Connie Ozawa, PhD Alan Yeakley, PhD Research Assistants Khanh Pham - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Connie Ozawa, PhD Alan Yeakley, PhD Research Assistants Khanh Pham and Denisse Fisher

¨ Part of five-region project funded by NSF/EPA ¨ Extension of ULTRA-Ex funding and results from an EPA study: forward-looking regions ¨ Assessment of water management organizational structures (1 of 4 factors chosen for examination) ¨ Overriding questions: To what extent are regional governments anticipating, monitoring, and preparing for changes in water resources due to climate change? Are there particular attributes of the work that might be instructive for other regions?

Highly exploratory in nature; water planning, like land use planning, is conducted at the local level.

Study area: Biophysical context: 7 county area – Focus on 3 Oregon and 1 Washington urban counties Population: 2.2 million 1970-99 to 2041-70, scientists project: NW warming of 1.1°C to 4.5°C Rainfall change -5% to +14% Seasonal variation Major sectors : Urban demand Fish and wildlife habitat Agriculture Energy production (70% hydro power) Flooding (not responsibility of water providers)

¨ Higher demand due to population growth ¡ Top third growth rate among US cities – 4 th outside sunbelt ¡ 2000– 2030, 1.37-1.70 % annual projected rate ¡ Climate migrants? ¨ Stream flows impacts ¡ Reduced snow pack (spring peak earlier, winter heavier, late summer lower) Intensified competition for water among humans, wildlife, energy, agriculture

To what extent are local water providers aware of and actively planning for ¨ anticipated climate change impacts? Background ¡ Describe major sources of water (what might be the scope of the ú impact?) (Denisse and Alan) Describe the institutional structure and planning processes of water ú service providers (who ought to be responding?) (Khanh and Connie) Data collection methods ¡ Archival research – review of documents ú Interviews (sampling of water providers) ú Analysis ¡ Qualitative analysis of awareness of likely climate change impacts ú Qualitative analysis of which water providers are planning for ú anticipated negative impacts due to climate change and how, or if not, why not

1) Bull Run River 2) Clackamas River 3) Tualatin River Basin 4) Willamette River 5) Groundwater (several different aquifers) 6) Jones Creek and Boulder Creek

Highly fragmented : Over 40 water service providers, which range in size, scope, powers and responsibilities Creek 0 3 5 k e Y HW W e Multnomah r F C o y r k a D K E a c Vancouver H W Y 5 i M 0 0 r F y o C Lake r r 0 e k 5 0 e Channel Burlington k D H W Y a i Water District r Columbia River y C W I LS r O N R I V E R e 0 e 50 Washougal River H W L Y Y 6 k H W a c a HWY m a C s O L U L L B M BI A V a D 7 k 4 LEWIS & CL AR K HW Y e RD W Y L Fairview H W i O M l B l A AIRPORT ales Creek a R D H E m W O e ST Wood Village Y C N t t e 99E 8 E WAY Columbia L G US 30 RD ¨ ¦ 5 § M HWY 1 4 E River City of Portland L A H Y W S E Retail A N D N H Y M A R I N E S DR S BL VD A D L V Forest P B Cornelius CORN EL L RD N DY AVE ¦ § ¨ Grove A 84 D S E R V A ¦ ¨ § C O E L L HW Y 8 Hillsboro R N 84 § ¨ ¦ Troutdale AVE AVE E 405 V BUR NSIDE A S TVWD West Slope RD S T HWY U Rockwood PUD A E R M B I R I V I L U L S T A R K S T O E S W.D. C N N E LA B A R R R D D C H Y TUALATIN O 122N D N M W 185T H 39TH N O C Valley View 2 2 Sandy River U N D H V A LLEY 8 8 T A I N R S T 1 P O DI V ISION H W Y D W R W.D. E L N L A N Y O BL VD Creek C H ake W Lorna WD B E A V E R L L S D Y Lusted T O N H I A L E 9 Johnson O 9 E 7 R 4 O D D Raleigh W.D. ¦ § ¨ S P R W.D. Y B R N H W Y 205 Gresham W R S Tualatin River O Beaverton Creek I G T Johnson H N LL I N G R M FOST ER I F A H BLVD Green Valley Pleasant H R I HAL L D L R L E MAC A Water Co. V I Home W.D. R D U N G E R R D R R LE Y D ¦ 5 ¨ § D L M URRAY TVWD A Two Rivers Water Assoc. M D X I O N Palatine Hills Sunrise MI BL VD A B L L R D V US 2 6 L E Milwaukie U W.D. F D Water Authority F R Skyview Hideaway RD ORIENT K H A W P E Y S U N N Acres Hills 2 Y RD F E R R Y 2 4 S D I Boring E B A L D S Southwood Park C H 99-W Water Co. Water Co. O L L S R D W.D. W.D. Tigard D M CRW DR GNR Lake Grove R c L Y O H WY 212 R Oak Lodge U R G Corp. W.D. E F Lake Oswego H S L N E W.D. I H W Y 21 2 - 2 2 4 O N B O LVD B Sandy H R i v e r W Glen-Morrie Y T u a Skylands 4 l a 3 t i n Co-Op 2 4 Tualatin Clackamas 2 Sandy 1 9 2 Water Co. Gladstone Y W Y H W RD River H D H R W O D T U A L A T N I - S H E RW O Y Y Rivergrove 1 R West 2 2 1 R 4 2 Sherwood E W Y F W.D. RD B O Linn River H CRW R L A N HWY S D E Water Providers in the Ashdown N D O Oregon O R O 213 B F Woods W.D. RD R E D L F A N D City A Abernathy T Portland Metropolitan Area S S P R Wilsonville RD I N G W A B E T A V E R ¨ ¦ 5 § E RD Eagle R R C D R E E I C Willamette K H E N R I R River D Creek 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Molalla Miles 99E 3 July, 2006 HWY 1 2 HW Y H W R Y i v 2 e 1 1 r

Serves 934,000 people (2014) • Retail: • 48% of total consumption • Wholesale: • 42% of total consumption Jamie Francis/The Oregonian . From forest to faucet, we deliver the best drinking water in the world .

¡ A group of 22 water providers , the City of Portland and Metro (14 cities and 8 special districts) ¡ Voluntary, non-binding collaborative ¡ Purpose: ú Promote voluntary coordination of individual and collective actions of Consortium participants implementing the Regional Water Supply Plan for the Portland Metropolitan area; ú Provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest to participants, and to coordinate the responses of participants to such issues; ú Provide a forum for review and discussion of water resource-related actions by individual participants. Issues to consider may include statewide land use goals, comprehensive plans, regional plans, or land use regulations; ú Establish an avenue for public participation in water supply issues in addition to public participation activities of each participant.

Regional Water Providers Consortium Beaverton (1997) Clackamas River W. D. Forest Grove Gladstone Gresham Hillsboro Joint Water Commission Lake Oswego Metro Hillsboro Milwaukie Oak Lodge W. D. Forest Grove Portland Raleigh W. D. Beaverton Rockwood Water PUD Sandy Tualatin Valley WD Sherwood South Fork W. B. Sunrise Water Authority Tigard Clackamas River Water Providers Tualatin Tualatin Valley W. D. Estacada West Slope W. D. Wilsonville Lake Oswego Gladstone Willamette River Water Providers Tigard Tigard Clackamas River Water Tualatin Oak Lodge Water District Sherwood Sunrise Water Authority Hillsboro South Fork Water Board Tualatin Valley Water District

¨ Regional Water Providers Consortium ¡ Research, planning, education and outreach) ¨ Other Sub-regional Entities ¡ Develop storage capacity (reservoirs) ¡ Develop “ new ” water sources (pumping stations and filtration plants) ¡ Protect water rights: Willamette and Clackamas rivers ¡ Increase in municipal partnerships within subregions ¨ Plans not to renew contracts with City of Portland (2016)

¨ Vancouver (230,000 retail customers) ¡ 100% groundwater. ¡ Four different aquifers: the Troutdale, the Upper and Lower Orchards, and the Sandy River Mudstone ¡ The Troutdale Aquifer is one of the three aquifers that Portland draws water from its Columbia South Shore Well Fields ¡ Private wells provide water to 24% of population ¡ Clark County Coordinated Water Supply Plan, 1983, updates in 1991, 1999, and 2011. ¡ Looking to develop surface water sources. All WA cities project sufficient water until 2024

¨ Water utilities historically conducted little public education ¨ Public benefited from past investments; ¨ Water is heavily subsidized (insufficient funds for maintenance and renewal) ¨ Increased conservation has highlighted the tension between the societal need for conservation and the provider ’ s need for revenue. ¡ As use decreases, revenues decrease unless rates are raised. Therefore, customers who have increased water efficiency see water rate increases and feel penalized rather than rewarded.

Portland City Council must approve water rate increases. Example: 2013 Portland Budget and Water Rate Hikes ¡ In 2012, PWB projected need for a 14.8% water rate increase ¡ The Water Bureau, under pressure from elected officials, brought down rate increase to 6-7% ¡ Mayor ’ s budget proposal brought it down to 3.2% Citizens groups (Friends of the Reservoirs and Portland Water Users Coalition) launched a campaign to take Water and sewer rates out from city control to create a separate “ People ’ s Utility District. ” (May 2014 ballot)