edwards aquifer recovery implementation program – impact to san antonio october 3, 2011 green...

Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program –

Impact to San Antonio

October 3, 2011

Green Industry Alliance

October 3, 2011

EARIP Impact to San AntonioEARIP Impact to San Antonio

EARIP Background

• EARIP– “Balances the recovery of listed species

with water use and development through a multi-stakeholder process”

• Ongoing process since 2007

– Parameters and timelines solidified in Senate Bill (SB) 3 (2007)

– Stakeholders specifically identified in legislation (26 Member Steering Committee)

October 3, 2011


EARIP Background• Consensus-based approach that uses

available science to develop a program document that:– Protects identified endangered species

• Contributes to long-term species recovery

– Balances regional interests• Human water use, environmental sustainability

– Provides Incidental Take protection for interested stakeholders

• Protection for covered activities through a permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with an approved plan

October 3, 2011


• Habitat Management Phase I Components

– Improve habitat surrounding both spring complexes

– Environmental restoration and protection areas with research component – protection in the wild

– Refugia - protection in captivity– Bio-Monitoring– Low impact development

considerations around critical habitat (water quality)

– Implement specific species protection measures (i.e. Recreation Management)

• Flow ManagementPhase I Components – VISPO Dry Year Option– Regional conservation– SAWS ASR commitment– Stage V additional 4% water use

curtailments

If necessary, Phase II Components– Expanded use of the ASR through

SAWS Water Resources Integration Pipeline

– Additional pumping reductions to be determined

Phase I – Bottom Up ActivitiesActivities Approved by the EARIP Steering Committeeto Accomplish its Goals

October 3, 2011


Phase I – Bottom Up Activities

• SAWS ASR recovery commitment– 126,000 acre-feet of recovered water is delivered to

SAWS customers to replace pumping on the Edwards Aquifer during a future drought similar to the 1950s

• Drought of Record (DOR) Determination– Ten-year rolling Edwards Aquifer recharge average

• As identified in the annual EAA Hydrogeologic Data Report

– Regional Advisory Group

• Coordination of 50,000 acre-feet of regional leases

SAWS ASR

October 3, 2011


Phase I – Bottom Up Activities

• Last layer of the activities to provide spring flow protection

• Triggered when J-17 is at 625’ msl or below

– July 1990 (most recent occurrence)

• Permits will be reduced to a total cutback of 44%

• Stage V reduces firm yield of the aquifer to 320,000 acre-feet

Stage V Restrictions

October 3, 2011


SAWS ASR Commitment

October 3, 2011


Introduction and Overview

• The capabilities of the ASR are greater than originally anticipated and continue to develop

• All water in the ASR continues to serve SAWS ratepayers

• The EARIP plan and SAWS intended use of the ASR in drought stages are generally consistent

October 3, 2011


EARIP Leased Water and ASR

• EARIP will lease 50,000 acre-feet of water annually

• The leased water will be available for SAWS to store in the ASR

– 16,000 acre-feet will be available annually

– 34,000 acre-feet will be available based on DOR triggers

October 3, 2011


Using ASR through Drought

October 3, 2011


Protecting Comal Spring Flows

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan-52 Jan-53 Jan-54 Jan-55 Jan-56 Jan-57

Baseline

Model Simulation shows 39 months of zero spring flow at

Comal Springs

cfs

October 3, 2011


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan-52 Jan-53 Jan-54 Jan-55 Jan-56 Jan-57

Baseline Other Strategies ASR Phase I

Phase I Program and Reduced SAWS Pumpingcf

s

October 3, 2011


ASR Phase II

• Models are predictive tools only and are built with conservative assumptions

• If additional protections are needed, SAWS is committed for Phase II

• To meet Phase II commitments using the ASR, SAWS will need to construct the integration pipeline

• As a fall back position, Phase II could impose additional cutbacks

October 3, 2011


SAWS Challenges with ASR in EARIP

• SAWS must manage the ASR for long-term storage and produce from the ASR once DOR is identified

• SAWS will need to evaluate produced water quality under extended drought and maximum production operation

• SAWS Edwards annual water rights will be reduced proportionally to the annual volume of ASR water produced in a DOR

October 3, 2011


Benefits with ASR in EARIP

• Potentially less expensive than other EARIP projects considered

• SAWS makes all operational decisions on use of the ASR prior to DOR

• All ASR water is used by SAWS ratepayers

October 3, 2011


Implications to SAWS Water Resources

October 3, 2011


WMP – Current StatusDOR Occurring Late in Scenario

Alt. Scenario(136 GPCD)

Normal (116 GPCD)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Ac

re-F

ee

t

Non-Edwards Supply RFCSP Edwards Supply ASR Normal Demand Alternate Scenario

Drought of Record Starting in 2019Maintain Edwards, Regional Carrizo, Brackish

Desalination (3 Phases), RFCSP

7/1/117/26/11

October 3, 2011


EARIP Commitment

• EARIP Assumptions– SAWS ASR

• Becomes a base loaded supply in future DOR based on modeled recovery regime

• ASR recovery will replace Edwards pumping totaling 126,000 acre-feet over a ten-year period

– 46,300 acre-feet in worst year of DOR

• Portion of regional leases to be used for ASR storage

– SAWS initially contributing 8,000 acre-feet per year• Water will be restored back to SAWS as the other water

conservation efforts across the region begin to achieve results

• Estimated commitment to be ten years

Assumptions

October 3, 2011


EARIP Commitment

• Edwards Aquifer Proposed Cutbacks

• Additional reductions in Phase II if necessary

Assumptions

Stage Trigger Reduction

I 660’ msl 20%

II 650’ msl 30%

III 640’ msl 35%

IV 630’ msl 40%

V 625’ msl 44%

October 3, 2011


Implications of EARIP Bottom UpDOR Occurring Late in Scenario

Normal (116 GPCD)

Alt. Scenario(136 GPCD)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Ac

re-F

ee

t

Non-Edwards Supply RFCSP Edwards Supply SAWS ASR Normal Demand Alternate Scenario

Drought of Record Starting in 2019Maintain Edwards, Regional Carrizo, Brackish

Desalination (3 Phases), RFCSP

7/26/11

October 3, 2011


Funding Options and Costs

October 3, 2011


Funding

• July 19th letter from EAA– “…the maximum projected total aquifer management

fee rate would be $116 per acre-foot beginning in 2012”

– Represents an increase of $77 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial users

• Implement and sustain programs in the HCP – $64 per acre-foot

• Maintain the long-term sustainability of the aquifer management rebate program – $12 per acre-foot

• Enhanced water quality regulations – $1 per acre-foot

Likely increase in the EAA Aquifer Management Fee

October 3, 2011


Funding

• Ordinance #87042 – passed by City Council in 1997– Instructs SAWS to pass the EAA Aquifer Management fee

through to customers based on volume of water used

• The Aquifer Management fee appears as a line item on each SAWS bill

• Current rate – approximately 1.4 cents per 100 gallons– Average 2011 residential customer: $1.10 per month

– Average 2011 commercial customer: $7.03 per month

EAA Fee Pass-Through to Monthly Water Bill

October 3, 2011


EAA Fee Calculation 2011 Fee with EARIP Projection

2011 2011 (EARIP)Estimated Edwards Allotment (Acre-feet) 255,474 255,474

Cost per Acre Foot $39 $116

EAA Fee $9,963,479 $29,634,963

Under (Over) Recovery -prior year $9,200 $9,200EAA Rebate ($2,297,662) $0

Amount to be Recovered $7,675,017 $29,644,163

Projected Annual Water Usage (Billion Gallons) 54.561 54.561

Charge per 100 Gallons $0.01407 $0.05433

Average Customer Monthly Charge $1.10 $4.23

October 3, 2011


The Edwards Aquifer Would Remain the Most Economical Source of Water

$285 $328 $362 $405

$900$1,042

$1,094

$1,549

$3,168

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Edwards Acquisitions

(2011)

Edwards Leases (2011)

Edwards Acquisitions

(EARIP)

Edwards Leases (EARIP)

Trinity Project

Canyon Lake

Regional Carrizo

(Gonzales)

Brackish Desal

(Bexar)

Ocean Desal

Aquifer Management Fee Increases Annualized Supply Cost (2011)

Co

st p

er

ac

re-f

oo

tAnnualized Project Costs with System Integration (rev. July 2011)

October 3, 2011


Funding

• Federal Contribution– FWS

• Possibility of $2 million per year

• Downstream Contribution– Goal of $1 million of funding

• GBRA - $400,000

• Others - $250,000 (CPS Energy - $100,000)

• Outstanding - $350,000

Other Potential Sources of Funding

October 3, 2011


Costs to SAWS

• Given the legislative cap on agricultural Aquifer Management fees and the likely limited contributions from federal sources and downstream stakeholders, most of the funding for the EARIP will come from Municipal and Industrial EAA permit holders

• SAWS pays approximately 65% of the total Aquifer Management fees collected by EAA

– Other Municipalities and Industries pay 34%

– Agricultural irrigators pay 1%

Largest EAA Municipal Permit Holder

October 3, 2011


Next Steps

October 3, 2011


Next Steps – Moving Forward

• Bottom Up activities are meaningful programs with merit

• Four years of regional cooperation and understanding

– Unprecedented four-year effort with all stakeholders involved in negotiations

• HCP approval is promising

– FWS very engaged in process

October 3, 2011


Without SB 3Cap of 400,000 acre-feet Cap of 572,000 acre-feet

CPM per EAA CPM codified

Owned water 159,000 acre-feet Owned water 227,000 acre-feet

Constrained water market Vigorous market

ASR limited ASR at 95,000 acre-feet

High litigation risks Low litigation risks

Gaps filled with non-Edwards Gaps filled with Edwards and non-Edwards

172,000 acre-feet loss = $950 million

With SB 3


October 3, 2011



• Impacts to SAWS Water Resources is manageable

• SAWS should be applicant to the HCP• Funding commitment is high, but benefits are

long-term and provide much needed protection to Edwards water rights as well as resolution to ongoing issues

• Staff will continue to work on key issues and develop recommendation for Board consideration

Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program –

Impact to San Antonio

October 3, 2011

Green Industry Alliance

edwards aquifer recovery implementation program – impact to san antonio october 3, 2011 green...

Documents