2021 REGIONAL WATER PLAN July 1, 2020 SARA EATMAN, LAUREN GONZALEZ, JUNIOR LAGADE, KATIE SNYDER
AGENDA 7.A Status Reports on TWDB Contract Activities 1. Review Comments Received to Date on Region M IPP and Request Guidance for Response on Select Comments 2. Infrastructure Financing Report Update 3. Implementation Survey Update 4. Project Prioritization 5. Consider Addition of Non-MAG Gulf Coast Aquifer, Cameron, & Willacy Counties 6. Schedule for Completion of Regional Water Plan 2
7.A.1. REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE ON REGION M IPP 3
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS • TWDB Provide Draft Comments • Level 1: comments and questions that for Review on 5/29/20 must be resolved to meet • B&V Responded with requirements clarification, follow-up • Level 2: comments questions, and proposed that may improve resolutions on 6/5/20 the readability of the plan • Final comments were provided to B&V on 6/18/20 Comments are mostly reporting requests of existing information and clarifications or corrections. 4
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS • Expanded reporting on Major Water Providers (existing supplies, secondary needs analysis, management supply factor) • Expanded quantitative analysis for each WMS, including: environmental factors (not just impacts), reliability and water losses, impacts to agriculture, third-party social and economic impacts • Strategies recommended for 2020 must be constructed and delivering water by January 5, 2023 • RWPG must define “significant need” threshold for consideration of ASR High-level overview of select Comments: request feedback on those in blue 5
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 IPP COMMENTS: TWDB DRAFT & FINAL COMMENTS • Include a discussion of whether drought contingency measures have been recently implemented (will require follow-up with WUGs) • Include discussion of “unnecessary or counterproductive variations in drought response strategies that may impede drought response efforts” • Include an assessment of the progress of the regional water planning area in encouraging cooperation between WUGs for the purpose of achieving economies of scale and otherwise incentivizing strategies that benefit the entire region.” High-level overview of select Comments: request feedback on those in blue 6
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 IPP COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS • Comments received from RWPG members at the February 5 th meeting were incorporated into the IPP submitted in May • One Public Hearing was held online on May 6, comments were received from two people: • Louis Peña, Brush Country GCD: falling oil prices may change demands for oil drilling • Mayor Jim Darling, McAllen: COVID may cause some of the projections to change, could require mid-cycle update or similar • B&V has provided follow-up emails with information to each WUG with the supplies and recommended WMS from the IPP with a request for review – numerous corrections and small revisions received • Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board provided comments 6/18/20 7
7.A.2. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT UPDATE 8
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT The Infrastructure Financing Survey is used to gather information about how project sponsors anticipate funding water supply projects recommended in the 2021 RWP including whether the sponsor intends to use financial assistance from the TWDB • Requests info on the amount of funding estimated for planning, design, permitting and acquisition vs. construction funding • Estimated year that funding is needed This information helps TWDB tailor funding to you, any info is helpful. 9
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY RESULTS 9 respondents provided info on 14 projects: 0-5% state funding anticipated 10
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT • Surveys were sent to 80 WMS/project sponsors • Surveys can be accepted until August 1 st , 2020 to be reviewed and summarized in the RWP 11
7.A.3. IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY UPDATE 12
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY The Implementation Survey is used to gather information about how projects that were recommended in the 2016 RWP have progressed: • Has the sponsor taken action, if so provide date • What level of implementation • If not implemented, why – describe impediments to implementation • Estimated yield • Funding received, expected costs • If not yet implemented, in the 2021 Plan? Helps to understand what projects are being implemented and where there are impediments. 13
7.A.4. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 14
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION • Application of Uniform Standards for Prioritization of all projects recommended in the Plan • TWDB has provided guidance for how to apply the prioritization rankings • Assumptions specific to Region M were updated from the 2016 cycle • Prioritization will be provided to TWDB alongside the final RWP by 10/14/20 Most evaluations are straightforward, some require interpretation 15
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE Criteria 1 - Decade of Need for Project MAXIMUM SCORES ---> 10 10 20 400 Rural/Agricultural Conservation? Conservation/Reuse? Uniform Standard 1A - What is the decade the Uniform Standard 1B - In RWP shows the project what decade is initial comes online? [2070 = 0 funding needed? [2070 points; 2060 = 2; 2050 = 4; = 0 points; 2060 = 2; 2050 Weighted 2040 = 6; 2030 = 8; 2020 = = 4; 2040 = 6; 2030 = 8; Criteria 1 Criteria 1 10] 2020 = 10] Total Score Total WMS Name Capital Cost 10 10 20 400 Edcouch New Groundwater Supply $ 6,931,000 X 10 10 20 400 Edinburg Non-potable Reuse $ 17,177,000 X X 10 10 20 400 HCID#1 ID Conservation $ 26,418,956 X X 10 10 20 400 Delta Lake ID Conservation $ 55,808,978 Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending $ 1,240,000 10 10 20 400 Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir $ 10,250,000 10 10 20 400 Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2 $ 19,805,000 10 10 20 400 Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District $ 1,119,000 10 10 20 400 Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination $ 5,753,000 2 2 4 80 Criteria 1: When is the project & funding needed? 16
Black & Veatch July 1, 2020 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION -EXAMPLE Criteria 2 - Project Feasibility MAXIMUM SCORES ---> 5 5 10 5 25 100 Uniform Standard 2C - What level of engineering Uniform Standard 2A - What supporting Uniform Standard 2B - If necessary, does the and/or planning has been accomplished for this data is available to show that the quantity sponsor hold necessary legal rights, water project? [Project idea is outlinted in RWP = 1 of water needed is available? [Models rights and/or contracts to use the water that point; feasibility studies initiated = 2; feasibility suggest insufficient quantities of water or this project would require? [Legal rights, studies completed = 3; conceptual design initiated = no modeling performed = 0 points; models water rights and/or contract application not 4; conceptual design completed = 5; preliminary Uniform Standard 2D - Has the suggest sufficient quantity of water = 3; submitted = 0 points; application submitted = engineering report initiated = 6; preliminary project sponsor requested in Field tests, measurements, or project 2; application is administratively complete = engineering report completed = 7; preliminary writing that the project be Weighted specific studies confirm sufficient quantities 3; legal rights, water rights and/or contracts design initiated = 8; preliminary design completed = included in the Regional Water Criteria 2 Criteria 2 of water = 5] obtained or not needed = 5] 9; final design complete = 10] Plan? [No = 0 points; yes = 5] Total Score Total WMS Name 3 5 7 5 20 80 Edcouch New Groundwater Supply Edinburg Non-potable Reuse 5 5 7 5 22 88 HCID#1 ID Conservation 5 5 9 5 24 96 Delta Lake ID Conservation 5 5 7 5 22 88 Weslaco Groundwater Development and Blending 3 5 7 5 20 80 Brownsville Banco Morales Reservoir 5 3 7 5 20 80 3 5 5 5 18 72 Sharyland WSC Well and RO Unit at WTP #2 5 2 8 0 15 60 Urbanization - Laguna Madre Water District 3 5 5 5 18 72 Lyford Brackish Groundwater Well and Desalination Criteria 2: How much has feasibility been looked at (permits, water rights, engineering, sponsor involvement)? 17
Recommend
More recommend
