Washington State Climate Change Adaptation Efforts in the Water Sector

Kurt UngerPolicy and Planning, Water Resources Program

Washington State Department of Ecology

The Water Issues: What We Know – Climate change will mean less water when it’s

needed most – There’s already not enough water to go around

in the summer– Climate change will push policy makers to

make tough decisions– Acting sooner rather than later preferable but

politically challenging– States and provinces in the Columbia River

Basin share same resources but don’t collaborate enough

Water Issues: What We Don’t Know

– What will our streams and aquifers look like in a climate changed future?

– Planning used to be based on the historic record, what should it be based on now?

– Can we adapt? How?– How much water are people using?– How much can people conserve?– Can different states and provinces find some

common ground on water policy?– Will climate change serve as a catalyst for

action?

Climate Change Will Mean Less Water When It’s Needed Most

• Spilling water for salmon vs. generating power• Less water - warmer water • Less groundwater - warmer surface water• Warmer air - crops, lawns need more water• More water, more pumping, more energy• Warmer air - more energy to power AC• More water needed to generate power

Factor in population, Governor’s Executive Order

Washington State Population Growth

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Pe

op

le

Population Growth: People Need Water

Population Growth:People Need Water

• Projected Population Growth Extrapolating Current Trends – Current population:

~6.3 million– 2025 population:

~8.1 million– 2050 population: ~10.3

million

Everything Else Needs Water Too

Incorporating Climate Change into Decision Making:The Need for Action

Observed and Projected (2020s, 2040s) Streamflow at the Dalles

Incorporating Climate Change into Decision Making:

Dealing with Uncertainty

Governor’s Executive Order: Washington Climate Change Challenge

• By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels

• By 2035, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels

• By 2050, reduce emissions to 50% below 1990 levels

• Population Context– Population in 1990: ~4.8 million– Population in 2050: ~10.3 million– Per capita C footprint will need to be <25% of 1990

The CAT, PAWGs and TWGs

Big Picture – CAT, PAWGs, TWGs

• Formed to assist Ecology and CTED in developing recommendations for the Governor on how Washington can prepare and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

• Incorporate climate change into law, policies, rules, planning, thinking– Brainstorming– Low hanging fruit at first– Task forces to study/work more complicated issues– Likely an evolving, continuing process

• Set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)• Develop regional market based multi-sector mechanism to achieve

regional GHG reduction goal (cap and trade)• Participate in a multi-state GHG registry• Identify measures in our states, tribes and provinces to adapt to

climate change

Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (2/26/07)

Freshwater PAWG: Update

• 4 meetings to date, 4 more planned before December

• Currently developing Action Priorities around:– Drought– Water management– Conservation– Information gathering– Planning– Outreach

Freshwater PAWG: Drought

• Drought Preparedness Account (DPA)– Funding nearly depleted– Currently no bonding authority

• Bonds could be sold on an “as-needed” basis to support a multi-year preparation and response

– An active DPA would help folks adapt to increasing frequency of drought

– Funding could be tied to:• Development of drought response plans• Goals for achieving efficiency and conservation targets in

non-drought years as well

• What’s a drought? – Is it really an emergency if it happens every year?

Defining Drought in a Climate Changed World: The Changing Relationship Between “Normal” and

the “Mean of the Historic Record”

nor·mal     - adjective

1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular 2. serving to establish a standard

- noun 1. the average or mean

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Drought Planning

• How is drought defined in statute?– Undue hardship, 75% of “normal” supply– What’s “normal” in a changing data set?

• Mean historic record? Clearly, no• Mean last 30 years? • Mean last 20 years?• Mean last 20 years and projected 20 year future?

– Who’s future?

– How does the State promote drought planning as opposed to more frequent emergency responses?

Case StudyLittle Spokane at Dartford

75% of Stated Mean for the Little Spokane River @ Dartford

80

130

180

230

280

330

15-May 14-Jun 14-Jul 13-Aug 12-Sep 12-Oct

Date

Str

eam

flo

w (

cfs)

)

75% of Historical Mean (64 Years)

75% of 30 Year Mean

75% of 20 Year Mean

Mean Daily Flows on the Little Spoke River at Dartford Compared to Different Drought Declaration Scenarios

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

75% of Mean 75% of Mean 75% of Mean

Historical (64 YR) Last 30 Year Last 20 Year

Perc

ent

Percent of Days During the IrrigationSeason (5/15-10/15) Mean DailyFlows Were Less Than Stated Meanfrom 5/1996 to Present (1763 Days)

Setting the Record Straight

• Defining normal as running 20-year mean:– 28% decrease in frequency of possible drought

declarations during last 10 years

• If “normal” = mean of historic record, and that’s no longer reflective of current “normal” conditions, what do we do?

• Options:– Less difficult: Ecology rule that defines how “normal”

is calculated for drought purposes– More difficult: change the drought statute– Do nothing, just declare drought more often

• Does that “strategy” promote adaptation?

Freshwater PAWG: Water Management

• Address current barriers to the sustainable regulation and management of groundwater resources (exempt wells)

• Explore means to achieve instream flows

• Enforce penalties for illegal use

• Explore new water storage options

Climate Change as a Catalyst:Permit Exempt Wells

RCW 90.44.050 Exemptions to the Permit Requirement to Withdraw State Waters

No permit is required for “any withdrawal of public ground waters for stock-watering purposes, or for the watering of a lawn or of a noncommercial garden not exceeding one-half acre in area, or for single or group domestic uses in an amount not exceeding five thousand gallons a day, or as provided in RCW 90.44.052, or for an industrial purpose in an amount not exceeding five thousand gallons a day”

Permit Exempt Wells: Some Assumptions and Guesstimates

• Most wells are on septic– Domestic use largely (90+%?) non-consumptive– Outdoor use largely (90+%?) consumptive– Outdoor use in the summer is for lawn and gardening,

requires lots of water (shallow roots)

• There’s about ¾ million wells in WA, ¼ million likely abandoned/decommissioned

• Approximately 8,000 new wells/year – Most are permit exempt– This probably represents about 80% of actual total– Approximately 1,000 decommissioned/abandoned

wells/year

Climate Change as a Catalyst:Permit Exempt Wells

• Exemption caveats:– Only exempt from the permit process– 1997 AGO: permit exemption does not

apply to a group of wells constructed as part of a single development

– Ecology v. Campbell and Gwinn (2002) • Developer wanted to develop 20 lots using 20

permit exempt wells• “It is the developer, not the homeowner, who is

seeking the exemption in order to drill wells…and provide for group domestic use in excess of 5,000 gallons”

Climate Change as a Catalyst:Permit Exempt Wells

• Some areas of the state are allowing permit exempt well developments to proliferate in such a manner that could be interpreted as contradicting the intent of Campbell and Gwinn– What’s a project?

• Some decisions to allow such developments may not be considering:– The cumulative effect of such withdrawals on the aquifer

and streams the groundwater feeds– The cumulative effect of such withdrawals on senior

water rights– The long-term viability of such a “policy”*

*Factor in climate change

It’s Not Really Whether or Not There’s Water, It’s Where Would that Water Have Gone?

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Permit Exempt Wells

New Wells by County, 2000-2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

AD

AM

S

ASO

TIN

BEN

TON

CH

ELA

N

CLA

LLA

M

CLA

RK

CO

LUM

BIA

CO

WLI

TZ

DO

UG

LAS

FER

RY

FRA

NK

LIN

GA

RFI

ELD

GR

AN

T

GR

AYS

HA

RB

OR

ISLA

ND

JEFF

ERSO

N

KIN

G

KIT

SAP

KIT

TITA

S

KLI

CK

ITA

T

LEW

IS

LIN

CO

LN

MA

SON

OK

AN

OG

AN

PAC

IFIC

PEN

D O

REI

LLE

PIER

CE

SAN

JU

AN

SKA

GIT

SKA

MA

NIA

SNO

HO

MIS

H

SPO

KA

NE

STEV

ENS

THU

RST

ON

WA

HK

IAK

UM

WA

LLA

WA

LLA

WH

ATC

OM

WH

ITM

AN

YAK

IMA

(bla

nk)

County

New

Wel

ls

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Permit Exempt Wells

Cumulative Effect of New Wells, 2000-2006

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

To

tal N

ew W

ells

Sin

ce 2

000

Cumulative Effect

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Permit Exempt WellsCumulative Effect of New Wells, 2000-2020 (assuming same trend)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Year

Tota

l New

Wel

ls S

ince

200

0

Cumulative Effect Poly. (Cumulative Effect)

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Permit Exempt Wells: Kittitas Petition

• APA derived citizen petition recently filed for Ecology to withdraw Kittitas County groundwater resources until such time that sufficient information and data are available to allow for sound decisions on future withdrawals per RCW 90.54.050

• 1200 permit exempt wells since 2002• Alleges 6,000 lots await development, vast majority

allegedly will use permit exempt wells• Alleges developers are avoiding Campbell and Gwinn via

LLCs• Seniors alleging potential water quantity/quality impairment

from cumulative effect of permit exempt wells• Yakima

Kittitas County Petition: More of These in a Climate Changed Future?

RCW 90.44.130 “Between appropriators of public ground water, the prior appropriator shall as against subsequent appropriators from the same ground water body be entitled to the preferred use of such ground water to the extent of his appropriation and beneficial use, and shall enjoy the right to have any withdrawals by a subsequent appropriator of ground water limited to an amount that will maintain and provide a safe sustaining yield”

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Enforcement

• Calls for more enforcement are becoming increasingly more common

• Climate change will breed more conflict– More water masters?

• Caveat: Ecology can only regulate users in an adjudicated basin (Rettkowski v. Ecology (1993))

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Adjudication

Adjudication Need: – Wide discrepancy between wet and paper water rights– More difficult to regulate/protect instream flow rights

without adjudication– Accurate information helpful for effective water banks– Only 10% of land area in Washington adjudicated

Adjudication definition:

- Legal process whereby each water right is examined and a determination on the validity and quantity associated with each right is made

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Adjudication

• Adjudication is time consuming

and expensive– Yakima, 30 years and running– “only” surface water

• Other options– Water courts

• A bill that would have established water courts was introduced in 2005. It had one hearing and died. Reintroduced in 2006, died.

– Streamlined adjudications

Climate Change as a Catalyst:Moving Beyond Setting Instream Flows• Climate change will

make it more difficult to achieve instream flows

• Could instream flow rules:– Define achievement?– Identify a funding source to

purchase senior water rights?– What if there are no willing

sellers?

• RCW 90.54.010: “Instream resources and values must be preserved and protected so that future generations can continue to enjoy them”

• RCW 90.54.020: “Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic and other environmental values, and navigational values.”

Climate Change: the Storage Debate• Off channel storage

– Cost benefit analysis– Recreation and drawdown– Funding– Hanford

Small storage, rain catchment

Aquifer storage and recovery

Freshwater PAWG: Conservation

• Fund water conservation activities

• Promote water conservation

• Support/adopt stronger efficiency standards

• Promote reclaimed water

• Promote low impact development

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Decreasing Demand via

Conservation and Efficiency• Climate change will exacerbate supply and

demand conflicts in the summer• How much will people voluntarily conserve?• After the voluntary peak, what’s next?

– Conservation incentives via state cost sharing?– Efficiency standards?– Economic incentives?– Like mandatory LEED, mandatory WaterSense for

state buildings, schools…beyond?

• Decoupling profit from consumption in utility rates to increase conservation?

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Reclaimed Water

• Encouraging reclaimed water – What about new consumptive uses?

• In Yakima, that’s impairment• Compensation/mitigation must be agreed to by holder of impaired right• Governor vetoed 2007 change to “just compensation”

• Mandating reclaimed water for certain uses?– Toilet flushing?– Golf courses?– Recreational fields?– Some agriculture?

• Mandatory reclaimed for new housing developments?– More than 40,000 homes in Melbourne, Australia must get purple

pipe for toilet flushing, washing cars and watering gardens, lawns

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Encouraging Low Impact Development

• Climate change will push communities that want to continue growing to push for LID – Localized greywater, stormwater treatment– Localized storage, rain harvesting– More permeable surfaces – local aquifer

recharge– Restoring/maintaining natural hydrologic

functions

Freshwater PAWG: Information Gathering, Science

• Develop better understanding of water use

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Where’s all the Water Going?

• More gages, groundwater monitoring• Mandatory metering

– Ecology required to meter 80% of use in 16 fish critical basins

– Ecology goal to meter 90% of surface and ground water diverted from the Columbia within a one-mile corridor by June 2009

– In Yakima River Basin surface water diversions are required to be metered per County Superior Court orders

• Can we do more?– Non-critical basins too?– Mandatory telemetry?

Climate Change as a Catalyst: Where’s all the Water Going?

• Can we meter permit exempt wells? – Just started this in the Walla Walla

• What about going statewide?– Estimated ½ million wells with ~8,000 new

wells/year– Costs to implement and administer worth the

benefit?

Freshwater PAWG: Planning and Outreach

• Incorporate climate change into comprehensive plans under GMA

• Incorporate climate change into SEPA

• Engage the public to raise awareness about climate change

• Engage watershed planning groups to consider climate change

Climate Change: Other Water Policy Issues

• Water quality

• Water temperature

• Flooding

• Agriculture

• Forests

• Human Health

• Recreation

Viewing Water Policy through a Carbon Lens: the Energy – Water Nexus

• Meeting the Governor’s Executive Order will push all communities to weigh the carbon footprints of different water policies

• What part can the water sector play in reducing carbon emissions?– Centralization vs. decentralization

• Energy to treat/transport stormwater, greywater vs. local, on site

– Water conservation = energy conservation– Water efficiency = energy efficiency

• Ex. Hot water heaters vs. tankless heaters

– Less pollution = less treatment energy