CONFLUENCE FALL/WINTER 2018
Texas Water Conservation Association | twca.org
IN THIS ISSUE:
• PUC Rate Case Update • TWDB’s Water for Texas Event Preview by Chairman Peter Lake • State and Federal Legislative Outlooks • New Flood Warning System in Bandera County • Q&A With Sonia Lambert • And More!
1
Table of Contents
7
19 12
23
6 4
President’s Message - Hope Wells
15
2019 State Legislative Outlook
6
Supply Chain Risk Management
16
Using Green Bonds
7
What’s Next?
19
Federal Elections Update
10
Water Laws Chair Update - Texas Water Rate Review Jurisdiction and the “Public Interest Test”
21
Federal Water Policy Overview from NRWA
12
A Message from Chairman Peter Lake: Water for Texas Conference 2019
23
Bandera County RAGCD and USGS Work on Flood Warning System for Bandera County
Fall/Winter 2018 - Fall Confluence
32
35
28 26
Water Contracting Options: Finding the Right Structure for Your Needs*
28
TWCA Fall Conference Recap
32
An Update from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
35
Q&A: Sonia Lambert
38
Board Members & Past Presidents
39
What’s New with TWCA?
Cover photo: Leaves change colors across Texas as fall temperatures arrive. Back Cover: Confluence Sponsors
Message from the President
Hope Wells - San Antonio Water System Dear colleagues, Like me, I’m sure everyone is feeling the pace quicken as we head into the holidays and new year. We’re right around the corner from the start of the legislative session which kicks off on Tuesday January 8, 2019. As always, TWCA, and its members, will have a strong presence, both advocating the Association’s initiatives and participating in policy discussions. Pre-filing of bills began on November 12th, so be sure to keep an eye out for items of interest to your organization. In October, we held our fall conference in San Antonio, and I want to thank everyone that attended, sponsored and presented. We had two great keynote addresses, one from Representative Tracy King, who is chairman of the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee, as well as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee. We thank Chairman King for sharing his insights on water issues and the upcoming legislative session. We also heard from Chairman Jon Niermann with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who provided an overview of recent agency activities. As many of you know, TWCA has embarked on a strategic planning effort and as part of that process, has worked on identifying our vision and mission to be a trusted resource in water policy for Texas, as well as advocating priority water policies and building consensus. I’m reminded how well these objectives describe our work here at TWCA. For example, at the fall conference the board adopted the Flood Response Committee’s informational paper on flood mitigation strategies that I’m sure will serve as an important guide to legislators in their deliberations this session. Thank you to all those who participated in the committee and in the preparation of the report. In addition, as we head into the session, the Groundwater Committee has been working through various subcommittees to discuss groundwater issues and explore opportunities for consensus among our membership. Thank you to all those that are committing their time and expertise to this effort, especially at such a busy time of year. Finally, on the federal front, Texas Water Day will take place March 19-21, 2019 in Washington D.C. Plans are underway with the Federal Affairs Committee working with the membership to develop materials for use during the trip. Please keep a look out for registration and hotel information coming soon. Meanwhile, thank you for your continued membership and support and have a safe and happy holiday season!
Hope Wells
4
TWCA Officers & Executive Committee President - Hope Wells President Elect - David Montagne Immediate Past President - Michael J. Booth Panel Chairs: Timothy L. Brown Lyn Clancy John Chisholm Drew Satterwhite Sonny Hinojosa James Kowis Wayne Owen J. Kevin Ward Mike Yost Vice Presidents: Fiona Allen Kim Carroll Tom Gooch Glenn Jarvis Kathy Turner Jones
Glenn Lord Martin Rochelle Michael F. Thuss Walt Sears
TWCA Staff General Manager Dean Robbins drobbins@twca.org Assistant General Manager Stacey Allison Steinbach ssteinbach@twca.org Office Manager/Events Coordinator Lisa Henley lhenley@twca.org Director of Communications Adeline Fox afox@twca.org Administrative Assistant Becky Arledge barledge@twca.org
Texas Water Conservation Association 3755 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Ste. 105 Austin, Texas 78704 www.twca.org | 512.472.7216
CONFLUENCE NEWSLETTER BECOME A SPONSOR TODAY!
SPONSORSHIP LEVELS & BENEFITS PLATINUM - $1,000 - Complimentary ad (choose half or quarter page size) in each issue - Company logo and link on TWCA website CLICK THE IMAGE TO - Printed copy of each issue SPONSOR TODAY! - Recognition of sponsorship via social media GOLD - $750 - Complimentary quarter page ad in each issue - Company logo and link on TWCA website - Printed copy of each issue SILVER - $500 - Company logo and link on TWCA website BRONZE - $250 - Name and link on TWCA website
Registration now available for the TWCA/TWRA Water Law Seminar
Providing legal services to Texas water entities for over 38 years
January 10-11, 2019 Omni Southpark Austin Austin Office I 512.472.8021 El Paso Office I 915.533.1810 Houston Office I 713.984.9997 Toll Free I 800.749.6646 www.bickerstaff.com
More info available at www.twca.org. 5
Supply Chain Risk Management By Richard Wigzell, TWCA Risk Management Fund When managers think of supply chain risk management they usually think of manufacturing companies that depend on long lines of supplies that may come from all over the world. For instance, cell phone manufacturers depend on rare earth minerals that come almost exclusively from China. Supply chain risk to the cell phone manufacturer is the risk of disruption of the supply of rare earth minerals that are essential in the production and function of the cell phone. The disruption can occur at any point along the chain from the mining of minerals to shipment across the Pacific Ocean to damage to a warehouse or manufacturing facility in the United States. A hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico disrupts the supply chain of refineries along the coast as offshore production platforms are shut in as the storm approaches. This leads to refineries shutting down and a spike in gasoline or other refined petroleum product prices as the supply chain disruption makes refined petroleum products scarcer. For members of the Fund supply chain risk can affect not only the chemicals used to treat water or wastewater but the very essential supply of water itself. In the case of water, the real risk of supply chain disruption is borne by the customers who rely on water for manufacturing processes, safety, health and drinking. The ‘boil water advisory” that many communities experienced after Harvey was only one manifestation of this disruption. That event lead to a search for alternative supplies of water that resulted in runs on stores for bottled water, the import
by first responders of pallets of bottled water for distribution and herculean efforts to restore water supply systems to full and safe operation. For districts the primary risk management approach to supply chain risk is to identify alternative sources and make arrangements for their activation in the event of a disruption. One very common supplied material for water districts is chlorine which may come to the district in large containers or railroad cars. A common method of distribution for chlorine is by rail. A major derailment could cause significant delay in delivery of the chemical as well as other chemicals used in water or wastewater treatment. Would sufficient alternative sources of supply be available? Certainly trucking could be another method of delivery. Another measure would be to maintain a stockpile in reserve. In the case of wastewater treatment an alternative disinfecting method using ultraviolet light could eliminate the need for chlorine. Then the supply disruption issue becomes UV bulbs instead of huge tanks of chemicals. Another disruptive effect of an event like Harvey is a district’s 6
inability to provide water or wastewater treatment in the facilities it used before the storm. Although this really is a disruption of the district’s ability to supply water it is also a serious disruption in revenue that can affect the district’s ability to resume services. Alternative locations like older treatment plants should be identified beforehand as possible back-up sites. Equipment needs such as pumps and generators should also be identified and arranged for if possible. The Fund provides “Extra Expense” coverage in its property coverage document that will help pay for additional expenses necessary to continue services during the period of restoration to the damaged property previously in use for those services. This could include higher rent, utilities, furniture or equipment rental and other costs that continue during the period of business interruption. Planning for supply disruption should be part of the district’s disaster plan. The local emergency network should be made aware of the consequences of water supply or wastewater treatment disruption in the event of a major disaster affecting the member’s operations.
What’s Next? Let’s start with a little reflection.
What’s next for you in your life and career? Let’s start with a little reflection. Think about where you started from. Think about how you got to where you are today. Ten times out of ten, someone helped you along the way. Someone provided support. Someone gave you insight. Someone gave you encouragement. Someone gave you advice. Someone gave you direction. Someone was present. These “someones” are our mentors. Time and time again, I’ve heard people talk about looking for a mentor, and they’d often describe the “perfect version” of themselves. They’d dream about that person who had everything they wanted in life – the dream job, the ideal personality, the perfect relationships. They’d have all the boxes checked off because they were just so perfect. Let’s be real for a second.
Even our heroes in life don’t consider themselves perfect and done. We’re not pieces of steak where we reach optimal temperature and wait for someone to stick a fork in us. We’re constantly growing and changing. As we grow, our goals
By Megan Yoo Schneider Seven Management and Consulting, Inc. grow. As we experience more in life, our perspectives change. Our priorities may shift. In fact, the only constant in our lives is the fact that we’re always changing and growing. Knowing that, many of us could spend an entire lifetime just searching for that perfect person. The truth is that we won’t find that person. Even the people that seem like the perfect versions of ourselves don’t check off all the boxes. After all, we’re only human. So what makes someone a good mentor or even a great mentor?
A good to great mentor can serve as a fantastic support system and can help you leap forward with your goals as they share their insights and lessons learned from their own experiences. Those of you who know me or have heard me speak know that I absolutely adore my mentors and credit everything to them. I love my mentors. I love being a mentor. I love everything about mentorship. With that being said, I want to clarify a few aspects of mentorship and dispel some stereotypes. Your mentor does not need to be older than you. Your mentor does not need to be smarter than you. Your mentor does not need to have your dream job. Your mentor will not have all the answers. 7
One mentor will not be able to mentor you in all aspects of your life. We can learn something from everyone. The perfect mentor(s) for you may not be the perfect mentor(s) for someone else. As long as your mentor has knowledge and experience in an area you are looking to grow in, they have something to teach you. Matching learning styles and personalities is just as important as knowledge and experience. I have mentors of all ages, all backgrounds, and all experiences. I also mentor a wide variety of people, as well. It’s so much easier to grow and develop with mentors, and it’s amazing to give back, too. I want to share a quick story with you. I love people, and I love helping people grow. I feel so eternally grateful to all my mentors for shaping me into the person that I am today and for continuing to shape me into the person that I’m growing to become. I’m so fortunate in having had some of the world’s greatest mentors, so I absolutely love sharing my personal lessons and experiences with others, in hopes that my stories will inspire others to pay it forward. As a result, I end up facilitating workshops and teaching classes quite often. Just last week, I was teaching a three-hour workshop on effective communications, teamwork, leadership, and training others to succeed. I had an eclectic group of professionals, ranging from
those who worked in the field to those who worked in the office, and we had young professionals and seasoned managers and everyone in between. I had a blast. We had everyone very engaged, motivated, and ready to rock and roll at the end of the workshop. I also talked about the importance of mentorship, and I encouraged everyone there to not only continue to seek mentors but to pay it forward by being a great mentor. Hours later, I received the most unexpected, yet gratifying text message. One of the attendees was a utilities manager for a progressive city. He is definitely more seasoned in life than I am, but he asked me to be his mentor. He said, “I feel energized right now. It’s infectious, and I caught it. Could you possibly mentor me? I’d love to do what you do – inspiring people, helping them be their best.” I was so humbled in that moment, and I immediately had to share this with some of my mentors because this is what mentorship is all about. Mentorship isn’t about finding your idol and asking them to help you become like them. Mentorship is about learning life experiences and insights from each other. It’s about recognizing your strengths and realizing opportunities for growth. Mentorship is about finding people who do something or know something that you’d like to learn. It doesn’t matter if they’re necessarily older, wiser, or generally smarter than you. All that matters is that they know something that you’d like to learn in turn.
Don’t overcomplicate mentorship.
You don’t need to know everything to be a mentor. In fact, you don’t even have to be winning at all things in life in order to become a mentor to someone. You just need to be willing to share what you know. You just need to be willing to be patient, present, and help. Over the next few months, I’d love to hear from you. I’d love to hear your stories, your experiences, and your feedback. If you have any questions or any topics you’d like to read more about, please let me know. I am here for you! You can reach me at megan@viistrategies.com. Until next time, Megan 8
Megan Yoo Schneider is a communicator, an engineer, a creative, a genuine relationshipbuilder, a passionate strategizer, an enthusiastic doer, and a connector. Over the last 12 years, Megan has had the opportunity to work for a myriad of private sector consulting firms and for several public agencies. She currently serves as the elected Director of Division 7 for the Municipal Water District of Orange County, in addition to her role as President of Seven Management and Consulting, Inc. She is a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California.
TWCA Turns 75 in 2019! Join us in celebrating TWCA’s past, present, and future during the Annual Convention March 6-8, 2019 at Hyatt Lost Pines in Bastrop. More details to follow.
Hello, future Jacobs and CH2M are now one great firm serving our Texas municipal clients with planning, design, design-build and contract operations services. The same great people providing local client service and bringing proven world class technical solutions. Everything is possible. Find out more at www.jacobs.com or follow us @joinjacobs
CH2M is now Jacobs.
JOIN OR RENEW YOUR TWCA MEMBERSHIP TODAY View membership benefits at www.twca.org. 9
Words from TWCA’s Water Laws Chair
Texas Water Rate Review Jurisdiction and the “Public Interest Test” By Howard Slobodin, Trinity River Authority For decades, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) and its predecessor agencies exercised jurisdiction to review rates charged for stateowned surface water in Texas. Effective September 1, 2014, those powers were legislatively transferred to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUC”). As a part of that transfer, the PUC adopted rules for those proceedings nearly identical to the “Public Interest Rules” that were adopted by the TCEQ in 1994. Those rules owed their origin to the constitutional prohibition on laws that impair the obligation of contracts, except where public safety and welfare are at stake. TEX. CONST. art. I, § 16. In plain English, the Texas Constitution protects the freedom of parties to contract against legislative interference, except where public welfare is jeopardized. Accordingly, statutes that authorize administrative agency rate review may only permit modification of contractual rates when the public interest is jeopardized. Consistent with the foregoing, both the TCEQ’s and PUC’s rules have included a requirement that, in cases challenging contractual rates, a protested rate must be found to “adversely affect[s] the public interest” before it can be set aside. 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 24.307(b). This requirement was originally enacted by the TCEQ’s predecessor agency in 1994, to reconcile its jurisdiction to review rates “with the argument that commission review interferes with a constitutional right of contract.” 19 Tex. Reg. 6227.
Since assuming jurisdiction over water and sewer rate appeals, the PUC has taken steps that appear to weaken the public interest requirement as a component of rate review. In one pending matter, the PUC referred issues related to cost of service to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”), as part of PUC’s preliminary public interest determination. This development represents a significant departure from the TCEQ’s handling of rate appeals. It also appears to conflict with the plain language of the rules that the PUC adopted. This article briefly covers the history of water and sewer rate review and the public interest requirement in Texas, and its federal caselaw and constitutional origins. The constitutional basis of the public interest requirement is such that PUC’s actions of late may ultimately lead it to encroach upon the limits on agency ratemaking jurisdiction in Texas. TEXAS RATE REVIEW JURISDICTION
Review of rates charged for state-owned surface water in Texas began with the BurgesGlasscock Act or “1913 Irrigation Bill,” which enacted the statutory predecessor of today’s Texas Water Code Section 11.036. That section currently requires that the price and terms of contracts for the sale of state-owned surface water must “be just and reasonable and without discrimination.” Five years later, in 1918, the legislature enacted the language now found in Texas Water Code Section 12.013(a), which requires that the 10
PUC “fix reasonable rates for the furnishing of raw or treated water for any purpose mentioned” in Chapter 11 and 12 of the Texas Water Code. Chapter 12 provides relief to both purchasers and sellers, such that a seller could challenge a rate it agreed to in the event it was so low that it impaired the seller’s ability to continue to provide service. Sixty-nine years later, in 1987, the legislature enacted Texas Water Code Section 13.043(f ). That section was amended in 1989. Section 13.043(f ) provides rate relief to a smaller class of potentially-aggrieved purchasers, “retail public utilit[ies] that receive[s] water or sewer service from another retail public utility or political subdivision of the state.” In general, Section 13.043 includes language similar to that of Sections 11.036 and 12.013, in that it requires rates to be “just and reasonable,” and not “unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory.” For many years, the TCEQ and its predecessor agencies exercised their rate review jurisdiction in a fashion that “essentially automatically canceled the rate set by contract and set a rate based on cost of service.” 19 Tex. Reg. 6227, 6229. That practice came to an end as a result of the decision in Texas Water Commission v. City of Fort Worth, 875 S.W.2d 332, 336 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied) (“City of Fort Worth”). The City of Fort Worth case arose from a rate appeal challenging the wholesale wastewater rates charged by the City of Fort Worth to the City of Arlington.
CITY OF FORT WORTH
In City of Fort Worth, Austin’s Third Court of Appeals was presented with the argument, made by Fort Worth, that Texas Water Commission (“TWC”) did not have jurisdiction to review the contractual rates. TWC entered an order lowering the rate Fort Worth could charge Arlington, and Fort Worth appealed that decision to district court. The district court found that, although TWC had jurisdiction to hear Arlington’s appeal, TWC could not modify the rate set by the parties’ contract unless it first found that the rate adversely affected the public interest. That decision was appealed by all parties to the Third Court of Appeals. Like the trial court, the Third Court of Appeals rejected Fort Worth’s blanket jurisdictional argument that TWC could not review contractual rates. The appeals court also agreed with the trial court that a preliminary public interest finding would be required before TWC could modify the rate demanded by Fort Worth. The appeals court specifically noted that TWC made no initial finding as to whether Fort Worth’s demanded rate was unjust, unreasonable, preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory, warranting that it be set aside. The appeals court looked to its own past decisions with regard to natural gas rate review to define what preliminary finding TWC must make before setting aside a contract rate. In that context, the same court had required that a party challenging a natural gas rate set by contract before the Railroad Commission “was charged with the burden of showing that a continuance of the contract would
adversely affect the public interest in that it might impair the ability of the pipeline to continue its service, cast upon other customers an excessive burden or be unduly discriminatory.” City of Fort Worth, 875 S.W.2d at 335 (citing High Plains Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 467 S.W.2d 532,537 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1971, writ ref ’d n.r.e.) (“High Plains”)). The High Plains decision itself relied upon federal precedent, commonly known as the Mobile-Sierra Doctrine, born of United States Supreme Court companion cases concerning administrative agency review of natural gas and electric rates. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that a rate reviewing agency must find that a challenged contractual rate adversely affects the public interest before that agency can set aside the challenged rate. Based on its decision in High Plains, itself rooted in the MobileSierra Doctrine, the Third Court of Appeals found that TWC’s exercise of its rate review jurisdiction also required it to first make a finding that a challenged contractual rate “adversely affect[ed] the public interest by being unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory,” before TWC could set aside that rate. City of Fort Worth, 875 S.W.2d at 336. At the same time, it affirmed “the constitutionality of agency review of the reasonableness of contractual rates where the public interest is affected,” observing that the Water Code “does not allow the agency to institute a rate proceeding without a ‘public interest’ finding.” Id. at 336-37. That required public interest finding serves to keep the agency’s exercise of its rate review powers from violating the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on laws 11
that impair contracts. THE PUBLIC INTEREST RULES
Only five months after the court’s decision in City of Fort Worth, the TCEQ’s predecessor agency adopted its Public Interest Rules. Those rules established a bifurcated proceeding, with the first phase dedicated to a finding as to whether a challenged contractual rate was adverse to the public interest. The rules also specified “public interest criteria,” at least one of which must be violated in order for a public interest finding to be made. Only if the agency determined that a protested contractual rate adversely affected the public interest could it proceed to a second-phase proceeding to establish a rate based upon cost-of-service. Notably, the agency effectively prohibited itself from considering a seller’s cost-ofservice as part of the public interest phase proceeding, by providing that it “shall not determine whether the protested rate adversely affects the public interest based on an analysis of the seller’s cost of service.” 19 Tex. Reg. 6227, 6231 (enacting 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 291.133(b)). Many parties challenging contractual rates squared off against the public interest finding requirement between the Public Interest Rules’ adoption in 1994 and the transfer of rate review jurisdiction to PUC in 2014. None prevailed. During that twentyyear period, the commission never found that a protested contractual rate adversely affected the public interest. This, of course, led to consternation among purchasers who sought rate relief from the TCEQ. It should not, however, have come as a surprise. The Mobile-Sierra Doctrine’s public Continued on pg. 14
Mark Your Calendars: Water for Texas 2019 Conference By Peter Lake, Chairman, Texas Water Development Board In January, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is hosting the Water for Texas 2019 conference, “The Story of Texas Water,” in Austin. On behalf of my fellow Board members and TWDB staff, I hope you’ll consider attending. The story of Texas water is the story of Texas. Water has always defined our state, and it will continue to shape our future. It’s a story that affects all of us. At the Water for Texas 2019 conference, our speakers, panels, and exhibits will examine the state’s water narrative—past, present, and future. Keynote speakers, moderators, and panelists will share their expertise and insights gained through their involvement in water at the local and state levels and through industry and beyond. General sessions will include keynotes by George Hawkins, former CEO of DC Water, and Roy Spence, chairman and cofounder of GSD&M. Attendees will also hear from members of the media during a panel about the challenges and solutions to covering water issues in Texas. A panel of current Texas legislators will discuss water policy and the upcoming legislative session, whereas a panel of former Texas legislators will look back at major water policy during their tenures and the impact today. Breakout sessions will encourage open dialogue on important topics shaping Texas water. In keeping
with the conference theme, sessions will fall within three tracks: • Drought and Flood: Ensuring a More Resilient Texas • Water Supply: Planning Now for Tomorrow • Water Communications: Telling Our Story
For example, the Drought and Flood track includes “Standing Tall in Our Rain Boots: Building a Resilient Texas,” during which representatives of communities affected by Hurricane Harvey will discuss lessons learned from the event, the path forward, and strategies for thriving in a floodprone landscape. Additionally, a TWDB staff member will conduct a presentation on the first-ever State Flood Assessment that was completed this fall. Panelists in the “Deciphering Drought Through Technology and Tools” session will consider technology’s evolving ability to predict drought. And “The Water Supply and Flood Mitigation Nexus: Can It Work?” panel will explore the feasibility of strategies such as reservoir modification, stormwater capture, and aquifer storage and recovery, as well as the future of flood mitigation and water supply working together. I look forward to moderating one of the Water Supply sessions, “Technology and the Water Industry: Has the Future Arrived?” and hearing from Texasbased and out-of-state panelists with experience using artificial 12
intelligence, robotics, drones, and big data to improve efficiency and operations management in municipal and agricultural water use. During the “More with Less: Can Texas Grow and Thrive Using Less Water?” breakout, panelists will discuss how conservation can go hand in hand with Texas’ growth and the ability to finance projects. The future of desalination is the focus of “Salty Solutions to Our Water Supply Needs,” which will examine success stories and technological advances related to this water supply. Within the Water Communications track, “Outward Bound: Building Relationships with the Public” will feature water utility representatives and other experts who will discuss how to foster relationships with the public, cultivate water awareness, and build an identity within communities. They will also explain why that communication is more vital than ever. And in “Rewriting Reuse: It’s Just Water,” panelists from communities that have considered and/or successfully embraced indirect or direct reuse will share their insights on communicating about this water strategy. Attendees can also hear from Texas corporations that are incorporating water-related strategies into their operations. During “Companies Investing in a Sustainable Water Future,” corporate representatives will share insights into their financial and environmental successes and opportunities. These are just a few of the breakout sessions offered at Water for Texas 2019. The full agenda, session descriptions, speaker bios, and other details are posted on the conference website,
http://WaterforTexas.twdb. texas.gov. Online registration is open through January 15. If you haven’t already, mark your calendars for January 23–25 and join me at Water for Texas 2019. We all play a role in writing the story of Texas water, and I am confident that the conference sessions, speakers, and networking opportunities will help us to successfully do just that. Chairman Peter Lake was appointed to the Texas Water Development Board by Governor Greg Abbott in December 2015. A native of Tyler, Texas, Lake currently resides in Austin.
LLLLL NNNNNN VVVVVV AAAAAAAAA
Providing for the present and long term freshwater needs of our municipal, agricultural and industrial customers. 7850 Eastex Freeway Beaumont, Texas 77708 13
www.lnva.dst.tx.us 409.892.4011
Continued PUC Rate Case from p. 11
interest test, which indirectly gave rise to the TCEQ’s Public Interest Rules, has been characterized by federal courts as “practically insurmountable.” Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. FERC, 723 F.2d 950, 954 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1241 (1984). Upon transfer of jurisdiction, the PUC adopted the same twophase procedural and substantive rules as had been in force at TCEQ. See, 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 24.301 – .321. Like the TCEQ’s rules, the PUC’s rules require that petitions or appeals challenging contractual rates must first undergo “an evidentiary hearing on public interest,” and that during that first-phase proceeding, the PUC “shall not determine whether the protested rate adversely affects the public interest based on an analysis of the seller’s cost of service.” 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 24.307(b), 24.311(b). Notwithstanding these relatively clear mandates, the PUC appears prepared to consider cost of service issues as a part of the constitutionally-mandated public interest test. PUC DOCKET NO. 46662
Pending before the PUC in Docket No. 46662 is a rate challenge by four member cities of the North Texas Municipal Water District (“NTMWD”). Those member cities purchase water from NTMWD pursuant to a water supply contract executed by all 13 member cities and NTMWD. In its order referring the required preliminary public interest proceeding to SOAH, the PUC characterized the public interest test as “nebulous and fact intensive,” capable of being “brought into focus only by a
complete understanding of all the relevant facts.” A copy of PUC’s preliminary order can be found at https://bit. ly/2DwG2Ji. Among the facts the preliminary order identified for consideration at SOAH are NTMWD’s “cost of debt,” “costs to operate and maintain its facilities and systems,” and “cost to run the district’s systems (annual requirement).” All three of those items pertain directly to NTMWD’s cost of service, and thus their identification is in apparent conflict with 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 24.311(b). In an ostensible attempt to avoid this conflict, the PUC’s preliminary order stated that among the issues not to be addressed at the public interest hearing was “[w] hether [NTMWD’s] challenged rates are no higher or lower than is necessary to match the cost of service.” Notwithstanding this limitation, the PUC’s referral of three issues central to a costof-service determination was sufficient to make cost of service an issue for consideration at SOAH. SOAH conducted a hearing on the merits on PUC’s referral on October 15 – 18, 2018. That hearing will result in a proposal for decision issued by the administrative law judges, which will be returned to the PUC for its consideration. The PUC’s preliminary order in Docket No. 46662 indicates its intent to apply the public interest requirement less stringently than was the case at TCEQ. Indeed, the PUC has referred the same cost of 14
service issues in wholesale water rate appeal cases filed after Docket No. 46662. Whether its expanded consideration of cost-of-service as a part of the public interest requirement is consistent with City of Fort Worth and the MobileSierra Doctrine may be a matter ultimately resolved by Texas courts. Finally, it deserves mention that lowering the bar to administrative review of contractual rates is not an issue of concern to sellers only. Texas Water Code Section 12.013 provides “mutuality of remedies,” meaning a buyer or seller may challenge a rate it agreed upon in a contract. Thus, at issue now is to what extent the PUC’s rate review jurisdiction may be invoked by both sellers and buyers under an apparently relaxed public interest requirement. Howard Slobodin is General Counsel and Secretary, Board of Directors, of the Trinity River Authority of Texas. He joined the Trinity River Authority in April 2008. Prior to joining TRA, Howard practiced environmental and water law in both the public and private sectors. slobodinh@trinityra.org
2019 Legislative Outlook
By Stacey Allison Steinbach, TWCA
Legislators and lobbyists are busy preparing for the 86th Legislative Session, which will convene on January 8th. The upcoming session promises to be more of the same on water, with one major difference: Hurricane Harvey and flood preparedness will likely be front and center in 2019. Another major difference next year will be the Speaker for the Texas House of Representatives. After serving as the head of the Texas House for five sessions, Speaker Joe Straus is retiring. During the interim, a handful of legislators have been jockeying to replace Straus, but it looks like Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R, Angleton) is the current frontrunner. House members will formally vote once session has started. The makeup of the Texas House and Senate has changed in other ways. In the lower chamber, Democrats picked up 12 seats, decreasing the Republican advantage from 95-55 to 83-67, which is the biggest shift in nearly a decade. In the Senate, Democrats picked up two seats, making it a 19-12 Republican advantage. Dan Patrick will continue to lead the Senate as Lt. Governor. And though the Legislature has not yet officially convened, prefiling of bills started in November. As expected, we have already seen quite a few bills related to the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey. And as with previous sessions,
we also anticipate bills related to groundwater management, permitting, planning, and science. Finally, we also expect to see a continuation of legislative discussions on political subdivision taxing authority, bond authority, and eminent domain powers. In anticipation of some of these issues, the TWCA Board of Directors authorized the president to create a committee charged with discussing education and policy initiatives related to recent flood events across the state. Members of the Flood Response Committee represent river authorities, municipalities, regional water districts, drainage districts, and firms related to engineering, law, communications, and consulting. Through multiple subcommittees, the committee developed a comprehensive informational paper that outlines the roles and responsibilities of river authorities and related entities related to flooding, the purpose of reservoirs, different flood mitigation strategies, and notice procedures during flood events. You can see this report the “TWCA Reports and Publications” section of our website. TWCA’s Groundwater Committee has also been active this fall, working through nine different subcommittees with stakeholders representing all aspects of groundwater: owners, users, managers, researchers, and drillers. This committee 15
has initiated 17 bills over the previous two sessions, with many of those now law. For the 86th, the committee has recommended six legislative proposals related to brackish groundwater, export permits, water conservation education, abandoned wells, groundwater conservation districts generally, and funding for groundwater modeling. The board considered these proposals at the December board meeting and we will have summaries on our website soon. Finally, TWCA has started its legislative tracking process. It’s not too late to subscribe to our legislative news service, which includes greater, in-depth analysis and tracking of relevant bills as they move through the legislative process, as well as notice of important committee hearings on significant bills. Subscribers also receive regular tracking reports and can access more information by logging in to our legislative news page. You can find subscription details and pricing information here. We look forward to working with TWCA members throughout the legislative session. Stacey Allison Steinbach is the Assistant General Manager of TGWA and TWCA. Stacey joined the associations in 2015. Stacey holds a bachelor of science in biology and ecology from Baylor University, a master of science in wildlife and fisheries sciences from Texas A&M University, and a juris doctor with honors from the University of Montana School of Law. ssteinbach@twca.org
USING GREEN BONDS
TO FINANCE YOUR NEXT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT By Gregory Miller, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
Today, water resource managers must account for much more complexity in their technical decisions . . . Even the science of the water cycle and our vision of “sustainable use” of water have altered in profound ways since the [modern era] began in 1955; many of the most important management insights from eco-hydrological science are less than 20 years old.
Today, more than ever, the potential impact of climate change is taken into account as a significant factor in the design and construction of new water infrastructure projects. Although the ecological challenges that must be considered in planning a new water infrastructure project are ever-evolving, at least one age-old problem remains: how will the project be financed? Just as the science of water resource management is developing quickly, the world of infrastructure finance is changing rapidly as well. This change is driven largely by a growing body of investors that are seeking to finance projects that are both environmentally sensitive and resilient to climate change. The bonds that are the vehicle for such investment are known as “green bonds.” By offering green bonds for sale, issuers, such as local governments, can not only attract a new class of investors to their projects, the issuer, at least for the time being, might be able to borrow at lower rates than those charged for comparable “plain vanilla” bonds. For those readers who are interested in possibly offering green bonds for financing a future water infrastructure project, this article explains why water infrastructure is seen by investors as a natural fit for green bond financing and also offers tips for accurately describing the green bond project to potential investors.
WHY GREEN BONDS?
Given the newness of the market, there currently is no legal, or universally accepted definition for the term “green bonds.” In the most fundamental terms however, a green bond is simply a bond that is used for financing environmentally-friendly projects. While there are third-party agencies that will certify as “green” those bonds that meet certain criteria, many bonds that are designated and sold as “green” rely solely on the representations of the seller, and are not independently certified as meeting any specific criteria. Despite the potential ambiguities that may arise from the lack of a formal definition of the term “green bonds,” recent studies indicate that local governments in some instances have saved an average of anywhere from six to 18 basis points in borrowing costs when bonds are issued green bonds rather than as typical infrastructure bonds. The lower yields possibly can be explained by the fact that many buyers of green bonds are willing to exchange higher profits for the value they find in aligning their portfolios with the larger economic trends of lower energy and lower carbon intensity, in investing in assets that are resilient to climate change, and in satisfying their personal and ethical commitments. The issuer also might reap benefits 16
for using green bonds that go beyond the saving of money on yield payments. First, the use of green bonds signals to the public the issuer’s commitment to sustainable development. And secondly, the issuance of green bonds may attract a new pool of investors to consider the current and future projects of the issuer. THE “ROBUSTNESS” AND “FLEXIBILITY” CRITERIA
As is well known, when water infrastructure projects are not designed to be resilient to the negative impacts of climate change, there can be detrimental consequences. Common impacts from climate change which affect water infrastructure include changes to the patterns of timing and mix of precipitation, and to the relative strengths of systems such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. These impacts are seen increasingly in events such as the partial failure of the Oroville Dam in Northern California in 2016, which caused the evacuation of several hundred thousand residents of the area. In that case, the dam’s failure has been attributed to the unexpected shift from the 2015 drought conditions to the unusually heavy rainfall events of 2016. In its recently published Water Infrastructure Criteria, the Climate Bonds Initiative (“CBI”) emphasizes that in
Examples of Green Bond Water Infrastructure Projects (Figure 1) Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee – Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A, $89,420,000. Used to rehab gravity sewers, increasing storage capacity during wet weather events, and overflow reduction. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington – Box Canyon Production System Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2018, $83,400,000. Used to make turbine upgrades and construct upstream fish passage facility at the hydroelectric project. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Wastewater Series 2016 A Certified Climate Bond; Series 2016 A, $240 million. Used for repair, replacement, and upgrades to the water system to meet goals for reliability, delivery reliability, water quality and water supply in an environmentally sustainable manner. Upper Mohawk Valley Regional Water Finance Authority – Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, $8,770,000. Used for construction of a pipe bridge, new piping, and engineering and design services for two new water storage facilities.
addition to a project’s impact on the surrounding ecosystem, the “greenness” of a water infrastructure project must be measured by the ability of the project to withstand and operate successfully in the face of the climate change that will occur over its life. The CBI refers to this resilience in terms of “robustness” and “flexibility,” with “robustness” meaning a project’s “ability to span a variety of credible climate futures,” and “flexibility” meaning that project’s operations are
“flexible in the face of shifting conditions.” The CBI Standards are an influential guide for investors and as such, are a good indication that most investors will evaluate any water infrastructure project by its perceived “robustness” and “flexibility.” EXAMPLES OF GREEN-BOND FUNDED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Green bonds are an increasingly common form of public financing that is well suited for the financing of water-infrastructure projects. As shown in the examples in Figure 1, green bond investors do not require that a project be experimental or use only the most cutting-edge technology. Rather, it appears that the more typical “bread-and-butter” water infrastructure projects routinely attract green bond financing on their own merits without the need for any revolutionary design or operational features. This is because many water resource managers today already consider environmental impacts and alternative climate scenarios into their planning for new projects. DESCRIBING THE “GREEN” PROJECT FOR POTENTIAL INVESTORS
As noted above, green bond investors are motivated to buy in part for reasons relating to the fact that the project to be financed will be environmentally sensitive and resilient to the negative impacts of climate change. The potential green bond investor will typically rely on the issuer’s offering documents to gain an understanding as to whether the project is suitable for investment through a green bond. Given 17
the importance of the offering document to the green bond financing transaction, the issuer must take great care in drafting to make sure that the description of the project is accurate and that it sufficiently explains why the project is suitable for green bond financing. With that in mind, there are four key considerations the issuer must keep in mind when drafting the offering documents. First, when describing the project, the issuer should account for the fact that certain technical terms, such as “mitigation,” and “adaptation,” may have one meaning for water resource managers, another meaning for investors, and yet another meaning for climate policy professionals. As such, the issuer must be certain to “translate” any technical terms used to describe the project for understanding by a general audience. Second, the issuer must explain why the project is suitable for green bond financing, but must do so in a way that does not oversell the project or imply obligations that cannot be met by the issuer. It is important to remember that investors will rely on the details of the description in evaluating whether the project is a good fit for their green bond portfolio. Third, as with any bond transaction, the issuer will want to have all of the key players in the green project review and sign-off on the project description. For example, if the offering documents promise that the project will result in a 20 percent increase of storm water holding capacity, the issuer will need first, before making that representation, confirm with its engineers that the attainment of
that increase is viable. A fourth consideration concerns the issuer’s reporting on the progress and impacts of the green project. Green bond investors typically expect to receive verification that, not only will debt service payments be made on time, but also that the project was completed and is meeting its “green” goals. Issuers should plan to have a method for providing updates on their funded projects and should be prepared to commit to maintaining the described reporting schedules. CONCLUSIONS
The nascent green bond market is a piece of a larger concerted effort by certain investors to transition the global economy towards sustainability in the face of climate change. States and local governments are at the forefront of the development of new strategies for addressing the challenges of climate change, and green bonds are a natural fit in that effort. Furthermore, water infrastructure projects are in many ways a natural fit for green bonds and accordingly, make up a majority of the municipal green bond issuances in the United States. Hopefully, this article will be useful to you as you consider whether your next project may qualify for green bond financing, and how you might best describe your project to potential investors. The market is still growing and your next project very well might help shape the standards that will be used in future green bond transactions.
TIPS FOR DRAFTING THE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS • “Translate” technical terms and descriptions for use by a general audience. • Describe why the project is “green,” but take care to not inadvertently oversell. • Ensure that the entire team is familiar with the representations made in the offering documents and that the project is viable. • Carefully plan for fulfilling any reporting obligations that are expected by green bond investors.
Gregory Miller is an attorney at Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP. He draws on his extensive government law background to help local governments successfully achieve their financing objectives. gmiller@bickerstaff.com
* From Mendoza, G., J.H. Matthews, A. Jeuken (eds). 2018. Collaborative Risk Informed Decision Analysis (CRIDA): Water Resources Planning & Design for an Uncertain Future. ICIWaRM Press: Alexandria, Virginia, as quoted in Climate Bonds Initiative, April 2018, Water Infrastructure Criterial under the Climate Bonds Standard, Background Paper.
18
Upcoming TWCA Events:
January 10-11, 2019 TWCA/TRWA Water Law Seminar Austin, Texas March 6-8, 2019 TWCA Annual Convention Cedar Creek, Texas NEW DATE FOR THIS EVENT COMING SOON: TWCA Texas Water Day Washington, D.C.
Federal Election Update 11-14-2018 By Amy Stelter, Trinity River Authority Now that the midterm elections are over, what implications will this have to the TWCA mission? More than 8.3 million Texans voted in the quest to change the state from red to blue. This represents an historic 52 percent of the registered voters. THE SENATE
The United States Senate will remain under control of the Republicans. There were 35 of the 100 Senate seats up for grabs. As of this writing, republicans hold 52 seats and the democrats have 45 and 2 are independent. The Senate race in Florida is in the midst of a recount as Florida law requires an automatic recount if the margin is less than 0.5 percent. Currently, the republican nominee holds a slim lead. Regardless of the outcome of Florida, republicans will continue to wield power in the Senate. Texas’ Junior Senator, Ted Cruz, came out ahead of Congressman Beto O’Rourke by a margin of 50.92 percent to 48.29 percent. The race garnered national attention. Collectively, Cruz and O’Rourke and outside groups poured more than $107 million into the match. Texans will continue to be served by our Senior Senator, John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn will be up for election in 2020. Senator Cornyn served as the Majority Whip, the second-highest ranking position in the Senate Republican Conference. Not since LBJ has Texas had a Senator with the power Senator Cornyn currently holds. There will be some shifting of Committee Chairs in the Senate,
though it remains to be seen how this will impact TWCA members. THE HOUSE
The United States House of Representatives will be led by the democrats after they won 227 seats over 198 by republicans. Ten seats have yet to be called, though it is predicted the democrats will pick up four more and six will be picked up by republicans. The democrats will control the House for the next two years. It is widely speculated that Nancy Pelosi will once again be Speaker of the House. Congressman Kevin McCarthy is the favorite to be the Minority Leader. Notably, both are from California, one would assume this would help the mission of TWCA.
Texas republicans are losing seven committee chairmanships. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson will likely be the only Texan to chair a committee in the 116th Congress. She has her eyes set on the Science, Space and Technology Chairmanship. Of interest to TWCA members is a statement she made in an interview with NPR shortly after the election, “We hope to have better oversight and more sensible oversight so that we can get back to regular order and to carry out the mandates of the committee, which is to oversee our environment. We hope to address climate change, which we have not been able to even talk about under the past leadership.” The Democratic Congresswoman from
Of the State’s 36 members of Congress, 9 will be new: District 2 District 3 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 16 District 21 District 29 District 32
Dan Crenshaw, R Van Taylor, R Lance Gooden, R Ron Wright, R Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, D Veronica Escobar, D Chip Roy, R Sylvia R. Garcia, D Collin Allred, D
Former Navy SEAL replacing Ted Poe Former State Senator replacing Sam Johnson Former State Representative replacing Jeb Hensarling Former Tax Assessor-Collector replacing Joe Barton Attorney replacing John Culberson Former County Judge replacing Beto O’Rourke Former Chief of Staff for Senator Cruz replacing Lamar Smith Former State Senator replacing Gene Green Former member of Obama Administration replacing Pete Sessions
All but two of the newly elected members of Congress have some type of political experience. Two of the seats changed from Republican to democrat. Since the House will flip from republican to democratic control, new Chairs will be named. The democrats select their Committee Chairs by seniority. This will likely lead to the following members chairing committees with jurisdiction over matters of importance to TWCA members: 19
Proposed Committee Chairs
Appropriations Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Transportation & Infrastructure Peter DeFazio, Oregon Natural Resources Raul Grijalva, Arizona Agriculture Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota
SE
E S U HO
Dallas was referring to oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. WHAT’S NEXT? WHAT DO WE DO?
The Senate and House both return to D.C. on November 13th to finish the business of the 115th Congress. The Lame Duck Congress still has much work to do: • Appropriations • Farm Bill • Tax Break Extensions • Criminal Justice Reform • Reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act Democrats will be laser-focused on leadership elections and naming of Committee Chairs while republicans will work the clock and attempt to move as much as possible. Pundits predict a shortterm Continuing Resolution and
passage of the Farm Bill. There is chatter that the democrats will bring back earmarks or Congressionally directed spending. In 2010 when the republicans won the House, this was a contentious issue that resonated with voters and democrats are certain to re-evaluate the topic. Elections have consequences – good and bad, TWCA members should be prepared to be more unified than ever before. The new members and their staff will be eager to learn about our mission and how it affects their constituents. Make a point to get to know the district staff and their staff in D.C. Communicate early and often, engage your new member by offering tours and continually thank them for their efforts. And let’s not forget about 20
NA TE
our other 27 members currently serving that were re-elected. Be the one who tells our story, not the one who only visits when we have a request.
Amy Stelter is the Manager of Governmental Relations for the Trinity River Authority. Prior to joining TRA in 2014, she was the District Director for Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Amy also served on the regional staff of Senator John Cornyn and spent five years with State Representative Betty Brown in duties varying from District Director to Chief of Staff. steltera@trinityra.org
Federal Midterm Election Implications for Water Policy By Ian Lyle, NWRA The 2018 midterm elections were a tale of two chambers with democrats taking control of the House of Representatives and republicans maintaining their majority in the Senate. The election creates a new dynamic in Washington for water users to navigate as we strive to move sound water policy forward in the upcoming 116th Congress. The election results will influence regulatory reform efforts, future Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bills, broader infrastructure efforts, and appropriations. Voter turnout was higher than it had been for a midterm election in decades, with 47 percent of eligible voters casting ballots nationwide. Voter turnout in Texas was even higher than the national average. According to the Texas Secretary of State voter turnout for the 2018 midterms in Texas was approximately 53 percent, higher than it has been in some presidential election years. DEMOCRATS TAKE MAJORITY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Republicans in the House of Representatives faced a tough road heading into the 2018-midterm elections. Democrats needed to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House of Representatives and republicans were defending 23 seats in areas that Secretary Clinton won in the 2016 presidential election. Democrats picked up enough seats to flip the chamber, and as of the date of drafting this article, are projected to pick-up 38 seats and could add as many as 40 seats depending
on the results of several ongoing recounts. There were several notable losses in the Texas delegation including Congressman Pete Sessions, Chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee who lost to Colin Allred (45.85 to 52.16 percent) and Congressman John Culberson who served on the House Appropriations Committee and lost to Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (47.49 to 52.5 percent). The Founding Fathers shaped the House of Representatives to be a chamber of majority rule. Democrats, with their new majority, will be in a position to set the agenda for both committees and the larger chamber. The change in majority will bring a shift from regulatory reform to a greater emphasis on environmental programs and an increase in oversight hearings focusing on activities of the Administration. Current House Minority Leader and candidate for Speaker, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12) has stated that House Democrats will strategically utilize subpoena powers to call administration officials to testify under oath. The change in the majority in the House of Representatives is only one element that water users need to consider. The other is the near record number of new lawmakers that will join the House of Representatives in 2019. In total 104 members of the 115th Congress won’t return for the 116th Congress due to resignation, retirement or election loss. This number is just short of the highest ever turnover in the House of 21
Representatives of 115. To look at it another way, nearly a quarter of the entire House of Representatives will be new to the chamber next year. This means that water users will need to prioritize education and outreach to new congressional offices. REPUBLICANS SEE GAINS AND LOSSES BUT MAINTAIN SLIM MAJORITY IN SENATE
The 2018-midterm elections had senate republicans in an advantageous position only defending nine senate seats compared to the 26 being defended by democrats. Republicans will retain the majority in the Senate in the 116th Congress and as of the drafting of this article hold a 51 to 47-seat majority. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz held on to his senate seat by defeating Congressman Beto O’Rourke by 50.92 percent to 48.29 percent. Nationwide, republicans lost seats in Nevada and Arizona but picked up seats in North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana. In addition republicans are currently leading in a Florida senate race where republican Rick Scott currently leads democrat incumbent Bill Nelson by 12,000 votes. A manual recount is ongoing, but most anticipate that Scott will be declared the winner. Republicans will maintain control in the Senate; the only question is by how much. SPLIT CHAMBERS & WATER POLICY
Our nation has often had different parties controlling the various chambers of power. While this new power structure is nothing entirely new, it creates a dynamic that will influence water policy. Everything from regulatory reform, WRDA, infrastructure, and appropriations could be affected. Over the last two years the
House, Senate and Administration have made regulatory streamlining a priority. These reform proposals have touched on the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and the Endangered Species Act. Legislative regulatory reform proposals saw the most action in the House of Representatives and included proposals that would have fully repealed the controversial Obama Administration WOTUS rule, streamlined NEPA and improved the ESA. It is unlikely that these proposals will have a similar opportunity to gain traction in a democrat controlled House in the 116th Congress. While the House has been aggressively pursuing the regulatory reform agenda, members of the Senate have also been working on regulatory reform. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) has been attempting to build bipartisan support for a proposal to improve the ESA. However, the senate by its nature is less able to move regulatory reform efforts that could be deemed controversial. This fact, coupled with the change in House majority, positions the administration as a key to continued regulatory reform over the next two years. The administration’s ability to move regulatory reform ahead will be limited by its authority and democrats that will have an enhanced ability to explore tactics like appropriations riders to limit reform efforts. Regulatory reform efforts may be hamstrung, but there continues to be general bipartisan support for infrastructure legislation. Congress has been able to pass the last three WRDA bills on time. A key part of this successful effort was the stewardship of
retiring House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA-9). With Chairman Shuster’s retirement, and the change in majority party in the House of Representatives, current Transportation Committee Ranking Member Peter DeFazio will most likely take the gavel. Congressman DeFazio has been directly involved in drafting each of the last three WRDA bills. Nothing is certain at this point, but if the WRDA bill remains infrastructure-focused it should move forward in the 116th Congress. As always, water users will need to remain vigilant to ensure that policy riders that make water supply more difficult do not appear in the bill. On the larger infrastructure front leadership in both parties, as well as the administration, have indicated continued support for infrastructure legislation. One of the primary duties of Congress is the ability to appropriate funding to run federal programs. Congress has struggled mightily under both republican and democrat majorities to pass appropriations bills. It has been more than a decade since Congress has passed all twelve appropriations bills by the end of the respective fiscal year. This means that most members of Congress have not experienced the appropriations process as it is supposed to work. While congressional efforts to move funding bills on time have been less than impressive the funding dedicated to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has increased in recent years. A divided chamber is not likely to improve Congress’ ability to move appropriations bills in a timely manner, but it is also not likely to reduce the funds allocated to the 22
Corps and Reclamation. The biggest question on the appropriations front is if Congress will bring back earmarks. Earmarks became a political hot potato about a decade ago and were often pointed to as an example of federal spending gone awry. Congress instituted a self-imposed ban on earmarks in 2011, which limited lawmakers’ ability to direct spending to specific projects. In recent years discussions about reviving a more transparent earmark process have gained steam. Last year President Trump recommended Congress revive the earmark process. Members in both chambers have hinted at the possibility of once again allowing earmarks for public work projects like roads and water infrastructure. However, with the House and Senate being controlled by different parties earmarks, could once again become a hot button issue and remain banned. There is a decent amount of uncertainty when looking ahead to the 116th Congress. But one thing is certain. Water users need to be active advocates for water infrastructure. More than 100 new members of Congress will arrive in D.C. in January. Water users need to educate these new members and remind returning members that water infrastructure is critical and needs to be supported. Ian is the Executive Vice President of the National Water Resources Association (NWRA). The NWRA is a Washington, DC based federation made up of agricultural and municipal water providers, state associations including TWCA, and individuals dedicated to the conservation, enhancement and efficient management of our nation’s most important natural resource, water. ilyle@nwra.org
Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District Works with USGS on Flood Warning System for Bandera County By Kayla Shearhart (BCRAGD) and J. Ryan Banta, Frank Engle, and Namjeong Choi (USGS) Over the past 30 years, annual flood losses averaged about $7.96 billion with 82 fatalities per year. The Texas Hill Country is known for high intensity rain rates, and steep terrain, earning the area the title of “Flash Flood Alley.� Historically, devastating flooding in Bandera County resulted in massive loss of property and loss of life in 1978 and 2002. The 2015 Memorial Day floods that the region endured were a painful reminder of just how susceptible we are to flash floods. This year, the Texas Hill Country experienced high intensity rainfall in the Llano and Lower Colorado River Basins producing catastrophic flooding throughout the region. While floods are impossible to prevent, and there is no way to guarantee protection of property, many federal, state, and local agencies have demonstrated that the loss of life can be greatly reduced with better warning. Real-time rainfall data, streamflow gaging stations, and flood-inundation mapping can serve as helpful tools for local authorities, emergency managers, and the public before, during, and after a flood. Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater
Figure 1: Map of study area (USGS)
District (BCRAGD) is currently working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to establish a Flood Warning System on the Medina River in Bandera County. This project was made possible through funding from a Texas Water Development Board grant and BCRAGD. The USGS has successfully implemented a similar type of early warning system in other regions in the United States. The goal is to enhance the communication of flood risk and provide Bandera Emergency Management additional information necessary to better mitigate the impacts of flooding. The system will allow Emergency 23
Management to make proactive decisions before and during flooding events. The USGS is developing the technical toolset to monitor and predict potentially flooded areas from storm events. Once complete, the tool set will include a continuous streamflow-gage monitoring network, development of a Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic model of the Medina River, and the inclusion of the generated flood inundation maps in the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping (FIM) Program website. The first task was the installation of two additional streamflow gaging
Figure 2: Examples of flood inundation maps developed from HEC-RAS models.
stations upstream of Medina, Texas. Figure 1 shows the study area and the location of the new gages (pg 23). These stage-only streamflow gaging stations function as flood warning sites. Gage height is continuously measured and recorded every 15 minutes and transmitted every 1 hour by way of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) to the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database. In addition, rainfall volume and intensity measurements are measured at the Bandera gage. Now, the USGS is focusing their efforts on the development and calibration of a HEC-RAS model for the Medina River to simulate flow routing and potential inundation areas downstream from Medina, Texas to Lake Medina, with a focus on the City of Bandera. HEC-RAS is a stepbackwater model for simulation of water-surface profiles with gradually varied steady state flow
or unsteady-state flow computation options. So far, the USGS has been able to incorporate very high resolution LiDAR datasets (6 inch resolution). The model is applicable for a wide range of flow conditions, including major floods, and is being calibrated to USGS streamflow data and meeting USGS flood model standards. The model has been used to simulate potential floods of varying flow magnitudes at one foot increments from 10 to 38 ft. The results of these simulations include maps of flood extent, showing which areas are under water during certain flood stages, and water depth at any given point within the areas under water. Once complete, the results of the investigation and model documentation will be published in a USGS Scientific Investigation Report. The flood inundation maps generated from the HECRAS model will also be included in the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping (FIM) Program website 24
for public awareness (Figure 2). The USGS FIM Program integrates the simulated flood inundation maps with USGS streamflow gaging station data, as well as National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts of streamflow at selected locations to help communities understand flood risks and make cost-effective mitigation decisions. The FIM Program web-based application will give BCRAGD an overview of multiple data streams including monitoring and modeling to create a common operating decision-based system for emergency managers in the Bandera County area. The FIM Program web page will incorporate data from the stream-flow and inundation maps, NWS river stage predictions and radar data, and after action reports from emergency managers. Emergency managers will also be able to set notifications through USGS WaterAlert. The Water Alert service sends e-mail or text (SMS) messages when selected streamflow-
gaging station parameters, such as streamflow or gage height, exceeds user-definable thresholds. Once the project is fully operational, emergency managers will have a powerful sciencebased tool that allows them not only to make informed decisions based on current conditions, but predict where resources and assets need to be brought to bear in the immediate future. The ability to predict which areas will flood under current conditions and which areas will flood under hypothetical future scenarios will allow them to be proactive as opposed to reactive in their flood response and planning. Being awarded the ability to operate in a forward-thinking manner during a dynamic flood event will inevitably save lives, and there is no higher calling or task bestowed to government than the protection of its citizens.
Kayla Shearhart currently serves as the Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator at BCRAGD. She obtained her B.S. in Biology at Schreiner University in 2014 and her Masters of Water Management and Hydrological Science at Texas A&M University in 2016. kshearhart@bcragd.org
USGS Staff Dr. Ryan Banta, Dr. Frank L. Engel, and Namjeong Choi work at the U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Water Science Center. Their focus is to better understand processes affecting water resources including surface water, groundwater, and water quality.
TWCA Membership Snapshot
377 Member Level A
27
Member Level B
105
Member Level C
89
Member Level D
53
Member Level E
27
Member Level F
18
Life Members
58
Staff Update • Continuing to monitor
renewals and new memberships in database, as well as cross-check
• Updating company
contacts in database ensuring the right contact is getting the membership information
• Continuing to brainstorm ideas for added member benefits
• Working on methods to streamline billing
• Educating members about membership directory and user login features that include editing contact information
If you have any questions or suggestions, email us at afox@twca.org.
25
Water Contracting Options: Finding the Right Structure for Your Needs* By Nathan Vassar Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
In order to manage a water supply portfolio effectively in light of evolving demands and customer bases, the use of an appropriate contract structure is critical, along with other important tools. There are a variety of contract options and considerations to evaluate when pursuing amendments to existing supply agreements and new contracts as well. Our ongoing water supply planning series has focused to date on a number of technical, legal, and practical considerations, including accounting plan approaches, “low-hanging fruit” water rights amendment applications, and conservation, among others. This article now pivots to the contract vehicle that includes the obligations of water suppliers and their customers, and strategies that can help meet a supplier’s needs (and those of its customers) in the near term and over decades to come. A starting point of any contract discussion is the identification of demonstrated need over a specific term. From a wholesale provider’s perspective, it is important to know whether a customer’s demands are expected to remain constant or if they will likely increase over time. If increased water quantities are not needed until many years in the future, a contract approach that includes a reservation or option quantity can afford flexibility while providing a revenue stream today for water that is set aside. For other customers, a “take or pay” contract may be
more appropriate when demands are imprecise and when needs may fluctuate from year to year (or even month-to-month, depending upon the customer and its use). In this context, an annual take-or-pay quantity may be established that increases over periods of years to accommodate growth. Of course, to the extent that quantities over and above a diversion amount or take-or-pay amount are needed, the contract should provide for a process for such overages. It is not uncommon to include an excess water rate, assuming that such excess water is even available for sale. Alternatively, diversions in excess of the stated quantity can be prohibited altogether and treated as a breach of the agreement. This approach, however, drives home the need to set an appropriate contract quantity that is in line with anticipated demands, including peaking during times of significant need. Ultimately, addressing water quantity in a contract goes beyond just annual demands and planning horizons – it must also consider practical operating considerations and regulatory limitations. A water supplier must analyze the customer’s needs in light of the supplier’s broader customer base and available supplies. Such a discussion must also evaluate the reliability of the supply, and whether such supply is backed by storage or is dependent entirely upon streamflow. Drought planning considerations are also critical, and the contract should 26
contemplate how curtailment will operate during times of drought, pointing to the supplier’s water conservation and drought contingency plans as well. Other questions and issues also merit analysis and discussion when entering into contract negotiations. Specifying how rates are set and the frequency of rate adjustment can help avoid disputes down the road. Transportation of water and identifying delivery points is important, and can either be addressed in a water supply contract or by a separate agreement. Do place/purpose of use restrictions require an amendment to an underlying water right or service area? How do current regional and state water plans contemplate service to this customer, if at all? How is ownership of the water addressed, including reuse rights? These questions, among others, are important to address on the front end, and can be valuable in setting expectations before a contract is executed. As we have recommended previously, a water supply audit can help inform a number of planning considerations, including how amended and/or new water supply contracts may be structured. In such a context, or independently, it can be helpful to develop a set of deal points that reflect priorities and limitations, and that may include areas where a supplier is unable to compromise, in light of its other obligations to existing customers, regulatory
constraints, and anticipated future demands. Such deal points can be developed and then provided to a potential buyer in order to focus negotiations and determine whether the parties can reach a meeting of the minds on key issues. As this series continues, our focus will next pivot to federal issues in water supply planning, including regulatory regimes with the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We will look at the interplay between water rights and Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, addressing lessons learned and best practices when dealing with federal interests and agencies. *This article is the eighth in an ongoing series of water supply planning and implementation articles to be published in Confluence that address simple, smart ideas for consideration and use by water suppliers in their comprehensive water supply planning efforts.
Nathan Vassar is an attorney in the firm’s Water Practice Group. Nathan’s practice focuses on representing clients in regulatory compliance, water resources development and water quality matters. He regularly appears before state and federal administrative agencies. nvassar@lglawfirm.com
Water | Wastewater | Solid Waste | Electric Asset Appraisals
Economic Feasibility Studies
CCN Valuations
Litigation Support
Cost of Service and Rates
Procurements
www.newgenstrategies.net David S. Yanke | (512) 649-1254 | dyanke@newgenstrategies.net Chris Ekrut | (972) 232-2234 | cekrut@newgenstrategies.net
27
2018 FALL CONFERENCE RECAP By Adeline Fox, TWCA
This year’s fall conference certainly felt like Fall! About 30 golfers braved the cold and wet weather conditions to play in the 10th Annual Fall Classic Golf Tournament at The Quarry Golf Club. The TWCA Risk Management Fund held a seminar covering the Texas Tort Claims Act, Emergency Management, Building a Culture of Respect in Your Workplace, Benefits of Return to Work Programs for Workers’ Compensation, and Managing Risks When Draining a River (SARA). The service project was canceled due to weather conditions. The official conference kicked off Thursday, October 18. The day was filled with panel meetings, committee meetings and the board meeting. Highlights from the board meeting included: an
update on strategic planning, the status of 75th year celebration video project, a report on the flood response committee’s final version of its white paper, and a recap of the groundwater committee meeting and the formation of nine subcommittees. Following the board meeting, the program kicked off with the PUC rate case panel followed by a presentation by NASA and a keynote address from Agriculture and Livestock Committee Chairman Tracy King. From there, the federal and flood/groundwater breakout sessions covered federal elections, a “what if ” scenario of Hurricane Harvey happening in San Antonio, a discussion of wellfield performance, and a presentation on groundwater commingling. Friday morning started off 28
Key highlights include: Strategic planning subcommittees have developed strategies for identified goals Update on the 75th year anniversary video project Flood response committee wrote eight papers and combined them into one master document. Each chapter passed the committee’s 90% consensus requirement. Board approved the paper and authorized formation of subcommittee to conduct final edits Groundwater committee convened and created nine subcommittees
with a downstream flooding update on lawsuits involving San Jacinto River Authority and Sabine River Authority. TWCA Risk Management Fund also presented safety awards to members who have gone above and beyond. Next, the conference audience heard about intentionality of programming and leadership, as well as how it’s important to ask yourself why you are doing what you are doing. TCEQ Chairman Jon Niermann provided the keynote address discussing the upcoming legislative session and noted improved permitting processes within the agency. Other topics included the abandoned well program implemented by Edwards Aquifer Authority, flood assessment program being done by the Texas Water Development Board, implications of Texas v. New Mexico, and discussion of the “One Water” initiative, including what is being done in Austin. Overall, the 2018 TWCA Fall Conference had a great turnout and included compelling information regarding the latest happenings in Texas water. We look forward to seeing you next year at the Annual Convention set for March 6-8, 2019 at Hyatt Lost Pines. The 10th Annual Fall Classic Golf Tournament proved to be a great time too. Nine teams participated, but only three teams prevailed. The top three teams and honors are as follows: 1st place:
David Montagne, Robert Szabo, Jason Larrabee and Bech Bruun
2nd place:
Jace Houston, Mark Evans, Mitchell Page and Ronnie Anderson
3rd place:
Kim Carroll, David Weston, Walt Sears and Darrell Grubbs
Longest Drive: Closest to the pin:
Mark Evans Brian Coltharp
Golf Tournament winners The Quarry Golf Club
First place team: David Montagne, Robert Szabo, Jason Larrabee and Bech Bruun
Second place team: Jace Houston, Mark Evans, Mitchell Page and Ronnie Anderson
Third place team: Kim Carroll, David Weston, Walt Sears and Darrell Grubbs
29
Photos from the Fall Conference
Texas House of Representatives Agriculture & Livestock Committee Chairman Tracy O. King provides the first keynote address.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Jon Niermann briefs the crowd on the latest happenings of the agency.
The PUC Rate Case panelists include moderator Lauren Kalisek, Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., Leonard Dougal, Jackson Walker LLP, Howard Slobodin, Trinity River Authority, and Paul Terrill, The Terrill Firm, P.C.
Ed Rectenwald with Black & Veatch discusses optimizing wellfield performance.
Amanda Maloukis with Rusk County GCD co-presents on groundwater commingling issues.
Indrani Graczyk with the Wester Water Applications Office discusses NASA’s Earth science projects.
Adam Foster with Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation co-presents on groundwater commingling issues.
Wayne Tschirhart with San Antonio River Authority discusses a Hurricane Harvey “what if” scenario in San Antonio.
Amy Stelter with the Trinity River Authority provides a federal elections update.
We had a great crowd during the Fall Conference!
30
Shane Kotlarsky with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Jace Houston with San Jacinto River Authority provide an update on downstream flooding litigation.
Greg Wukasch with San Antonio Water System asks the crowd why and encourages the audience to be intentional with programming/leadership.
Marc Friberg with the Edwards Aquifer Authority discusses the new abandoned well program.
Roland Ruiz and Mark Hamilton with Edwards Aquifer Authority look on as Marc speaks at the podium.
Jim Bradbury with James D. Bradbury, PLLC shares the latest about the implications of Texas v. New Mexico.
Sharlene Leurig with Meadows Center for Water & The Environment discusses the “One Water� initiative.
31
Dr. Mindy Conyers with Texas Water Development Board gives an overview of the state flood assessment.
TWCA President Hope Wells with San Antonio Water System introduces speakers throughout the fall conference.
California Water Issues: An Update from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) By Tim Quinn, ACWA
The California water industry made significant gains during 2018, but many difficult challenges remain in place with ongoing issues. As Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), my staff and I advocate on behalf of more than 450 public water agencies that deliver both water for the public and agricultural irrigation water. ACWA’s priorities are often as diverse as they are complicated. Below is a summary of some of the key issues that our association faced this year. PROPOSED STATEWIDE TAX ON WATER
After two years of intensive advocacy, communication and outreach by a large ACWAled coalition of opponents, the California Legislature ended without passing a proposed statewide tax on drinking water. In March 2017, Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) authored SB 623, a bill that would have required more than 3,000 community water systems to collect a tax on local water bills and send the funds to Sacramento to help areas of the state without access to safe drinking water. The issue was not over the urgent need to guarantee safe drinking water for all Californians. ACWA continues to strongly support solutions to providing safe drinking water for all Californians.
However, a statewide water tax was simply not the solution. It does not make sense to tax something that is essential to life and to turn local water agencies into tax collectors for the state. ACWA advocated that a more appropriate way to fund the solution for this state social issue is a package of funds comprised of ongoing federal safe drinking water funds, voter-approved general obligation bond funds, proposed agricultural assessments related to nitrate in groundwater and a limited amount of dollars from the state general fund. The bill proposing the water tax stalled in the Legislature in 2017, but Governor Jerry Brown’s Administration attempted essentially the same proposal in a budget trailer bill released in January 2018. ACWA developed and floated additional funding alternatives. Additionally, a public opinion survey confirmed the public did not support the precedent of taxing a resource that is essential to life. The public was especially opposed to the tax when presented with other funding alternatives. The budget trailer bill failed, but the California Legislature did fortunately allocate $23.5 million in general fund revenue for this important social issue, validating ACWA’s recommended funding solution. Proponents of the original water tax returned last summer for a 32
third and final attempt toward the end of the 2018 legislative session. This time, bill sponsors proposed to alter the tax to a voluntary remittance on water bills, which water agencies made the case would be a logistical nightmare to manage. We again pointed to ACWA’s viable alternatives, backed by a broad coalition of organizations inside and outside the state’s water industry. These tax opponents included public water agencies, businesses, cities and associations. ACWA’s strategy in fighting the tax included multiple fronts. On the legislative side, an advocacy team lobbied all 120 legislators, explaining our member agencies’ concerns and the viable alternatives. Public outreach also played a critical role in giving our case against this alternative version of the water tax a high profile throughout the state. An educational campaign helped member agencies inform their customers and stakeholders about the proposed tax and how it would affect them. We hired a public affairs firm to develop a new website to educate the public and oversee a targeted digital advertising campaign that included social media ads, Pandora radio and Google search. The website attracted more than 55,000 visitors and 108,000 page views. We also developed fact sheets, talking points, sample newsletter articles, sample op-eds and a
Solve it Without a Water Tax graphic used on social media and digital advertising.
The State Capitol building in Sacramento.
short, informational video for our members to use in educating their public Currently, ACWA is developing a proactive proposal for an alternative to a statewide water tax, which is expected to return as an issue after the Legislature goes back into session in early 2019.
A photo of Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta and San Francisco Bay commonly called Bay-Delta.
WATER STORAGE
One issue that was underscored during California’s recent historic drought was the critical need for more water storage. Like Texas and other western states in a land of weather extremes, we need to capture more water during wet periods to help sustain us during dry periods. The voters in California overwhelmingly agreed with the need for new storage when they passed Proposition 1 in 2014. ACWA played a central role in the negotiation and passage of Proposition 1. It provided a total of $7.5 billion for water infrastructure and management, with $2.7 billion dedicated for additional water storage. The measure also established a competitive process through which the California Water Commission (CWC) would allocate these funds to qualified storage projects. In
July 2018, consistent with the schedule approved by the voters, the CWC allocated the $2.7 billion in funding for eight water storage projects located across the state. Throughout the process, ACWA was instrumental in advocating for project proponents and acting as a liaison to the CWC. The eight projects receiving funding include four surface storage projects, which received 75 percent of the funds, and four groundwater storage projects, which received the remaining 25 percent. If all eight projects can obtain full funding and reach completion, they will represent a total investment in new storage of nearly $11 billion and add 4.3 million acre-feet of water storage in California. BAY-DELTA SOLUTIONS
Much of the state’s urban and agricultural water supply is 33
dependent on the SacramentoSan Joaquin Rivers Delta and San Francisco Bay, commonly referred to in the state as simply the Bay-Delta. It is an expansive inland river delta and estuary that contains more than 500,000 acres of farmland and is home to more than 4 million people and 750 animal and plant species. The Bay-Delta also supplies drinking water to approximately 27 million residents throughout the state. A complex dialogue is underway to ensure proper management to achieve the coequal goals of a reliable water supply and enhanced ecosystem health. The State Water Board seems to believe the only way to achieve that balance is by setting minimum flow requirements, based on different seasons, and restricting the amount of water that agencies can take off
the river. ACWA supports a more comprehensive solution based on modern science that supports targeted increased flows, habitat improvements and other measures. We can use flows, but precisely when they can achieve the greatest good at the optimal temperature, in addition to simultaneously working to expand habitat and control invasive predatory species. The State Water Board was scheduled to vote on the Bay-Delta Plan update for the Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta on November 7, but postponed the vote a month to allow time for voluntary settlement agreements to be completed. The issue of conveyance, how to move water around in the Bay-Delta, adds an extra layer of complexity in the intricate balance between environmental protection and ensuring a reliable water supply for California residents, businesses and farmers. Governor Brown has for years advanced a solution now called California WaterFix. WaterFix involves the construction of a pair of large tunnels that would move the intakes of the state and federal water projects from the southern part of the Delta to the northern part of the Delta. The proponents of the project argue that it would significantly benefit fisheries, improve water quality, protect the system against catastrophic outages caused by earthquakes or major floods, and help address the impacts of sea level rise and climate change. ACWA policy recognizes that such Delta conveyance solutions are a key element in any comprehensive plan that works for the state as a whole and urges
that Delta solutions be pursued as part of a comprehensive statewide plan. If successful, a physical solution in the Delta leverages the value of other elements in terms of water storage, water quality, ecosystem restoration and water market efficiency. The Brown Administration has made substantial progress on the thorny problems in the Delta, as did the previous administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it is clear that much work will remain for Governor-elect Gavin Newsom’s Administration. FIRES/HEADWATERS
There’s understandable confusion when California water agencies learn that increasingly severe forest fires in California are of concern to them and their customers. However, a healthy forest is key to maintaining healthy headwaters. ACWA is a member of a statewide coalition seeking new ways to promote proactive, science-based and ecologically sound forest management practices that will reduce the risk of destructive “mega fires” by accelerating the pace and scale of forest restoration. This ties into several issues, namely water quality, which suffers when ash is washed into a watershed. This coalition, the California Forest and Watershed Alliance, focuses on educating audiences and promoting policies at the federal and state levels. Among one of the key 2018 successes in this area was new federal law that places a 10-year cap on “fire borrowing.” This practice provided federal funding of fire emergencies by taking money away from long-term forest restoration programs. Over time, fire borrowing was severely depleting available funds for forest 34
restoration to help prevent future catastrophic forest fires. This new dedicated funding source for fire suppression should allow for a considerable increase in funds available to pay for forest health and restoration projects to help prevent future fires and get ahead of the conditions that create them. ACWA also successfully advocated for new management tools for the U.S. Forest Service, including new Categorical Exclusions for hazardous fuels and wildfire resilience projects; 20-year stewardship contracts; authority to expedite the clearing of trees and brush along utility rights of way; and use of the Good Neighbor Authority for authorized restoration services. Meanwhile, Governor Brown released an Executive Order earlier this year on forest management in California that is expected to significantly increase the pace and scale of restoration of our forests that will make them more resilient and more resistant to catastrophic fire. As recent tragic and catastrophic fires like the Campfire in Northern California and the Woolsey Fire in Southern California show, there is a “new abnormal” in California in the words of Governor Brown. But, our state’s water community has joined in the hard work ahead to face this challenge. Tim Quinn is Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), a statewide association of public agencies whose more than 450 members are responsible for about 90 percent of the water delivered in California. For more information, visit www. acwa.com.
A Q&A with the Cameron County Irrigation District #2 General Manager, Sonia Lambert
Q: Tell me a little bit about yourself. A: I was born in Chicago, but I came to Texas as soon as I could and was raised in Harlingen. I am one of nine children. I have had only one other job, which was at a department store when I was in high school. Q: What was your dream job as a kid? A: I thought I would become a teacher one day. Looking back, I am glad I didn’t! Q: How did you get involved with Cameron County Irrigation District #2? A: My employment began back in 1978 on a part time and temporary basis. I was asked by a friend of a friend if I was interested in helping with some clerical work for Cameron County Irrigation District #2 in San Benito, TX. They had apparently fallen behind on billing and needed help. As mentioned, my employment was to be short lived, so I never even filled out an employment application. All
they wanted to know was if I could type. I agreed to help and decided that I would stay until they asked me to leave. I went to work every day, thinking that day would be my last day of employment with the District. I began as an office clerk typing statements and occasionally waiting on customers. I worked as fast as I could and would make sure to keep my desk as clean as possible so that I could be ready for any new assignments the following day. I was soon promoted to bookkeeper, then assistant office manager, office manager, assistant general manager, and finally general manager. When the general manager’s position became available, I was asked by the Board President and the interim general manager to apply. I hesitated because at that time I had been employed for several years, I loved my job, and looked forward to coming to work every day, but in the previous 10 years there had been four general managers. I didn’t want to become another statistic. Fast forward 40 years from 1978, and there is still no employment application in my personnel file. Q: How do you explain your job to people who don’t work in water? A: I manage two districts: one that provides irrigation water to farmland and municipalities, 35
and the other that drains it away. (Sounds like a vicious cycle!) Q: Did you always think you’d work in the irrigation industry? A: Never! Q: What has been your greatest accomplishment as the as the CCID #2 GM? A: The greatest accomplishment has been constructing a $16 million pumping plant with approximately $373,000 out of pocket and the remainder in grants. Q: What are some challenges of managing an irrigation district? A: One of the biggest challenges of managing an irrigation district is planning with an unreliable source from a neighboring country. Q: What are some upand-coming technologies that IDs are using? A: We have spent the last several years working on water conservation projects, which include piping of open laterals. Automating their use is as far as we go in regard to up-and-coming technologies. Q: What is the best restaurant in The Valley? A: Still haven’t found it. I’ve been on a kick of cooking at home and loving it.
Thank you to the TWCA Fall Conference Sponsors! LJA Engineering Thursday Evening Reception
Carollo Engineers, Inc. and JT Hill & Co. Wednesday Evening Reception on behalf of the Membership & Services Committee
Subscribe to our Legislative News Service!
Blanton & Associates, Inc. Ice Cream Treats Break Aqua Strategies Coffee Breaks Clay Pope Consulting Lanyards CDM Smith Name Badges PLATINUM
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP HALFF Associates, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. McCall, Parkhurst & Horton L.L.P. North Harris County Regional Water Authority North Texas Municipal Water District Phillips and Jordan, Inc. Sabine River Authority of Texas San Antonio River Authority San Antonio Water System Tarrant Regional Water District Trinity River Authority of Texas
GOLD
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Parsons Water & Infrastructure San Jacinto River Authority
SILVER
Allen Boone Humphries Robinson, LLP Black & Veatch Carollo Engineers, Inc. Freese & Nichols, Inc. Gulf Coast Authority HilltopSecurities Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Lavaca-Navidad River Authority NewGen Strategies & Solutions, LLC Robert J. Brandes Consulting SledgeLaw Group PLLC TWCA Risk Management Fund
Prefiling of bills has already started for the 86th legislative session! Legislative news subscribers are updated with regular tracking reports via email, and can always get the latest information by logging on to our web page. Visit www.twca.org -> Legislative News to sign up before session starts in January.
BRONZE Hyde Regulatory Consulting, L.L.C. LRE Water, Inc. GOLF Black & Veatch, Halff Associates, Inc., Phillips and Jordan, Inc. and Van Ness Feldman.
36
Full-service engineering and architecture since 1950 Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Architecture Environmental GIS Land and Site Development MEP Engineering Oil and Gas Planning and Landscape Architecture Process Management Tools Public Works Right of Way Structural Engineering SUE/Utility Coordination Surveying Transportation Visualization Water Resources Water Utilities
www.halff.com | info@halff.com | 1-800-HALFF US
TWCA Ad for Confluence.indd 3
2/23/2018 8:58:37 AM
#MORETHANWATER
Supporting where you live, work and play www.NTMWD.com
37
TWCA Board of Directors 2018-2019 HOPE WELLS President DAVID MONTAGNE President-Elect MICHAEL J. BOOTH Immediate Past President DRAINAGE DISTRICT
Mike Yost, Pearland – 2019 (Chair) Kim Carroll, Beaumont – 2019 (EC) Don Carona, Orange – 2019 Chris Gallion, Clute – 2020 Andre’ McDonald, Sugarland – 2021 Alan Moore, Harlingen – 2020 Stan Kitzman, Brookshire – 2021
GENERAL & ENVIRONMENTAL Timothy Brown, Austin– 2020 (Chair) Martin Rochelle, Austin– 2019 (EC) Carolyn Ahrens, Austin– 2021 David Harkins, Austin– 2020 Robert M. Johnson, Dallas– 2019 Tom Ray, Waco– 2019 Ed Shackelford, Woodlands– 2021
GROUNDWATER Drew Satterwhite, Denison– 2019 (Chair) Kathy Turner Jones, Conroe– 2021 (EC) Dirk Aaron, Belton– 2020 Joe B. Cooper, Stephenville– 2019 Jim Conkwright, Lubbock – 2019 John Seifert, Houston– 2020 Brian Sledge, Austin– 2021 INDUSTRIAL James Kowis, Austin– 2019 (Chair) Glenn Lord, Freeport– 2021 (EC) Lori Traweek, Houston– 2020 Greg Carter, Austin– 2021 Jimmie Schindewolf, Houston– 2019 Sara Tays, Austin– 2019 Paulina Williams, Austin– 2020
IRRIGATION
Sonny Hinojosa, San Juan – 2020 (Chair) Glenn Jarvis, McAllen – 2021 (EC) Troy Allen, Edcouch – 2019 Tom McLemore, Harlingen – 2020 Kyle Miller, Wichita Falls – 2019 Tito Nieto, Los Fresnos – 2019 Steve Walthour, Dumas – 2021
MUNICIPAL
Wayne Owen, Fort Worth – 2020 (Chair) Fiona Allen, Arlington – 2021 (EC) Fred Arce, San Antonio – 2020 Jun Chang, Houston – 2019 Heather Cooke, Austin – 2019 Denis Qualls, Dallas – 2019 Yvonne Forrest, Houston – 2021 NAVIGATION & FLOOD CONTROL Lyn Clancy, Austin – 2021 (Chair) Tom Gooch, Fort Worth – 2019 (EC) Carolyn Brittin, Austin – 2020 Dan Buhman, Fort Worth – 2020 Patrick Brzozowski, Edna – 2021 Doug Caroom, Austin – 2019 Mary Beth Stengler, Anahuac – 2019 RIVER AUTHORITIES Kevin Ward, Arlington – 2019 (Chair) Walt Sears, Hughes Springs – 2019 (EC) Scott Hall, Beaumont – 2019 John Hofmann, Austin – 2020 David Montagne, Orange – 2020 Kent Satterwhite, Sanford – 2021 Cole Walker, Big Spring – 2021 UTILITY DISTRICTS John Chisholm, San Antonio – 2021 (Chair) Michael F. Thuss, San Antonio – 2019 (EC) Kelley Holcomb, Lufkin – 2019 Donna Howe, Austin – 2019 Robert Lux, Spring – 2021 David Weidman, Mount Vernon – 2020 Christopher Wingert, Abilene – 2020
38
PAST TWCA PRESIDENTS Franklin B. Moon, Houston John H. Specht, Pocatello, ID R.H. “Bob” Parker, Houston Fred N. Pfeiffer, San Antonio Sam. F Collins, Newton Ronald J. Neighbors, LaGrange James P. Murphy, Angleton Danny F. Vance, Arlington Robert Lee Johnson, Dallas Robert J. Huston, Austin Con Mims, Uvalde Alan H. Plummer Jr., Fort Worth James M. Oliver, Fort Worth Robert Wagner, Crystal City A.T. “Tommy” Hebert Jr., Beaumont W.E. “Bill” West Jr., Seguin C.E. Williams, White Deer Wayne Halbert, Harlingen Robert H. Lloyd, Austin Joseph J. Beal, Bastrop Peggy W. Glass, Austin Gregory E. Rothe, Hondo John E. Burke, Bastrop Jerry L. Clark, Buna M. Jeff Taylor, Houston Sonia Lambert, San Benito James M. Parks, Wylie Luana Buckner, Hondo Phillip J. Ford, Waco Robert J. Brandes, Austin John W. Grant, Big Spring Phil Kelley, Port Arthur
PRESIDENTS’ PANEL Ty Embrey, Austin – 2019 Randy Palachek, Austin – 2019 Tom Kula, Wylie – 2020 Emily Rogers, Austin – 2020 David Collinsworth, Waco – 2021 Ronda Trow, Conroe – 2021
How well do you know your TWCA staff? If You Could Be A Member Of Any TV Family, Which Would It Be?
DEAN
STACEY
Two and a Half Men
Modern Family
LISA
ADELINE
Designing Women
Saved By The Bell
BECKY Orange Is The New Black
What’s new with TWCA? Q2 Confluence Online Statistics
571
7:10
(users opened publication)
(average time spent reading)
reads
minutes
1,298 impressions
(publication displayed to user)
Website - Event calendar available for members to post events - send us your event date and details.
39
Thank you Confluence Sponsors! PLATINUM
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP Brazos River Authority Jacobs/CH2M Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. Metropolitan Water Company, L.P. North Texas Municipal Water District Sabine River Authority Tarrant Regional Water District Trinity River Authority
GOLD
Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Dannenbaum Engineering HALFF Associates Inc. INTERA, Inc. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Lavaca Navidad River Authority Lower Colorado River Authority Lower Neches Valley Authority NewGen Strategies & Solutions
SILVER
AECOM Colorado River Municipal Water District Gulf Coast Authority Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Northeast Texas M.W.D. Titus County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1 Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority
BRONZE
Blanton & Associates, Inc. LRE Water, LLC San Jacinto River Authority
www.twca.org | 512.472.7216