because the official footprint of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System does not cover all of Cameron or Willacy

Counties, all of the pumpage included in the first round GAM run was not included in the official MAG in

the second round of joint groundwater planning, because the MAGs are only for the pumpage within

the official aquifer extent as recognized by the TWDB. The total pumpage included in the GAM run is

shown in Table 3 and the pumpage included in the GAM run but which is outside of the official aquifer

extent (and therefore not included in the MAG) is shown in Table 4.



Table 1. First round modeled available groundwater totals for Cameron and Willacy Counties in acre‐

feet/year.

County River Basin 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Cameron Nueces‐Rio Grande 48,576 48,576 48,576 48,576 48,576

Cameron Rio Grande 1,984 1,984 1,984 1,984 1,984

Willacy Nueces‐Rio Grande 20,013 20,013 20,013 20,013 20,013

Table 2. Second round (current) modeled available groundwater totals for Cameron and Willacy

Counties in acre‐feet/year.



Cameron Rio Grande 387 463 540 615 691


Table 3. Pumpage included in the final MAG simulation in Cameron and Willacy Counties in acre‐

feet/year based on TWDB analysis.



Cameron Rio Grande 1,033 1,235 1,439 1,641 1,842


Table 4. Pumpage included in the final MAG simulation in Cameron and Willacy Counties outside of

the official Gulf Coast Aquifer System boundary in acre‐feet/year based on TWDB analysis.



Cameron Rio Grande 646 772 899 1,026 1,151




We suggest that Region M request that a new supply of groundwater be created for the Gulf Coast

Aquifer System in Cameron and Willacy Counties for the portion of the aquifer that lies outside of the

official aquifer boundary. The amount of this new supply would be the pumpage shown in Table 4.

It is important to note that the creation of a new source of groundwater will not impact the desired

future conditions (DFCs). As noted above, the pumpage in Table 4 was included in the model simulation

that the DFCs and MAGs are based on, and therefore the existing DFCs are based on the full amount of

pumping in the GAM run produced from the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, both within and outside the

official aquifer extent.

References

Goswami, R. R., 2017, GAM Run 17‐025 MAG: Modeled Available Groundwater for the Gulf Coast

Aquifer System in Groundwater Management Area 16; Texas Water Development Board

Groundwater Availability Modeling Section report; May 19, 2017; 17p.

Hassan, M. M., 2011, GAM Run 10‐047 MAG: Groundwater Management Area 16 Model Runs to

Estimate Drawdowns Under Assumed Future Pumpage for the Texas Gulf Coast Aquifer; Texas

Water Development Board Groundwater Availability Modeling Section report; December 8,

2011; 14p.

ITEM 7. B.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Budget Item Budget Amount

Revenues to date

FY '20 Total Expense

AvailableBalance

Salaries: (to include fringe &

indirect)$17,100.00 $5,358.34 $11,741.66

Website Maintenance $1,000.00 $75.00 $925.00Travel $500.00 $0.00 $500.00

Consumable Supplies $200.00 $0.00 $200.00Printing $500.00 $9.51 $490.49

Communications Phone /Internet $500.00 $225.00 $275.00

Postage $100.00 $11.41 $88.59Sponsorships/other $2,650.00 $0.00 $2,650.00

Local Match $129,173.12Interest Income $303.51

Budget Total 22,550.00$ $5,679.26 $16,870.74Actual Cash Available $129,476.63 $123,797.37

**Balance Of Funds in Acct. $123,797.37

Local Match Requested in 2015

Period 1/1/2020 to 5/31/2020Region M 2020 Budget & Expenditure Report

ITEM 7. F.

WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY

PLANS RECEIVED

Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plans Received Since January 2010, the following plans have been received:

The highlighted entities have not sent an updated Plan

San Ygnacio MUD Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (7/29/2010) Bruni Rural Water Supply Corporation Drought Contingency & Emergency Water Demand Management

Plans (1/24/2011 Jim Hogg County W.C. & I.D. No. 2 Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan (3/31/2011) City of San Juan Water Conservation Plan (8/17/2011) Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd Water Conservation Plan (10/25/2011) Union Water Supply Corporation Drought Contingency Plan (11/29/2011) Brush Country Groundwater Conservation District Draft Groundwater Management Plan (6/27/2011) Zapata County Waterworks Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (5/28/2013) City of Roma Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (6/17/2014) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #16 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (7/15/2014) Zapata County Water Works Conservation Plan (Updated) (7/13/2014) Hidalgo County Drainage Dist. #1 Regional Water Management Program Water Conservation & Drought

Contingency Plans (8/25/2014) City of Raymondville Updated Water Conservation Plan and Updated Drought Contingency Plan

(8/28/2014) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #2 Water Allocation Rules and Regulations (8/28/2014) Delta Lake ID Water Conservation & Drought Policies (9/19/2014) City of Harlingen Waterworks System Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (6/15/2015) United Irrigation District Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (8/31/2015) Cameron County Irrigation District #6 Drought Contingency Plan (3/14/2016) Kenedy County - GCD Management Plan (5/9/2017) Eagle Pass Water Works System - Drought Contingency & Water Conservation Plans (9/15/2017) McAllen Public Utilities– Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan (6/4/2018) Olmito Water Supply Corporation - Water Conservation Plan & Drought Contingency Plan (3/11/2019) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #2 - Water Conservation Plans for Irrigation, and for Municipal & Industrial

(4/18/2019) City of Pharr – Public Utilities Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plans (4/22/2019) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #13 - Drought Contingency Plan (4/22/2019) Brownsville Public Utility Board – Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/24/2019) Southmost Regional Water Authority – Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/24/2019) Cameron County Irrigation District #2 – Water Conservation Plan & Drought Contingency Plan (4/24/2019) Agua SUD – Water Conservation Plan & Drought Contingency Plan (4/25/2019) Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District #1 – Water Conservation Policy, Drought

Contingency and Water Allocation Policy, and Drought Contingency Plan for Wholesale Water Suppliers (4/29/2019)

Hidalgo County Irrigation District #6 – Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/30/2019) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #5 – Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/30/2019) Hidalgo County Water Improvement District #3 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan

(5/20/2019) La Feria Irrigation District Cameron County #3 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (5/20/2019) East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation – Water Conservation and Emergency Water Demand

Management Plan (6/25/2019) Sharyland WSC – Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan (7/16/2019) Maverick County Water Control & Improvement Dist #1 – Mining Water Conservation Policy (7/16/2019) City of Hidalgo Water Conservation Plan (8/5/2019) City of Laredo – Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plans (8/9/2019)

North Alamo Water Supply Corporation – Water Conservation Plan and Drought Contingency Plan & Water Rationing Plan (9/18/2019)

City of Mission Public Works – Updated Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan (9/30/2019) City of Los Fresnos – Water Conservation Plan (11/7/2019) City of Rio Grande City – Drought Contingency and Water Conservation Plans (12/3/2019)

ITEM 7. G.

NOTICES OF

APPLICATIONS FOR

FUNDING AND GRANTS

Report on Notices of Applications for Funding & Grants Received City of Laredo – TWDB grant for Regional Water and Wastewaters Facility Planning (2/14/2014)

City of La Joya – Treatment Plant Expansion (2/20/2014)

City of Edinburg – West Water Treatment Plan Expansion (2/24/2014)

Port Mansfield Public Utility District – Elevated Storage Tank Rehab (7/7/2014)

Port Mansfield Public Utilities District – Ground Water Storage System Replacement (9/18/2014)

Aqua Special Utility District – Eastern Wastewater System Project (2/12/2016)

City of Los Fresnos – Water Treatment and Distribution System Improvements Project (3/1/2016)

Sol y Mar Water System, City of San Juan – Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Project No. 62629 WaterSystem Improvements (3/14/2016)

POWER Engineers, Inc. – Proposed Rio Grande LNG Interconnection Project Cameron County, TX (4/4/2016)

City of McAllen (CWSRF Project No. 73731) – North McAllen WWTP Reuse Project (5/9/2016)

Cameron County Drainage District #5 – Flood Early Warning, Flood Response Implementation, and FloodProtection Planning for CCDD#5 (6/20/2016)

Laguna Madre Water District (CWSRF Project No. 73730) – Port Isabel WWTP Phase I Improvements(7/5/2016)

City of La Joya Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade EID (2/4/ 2018)

City of San Juan (CWSRF Project No. 73796) – Belt Filter Press Installation Project – EnvironmentalDetermination by TWDB (2/7/2018)

City of Alamo – TWDB/CWSRF Wastewater Treatment Plant Project #73738 (3/5/2018)

City of San Juan – CWSRF Program $1,270,000 (5/3/2018)

North Alamo WSC – EDAP Program $8,821,350 (12/13/2018)

North Alamo WSC – CWSRF Program $4,495,000 (12/13/2018)

City of San Juan – CWSRF Program $9,250,000 (2/4/2019)

City of San Juan – Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion $2,658,000 (2/4/2019)

City of San Juan – Wastewater Treatment Plan Repair/Replace Equipment $10,477,000 (2/4/2019)

Cameron County ID #6 - for water system improvements $865,000 (9/15/2019)

City of Brownsville – Flood Mitigation and Preservation Projects $7,000,000 (12/19/2019)

City of Laredo – Manadas Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant $52,000,000 (12/19/2019)

City of Alton – Flood Prevention $8,500,000 (2/27/2020)

North Alamo WSC –Energy Efficient Desalination Technologies $17,542, 246 (3/12/2020)

City of Rio Grande City – Increase Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity $7,495,615 (5/21/2020)

Responsible Authority Project Number

Total Funding Amount

Last Commitment Date

Regional Planning

Group

Project Status Project Description

Alton 73864 $8,500,000 02/27/2020 M Active Project Description: The proposed project is aimed at relieving the frequent flooding of several neighborhoods and consists of planning, acquisition, design and construction of a 6,600 linear feet of 8-foot by 4-foot reinforced-concrete box for the conveyance of stormwater through the project area; a new detention pond and a reinforced concrete outfall at Josefa Garcia Park; retrofit of an existing 4-acre retention pond into a wetland/bioretention pond to better manage runoff from high frequency storm events and provide settlement of pollutants prior to discharge; and approximately 1,500 linear feet of bioswales and storm drain trunk lines.

Brownsville 73848 $7,000,000 12/19/2019 M Active Description: The City proposes to implement several mitigation and preservation type projects. The project components include the construction of a Park/Detention pond system (Waterplein Park); reconstruction of a stormwater pump station; several culvert improvements, including addition of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system; and improvements to several flood control infrastructure in the West Brownsville area. These projects are intended to mitigate flooding and drainage risks in the area.

Cameron Co ID # 6 21782 $865,000 09/05/2019 M Active Project Description: The project consists of improving an existing concrete, open-channel flume structure on the District's main canal with a new double 54-inch diameter PVC pipeline encased in two 72-inch diameter steel casings. The District estimates that the proposed project will increase capacity from 90 to 150 cu ft/sec, which is sufficient to meet the District’s full water demands.

Laredo 73836 $52,000,000 12/19/2019 M Active Description: The City is requesting construction funding to build the proposed 4.75 MGD Manadas Creek WWTP.

North Alamo WSC 62858 $17,542,246 03/12/2020 M Active Description: The feasibility study recommended energy efficient desalination technologies that will substantially reduce the energy requirements to produce fresh water. The request by the Corporation includes funding for a pilot study to verify the projected performance of the proposed treatment technology and to collect data to inform the design and permitting of production facilities, as well as for the design and construction of three new groundwater wells and associated transmission facilities, installation of one new nanofiltration (NF) treatment train and retrofitting seven existing Reverse Osmosis trains to NF membranes.

Rio Grande City 73874 $7,495,615 05/21/2020 M Active Project Description: The project consists of doubling the City’s wastewater treatment plant capacity from 1.5 to 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and rehabilitating aging and deteriorated equipment to meet future population demands and to replace noncompliant equipment.

Project Funding Information Region M

Report 13323V3_06302016 Page: 1 of 2 Report Run: Jun 22, 2020 9:12 AM

Project Funding Information Region MSan Juan 73637 $2,658,000 02/04/2019 M Active Project Description: The design of the project, which was previously

funded, includes expansion, upgrading, replacing, and decommissioning of several lift stations as well as new force mains to convey the flows in the northern part of the City directly to the City’s wastewater treatment plant, bypassing the City’s existing central system. The project will be built in two phases. The current first phase will replace lift station no. 13 in its existing location to provide increased capacity and install approximately 5,300 linear feet of 8-inch force main for lift station no. 13 to discharge at lift station no. 17.

San Juan 73796 $10,477,000 02/04/2019 M Active Description: The project will repair and replace aged or nonfunctional equipment throughout the WWTP, including headworks, mechanical screen and grit chamber, aeration basins, gravity thickener, clarifiers, reuse water system, disinfection system, electrical controls, and metering equipment. The project will also include construction of a new office/control and laboratory building, installation of a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, and overall site improvements.

Report 13323V3_06302016 Page: 2 of 2 Report Run: Jun 22, 2020 9:12 AM

ITEM 8. A.

TWDB FLOOD

PLANNING REGION

Solicitation for Political Subdivisions to Support Regional Flood Planning Groups

The Executive Administrator of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is compiling a list of political subdivisions that are interested in supporting regional flood planning groups (RFPGs) by:

• Serving as the designated planning group sponsor,and/or• Providing free public meeting space for the RFPG, and attending public, to use

regularly

Each regional flood planning group is responsible for designating a sponsor to apply for funding and to otherwise support the planning process. To assist the RFPGs in initiating their planning efforts, the TWDB will prepare a list of interested entities and provide that list to the RFPGs at their first meeting. The planning groups will not be limited to choosing a planning group sponsor from the list provided by TWDB. Initially, there will be 19 planning group members, in each of the 15 regions, consisting of 12 voting members and 7 non-voting state agency participants. Each five-year planning cycle, a RFPG must designate a political subdivision to act as the planning group sponsor to apply for and receive financial assistance from the TWDB to develop or revise a regional flood plan pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 361 and 362.

Acting as a planning group sponsor does not mean that the political subdivision will also have an associated voting or non-voting position on the RFPG, nor does it preclude them from having a representative as a member of the RFPG.

A planning group sponsor must be a political subdivision, defined as a county, city, or other body politic or corporate of the state, including any district or authority created under Art. 3 § 52 or Art. 16 § 59 of the constitution and including any interstate compact commission to which the state is a party and any nonprofit water supply corporation created and operating under Ch. 67.

The map showing the boundaries for the 15 flood planning regions for which the Executive Administrator is soliciting support for the RFPGs is shown in Attachment 1.

The designated planning group sponsor will be responsible for • preparing and submitting grant funding applications to the TWDB on behalf of the

RFPG to develop or revise a regional flood plan;• entering into and managing a contract with the TWDB for the management of the

grant funds;• procuring and managing a contract with a technical consultant(s) selected by the

RFPG to support the development of a regional flood plan;• serving as the RFPG’s administrative agent by organizing RFPG meetings, public

notices, agendas, meeting presentations, handouts, and meeting minutes; and• delivering the first regional flood plan no later than January 10, 2023.

For more information regarding content requirements of regional flood plans, please see the final administrative rules for state and regional flood planning. The RFPG shall ensure that the planning group sponsor it selects has the legal authority to procure professional services and enter into the contracts necessary for regional flood planning. The RFPG may, at its own discretion, choose a different planning group sponsor at any time. Certain administrative costs, such as travel, public notice, and personnel costs for staff hours directly spent supporting the RFPG, will be eligible for reimbursement through the TWDB grant contract, subject to some limitations. Additional information regarding Regional Flood Planning Grants, including Board consideration and approval of applications and acceptable use of funds, can be found in 31 TAC Chapter 361, Subchapter F. For questions regarding this solicitation, please email [email protected] or call James Bronikowski at (512) 475-0145.

In order to expedite the TWDB’s review process and ensure flood planning groups

can begin work as soon as possible, please use our online form and SUBMIT INTEREST FORM HERE.

If you are unable to fill out the online form, you may email the pdf version of the

interest form and optional attachments to [email protected] or mail to 1700 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13231, Austin, Texas 78711-3231.

The deadline for submitting nominees to the TWDB is July 2, 2020.

Disclaimer: Any information submitted is subject to the Public Information Act.

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/board/2020/05/Board/Brd04.pdf


https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=jE7QevWSIEuB1hD9iDJYmTfCXr6Cfg5GvL09Rv8oreZUNFAzN0JPR01SVUdSN0QyTjlaRUZGQ001Ui4u

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/flood/planning/doc/RFPG_polsub_solicitation_form.pdf


Attachment 1: Flood Planning Region Boundaries

Solicitation for nominations of individuals to serve as initial Regional Flood Planning Group (RFPG) members

The TWDB’s Executive Administrator is seeking nominations for individuals to serve as regional flood planning group (RFPG) members within 15 designated flood planning regions (see Attachment 1). The Executive Administrator will then recommend up to 180 individuals to the Board for consideration to be the initial planning group members. The flood planning groups will be responsible for developing Texas’ first regional flood plans by January 2023.

Nominations for membership are due to the TWDB no later than July 2, 2020.

The ideal candidate will have experience in and a continued strong interest in working cooperatively on public issues; be committed to and possess expertise in flood risk-related issues; be strongly affiliated with and endorsed by the interest category for which they are nominated, and be capable of playing a leadership role in a regional flood planning group. Interest group representatives will be responsible for representing a diverse group of regional stakeholders, and this representation may involve considerations that extend far beyond their own personal or professional interests or concerns.

The primary considerations for selecting nominees to the RFPG will be individuals who • demonstrate a willingness to work toward the common goal of developing a flood

plan for their region and possess the ability to broadly represent the entire regionalflood planning area and fairly consider all interests in deliberations;

• demonstrate ability and willingness to attend meetings quarterly or morefrequently, participate and contribute proactively, and dedicate the significant timeand attention required throughout this new process, which requires adopting thefirst regional flood plans by January 10, 2023;

• possess the ability and temperament to potentially serve in a leadership role withinthe RFPG at some point;

• possess expertise/experience in and/or an understanding of flooding risks andflood planning; and

• demonstrate a commitment to public service and to the state and regional floodplanning process, including the associated Guidance Principles (see Attachment 3)and the overarching intent of Senate Bill 8 for the benefit of all Texans.

The Executive Administrator will strongly consider a nominee who is strongly affiliated with and endorsed by the interest category for which they are nominated. In addition, nominees with knowledge of flood risk-related issues and who reside and/or work within the region for which they are being nominated will be given preference.

The Executive Administrator will recommend one individual for each of the 12 interest category voting positions for each flood planning region for a total of up to 180 members statewide. The RFPGs will include seven non-voting state agency members as well. After

Statewide open solicitation package for nominating individuals to serve as initial Regional Flood Planning Group (RFPG) members

Page 2 of 9

the initial groups are approved by the TWDB’s governing board, each RFPG will adopt bylaws and may consider adding members in these or other categories, as either voting or non-voting, to ensure adequate representation from interests in the flood planning region. The interest categories are as follows:

1) Agricultural interests 2) Industries 3) River authorities 4) Counties 5) Municipalities 6) Water districts 7) Flood districts 8) Electric generating utilities 9) Public 10) Water utilities 11) Environmental interests 12) Small businesses

The map showing the boundaries for the 15 flood planning regions for which the Executive Administrator is soliciting members is included as Attachment 1. For additional information regarding background on the new regional and state flood planning process, responsibilities of RFPG members, and guidance principles, see Attachments 2 and 3. For more information regarding content requirements of regional flood plans, please see the final administrative rules for state and regional flood planning. For questions regarding this solicitation, please email [email protected] or call James Bronikowski at (512) 475-0145.

In order to expedite the TWDB’s review process and ensure flood planning groups

can begin work as soon as possible, please use our online form and SUBMIT NOMINATIONS HERE.

If you are unable to fill out the online form, you may email the pdf version of the

nomination form and optional attachments to [email protected] or mail to 1700 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13231, Austin, Texas 78711-3231.

The deadline for submitting nominees to the TWDB is July 2, 2020.

Disclaimer: Any information submitted is subject to the Public Information Act.



https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=jE7QevWSIEuB1hD9iDJYmTfCXr6Cfg5GvL09Rv8oreZUOTNLWDdJMk0yQkdRUU9RNzg0WVExVUNLUi4u

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/flood/planning/doc/RFPG_membership_solicitation_form.pdf


Attachment 1: Flood Planning Region Boundaries Map


Page 4 of 9

Attachment 2

Background on the new regional and state flood planning process Senate Bill 8 of the 86th Legislature, Regular Session, establishes the framework for the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to institute regional flood planning across the state. Texas Water Code §16.061 requires RFPGs to deliver regional flood plans to the TWDB on January 10, 2023, and every five years thereafter. The state flood plan, to be based on adopted regional plans, will be due September 1, 2024, and every five years thereafter. Further, Texas Water Code §16.062 requires the TWDB to

1) designate flood planning regions (see Attachment 1), 2) designate representatives from each flood planning region to serve as the

initial regional flood planning group, 3) provide technical and financial support for the regional flood planning groups, 4) adopt guidance principles, and 5) adopt rules for regional and state flood planning.

In addition, Senate Bill 500 of the 86th Legislature, Regular Session, provides funding for both regional flood planning activities and flood science initiatives, including base level engineering, that will support development of the regional and state flood plans. The final regional and state flood planning rules are available on the TWDB website and provide a more detailed framework for what the regional flood planning groups must consider, what each regional flood plan must address, and what the overall regional flood planning process will look like. What are the responsibilities of RFPG members? Planning groups will meet with varying frequency to develop their plans. They will set flood risk reduction goals, direct their technical consultant, consider public input and technical information, and make many decisions required to develop their regional flood plan. The regional flood planning process is anticipated to look and feel similar to the existing regional water supply planning process.1 All planning group work must be performed, and all deadlines must be met in accordance with statute, agency rules, and the grant contracts with the TWDB. In general, voting RFPG members will need to accomplish the following:

• deliver the first regional flood plan no later than January 10, 2023 • represent their associated interest group as it exists throughout the entire region • consider all the region-wide stakeholders when making decisions • commit to traveling to and regularly attending their RFPG meetings

1 However, the technical approach, processes and need for flood planning is very different from the water planning process. The most significant differences will be with regard to the region boundaries and the types of considerations and technical approaches used, since flood planning is very different from planning to provide water supplies during drought.



Page 5 of 9

• understand and follow the flood planning framework and process, as well as review the various materials that will be considered by the RWPG along the way

• solicit and consider stakeholder input in a transparent process • participate in directing the work of technical consultants • make difficult decisions and recommendations regarding flood management goals

and strategies and flood mitigation projects for their region • ensure adoption of a regional flood plan that meets all requirements, including that

no neighboring area may be negatively affected by an element of the regional flood plan

Similar to the regional water supply planning process, the RFPG members will not receive compensation from legislative appropriations for their time or expenses but, in certain cases, may be eligible to be reimbursed by the state for travel mileage at the state rate. Considerations for TWDB’s selection of members to serve as the initial RFPGs The number of initial Regional Flood Planning Group (RFPG) representatives named by the TWDB to each of the initial RFPGs will be limited to 12; each voting member representing one of the 12 interest groups identified in Texas Water Code §16.062(c) and in 31 TAC 361.11(e) as follows:

(1) Public, defined as those persons or entities having no economic or other direct interest in the interests represented by the remaining membership categories; (2) Counties, defined as the county governments for the 254 counties in Texas; (3) Municipalities, defined as governments of cities created or organized under the general, home-rule, or special laws of the state; (4) Industries, such as corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, or other legal entities that are formed for the purpose of making a profit and that are not small businesses; (5) Agricultural interests, defined as those persons or entities associated with the production or processing of plant or animal products; (6) Environmental interests, defined as those persons or groups advocating for the protection or conservation of the state's natural resources, including but not limited to soil, water, air, and living resources; (7) Small businesses, defined as corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, or other legal entities that are formed for the purpose of making a profit, are independently owned and operated, and have either fewer than 500 employees and or less than $10 million in gross annual receipts; (8) Electric generating utilities, defined as any persons, corporations, cooperative corporations, or any combination thereof, meeting each of the following three criteria: own or operate for compensation equipment or facilities which produce or generate electricity; produce or generate electricity for either wholesale or retail sale to others; and are neither a municipal corporation nor a river authority; this category may include a transmission and distribution utility; (9) River authorities, defined as any districts or authorities created by the legislature that contain areas within their boundaries of one or more counties and that are governed by boards of directors appointed or designated in whole or part


Page 6 of 9

by the governor, including without limitation the San Antonio River Authority and the Palo Duro River Authority; (10) Flood Districts, defined as any districts or authorities, created under authority of either Texas Constitution, Article III, §52(b)(1) and (2), or Article XVI, §59 including all Chapter 49 districts, particularly districts with flood management responsibilities, including drainage districts, levee improvement districts, but does not include river authorities; (11) Water districts, defined as any districts or authorities, created under authority of either Texas Constitution, Article III, §52(b)(1) and (2), or Article XVI, §59 including all Chapter 49 districts, particularly districts with flood management responsibilities, including municipal utility districts, freshwater supply districts, and regional water authorities, but does not include drainage districts, levee improvement districts, river authorities; and (12) Water Utilities, defined as any persons, corporations, cooperative corporations, or any combination thereof that provide water supplies for compensation except for municipalities, river authorities, or water districts.

What will be the first activities for selected members? Once the TWDB designates the initial membership of the 12 interest groups per region, each member will be notified of their selection to serve in a RFPG. The initial members of each group will be convened by TWDB as the initial regional flood planning group at a public meeting at which the initial RFPG will, for example

• nominate and select a chair and vice-chair; • consider adoption of group bylaws; • determine what additional representative categories, as either voting or non-voting

members, are needed to ensure adequate representation from interests in the flood planning region;

• identify a political subdivision sponsor that is willing to act on behalf of the group including to solicit grant funds from the TWDB and to procure a technical consultant to support the group;

• initiate a request by the political subdivision sponsor to apply for grant funds from the TWDB;

• initiate a procurement process for a technical consultant; and • set its next meeting date.


Page 7 of 9

Attachment 3

Regional and State Guidance Principles The regional and state flood plans: (1) shall be a guide to state, regional, and local flood risk management policy. (2) shall be based on the best available science, data, models, and flood risk mapping. (3) shall focus on: identifying both current and future flood risks, including hazard, exposure, vulnerability and residual risks; selecting achievable flood mitigation goals, as determined by each RFPG for their region; and incorporating strategies and projects to reduce the identified risks accordingly. (4) shall, at a minimum, evaluate flood hazard exposure to life and property associated with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood event (the 500-year flood) and, in these efforts, shall not be limited to considering historic flood events. (5) shall, when possible and at a minimum, evaluate flood risk to life and property associated with a 1.0 percent annual chance flood event (the 100-year flood) and address, through recommended strategies and projects, the flood mitigation goals of the RFPG (per item 2 above) to address flood events associated with a 1.0 percent annual chance flood event (the 100-year flood); and, in these efforts, shall not be limited to consideration of historic flood events. (6) shall consider the extent to which current floodplain management, land use regulations, and economic development practices increase future flood risks to life and property and consider recommending adoption of floodplain management, land use regulations, and economic development practices to reduce future flood risk (7) shall consider future development within the planning region and its potential to impact the benefits of flood management strategies (and associated projects) recommended in the plan. (8) shall consider various types of flooding risks that pose a threat to life and property, including, but not limited to, riverine flooding, urban flooding, engineered structure failures, slow rise flooding, ponding, flash flooding, and coastal flooding, including relative sea level change and storm surge. (9) shall focus primarily on flood management strategies and projects with a contributing drainage area greater than or equal to 1.0 square mile except in instances of flooding of critical facilities or transportation routes or for other reasons, including levels of risk or project size, determined by the RFPG. (10) shall consider the potential upstream and downstream effects, including environmental, of potential flood management strategies (and associated projects) on neighboring areas. In recommending strategies, RFPGs shall ensure that no neighboring area is negatively affected by the regional flood plan. (11) shall include an assessment of existing, major flood mitigation infrastructure and will recommend both new strategies and projects that will further reduce risk, beyond what existing flood strategies and projects were designed to provide, and make recommendations regarding required expenditures to address deferred maintenance on or repairs to existing flood infrastructure. (12) shall include the estimate of costs and benefits at a level of detail sufficient for RFPGs and sponsors of flood mitigation projects to understand project benefits and, when applicable, compare the relative benefits and costs, including environmental and social benefits and costs, between feasible options.


Page 8 of 9

(13) shall provide for the orderly preparation for and response to flood conditions to protect against the loss of life and property and reduce injuries and other flood-related human suffering. (14) shall provide for an achievable reduction in flood risk at a reasonable cost to protect against the loss of life and property from flooding. (15) shall be supported by state agencies, including the TWDB, General Land Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Texas Department of Agriculture, working cooperatively to avoid duplication of effort and to make the best and most efficient use of state and federal resources. (16) shall include recommended strategies and projects that minimize residual flood risk and provide effective and economical management of flood risk to people, properties, and communities, and associated environmental benefits. (17) shall include strategies and projects that provide for a balance of structural and nonstructural flood mitigation measures, including projects that use nature-based features, that lead to long-term mitigation of flood risk. (18) shall contribute to water supply development where possible. (19) shall also follow all regional and state water planning guidance principles (31 TAC 358.3) in instances where recommended flood projects also include a water supply component. (20) shall be based on decision-making that is open to, understandable for, and accountable to the public with full dissemination of planning results except for those matters made confidential by law. (21) shall be based on established terms of participation that shall be equitable and shall not unduly hinder participation. (22) shall include flood management strategies and projects recommended by the RFPGs that are based upon identification, analysis, and comparison of all flood management strategies the RFPGs determine to be potentially feasible to meet flood mitigation and floodplain management goals. (23) shall consider land use and floodplain management policies and approaches that support short- and long-term flood mitigation and floodplain management goals. (24) shall consider natural systems and beneficial functions of floodplains, including flood peak attenuation and ecosystem services. (25) shall work to be consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and shall not undermine participation in nor the incentives or benefits associated with the NFIP. (26) shall emphasize the fundamental importance of floodplain management policies that reduce flood risk. (27) shall encourage flood mitigation design approaches that work with, rather than against, natural patterns and conditions of floodplains. (28) shall not cause long-term impairment to the designated water quality as shown in the state water quality management plan as a result of a recommended flood management strategy or project. (29) shall be based on identifying common needs, issues, and challenges; achieving efficiencies; fostering cooperative planning with local, state, and federal partners; and resolving conflicts in a fair, equitable, and efficient manner. (30) shall include recommended strategies and projects that are described in sufficient detail to allow a state agency making a financial or regulatory decision to determine if a proposed action before the state agency is consistent with an approved regional flood plan.


Page 9 of 9

(31) shall include ongoing flood projects that are in the planning stage, have been permitted, or are under construction. (32) shall include legislative recommendations that are considered necessary and desirable to facilitate flood management planning and implementation to protect life and property. (33) shall be based on coordination of flood management planning, strategies, and mitigation projects with local, regional, state, and federal agencies projects and goals. (34) shall be in accordance with all existing water rights laws, including but not limited to, Texas statutes and rules, federal statutes and rules, interstate compacts, and international treaties. (35) shall consider protection of vulnerable populations. (36) shall consider benefits of flood management strategies to water quality, fish and wildlife, ecosystem function, and recreation, as appropriate. (37) Shall minimize adverse environmental impacts and be in accordance with adopted environmental flow standards. (38) Shall consider how long-term maintenance and operation of flood strategies will be conducted and funded. (39) Shall consider multi-use opportunities such as green space, parks, water quality, or recreation, portions of which could be funded, constructed, and or maintained by additional, third-party project participants.

ITEM 8. D.

REPORT FROM TCEQ

Water Levels at Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs(U.S. Ownership)

Acre Feet in Millions

6/20/2020, 45.27% of Capacity or 1,535,485 AFDown from 2,081,093 AF of Normal Conservation a year ago

NOTE: Mexico Ownership/Reservoir Capacity for June 20, 2020: 6.73% (170,249) A.F.

4.0

3.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Water Level at 100% Capacity

Reservoir Capacity

Water Level at 50% Capacity

Prepared by: LRGVDCSource: TCEQ Watermaster

06/20/20AMISTAD RESERVOIRNormal Conservation Elevation 340.462 Meters 1,117.00 FeetWater Elevation 326.255 Meters 1,070.39 Feet -46.61Total Normal Conservation Capacity 4,040,325 TCM 3,275,532 Acre-FeetTotal Combined Storage 1,410,000 TCM 1,143,101 Acre-Feet 34.90%US Share of Current Storage 1,322,000 TCM 1,071,759 Acre-Feet 93.76%Mexico share of Current Storage 88,000 TCM 71,342 Acre-Feet 6.24%TOTAL RELEASES AVG 24.20 CMS 855 CFSUS Release AVG 20.80 CMS 735 CFS 85.95%Mexico Release AVG 3.40 CMS 120 CFS 14.05%TOTAL INFLOWS AVG 34.10 CMS 1,204 CFSUS Inflows AVG 30.00 CMS 1,059 CFSMexico Inflows AVG 4.10 CMS 145 CFSTOTAL LOSSES AVG 12.80 CMS 452 CFSUS Reservoir Loss AVG 12.00 CMS 424 CFSMexico Reservoir Loss AVG 0.80 CMS 28 CFS

FALCON RESERVOIRNormal Conservation Elevation 91.805 Meters 301.20 FeetWater Elevation 80.400 Meters 263.78 Feet -37.42Total Normal Conservation Capacity 3,264,813 TCM 2,646,817 Acre-FeetTotal Combined Storage 694,000 TCM 562,633 Acre-Feet 21.26%US Share of Current Storage 572,000 TCM 463,726 Acre-Feet 82.42%Mexico share of Current Storage 122,000 TCM 98,907 Acre-Feet 17.58%Total Releases AVG 63.00 CMS 2,225 CFSUS Release AVG 63.00 CMS 2,225 CFS 100.00%Mexico Release AVG 0.00 CMS 0 CFS 0.00%TOTAL INFLOWS AVG 22.60 CMS 798 CFSUS Inflows AVG 17.90 CMS 632 CFSMexico Inflows AVG 4.70 CMS 166 CFSTOTAL LOSSES AVG 10.90 CMS 385 CFSUS Reservoir Loss AVG 9.06 CMS 320 CFSMexico Reservoir Loss AVG 1.84 CMS 65 CFS

Normal Conservation Capacity - Amistad 4,040,325 TCM 3,275,532 Acre-FeetUS Share of Amistad Normal Conservation 2,270,663 TCM 1,840,849 Acre-FeetCurrent US share of Normal Conservation 1,322,000 TCM 1,071,759 Acre-Feet 58.22%

Normal Conservation Capacity - Falcon 3,264,813 TCM 2,646,817 Acre-FeetUS Share of Falcon Normal Conservation 1,913,180 TCM 1,551,034 Acre-FeetCurrent US share of Normal Conservation 572,000 TCM 463,726 Acre-Feet 29.90%

Normal Capacity - Amistad/Falcon System 7,305,138 TCM 5,922,348 Acre-Feet

Normal Conservation Capacity - US 4,183,843 TCM 3,391,883 Acre-Feet 57.27%Normal Conservation Capacity - Mexico 3,121,295 TCM 2,530,466 Acre-Feet 42.73%

Current Storage US 1,894,000 TCM 1,535,485 Acre-Feet 45.27%Current Storage Mexico 210,000 TCM 170,249 Acre-Feet 6.73%

Current Storage - Amistad - Falcon System 2,104,000 TCM 1,705,734 Acre-FeetPercent of Storage Capacity 28.80% 28.80%

Rio Grande Watermaster Report

OVERALL STATUS

RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) …€¦ · Black & Veatch for providing lunch....

Documents

Transcript of RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) …€¦ · Black & Veatch for providing lunch....