Transcript David Feldman - Keynote Presentation

David Feldman, Professor and Chair
Department of Planning, Policy, and Design
School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine
New Mexico Water Dialogue
17th Annual Meeting
Albuquerque, NM
January 13, 2011
Introduction
 21st Century water policy faces three challenges:
 Population growth & urbanization
 Infrastructure operation & maintenance
 Climate change & variability
Comprehensive planning as solution
 Seeks to satisfy growing demands in light of limited supplies by
identifying practical, cost effective solutions that are fair and equitable:
 Reconciling social needs with water availability (carrying capacity)
 Embracing stakeholder needs to balance competing uses (participation)
 Revising plans in light of new challenges (adaptability/flexibility)
Applying comprehensive planning to challenges
To satisfy growth –
integrated resource
management
To support
infrastructure –
funding and regional
cooperation
To address climate
challenges –
collaboration and
partnership
Integrated resource management
 Identify and adopt best options for providing water by augmenting supply
& managing demand:
 Conservation
 Innovative supply sources
 Key challenge: options must be equitable and publically-acceptable, not
merely efficient.
Why is integrated resource management needed?
Number and size of reservoirs completed by decade
Conservation
 Widely-used examples found in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington.
 Introduced through “ratcheted phasing:”
 Educate public via media and schools
 Employ economic incentives
 Impose regulatory sanctions – fines, other punishments.
 Voluntary: California Urban Water Conservation Council – 150 agencies;
13 million people:
 Save 1 million acre-ft/year
 Being voluntary, some communities don’t implement measures aggressively.
 Mandatory & incentives: Tucson Water Waste Ordinance (1983) – fines
for sprinkling driveways, inappropriate use; city offers free training,
irrigation system audits, “conservation seminars” for violators.
Variable rate structures and conservation – Irvine Ranch Water District
 Allocation-based conservation-rate structure – base volume set according to user
needs & property characteristics, including number of occupants, lot size, climate.
 User pays basic charge per volumetric unit – conservation charges imposed for
increments in excess of basic allocation. Billing based on metered water use.
 IRWD claims: “(It) … is an effective conservation tool because it allows (utility) to
use property-specific water budgets and tiered pricing to provide … customers
with economic incentives for efficient water use.”
 Since introduction (1990s) per acre water consumption has dropped significantly.
 Between 1992-2005, average landscape water use within the district decreased from
4.2 acre-feet per acre per year to 1.9 acre-feet per acre per year, a 61% reduction.
 From 2001-2006, irrigated area in IRWD increased 280%, total landscape water use only
grew 70%.
Planning challenges regarding conservation
 May penalize low income residents & apartment owners.
 May not account for those on fixed-incomes.
 Cost of meter installation sometimes outweighs water savings & meters
often go unread.
 Conserved water may indirectly encourage more growth.
 Water rates in many regions remain too low to encourage real
conservation.
 Some communities may oppose certain forms of conservation for
aesthetic reasons.
AESTHETICS OF CONSERVATION: “City of Orange to dismiss suit over couple’s
lawn,” Orange County Register March 3, 2010
-Water bill was $160/every two months; previously used 300,000 gal. of water/year, now
average 58,000 gal./year.
- City officials appreciated the savings but have rules requiring ground cover in front yards;
“can’t have dirt for a front yard,” said one official.
- City council revised ordinance requiring 40% live ground cover.
Water rates are often too low to encourage conservation
Most common rate structures
Source: Public Policy Institute of California, 2006
Conservation & fairness – environmental justice
 Appliance retrofits as urban conservation strategy (e.g., low flow toilets,
shower heads) Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP):
 Knew that installation could burden poorer communities and older urban
neighborhoods due to their expense.
 Also knew widespread adoption could save 2.3 million acre-feet/yr.*
 Retrofitting as community development strategy:
 DWP works with community groups to replace appliances, generate rebates &
job training; re-invest funds for scholarships/schools.
 Mothers of East LA, Asian American Drug Abuse program, Korean Youth and
Community Center, area high schools participate in toilet replacement.
* Enough water for 8.5 million people
Innovative supply sources – wastewater re-use
 Wide experience – Arizona, California, Idaho, Ohio, Texas.
 Primary Treatment – removes 70-85% of organic/inorganic solids that
settle out/float to top (non-potable uses; re-circulate in wastewater
applications).
 Secondary Treatment – mixes remaining suspended solids with
microorganisms & air. Micro-organisms convert waste solids to biomass
that settle out (municipal fountains, some gardens).
 Tertiary Treatment – filters out remaining solids via granular media (e.g.,
sand, coal) or membrane with final product being disinfected with
chlorine/UV light to kill bacteria, viruses, microorganisms (potable use).
Recycled wastewater – a Southern California example
Fountain Valley Groundwater Replenishment system /Orange County– $480 million facility
• Provides tertiary treatment of wastewater -- 70 million gallon/day – most is then
injected into GW wells.
• Reduces need for imported/diverted freshwater.
• Reduces wastewater-generated pollution.
• Replenishes regional aquifer (62% on N. Orange County’s water is GW).
• Provides a barrier against saltwater intrusion.
Planning challenges regarding wastewater re-use
 Stigma – so-called “toilet to tap” issue: may be viewed as hurting a user
community’s self-image.
 While most studies indicate potable re-use safe, but public doubts over
safeguards remains (low confidence in decision-makers).
 In less affluent areas, those with environmental legacies (e.g.,
abandoned waste sites, contaminated aquifers) may arouse mistrust.
 Public support ambivalent even in areas under water stress.
 Often viewed as indirect subsidy for unwanted growth.
Re-use and fairness – overcoming stigma
 In ‘90s, Orange County, California planned a Groundwater Replenishment
(GWR) system to provide tertiary wastewater treatment, replenish
aquifer, provide 20% of potable supply.
 Awareness of public opposition elsewhere led to concerted public
outreach effort:
 Tailored GWR talks to groups – emphasized operations, safety, benefits.
 Brochures, website, PBS documentary on project.
 Project attracted federal, state, local grants – opened on-time, within budget.
 Adopted policies permitting use of primary & of secondary treated water in
non-potable applications.
Funding and regional collaboration
 To consolidate supplies, reduce costs, lessen environmental impacts,
utilities & other water providers seek to regionalize to form larger entities.
 Wide experience – e.g., Florida, California, Texas: boundary changes can
capitalize on existing resources, eliminate duplication, avoid cost of new
supplies.
 Texas SB 1 – increases local involvement in long-term supply planning:
 16 water supply planning regions established by Texas Water Development Board to
develop comprehensive plans.
 Sanctions for not participating are exclusion from securing: low-interest loans for water
development projects; and, from surface water rights for municipal use.
 State determines overall demands/supplies and evaluates strategies for meeting needs.
Planning challenges with regionalization
 Changes in water district boundaries may generate equity conflicts.
 Consolidated system may lack adequate fee structure to produce
sufficient revenues– users may have to pay full cost of distribution/
maintenance.
 Diversion of water from distant sources requires investments in pipelines,
new storage, payments to third parties for water conveyance.
 Staff in these systems may lack range & depth of expertise to conduct
necessary engineering, chemical, legal, economic, environmental studies.
 Many low-income communities/those with large minority populations
lack technical expertise to complete funding applications.*
* Source: Rural Water Partnership Fund
Ensuring environmental justice under regionalization
 California SB 162 (2007) requires consideration of environmental justice
when applications to approve boundary changes are reviewed:
 State weighs if decisions disproportionately affect minority & low
income communities regarding water services.
 Ensure all races, cultures, incomes treated fairly when locating &
providing water services/facilities.
 Utilities must plan for probable future water service needs & how
boundary changes may affect these.
Climate change and partnerships
Patrick O’Connor, Los Angeles Daily News, 1/09/2009
Climate change and the Southwest’s water
“Climate Change Shrinks Some of the World's Largest Rivers”
BOULDER, Colorado, April 21, 2009 (ENS) - Many of the greatest
rivers in some of the world's most populous regions are losing
water, according to a new study of stream flow in 925 large
rivers. Led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, the study indicates that the reduced flows are
associated with climate change and could threaten future
supplies of food and water. Several of the rivers channeling less
water serve large populations, such as the Yellow River in
northern China, the Ganges in India, the Niger in West Africa,
and the Colorado River in the southwestern United States.
Colorado River – Grand
Canyon
Las Vegas’ response – unilateral planning
Water Wars: Quenching Las Vegas' Thirst
Proposed Pipeline From Snake Valley to Sin City Meets Local
Opposition
By TERRY MORAN and KATIE HINMAN, ABC News
April 5, 2007
Las Vegas is … experiencing a water shortage as its population grows.… (it is) the fastest-growing
city in the nation. Its population is currently 1.8 million, and is projected to hit 3 million by 2020.
The major water supply for Las Vegas comes from the Colorado River, which has undergone a
drought as a result of climate change, says Pat Mulroy of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
"Climate change is here," Mulroy says. "We've been living it for the last eight years. The drought on
the Colorado River was a rude wake-up call. Frankly, when 90 percent of your water comes from
one river that is predicted to have massive water shortages, you'd be irresponsible not to develop
water supplies that are independent of that river system in order to diversify."
The plan for diversification is controversial. Mulroy, the city's water czar for almost 20 years, has
proposed a plan to build a $2 billion pipeline that would pump water out of White Pine County and
send it down to feed the growing water needs of southern Nevada.
Other options – making communities more resilient
 International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (1990): Comprised
of over 1000 local governments worldwide.
 Water program focuses on promoting local practices for managing water
resources in a sustainable manner.
 Goal – develop bottom-up practical policies: if you demonstrate practical
strategy on local scale, other cities will adopt it, reducing everyone’s risk.
 Provides training, capacity-building, diffusion of innovation on conservation,
water-use efficiency, integrated water management.
 Work with local partners to scale up approaches, thus reducing consumption
and avoiding or significantly decreasing pollution to water resources.
An ICLEI-type innovation:
“whole building approach” to site development
Science and information as resiliency – NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments
•NOAA supports universitybased teams across the
U.S. to analyze how climate
impacts key sectors within
a region and how climate
information could help with
resource management and
planning within that region.
•RISAs create strong
university partnerships
with federal, state, and
local stakeholders within a
region. Help improve
access to data for decisionmaking.
Stakeholder-driven – assess user needs, act as information broker/conduit.
Problem-based – focus on particular issues/ solutions (e.g., resource adaptation).
Basic research– fill information gaps re: climate/water.
•Topics covered include:
Agriculture, Wildland Fire,
Water Resources, Drought
Planning, Fisheries, Public
Health.
Reprise – why comprehensive planning is needed
• Myth: population + economic growth = insatiable water demand.
• Reality: inexpensive + subsidized water = population growth + profligate
water use.
• What we’ve done: continued provision of cheap, abundant water +
refusal to adjust our demands to ecology of regions = current plight.
• What we need to do: cease profligate water uses by conserving + re-using
+ better preparing for future water demands.
Conclusions
 Stop moving water from in-stream needs to agriculture, cities.
 Be sensitive to distributional impacts of water planning:
 Encourage tiered-pricing linked to assistance for low-income residents (e.g.,
community-based retrofit programs).
 Link wastewater re-use & conservation to growth management strategies and
public outreach measures.
 Encourage regionalization that protects affected minorities and low-income
populations.
“Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the
river flows. There will be large numbers of fish,
because the river flows there . . . . Fruit trees of all
kinds will grow on both banks. Their leaves will not
wither, nor will their fruit fail because the water flows
to them.”
– Ezekiel, 47: 8-12