Water crisis and lessons learned from Texas and California
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•2,672 visualizações
Presented by Bill Swanson & Stefan Schuster at the Texas Water Conservation Association Conference in The Woodlands, Texas - March 2014
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (6)
Semelhante a Water crisis and lessons learned from Texas and California
Semelhante a Water crisis and lessons learned from Texas and California (20)
Mais de The Texas Network, LLC
Mais de The Texas Network, LLC (20)
Último
Último (20)
Water crisis and lessons learned from Texas and California
- 1. Bill Swanson & Stefan Schuster Woodlands March 5, 2014
- 2. DROUGHT!! Folsom Reservoir near Sacramento Lake Travis
- 3. 50+ in ~ 15 in < 5 in
- 4. Los Angeles Aqueduct Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 1913 William Mulholland Los Angeles Aqueduct
- 5. Los Angeles Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy System Hetch Hetchy System San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 1923 Michael O’Shaughnessy
- 6. Los Angeles Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy System Mokelumne River Aqueduct East Bay Municipal Utilities District Mokelumne River Aqueduct 1929 Pardee Reservoir
- 7. Los Angeles Aqueduct Mokelumne River Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy System Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Colorado River Aqueduct 1941 Hoover DamParker Dam Colorado River Aqueduct All American Canal
- 8. Los Angeles Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct All American Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy System Central Valley Project US Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project 1948 - 1st water delivered Shasta Lake
- 9. All American Canal Los Angeles Aqueduct Mokelumne River Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy System Colorado River Aqueduct State Water Project California Department of Water Resources State Water Project 1973 - 1st water to So.Cal. California Aqueduct Central Valley Project
- 10. Average Annual Runoff Average Annual Water Use 56 MAF/yr ~80% 15 MAF/yr ~20% 29 MAF/yr ~66% 15 MAF/yr ~33% Water supply and use vary greatly from North to South The difference in use is Coastal vs. Inland
- 11. — Central Valley Project — State Water Project — Local Projects The Delta
- 13. Groundwater accounts for nearly 40% of California’s water supply
- 14. • Mono Lake Decision - 1994 – Reduced Los Angeles Aqueduct Supply • Quantification Settlement Agreement - 2003 – Reduced Colorado River Aqueduct Supply • Chinook and Delta Smelt Protections - ongoing – Reduced State Water Project and CVP Supplies
- 15. Completed 1945 by USBR Dam height – 602 feet Storage capacity – 4.55 MAF Maximum flood space – 1.3 MAF Surface at full pool – 29,500 ac Generating capacity – 710 MW
- 16. Proposed Dam Raise Salmon and Delta Smelt Winter Run Chinook Salmon
- 17. 1996 Prop 204 2000 Prop 13 2002 Prop 50 2006 Prop 84 2006 Prop 1E TOTAL Conservation 60 105 200 180 545 Integrated Water Management 60 478 855 1,000 300 2,693 Storage 40 262 50 352 Ecosystems 442 556 1,550 2,638 5,186 Water Quality 140 70 715 380 1,305 Flood Protection 85 249 70 800 3,790 4,994 Co-Equal Delta 168 250 325 743 TOTAL 995 1,970 3,440 5,323 4,090 15,818
- 19. February 7, 2014 Statewide Average 11% 4 % 15 % 14 %
- 20. Sac River Region -0.7 to -1.7 maf SJ River Region -1.0 to -2.6 maf Tulare Lake Region -3.7 to -8.9 maf
- 21. Shasta Lake
- 22. • Executive Order B-21-13: Streamline water transfers (May 2013) • California Water Plan Update (draft Oct 2013) • Drought Task Force Established (Dec 2013) • Governor’s Drought Proclamation and Water Action Plan (Jan 2014)
- 23. • Water is California’s Life Blood • California’s Complex Water Resources System is in Crisis • A Diverse Portfolio Approach is Required • The Solution Requires Integration, Alignment and Investment • We All Have a Role to Play in Securing Our Future
- 24. 1. Make conservation a California way of life 2. Increase regional self-reliance and integrated water management across all levels of government 3. Achieve the co-equal goals for the Delta 4. Protect and restore important ecosystems 5. Manage and prepare for dry periods 6. Expand water storage capacity and improve groundwater management 7. Provide safe water for all communities 8. Increase flood protection 9. .Increase opera1onal and regulatory efficiency 10. Identify sustainable and integrated financing opportunities
- 25. • State – made $6??M available for water project development • Federal – made $300 M available for aid and water projects – Introducing legislation to authorize 4 storage projects
- 28. • Prior Appropriation – Origin in 1880’s from Miner’s Claims – “First in Time, First in Right” – Junior and Senior Rights – Permitted and Non-Permitted Appropriations – Beneficial Uses
- 30. Existing Water Supplies Projected Water Demand Surplus (+) or Need (-) Project future population and water demand Quantify existing and future water supplies Identify surpluses and needs Evaluate and recommend water management strategies Make policy recommendations Adopt the plan
- 32. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s NumberofGCDsFormed Decade Groundwater law in Texas leaves too much uncertainty and risk for the private and public sectors,” added Puente. “I hope that the proposers and cities across the state will join SAWS in calling for the legislature to change the law so Texans can build projects to meet growing future demand.”
- 33. Storage for Feb. 18, 2014: 20.1 Million acre-ft (64.1%) Conservation Capacity: 31.4 Million acre-ft
- 35. Groundwater Levels in Observation Wells Ogallala -0.07’,-1.65’ Trinity 0.61’,1.0’ Edwards 2.74’,-10.5’ Gulf Coast 2.29’,5.13’ Ogallala 0.0’,-1.0’ Carrizo- Wilcox 0.76’,5.36’ Trinity 1.08’,0.26’ Hueco- Mesilla Bolson -0.62’,-1.03’ Carrizo- Wilcox 15.69’,-23.74’ Change from Last Month, Year Seymour -0.28’,-0.87’ Gulf Coast 0.36’,-2.21’ Pecos Valley -0.51’,-3.99’ Ogallala 0.14’,-1.45’ Bone Spring- Victorio Peak 3.96’,1.21’ Edwards -0.12’,1.65’ Trinity 0.79’, -5.91’ End of January 2014
- 36. Texas Reservoir Storage Capacity per Capita 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Acre-feetperPerson 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1953
- 37. Reservoir Storage Capacity per Capita 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Acre-feetperPerson 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 United States Texas
- 38. • Acquire feasible reservoir sites • Address Inter-basin transfer issues • Desired future conditions petition process • Water loss audits • Finance the State Water Plan
- 39. • Reliability is best achieved through diversification • Conservation and reuse are fundamental elements • Planning is important but IMPLEMENTATION of the plan is critical • Energy water demand needs to be considered • Funding is never enough
- 40. “Whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin’ over” - Traditional Western “Americans will always do the right thing … after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” – Winston Churchill
Notas do Editor
- We can do this slide with the web link or use the graphics I putoeteth
- Suggested commentsMillerton is very small in comparison to others – no carryover capabilityAll reservoirs are low this year because of three reasons – contract deliveries in past years, environmental requirements in past years and this year, dry conditions this year.
- Regional water planning groups compare existing water supplies with current and projected water demands to identify when and where additional water supplies are needed for water user groups and wholesale water providers.If existing supplies do not meet future demand, they recommend specific water management strategies to meet water supply needs, such as conservation of existing water supplies, new reservoir and groundwater development, conveyance facilities to move available or newly developed water supplies to areas of need, water reuse, and others.Planning groups identify water user groups that will not have enough water during times of drought, recommend strategies that could be implemented to address shortages, and estimate the costs of these strategies.
- (Will be Updated for March 13th conditions for Board meeting)This plot, from our Water Data for Texas website, shows statewide conservation storage in our reservoirs as a percentage of capacity for each day of the year. The dark dashed lines show both the maximum and minimum values for the period 1990-2013. The thin dashed line is the median for that same data. Also shown on this graph is how we fared in 2012 (light gray line), 2013 (green line), and how we are progressing in 2014 (dark green line). Things have been pretty flat so far in 2014. We’re currently about 3 percentage points lower than we were this time last year and more than 15 percentage points below normal for this time of year.
- (Will be Updated for March 13th conditions for Board meeting)Just to give you an idea of how conditions have varied across the state, in this slide we’re looking atreservoir conditions for 20 municipal reservoir systems. The first number is the conservation storage for each system as a percentage of capacity as of Feb. 18th. The number in parenthesis is the change in storage (in percentage points) in the last month. Overall, 10 systems decreased over the past month, 2 systems were unchanged, and 8 systems increased. On this map, you can see that systems in the East and in the Rio Grande Valley increased in the last month. Systems in the rest of Texas were all down.
- (Will be Updated for March 13th conditions for Board meeting)This plot, from our Water Data for Texas website, shows statewide conservation storage in our reservoirs as a percentage of capacity for each day of the year. The dark dashed lines show both the maximum and minimum values for the period 1990-2013. The thin dashed line is the median for that same data. Also shown on this graph is how we fared in 2012 (light gray line), 2013 (green line), and how we are progressing in 2014 (dark green line). Things have been pretty flat so far in 2014. We’re currently about 3 percentage points lower than we were this time last year and more than 15 percentage points below normal for this time of year.
- The legislature should provide a mechanism to acquire feasible reservoir sites so they are available for development of additional water supplies to meet identified in the regional water plan and beyond.The legislature should enact statutory provisions that eliminate unreasonable restrictions on the voluntary transfer of surface water from one basin to another.The legislature should remove TWDB from the petition process concerning the reasonableness of a desired future condition except for technical review and comment.The legislature should require all retail public utilities to conduct water loss audits on an annual basis, rather than every 5 years.The legislature should develop a long-term, affordable, and sustainable method to provide financing assistance for the implementation of the state water plan.
- The legislature should remove TWDB from the petition process concerning the reasonableness of a desired future condition except for technical review and comment.The legislature should require all retail public utilities to conduct water loss audits on an annual basis, rather than every 5 years.The legislature should develop a long-term, affordable, and sustainable method to provide financing assistance for the implementation of the state water plan.