Municipal Water Leader July/August 2016

July/August 2016 Volume 2 Issue 7

The Texas Way, Past, Present, and Future: Wisdom From Trinity River Authority’s Kevin Ward

Texas Knows Water Leadership

By Kris Polly This issue of Municipal Water Leader magazine focuses on Texas and its unique leadership and dedication to solving water challenges. Texas is a place where politics and exceptional Southern manners are ingrained in the culture. Yet, there is a oneness of thought that generally prevails in water resources management. This is not to say Texas has less division on the use of water than other states; it may have more. However, Texas does a great job of producing leaders who are problem solvers. Fighting, especially over water, is an easy thing to do; putting together a water agreement where everybody wins is difficult.

Leaders who can transcend fighting and find long-term solutions tend to be exceptionally good with people and have bigger-than-life personalities. Kevin Ward, general manager of Trinity River Authority, is a great example of such a water leader in Texas. High energy, exceptionally knowledgeable, and unstoppable are all hallmarks of Kevin’s personality. In his interview, his dedication and persistence to overcoming challenges is clear. Dean Robbins, general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA) knows everyone involved in water in Texas. He is exceptionally skilled in his ability to bring folks together. Although Dean did not mention it in his interview, his 70-plus-

member TWCA board meetings last only one hour. Such efficiency is only possible with tremendous behind-thescenes leadership. Bech Bruun, chairman of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), is a highly intelligent individual with a big job. Bech discusses the TWDB; the 2017 Texas State Water Plan; and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas, or SWIFT, a low-interest loan program for addressing the state’s water needs based on a 50-year planning horizon. Bech does a great job of explaining how the TWDB is investing in water projects now to meet an estimated need of $63 billion in capital investment by 2070.

We hope you enjoy reading about these three Texas water leaders in addition to the other articles in this issue of the Municipal Water Leader magazine and find something that is helpful to you and your water district or agency.

Kris Polly is editor-in-chief of Municipal Water Leader and Irrigation Leader magazines. He is also president of Water Strategies LLC, a government relations, marketing, and publishing company he began in February 2009 for the purpose of representing and guiding water, power, and agricultural entities in their dealings with Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal government agencies.

He may be contacted at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Are you Advertising in Municipal Water Leader?

Join a growing group of public– and private–sector water resources leaders. If you have a product or service that would benefit municipal water suppliers and treatment providers, we invite you to advertise in Municipal Water Leader magazine.

The magazine is published 10 times a year and includes a collection of articles from top municipal water entities as well as editorials from policymakers across the country.

Municipal Water Leader is sent to approximately 12,000 organizations, including every municipal water provider and treatment facility with an annual budget or sales of $10 million or more, all 535 members of Congress, all 50 governors, all 7,382 state legislators, key federal and state agencies, 259 water-related trade associations, and a variety of top construction and engineering firms throughout the country.

For more information, please contact Kris Polly at

(703) 517-3962 or Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com 2

Municipal Water Leader

JULY/AUGUST 2016

C O N T E N T S 2 Texas Knows Water Leadership

By Kris Polly

VOLUME 2 ISSUE 7 Municipal Water Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for July/August and November/December by Water Strategies LLC 4 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 STAFF: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief Valentina Valenta, Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting LLC, Copyeditor SUBMISSIONS: Municipal Water Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions. However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved.

Submissions are returned only on request. For more information, please contact Valentina Valenta at (202) 544-4348 or Valentina.Valenta@waterstrategies.com.

ADVERTISING: Municipal Water Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads. For more information on rates and placement, please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Municipal.

Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Municipal Water Leader is distributed nationally to managers and boards of directors of water agencies with annual budgets of $10 million or more; the governors and state legislators in all 50 states; all members of Congress and select committee staff; and advertising sponsors. For address corrections or additions, please contact our office at Municipal.Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Copyright 2016 Water Strategies LLC. Municipal Water Leader relies on the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources and water industry professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contributor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Municipal Water Leader, its editors, or Water Strategies LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Municipal Water Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies LLC or Municipal Water Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

Cover Photo: Trinity River Authority’s General Manager Kevin Ward stands inside an influent lift pump station at the Central Regional Wastewater System.

Municipal Water Leader

4 The Texas Way, Past, Present, and

Future: Wisdom From Trinity River Authority’s Kevin Ward

LEADERSHIP PROFILE

12 Career of Distinction: A Discussion

With Former Army Corps Civil Works Director Steve Stockton

ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE PROFILE

16 Environmental Site Assessments for

Infrastructure Projects: A Conversation With Freese and Nichols

ASSOCIATION PROFILE

22 Full-Spectrum Water Leadership:

A Discussion With Texas Water Conservation Association General Manager Dean Robbins

26 One Water, One Future: A Conversation

With US Water Alliance’s Chief Executive Officer, Radhika Fox

BOARD PROFILE

30 Keeping the Pump Primed:

A Conversation With Texas Water Development Board Chairman Bech Bruun

INNOVATORS

34 The George W. Shannon Wetlands:

In Pursuit of Water Sustainability for People and the Environment

3

THE TEXAS WAY, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE: Wisdom From Trinity River Authority’s Kevin Ward

I

n the September 2015 issue of Municipal Water Leader, we interviewed Kevin Ward in his role as general manager of Trinity River Authority. In this interview, we concentrate on his broader leadership and statesman-like role in Texas’s water resources, planning, and policy.

Kris Polly: You have over 30 years of experience in Texas water policy and politics. Much has been written about the Texas way in water management. Please tell us what the general approach to water is for the state of Texas?

Kevin Ward: The general approach is to try to be prepared for drought.

Texas has always had challenges with drought, and our water planning reflects this reality. From the time we began to capture and conserve surface water and groundwater, water rights in Texas were built on first in time, first in right for surface water and the rule of capture for groundwater.

These two water rights concepts are the core of Texas water management and have evolved over many years.

Since Texas first became a state, it was established that surface water belongs to the state of Texas, and subsequent legislation made surface water withdrawal subject to state permit according to a prior appropriation doctrine. In the late 1940s, because of the intensive pumping in the Ogallala, there was an attempt to legislate state control and the permitting of groundwater. That effort was unsuccessful. Instead, the legislature created groundwater districts to manage groundwater locally. That legislation, together with some case law from the early 1900s, cemented the rule of capture into a local way of managing groundwater versus the regional and statewide way we have of managing surface water. Water at the boundaries of the United States—the border with Mexico—is a national issue subject to a treaty with Mexico. The system of water law on the border is more a percentage allocation based on priority than is the case with our surface

4

Trinity River Authority’s Lake Livingston Dam.

Municipal Water Leader

water rights for the rest of the state. committees look very carefully at water, and as a result, water The Texas way is to observe these surface water and has been at the forefront of policy in Texas for about two or groundwater rights in harmony and generally capture, three decades now. Another important part of the Texas way conserve, permit, and use the surface water first and the is to balance the uses of water by man and industry against groundwater second where surface water is plentiful. Where the environmental and ecological needs of the bays and the surface water is not plentiful, we use groundwater because rivers themselves, so we can maintain a high quality of life in it is less expensive. To move surface water long distances to Texas. We’ve witnessed a significant growth in participation an area where it is not currently available is generally more and the diversity of that participation. This broadened expensive than just pumping it out of the ground. In the participation has been largely harmonious, considering the future, I believe it is going to be more of a challenge to live reality of strongly opposing views from those on either side by these principles. The groundwater districts have been very of a particular issue. careful not to overdraft the aquifers to the extent they can avoid doing so, perhaps with the exception of the Ogallala, Kris Polly: Tell us about the way Texas sees the roles of where the economy really depends on it. the various levels of government in water development and These water management strategies for surface water management. Please include the federal and state levels, the and groundwater go back to the views of the 1950s. I think special subdivisions like Trinity River Authority, and water they had it right back in the 1950s when they said we probably ought to develop the surface waters and capture and conserve that water to the maximum extent we can and use surface water first. Reserve groundwater for later use because (1) in our coastal areas where groundwater is plentiful, pumping it will cause subsidence, and we will lose land mass and have contamination from saltwater intrusion and (2) in the inland regions where it is still plentiful you can balance recharge of the water table. In a drought situation, pumping groundwater will exacerbate the drought and reduce spring flows and, therefore, Bill Tatum, Central Regional Wastewater System plant manager and Kevin Ward, General surface water. That’s the way our state Manager. approached water management after the statewide drought in the 1950s. We haven’t really looked districts and local governments. What levels make the key directly to those methods in a long while, but I believe our decisions? water management will gravitate back to those strategic roles for surface water and groundwater. Because of the Kevin Ward: Water management is quite integrated evolution of the groundwater districts, the way the districts when you think about the use of water and how the are currently managing the resource and their reluctance to movement of water begins. Water management always export significant water out of their districts, the Texas water begins with needs. It is not managed in an “if you build it, strategy is leaning in that direction now. Districts tend to they will come” scenario. That is not the way water works. write their groundwater rules to limit withdrawal and thus It takes money to pump and move water. The same is true discourage large amounts of groundwater from being moved of regulation. The Texas Commission on Environmental throughout the state. Again, the exception is the Ogallala, Quality (TCEQ) administers water rights. A water rights because it has some high-density deposits north in the applicant must demonstrate a beneficial use for water to Amarillo area that are used by Canadian River Municipal obtain or renew a water rights permit. The user must show Water Authority. This groundwater is pumped as far south intended use and projected need. For a groundwater area, for as Lubbock and beyond. Huge amounts of water are moved the most part, groundwater districts also manage water based down south for a variety of purposes. on need. In other words, the TCEQ and the groundwater The last thing I would say about the Texas way is that districts are the two key levels of government in the state of there is a gathering in the state every two years, known as Texas that manage water. the legislative session, and in between there are interim When you look at the federal level, you have the U.S. legislative committee meetings. The legislature and its Army Corps of Engineers, and to a lesser degree the U.S. Municipal Water Leader

5

Bureau of Reclamation, which do own and operate many of the water impoundments in the state of Texas. But these federal agencies do not control the water rights; the water rights themselves are controlled by the state. The federal reservoir owners control the storage of reservoirs and the management of those reservoirs for flood control because the reservoirs they manage are multipurpose projects. Such reservoirs can’t be solely for water supply.

The latest federal policy says that water supply storage cannot exceed 30 percent of the total storage in a federal reservoir. That policy pretty much holds true as a reality anyway because the majority of those facilities are for flood control, and there is recreation in them. So, the Corps controls reservoir operations for flood purposes, recreation purposes, and management of the storage for water supply. Reclamation has a few of its facilities in Texas that it operates the same way.

In addition to the federal and state roles, you have cities that hold water rights and water districts that hold water rights. Special districts like the Trinity River Authority also hold water rights. That is how surface water property is held in the state of Texas.

Various groups in the state also get together to discuss priority issues, most notably the Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA), which includes in its membership most water managers in the state of Texas.

The groundwater districts also participate in TWCA because they have a lot of common interests with surface water entities. When we have policy issues related to surface water rights and the use of water, TWCA, major districts, river authorities, and cities advocate on behalf of the group before the state legislature. Groundwater districts partner with TWCA to perform advocacy as well.

Federal trade associations do their best to educate their memberships’ congressional delegations in Washington, DC, about the interconnectedness of the environmental and development side, but they face an uphill battle because of political wrangling. However, there have been some tremendous successes at the federal level recently, due in large part to the efforts of our national trade associations in bringing together divergent interests.

Congress passed the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) by a nearunanimous vote in both chambers. WRRDA 2014 authorized the development and maintenance of the nation’s water infrastructure and related critical projects.

The bill was a major win for everyone involved in water resources management and for the long-term economic growth of the state of Texas.

Kris Polly: There has been a lot of conversation throughout the last two decades about what the federal government should do to support state and local water leadership. What is the appropriate federal role?

6

Trinity River Authority’s Lake Livingston Dam.

Kevin Ward: The federal role should be to ensure that we meet the requirements of federal laws and regulations when we at the state and local levels put water projects and strategies together. I don’t believe the federal government has any role in planning in the states. The tendency of the federal government, especially, the regulatory parts of the resource and infrastructure agencies, has always been to assume that it should come in and be the authority and tell folks how to get things done. States come to the federal government for assistance in meeting their own goals.

There is always a danger when the federal government gets involved in local and regional water planning. Texas has a unique way of developing its water resources at the local and regional levels, and if the federal role is too heavy, our planning process can suffer. Although we do have a few compacts with other states, most of the water in Texas begins and ends in Texas.

The federal government is not a facilitator and should not be expected to behave like one. That would mean it has a bias about which projects get built and which are abandoned. The federal government works best when it is providing guidance about how a local sponsor can develop a project. We absolutely welcome the federal government’s input about how we can best meet requirements of the 404 permitting process or expert advice on hydraulics and hydrology, population projections, or the mitigation of impacts to wetlands. We will be helped by assurances that if we do provide the federal government with the documentation it needs concerning our projects, we will get a determination on our permit applications.

Kris Polly: The Texas Water Plan has incorporated a number of reservoirs since the 1997 planning reforms of Senate Bill 1. Yet, no reservoir has made it through the federal permitting process. What’s the real prospect for a major new reservoir in Texas?

Kevin Ward: I believe that we will get some instream Municipal Water Leader

impoundments completed. But, I believe that off-channel reservoirs will be easier to get done than instream impoundments in major basins. A number of entities, such as the Lower Colorado River Authority and the city of Dallas, are looking at developing off-channel storage reservoirs where they might hold up to 50,000 acre-feet of water. I believe that when you look collectively at the work that has been done over many decades to evaluate those sites (the instream impoundments), which were originally identified in a 1950s U.S. Department of the Interior report, you are going to see some of those reservoirs being constructed. I think it’s going to take a while to get back in the groove with all the new requirements for documentation that were put in place during the 1970s and the court cases that have been tried. If we find ourselves in a situation in which, after a reservoir proponent has done much arduous work and documentation, it looks like no amount of work and documentation would ever be good enough, then I believe Congress may well intervene. I also believe that unreasonable resistance to building reservoirs runs counter to what we need to deal with climate change.

Aquifer storage and recovery might be an alternative to reservoirs, but there aren’t a lot of places you can do that.

Many communities are reluctant to simply inject water into a ground formation, particularly if that groundwater formation is already being used for water supply.

There will be five or six major reservoirs in Texas that should be able to get permits and move forward in the next 20–30 years. I have high hopes for the Lake Ralph Hall project and the Lower Bois d’Arc Creek Reservoir project.

We have some issues with the projects in the Sulphur River basin; the Corps is going to have to consider whether it needs to raise the level of Wright Patman, which would require environmental mitigation. We have not yet crossed those bridges; however, I think that in view of significant projected population growth and associated water needs in Texas, it’s hard to have a federal action or an interpretation of a federal regulation that would prohibit the development Municipal Water Leader

of water supply in Texas. There has always been opposition to reservoir development, but there are also a lot of proponents of reservoirs, not only for development potential, but because they create a beneficial environment for fish and wildlife and parks and recreation for people. To that extent, mitigation is not that difficult to do in some of these areas.

The way mitigation is handled is another issue we need to look at going forward. One of the problems we have with mitigation is that we have already paid for it in many respects. Federal laws pay landowners to put their land into stewardship. The same landowners can and sometimes do turn around and create a mitigation bank and ask municipalities to pay for the land again. It’s essentially double taxation. There are a lot of efforts to conserve and protect land or wetlands, and it’s not appropriate to ask municipalities to pay twice when the protection has already been achieved through the federal government through another program where someone has already been duly compensated. We can make mitigation work. Cooler minds must prevail. We can’t say that no matter how expensive it is, you can’t build a project if there is an alternative that has less environmental impact. This isn’t an appropriate way to make decisions on projects that are needed. We have to come up with a way in which a reasonable amount of mitigation is proposed. The need for water will cause these things to change.

Kris Polly: The Corps is undertaking rulemaking for reallocation of storage in its reservoirs and how that storage should be priced. What’s your view on the role of reallocation in meeting water needs?

Kevin Ward: A major catastrophe often leaves a lasting impression on our policymakers and decisionmakers, as well as within an organization like the Corps. Examples are flooding and the breach of the levees on the Mississippi and all the way down to New Orleans. Some interests and government agencies want to impose new regulatory actions related to the floodplain. That is going on right now. Those concerns translate to the same kind of reluctance related to reallocation of storage in a reservoir. In most cases, flood control storage is reallocated to water supply, and leaving aside the costs, it is going to take a great deal of time to come up with adequate policies to make it clear as to how those reallocations should be done and what criteria ought to apply.

Another aspect of reallocation is financing or pricing. If the Corps doesn’t change the way it prices storage, there will be a lot of water storage it will never sell. Prices can be so high that water users won’t consider pursuing reallocation as an alternative source of water supply.

Let’s examine a somewhat modest reallocation here in Texas of storage once committed to a navigation project on the Trinity River that is set to be deauthorized. In 7

anticipation, storage for this purpose (navigation) was mandated at some of the reservoirs on the Trinity River.

Tarrant Regional Water District is one of the primary water rights holders and would like to see some reallocation.

Tarrant is currently buying surplus water from the Corps under section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The surplus water purchased from the Corps seems to be set at a very good price, but to actually convert the surplus water purchase to a permanent right of storage will dramatically increase the cost of water. The Corps’ way of computing storage charges is not reflective of what the federal cost is or what the federal investment was in the reservoir. The government is not supposed to profit from what it is doing; yet, when you look at how it deals with water supply storage sales and the repayment of water supply storage, the pricing mechanism makes no sense. The Corps’ pricing methods won’t produce a price at which there is a strike point for a good, willing buyer to make.

So, the Corps needs to go back and rethink that. To price water storage you created in 1966 in a manner that assumes the cost has grown in value by 1,000 percent, for example, is not going to produce a price that someone is willing to pay. Therefore, you leave the water locked up, and it doesn’t get used for its intended purpose. Even if there is surplus storage for flood control that can be converted, if the pricing mechanism produces the same unwarranted price, then it is way beyond anyone’s means and certainly beyond any market.

There needs to be a complete recalculation of these current storage-pricing rules per year. The Corps needs the full authority to go out and do a market analysis and calculate the cost of storage based on what the market value would be and then get agreements with the entities that want to use that storage to pay for the related operational costs and renovation costs of those facilities. Most entities would be willing to do those types of things if we really knew we were paying for the cost of that reservoir operation and we were only being allocated some portion of the original storage investment cost.

Kris Polly: How are water agencies and river authorities in Texas planning for the future of water resources?

Kevin Ward: It varies, but primarily what we are seeing is planning for more extreme weather swings and more heat and evaporation. There are indications of more extreme events that tend toward wider variations than we have seen historically—drought versus flooding. In planning for surface water impoundment management, what we have seen more recently is a deviation from firm yield in a reservoir to a more dependable yield. In general, with the drought of record in the past, a water manager would have targeted having a water supply to last 33–40 months of drought in most basins. That duration would replicate what happened 8

in in the 1950s. Now, what most folks are going toward is a target of having water supply to meet another few years beyond that time frame. This extended period of reliable water supply will allow them to survive a drought of record and still have enough in storage to meet minimal needs for another few years—that is being called the dependable yield.

Kris Polly: How important is water management to long-term economic development in Texas?

Kevin Ward: Water is life. It is vital for anything we do.

When you look at long-term economic development, if you don’t have a good ecology and a good quality of life, and your cannot provide that on a continuous and reliable basis regardless of weather conditions, then people are going to be reluctant to locate in your state and your economy won’t grow. Texas has the benefit of being in the Southwest, and the environment is healthy for the development of business and making a living, raising a family, and recreation. We need water for all these things.

We have never done a mass balance calculation of the flora and fauna in the metroplex, but they need water to thrive. The foliage and wetlands may require a lot of water, but they also capture stormwater and runoff. Water is all around us. It is needed for everything, and we use it and supplement the natural water to keep things growing, to hold the soil, and to provide an aesthetically pleasing natural environment. We green our communities because in doing so we provide our residents with an extraordinary quality of life that they may not find elsewhere. It is a part of our culture, and it is what our folks expect. They view such a human ecology in the same way naturalists or environmentalists view wildlife.

Texas is going to be challenged during drought, but I believe that planning for many years of new future water supply will provide Texas with additional water supply, storage, and water supply in reserve that we can tap if the need arises. It is not as widely known among most water managers, but I had the opportunity to look at the water supply we had and wanted to know what would happen if we have a water Armageddon, or a 20-year drought, where there would be no meaningful recharge in the reservoirs or streams and we are forced to go to groundwater or some other source. We have huge amounts of water on the coast that we can desalinate. Desalinated water will be more expensive than other supplies, but that alternative would be achievable. In addition, we have a huge amount of groundwater that can be mined across the central part of Texas to provide the state with about 20 years of water supply. Based on some calculations, our groundwater areas might be able to provide the state with over 200 years of water supply. Texas is and will always be a proactive state when it comes to water supply.

Mt. Rainier and Lake Tapps.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Wa te r S u p p ly • F lo o d Pr ot ect i on • Wat er Qual i t y • Recr eat i on

Enriching communities.

Improving the quality of life.

8 0 0 E . North s id e D riv e , F o rt Wo rt h, TX 76102 | ( 817) 335- 2491 | www.t r wd.com

LEADERSHIP PROFILE

Career of Distinction: A Discussion With Former Army Corps Civil Works Director Steven Stockton

I

n the September 2015 issue of Municipal Water Leader, the magazine’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Steven Stockton about the missions and programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They continue that discussion in this issue on the occasion of Mr. Stockton’s retirement from the Corps. The conversation focuses on the culmination of Mr. Stockton’s distinguished career, his most memorable accomplishments, and his legacy to ensure the Corps’ value to the nation.

Valentina Valenta: Congratulations on your retirement. Please tell us what you believe to be your greatest accomplishment in your 45-year federal career.

Steven Stockton: Back in the early 2000s, I prepared a document titled U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012: Preparing USACE for the 21st Century.

The paper served as an attempt to change the culture of the Corps and vertically and horizontally integrate the organization. The biggest challenge with the Corps is that it is a large, decentralized organization.

The structure of the Corps supports the advancement of a lot of positives, but at the same time, it creates challenges in terms of workforce management, talent acquisition, consistency, and getting the right people in the right place at the right time with the right skill sets to accomplish the mission. The document is still a work in progress; however, I believe we made giant strides forward in our ability to prepare for the challenges of the 21st century and remain relevant.

Valentina Valenta: Major General Jackson recently appeared in a video about section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014). In it, he says that part of the Corps’ mission is “reducing disaster risk to all our citizens.”

You were the director of Civil Works on the eve of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Please share your views.

Are we safer from disaster risks than we were in 2005?

What has improved, and what still needs improving?

Steven Stockton: Hurricane Katrina was a real wake-up call for the Corps. We did a lot of

12

Steven L. Stockton

organizational introspection at that time about how we got to where we were. Our Interagency Performance Evaluation Team performed all the engineering forensics to determine what went wrong and why. The Corps also developed a decision-process chronology that looked at the decisionmaking that preceded the infrastructure failure. We had been working on our hurricane protection system, and this system was incomplete. Our examination revealed that we made some decisions along the way that made the hurricane protection system more fragile and vulnerable to storm events.

Following our work to determine what went wrong in New Orleans in 2005, we created a program called Actions for Change. Over the last 11 years, the Corps implemented a large portion of what the program called for, including improving the engineering of our infrastructure and changing how we think about risk.

We no longer use the term protection, because there is always a bigger storm out there. In its place, we adopted concepts such as risk reduction. Instead of calling the program the hurricane protection system, today the Corps calls it the hurricane storm damage risk reduction system.

There is always some residual risk in any storm event.

Not only did we do a lot of work to improve the engineering side of the equation, we also changed the way the Corps communicates with people so they know what risks they are still exposed to. There is a whole portfolio of measures people can take to reduce risk, such as zoning, building codes, evacuation plans, and flood insurance, but at the end of the day, there is always a bigger storm out there, and people need to acknowledge that.

Municipal Water Leader

We really embraced the concept of risk-informed decisionmaking after Hurricane Katrina. Storm damage risk reduction is not only the Corps’ responsibility. All levels of government, including federal, state, and local, have a role to play. Individuals living in areas that face significant storm events also need to be informed and to understand the risks they are exposed to so they can make the right decisions for their safety.

The Corps has a number of programs that bring together individuals and their government agencies and institutions to provide informed risk management education. For example, the Corps works with the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies and the Association of State Floodplain Managers to educate local decisionmakers, community opinion leaders, and their constituencies. We also implemented a program called the Silver Jackets Flood Risk Management Program in 2006, which places teams in each state to build relationships with communities in the event of a severe storm. The Silver Jackets teams provide education about reducing flood risk in coordination with our federal, state, and local partners. A big component of the program is direct communication with the members of the public, so they understand the risks and can take measures to reduce risks.

lot done. The Corps didn’t have partnerships and joint efforts with nonfederal interests prior to WRDA 1986.

Valentina Valenta: This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), which is credited as landmark reform and very much touted as the continuing program and policy framework of the Corps. The essence was cost sharing. Please tell us your perspectives. How did WRDA 1986 make a difference for good or otherwise?

Steven Stockton: We implemented the Civil Works Transformation plan in 2008. We looked at how we planned and budgeted, how we delivered projects and services, and how we managed Corps infrastructure with asset

Steven Stockton: Most of our country’s water infrastructure was built in the 20th century. The federal government bore nearly 100 percent of the cost of a project. The federal government would identify a need and then construct, for example, a dam on the Columbia River or system locks on the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers. Because the projects were 100 percent federally constructed and owned, their development was sometimes not supported by the local community.

The good thing about having a nonfederal sponsor provide financial support for a project is that the local interest has skin in the game. WRDA 1986 ushered in a major cultural change for the Corps because the local sponsor had a vote and now shared responsibility and control of the operation of the project.

In the case of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project, the Corps developed a collaborative partnership with the local sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District. We have been able to get a Municipal Water Leader

Valentina Valenta: Civil engineering is the core competency of the Corps. What is the state of that competence? What have you done to sustain that competence, and what needs to be a priority in the future?

Steven Stockton: As the nation continues to grow and existing infrastructure ages and needs to be rehabilitated, there will always be a need for civil engineers. In order for humans to prosper and have a viable economy, we need to continue modifying the natural environment. Corps projects, such as flood control and navigation, have made us safer and improved our quality of life in significant ways. The Corps is always concerned about talent, including how we recruit it and retain it. We put a lot of effort and resources into our science, technology, engineering, and math programs. There will continue to be a lot of competition for the talent that is out there. As we move into the future, I think competition for talent will become more critical.

Valentina Valenta: Please evaluate the new 3x3x3 process—one of your signature initiatives at the Corps that was ultimately implemented under WRRDA 2014.

Steven L. Stockton, former Civil Works Director of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers retires after 40 years of service during a ceremony in Washington, D.C., August 5, 2016. Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers presents Mr. Stockton with a certificate of appreciation for his service.

13

management. We also looked at alternative financing in an effort to move away from using federal funding and attract other investment capital to solve public infrastructure problems.

3x3x3 rules and guidelines in the planning process have been the most successful change developed from the Civil Works Transformation plan. This new planning process allowed us to reduce our inventory of projects on the books. We completed most of our legacy studies; there are only a few left to complete. We developed the 3x3x3 concept to give the districts a target for completing studies within a three-year time frame at a cost of $3 million, with concurrent review occurring at the district, division, and headquarters. We are still doing rigorous analysis in order to provide the best recommendations to the administration and Congress, but we are now doing that in a much shorter time frame.

Additionally, 3x3x3 has allowed us to complete a number of studies that previously would have taken more than twice the time at double the estimated cost. We are now funding studies in a way that allows them to be completed faster. In an earmark environment, Congress and the administration would often just put a little money on a project at a time, which would make the local sponsor happy in the short term, but over the long term, the schedules would slip, the costs would increase, and people would be unhappy.

While 3x3x3 was a planning rule and process we developed at the Corps, Congress liked it so much, it put it into law. Today, we are achieving significant success in completing feasibility studies on time using this initiative, which will help us to get the project constructed and online a lot faster for the project sponsors.

Valentina Valenta: In terms of progress on Corps transformation, what can we expect to see in the coming years?

Steven Stockton: Like so much of what happens at the Corps, it is a journey. We made a lot of progress in the planning modernization, but there is never an end in sight. The Corps is still working on the systems approach to budgeting. It’s always going to be a challenge to delivery quality products and services to every project. The Corps has made huge strides in asset management: We know what we have, and what condition it’s in, and that progress changed the way we do operational condition and risk assessments so we can make the best use of every federal dollar. There isn’t enough federal money to meet all the needs of the civil works program, and that’s why I worked hard to look at alternative financing programs and how to use private capital for public purposes. Fargo-Moorhead is a good example of our alternative financing efforts. It was funded as an alternative financing project.

14

Valentina Valenta: You made integrated water management and systems analysis signature initiatives during your administration. The Corps is currently writing a rule for singlepurpose municipal and industrial water storage allocation.

How will the new rule fit with your vision for integrated water management and systems analysis? How will other purposes, including the environment, be integrated in the rule?

Steven Stockton: I think the rule will fit well. Most of our projects are multipurpose and have competing demands, whether it’s flood risk reduction, hydropower, water supply, recreation, or low-flow augmentation. The rulemaking will clarify Corps authorities and what the policies are with respect to both surplus water, which is water that the project purposes have not materialized so we can make it available for other purposes, and the Water Supply Act, or how we enter into long-term contracts with water supply users. The Corps is constantly balancing competing demands and trying to resolve the conflicts that are naturally created between upstream users and downstream beneficiaries.

Valentina Valenta: James C. Dalton has been named as your successor. Did your predecessor provide you any advice when he retired? If so, can you share it with us? Also, please tell us the advice you have for your successor.

Steven Stockton: My predecessor gave me a lot of good advice when he retired, including which meetings to attend and which ones to avoid. I will give my successor as much knowledge and information as I can, so he can pick up from where I left off. In this job, your tasks are never complete. Your work and efforts are always a journey. There are ups and downs on the journey. You have successes and failures. You will always have challenges and opportunities. The type of challenge is not important; how you address and deal with challenges as an institution is important.

Valentina Valenta: Please share with our readers the importance of the Corps in carrying out the will of the people across the country.

Steven Stockton: The Corps’ Institute for Water Resources published a document, Value to the Nation, which explains how the Corps provides $100 billion in national economic development benefits every year with the $5–6 billion allocated annually by Congress. The Corps delivers $20–30 billion back into the Treasury every year. People don’t often realize what we do. The Corps makes money for the nation. We add value to the nation with every project we construct and every program we implement. The Corps is not only relevant to the nation in the 21st century, it is fundamentally vital to its success. The Corps carries out the will of the people throughout the nation and adds value to their communities and lives.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

We Are Westlands

Family farming for more than 60 years

Sal Parra Sr. and Sal Parra Jr. Nothing speaks of summer better than sweet, delicious farm-grown watermelons. Sal Parra has been farming in Westlands Water District for more than 47 years. As a family farmer, he is pleased to work alongside the next generation of farmers, his son, Sal Parra, Jr. At Burford Ranch they grow some of the freshest produce that Central California growers provide to communities across the nation.

Growing more than $1 billion worth of food and fiber annually Supporting 50,000 people in communities dependent on Westlands’ agricultural economy Generating $3.5 billion in farm-related economic activities Producing 60 high-quality crops, including tomatoes, onions, melons, grapes and nuts Serving California, the United States and more than 150 countries around the world

559-224-1523

wwd.ca.gov

ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE PROFILE

Environmental Site Assessments for Infrastructure Projects: A Conversation With Freese and Nichols

M

unicipal Water Leader’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Kimberly Buckley, PG, and Robert Chambers, PG, of Freese and Nichols, Inc.’s (FNI) Environmental Science and Remediation Group about the purpose and importance of conducting environmental site assessments (ESAs).

Valentina Valenta: Please share with us the general features of your ESA program. How does it fit into FNI’s overall Environmental Science program? How many people are in the technical staff group?

Robert Chambers: Our most unique and interesting ESAs are done as part of larger infrastructure projects in which FNI is involved as the design engineer. Although we don’t directly market ESAs as a stand-alone service, they are a crucial step in many projects. ESA services are an important part of FNI’s Environmental Science and Remediation Group’s project portfolio. We use a variety of staff to accomplish these assessments, including geoscientists and ecologists. FNI’s Environmental Science and Remediation Group has 35 staff members, and many of them will have a role, at some point, in working on an ESA. Kimberly Buckley: FNI’s work with municipalities, river authorities, and water districts also includes water infrastructure projects (pipelines and reservoirs) in which ESAs are considered a key component in right-of-way or land acquisition. Land-related project needs are often drivers for conducting ESAs. Valentina Valenta: Why is it so important to provide these services in-house?

Robert Chambers: In the case of a public infrastructure project with a potential legacy pollution issue, it often becomes the critical path for not only the project schedule but also the overall project budget. When we are working together with our team and the client, we look for creative ways so that we not only comply with the laws and regulations but also help that client manage the overall project schedule and budget.

One of our focus areas at FNI is tailoring our ESAs to help clients find the way to move their project forward with the least possible impact for both project schedule

16

Robert Chambers

Kimberly Buckley

and budget. We do this by working closely with the client and our design engineers to focus on using the basic features of a project to help minimize impacts. We provide a team-based approach and focus on contaminated soil management to determine whether there are ways we can reuse soils with low contamination as suitable fill material on a project rather than automatically sending them to a landfill. One of the important things to understand is that the purpose behind our risk-based regulations is that the regulatory agencies are trying to move away from excavating and sending large quantities of soil to landfills.

It’s all about finding innovative solutions to reach the best project result.

Valentina Valenta: Please explain the difference between a Phase I and a Phase II ESA. Kimberly Buckley: Property transactions or other financial transactions typically drive the need for a Phase I ESA. The client is seeking some form of documentation for environmental conditions of the property during the due diligence period. We conduct the majority of our Phase I ESAs in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527 and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. Meeting these standards provides liability protection under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Phase I ESAs include regulatory records reviews, historical records reviews (including desktop and paper copy sources), interviews with key parties, and site visits.

The results of a Phase I ESA may trigger the recommendation for a Phase II ESA, based on the type Municipal Water Leader

and need of a project. For example, during review of historical records, we may find that past operations on a property have impacted the property. A former gas station, for example, that is no longer present on the subject property could have previously resulted in the release of regulated materials on the site. The assessment team looks for these types of previous uses that may have impacted the property under various state and federal regulations, and in such cases, we would recommend a Phase II ESA. Phase II ESAs are conducted under ASTM Standard E1903. The standard provides protocols for sampling and surveying to determine the actual presence or absence of potential contaminants of concern, such as asbestos, lead-based paint, heavy metals, and organic compounds.

Phase II ESAs shift the assessment focus from identifying the potential for contamination to determining whether contaminants are present and, if so, the type and amount of each contaminant.

Valentina Valenta: What findings in a Phase I assessment trigger the need for a Phase II assessment, and approximately how many Phase I assessments lead to a Phase II assessment?

Robert Chambers: A recognized environmental condition (REC) is the term used in Phase I ESAs for the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances and petroleum products on a subject property. If we find anything that poses a potential REC to the property or proposed project, then it usually triggers a recommendation for a Phase II ESA. There is another type of trigger that’s not necessarily in the ASTM Standard but that we consider because of the type of projects we are typically involved in. We look for sensitive environmental resources, such as a water body or a particular wildlife habitat, that might require project design or construction modifications in order to avoid impacts to these resources. If we find sensitive resources, they don’t necessarily trigger a Phase II ESA, but their presence may trigger a recommendation for a more detailed permitting evaluation to see whether certain permits are needed or special measures need to be taken during design or construction.

Valentina Valenta: Please share with our readers the conceptual details of a Phase I and a Phase II ESA. Kimberly Buckley: With regard to a Phase I ESA, a typical project for us would be a municipal utility line or roadway expansion project. For many projects, we are brought in during the design process or even the preliminary engineering design process to evaluate a potential new right-of-way for either water or wastewater Municipal Water Leader

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment activities for large infrastructure projects on airports.

17

Buried tires and impacted soils discovered during large toll-road expansion project.

utility lines or a new roadway expansion in growing suburban areas.

For these projects, we evaluate the linear corridor with a Phase I ESA. When we find problem areas or concerns, we recommend evaluation of specific locations in the project corridor where potential problems may impact design. We may find a condition that could impact the use or even acquisition of rightof-way. An example would be a leaking petroleum storage tank in the proposed right-of-way. In that case, we would want to investigate whether petroleum hydrocarbons from the tank are present in the soil, which could represent a potential impact to both the infrastructure that we are designing as well as soil handling during construction.

On some occasions, we move directly to a Phase II ESA type of assessment due to the project type. One such example is a lake dredging project. In reservoirs, water intakes are prone to getting silted in at the intake structure. The reservoir owner often calls in a design team to look at dredging the intake channel so that, especially in drought periods, the community can depend on water in the reservoir. FNI determines whether legacy pollution issues or runoff within the watershed has affected sediment and would preclude the placement of dredged materials on upland sites.

Identifying such characteristics of the sediment early 18

in the design process allows design engineers and owners to find suitable disposal sites for dredge material and to make the overall project cost effective.

Robert Chambers: When we are performing a Phase I or a Phase II ESA for an infrastructure project, we are trying to determine whether there is anything about the project site that could potentially pose a risk to the infrastructure project.

For example, if the client is installing a water supply pipeline through a contaminated area, it helps to identify anything in the soil or groundwater that might infiltrate the pipeline.

Another purpose of the assessment is to determine whether there is any contamination or condition present that could pose a risk to construction worker safety. Finally, we also look at whether a proposed project could provide a preferential pathway or cause an unexpected consequence that will allow some kind of contamination to migrate from an area that it is currently confined to. Those are important assessments for municipal and public-sector projects.

Valentina Valenta: Does FNI engage in Phase III assessments, or do you get involved in remediation plans and strategies for sites?

Robert Chambers: Phase III ESAs are generally considered remediation actions when actively involved in site cleanup.

In this process, the term Phase III ESA is rarely used.

Municipal Water Leader

After completion of a Phase II ESA, there is typically a determination for contacting a regulatory agency and entering one of its formal investigation and cleanup programs. For example, in Texas, an outcome of a Phase II ESA might be that you need to consider enrolling the project in the Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program. Once you move into one of those programs, the terminology shifts from ESA to terminology used by the agency or regulatory program. In Texas, when we refer to a Phase III ESA, the term we actually use is affected property assessment. This is typical in most states.

Often when we are applying Phase III ESA concepts to public infrastructure projects, we are focused on providing the construction contractor and owner with information necessary for the handling and disposal of excess spoils in a way that doesn’t contribute to contaminating another area while minimizing the effect on the project schedule and budget. For example, in the case of a water transmission pipeline, if it passes through an old leaking underground storage site, there will almost always be some kind of residual contamination. In these areas, where there is low-level, residual contamination, the frequent outcome of the assessment is to restrict the contractor on what it can do with excess spoils. Our goal in this process is to help project owners determine site conditions and needed remediation, always remembering that we don’t want to inadvertently create a negative condition someplace else.

one project owner. It is becoming quite rare for a single entity to construct a large infrastructure project. Many times, you will have multiple entities partnering together to implement large projects.

Kimberly Buckley, PG, is an environmental scientist at Freese and Nichols. Her diverse experience includes environmental site assessments, contaminated site investigations, state and federal regulation compliance, pollution prevention plans, and section 404 wetlands mitigation.

Robert Chambers, PG, is a vice president/principal and Environmental Science Group manager at Freese and Nichols.

His specialties include environmental compliance, remediation, subsurface site investigations, and geologic investigations for municipalities, water districts/river authorities, and military clients.

Valentina Valenta: Do you see changes ahead for ESAs, or is the state of the art set?

Robert Chambers: For large infrastructure projects, assessments are continuing to get more complex, particularly as clients are dealing with brownfield sites either to construct projects or develop these sites for public uses. As a result, these complex studies require a lot of interaction with regulatory agencies and other types of stakeholders.

Different project partners have different requirements for these studies. For example, in projects that have a federal project partner, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency might be partnered with a nonfederal project sponsor, such as a municipality, county, river authority, or water district. Each entity has its own internal rules, particularly on the federal side, for how they deal with environmental risk. The Phase I and Phase II ESAs can get complex because there are often limitations on how public construction funds can be spent. For example, on a typical Army Corps civil works construction project, the project sponsor might not be allowed to spend any money to clean up legacy pollution on a property it doesn’t own. There are many issues that the project team has to deal with when there is more than Municipal Water Leader

Waters of the U.S. evaluations completed in conjunction with Environmental Site Assessments.

19

ADVERTISEMENT

Providing

Water • Wastewater • Recycled Water Since 1951

Industry leader in water reuse and brackish water desalination programs Eastern Municipal Water District • Perris, California www.emwd.org

ADVERTISEMENT

Remote Solar-Powered Flood Control Rubicon’s automated sluice gates and management software provide safe and reliable solutions for off-site flood water management.

Gates can be remotely managed via secure SCADA or cellular telemetry networks. They integrate with existing SCADA systems, or you can use our desktop or smartphone software to adjust gates, view real-time and historical information and receive alerts to warn of any issues.

Plus, solar power and five days’ battery capacity means operation is not impacted by blackouts and brownouts.

• Low maintenance CableDrive™ actuation mechanism for long service life in harsh conditions • Inbuilt water level and gate opening measurement • Meets AWWA C562 leakage requirements in both on-seating and off-seating head conditions • Integrated frame assembly allows quick and easy installation and maintenance inspection • Local manual override Contact us today to find out why Rubicon Water has sold more than 20,000 automated gates worldwide.

Call 970 482 3200 email inquiry@rubiconwater.com or visit www.rubiconwater.com California contractor’s license number 984209

ASSOCIATION PROFILE

Full-Spectrum Water Leadership: A Discussion With Texas Water Conservation Association General Manager Dean Robbins

I

n every issue, Municipal Water Leader magazine highlights the work of our state and federal waterrelated trade associations. In this issue, we return to one of the most respected and knowledgeable associations in the business, the Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA), for an in-depth discussion with its new general manager, Dean Robbins.

Municipal Water Leader’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Mr. Robbins about TWCA’s mission, its water management priorities at the state and federal levels for 2016 and 2017, the role of Texas Water Day in shaping and advancing water policies, and the unique benefits of belonging to the association.

Valentina Valenta: Please tell our readers what TWCA is and who its members are.

Dean Robbins: The association was formed in 1944. Today, it is an organization of entities and individuals involved in some form of water management, mostly in Texas. Our members include water districts and river authorities, cities, industries, consultants, and others. Our public members provide water or wastewater services to the great majority of the residents of Texas. We also have members involved in groundwater and flood management.

Valentina Valenta: Please share what the purposes or objectives of the association are and the benefits of membership.

Dean Robbins: TWCA serves in an advisory capacity to our Texas legislature and state agencies on sound water policy. We also provide recommendations to the U.S. Congress and federal agencies with jurisdiction over water resources. We hold a number of conferences every year in Texas—attended by many water professionals around the state—to provide a forum for the exchange of information among TWCA, its members, and other participants. We are a diverse organization with a great group of members.

When people ask me why they should join TWCA, I tell them that if they are involved in water management, there is an important educational benefit to belonging to a state organization. TWCA provides an opportunity for people to work directly with others

22

Dean Robbins

who are engaged in similar water management strategies in Texas and perhaps learn new management techniques. Also, if you care about water policy issues at the state and federal level, TWCA is a good place to get involved in discussions about sound water policy that might lead to recommendations for our policymakers.

Valentina Valenta: Could you please tell us about yourself, your career, and your role at TWCA? Dean Robbins: I began my tenure at TWCA in 1996 as the assistant general manager. Today, I am the general manager. I assumed that position on January 1, 2016, following the retirement of TWCA’s long-serving general manager and a highly recognized leader in Texas water resources advocacy, Leroy Goodson.

I have a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas. I worked my way through the University of Texas at the former Texas Water Commission [which was the state’s primary regulatory agency for water resources], now the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

After I graduated from the University of Texas, I worked full time at the Texas Water Commission and its successor agencies until 1996, when I assumed my role at TWCA. Prior to leaving state government, I had Municipal Water Leader

been the agency’s deputy for the Office of Water with responsibilities over most state programs related to water management, including drinking water, wastewater, dam safety, and water rights.

Valentina Valenta: Why did you become an engineer?

Dean Robbins: In my early coursework at the University of Texas, I was preparing to be an architect.

During my studies, I learned that while it was not imperative for an architect to be artistic, it would probably be helpful. My skills seemed more compatible with engineering, so I changed my course of study and entered the engineering program.

Valentina Valenta: What are TWCA’s water resources policy and program priorities at the federal and state levels?

Dean Robbins: Today, we are focusing primarily on surface water issues. We have a surface water committee and six subcommittees that are working on a variety of issues related to surface water, such as environmental flows, permitting at the TCEQ, federal permitting, and water planning at the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).

So, our surface water activities are occupying a lot of time for our membership today.

The federal permitting subcommittee is primarily looking at permitting related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ section 404 process. In fact, a group of our members recently met with Corps regulatory staff to talk about the challenges of the 404 process, and how nonfederal sponsors can more effectively work with the Corps to successfully navigate the hurdles associated with the agency’s regulatory provisions.

Valentina Valenta: Please tell our readers about Texas Water Day 2016 and what you hope to do for Texas Water Day 2017.

Dean Robbins: On Texas Water Day 2016, we had about 70 people from Texas go to Washington, DC, for a few days to meet with lawmakers about our priorities.

We had policy meetings with our congressional delegation and had speakers from our congressional delegation come and talk to our members. We had a list of items Municipal Water Leader

we wanted our delegation to be aware of. That list may change somewhat from year to year, but a lot of those issues are long-term projects. Our list of priorities for 2016 includes passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, providing adequate funding for federal agencies with jurisdiction over water resources, making reforms to the Endangered Species Act, amending the waters of the United States rule, flood plain issues, and invasive species issues. It’s a pretty ambitious list, and though it’s difficult to measure improvement over a short period of time, we hope the message we are delivering to the Hill and the administration will have some long-term benefits. I expect Texas Water Day 2017 to follow a similar format.

Valentina Valenta: TWCA provides insurance to members, and we understand that it is a major member benefit. Please explain this benefit.

Dean Robbins: We provide an insurance benefit for water districts in Texas through the TWCA Risk Management Fund. You have to be a member of TWCA to participate in the program. The program provides insurance, such as workers’ compensation, property, and liability, to water districts. The fund’s board is elected from its members, so if you are a member of the fund, you essentially become a part-owner of the fund. And unlike insurance provided through a private entity, becoming a member of the fund allows you to have a say in how it operates. A lot of our TWCA members participate in the program.

Valentina Valenta: What is the greatest accomplishment of TWCA in recent years?

Dean Robbins: Our greatest accomplishment is being able to bring together diverse interests on a wide variety of issues and facilitate negotiations to address differences that result in changes to water management in Texas. As a perfect example, during 2014 we had a group that came together on groundwater issues. Many of these issues had been debated at the State Capitol during multiple past legislative sessions. We had people on both sides of those issues at the table and ended up negotiating what we thought were some good solutions. That process led to the development and filing of seven different pieces of 23

legislation. Six of those seven bills passed the legislature.

Although it can be difficult to get diverse interests to sit down and resolve their differences, we have been successful in doing so.

Valentina Valenta: How important will it be to work with the federal government to develop water projects in the coming years?

Dean Robbins: I believe that federal regulatory challenges will only continue to grow and will be especially burdensome for building larger projects, especially surface water projects.

Valentina Valenta: What is TWCA’s position on the need for surface water storage?

Dean Robbins: Surface water storage is a significant component of the Texas State Water Plan. We need to build more reservoirs in Texas. Not only do they provide sustainable water supply, but they have a lot of economic benefits as well. Environmental considerations are certainly important, but we need to have a balance between economic and ecological drivers. We have a good model in Texas; state laws have been crafted in a way to balance the needs between humans and the environment.

Valentina Valenta: What water resources challenges do you see as being most critical for Texas in the next decade?

How will TWCA mobilize to address them?

24

Dean Robbins: The problems facing Texas are related to growth. Our population is increasing dramatically and is expected to nearly double in the next 50 years. There are a lot of water issues that need to be addressed. Conservation is certainly a major part of the portfolio of solutions, and our members are actively engaged in significant conservation practices, but we also need to develop new infrastructure projects.

Given the competition for water supply in Texas, the solutions to developing those new projects are difficult, and it takes a lot of time—often decades—to get a new project online after it is conceived. The challenge is working our way through the regulatory issues, whether it is groundwater or surface water, and those issues include local, state, and federal permitting.

With regard to surface water issues, we have been working diligently with the TCEQ on streamlining their permitting process.

Funding is another top priority. Water projects are very expensive, but the Texas legislature, acting through the TWDB, has done a great job in making low-interest financing available for projects.

TWCA is poised to deliver even more benefits to its members in the coming decade. I invite anyone who is curious about our efforts to come and visit with us and participate in our activities, such as our upcoming conference in San Antonio, Texas, October 12–14. It’s certainly a challenging time, but it’s also an exciting time to be in the water business. I hope you’ll join us as we come together to build a sustainable water future for Texas.

Municipal Water Leader

T

T

ME

ME

THE

THE

DI

ICT STR DI RICT ST

A NA TW A T L I T ALNI TW ER ER PO OPO O R R

Y E A RYS EOAFR SWOA FT EWR ADTEELRI VDEERL YI V E R Y

OF

OF

IA

2 0 1 26 0 1 6

IA

1 9 4 11 9 4 1

SO SO RNORN UT UT O F H E RHNE RC ANL CI A L I F

EngineeringaaMarvel Marvel Engineering Iteasy is easy to forget sheer audacity ofall. it all.

It is to forget thethe sheer audacity of it Colorado River stopped miles east of the Southern TheThe Colorado River stopped 300300 miles east of the Southern California coastal plain.

California coastal plain.

Bridging this required erecting aqueduct in the middle Bridging this gapgap required erecting an an aqueduct in the middle of the desert. of the desert. roads, telephone lines, electricity, and certainly NoNo roads, nono telephone lines, nono electricity, and certainly conditioning. nono airair conditioning.

And doing it the in the middle of the biggest economic collapse And doing it in middle of the biggest economic collapse that nation had ever seen. that thethe nation had ever seen.

1930 s equivalent a moon shot.

It was 1930 s equivalent of aofmoon shot.

It was thethe

team exploring possi bl e SurveySurvey team exploring possible aqueduct routes, aqueduct routes, 1927. 1927.

St aartquof celiebrat Star t of edaqueduct uc t w o r k wo c elrk e brat on, i on, Cabazon, Ca ba zo n, CA ., 1CA. 9 3 3 ,. 1933.

Aqueduct dricont l l i nge st cont wi nners, Aq ueduct d ri l l i ng wiest nners, 1934. 1934.

Aqued n no er kl ewr so,r k1 e9 3r s4 ,. 1 9 3 4 .

Aq ueduct t uuncnte tu l w

mwd m wd h 2 oh. c2o.com/ o m / 7 5 y75years ears METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TwiTwitte THETHE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA t t e r. c or.c m /omm/mw wd h 2dh2o_75years o_75years

ASSOCIATION PROFILE

One Water, One Future: A Conversation With US Water Alliance’s Radhika Fox

26

R

adhika Fox is the chief executive officer of the US Water Alliance, which educates the nation on the value of water, accelerates the adoption of one water policies and programs, and celebrates innovation in water management. Ms. Fox also serves as director of the Value of Water Coalition, a national campaign dedicated to educating people about how water is essential and invaluable and requires investment.

Ms. Fox has over 20 years of experience in developing policies, programs, and issue-based advocacy campaigns. She previously directed the policy and government affairs agenda for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is responsible for providing water, wastewater, and municipal power services to 2.6 million Bay Area residents. Ms. Fox also served as the federal policy director at PolicyLink, where she coordinated the organization’s policy agenda on a wide range of issues, including infrastructure investment, transportation, sustainable communities, economic inclusion, and workforce development. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley, where she was a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development community development fellow.

Municipal Water Leader’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Ms. Fox about the mission of the US Water Alliance, the one water movement, the importance of resilient water management strategies, and the steps water utilities must take in the future to effectively communicate with their customers.

of organizations, including private- and public-sector water providers, waterreliant businesses, policy organizations, and more, committed to educating the nation about how water is essential to everything we do and that our water and wastewater systems are in need of investment.

Valentina Valenta: Please share with our readers what the US Water Alliance is. Who are its members, and what is its mission?

Valentina Valenta: The alliance advocates for water policy. Please share with our readers your current policy emphasis and priorities.

Radhika Fox: The US Water Alliance is a national nonprofit organization aimed at advancing policies and programs that will build a sustainable water future for all. Our membership comprises a diverse group of water champions, including utilities, public officials, the business community, environmental organizations, community leaders, policy organizations, and researchers.

Valentina Valenta: What is the Value of Water Coalition, and how is it related to the Water Alliance?

Radhika Fox: The alliance is a nonpartisan organization that is focused on educating the public about the value of water and the need to invest in our water infrastructure systems. We also work to accelerate the pace of adoption of innovative and holistic one water management strategies and policies. Additionally, we celebrate what is working well in the one water movement, so we shine a light on the best examples of integrated water policy and management across the country.

Radhika Fox: The Value of Water Coalition is hosted and staffed by the US Water Alliance. The Value of Water Coalition is a diverse and growing group

Valentina Valenta: Your literature and your website support integrated water management—One Water, One Future. Please explain what this vision means.

Radhika Fox

Valentina Valenta: Please tell us about yourself, your experience, and why you chose a career in water.

Radhika Fox: I have worked in policy and advocacy for over 20 years, but until I joined the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, where I directed policy and government affairs, I never truly appreciated the importance of water and water infrastructure. After several years with the SFPUC, which provides water, wastewater, and municipal power services to 2.6 million people in the Bay Area, I decided to focus full time on ensuring that we have a sustainable water future for all, first through the Value of Water Coalition and then through the US Water Alliance more broadly.

Municipal Water Leader

Radhika Fox: The one water movement drives everything we do at the US Water Alliance. This means that we are working toward a future in which all water is valued equally and treated water is managed holistically and sustainably.

Although the public may not distinguish between water that comes out of the tap and water that moves through a sewer, in the water industry we know that the way we talk about and manage water has been fragmented. Our vision is to break down those silos and widen the circle of stakeholders who are working to strengthen our nation’s water supply for the future.

Our ideal one water future is one that is innovative, inclusive, and integrated.

Valentina Valenta: Please summarize for our readers Infrastructure Week 2016 and some of its events in Washington, DC, and around the country. What is the role of the Value of Water Coalition in the events and agenda?

Radhika Fox: Infrastructure Week 2016 was May 16–23.

It was a nationwide event aimed at getting the word out about why infrastructure matters. We joined a diverse group of business leaders, policymakers, and labor and trade associations for a week of education and advocacy efforts across the country.

The Value of Water Coalition was a member of the Infrastructure Week 2016 Steering Committee, alongside other organizations including the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Association of Manufacturers, and more.

Value of Water Coalition members hosted events in Camden, New Jersey; Norfolk, Virginia; Chicago, Illinois; Alexandria, Virginia; and Los Angeles, California. Our members participated in multiple events across the country and added their voice to the conversation online about the need to invest in the nation’s infrastructure.

At events across the country, Infrastructure Week positioned water as a critical issue in need of investment and innovation. The Value of Water Coalition collaborated with groups like the National League of Cities, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the American Society for Civil Engineers, and elected officials to elevate water issues to the broader national conversation on infrastructure and sustainability.

Valentina Valenta: What does resilience mean when applied to water resources, water supply, and water quality?

Radhika Fox: This is an important element of our one water mission. Resiliency must be a key factor in how we think about water services and infrastructure going forward. In order for us to have a strong water supply that can withstand shifting climates, we must invest in our water infrastructure and innovative water management solutions. Communities will need to be prepared for whatever water problems they may face, including droughts, flooding, water quality problems, Municipal Water Leader

thevalueofwater.org

and community growth. Water is essential to everything we do, and if our water is not managed safely, reliably, and sustainably, our communities cannot be resilient.

Valentina Valenta: What’s the biggest water problem in our future, and what policies do we need to meet it?

Radhika Fox: The water sector is at a pivotal point right now, with droughts and extreme weather events in large parts of the country bringing the issue of sustainable water stewardship to the forefront in ways we have never seen before. Issues like population growth, urban development, and climate change are making water a critical issue for everyone.

We need to address all these issues by investing in our water infrastructure. Decades of deferred maintenance and pricing that doesn’t reflect the true cost of treating and delivering water has pushed our water infrastructure system to the breaking point.

Valentina Valenta: What is your advice to water managers struggling to overcome contemporary water supply and quality challenges?

Radhika Fox: I think the most important thing is for water managers to be open to innovative ideas for their operations as well as their approach to positioning themselves in their community and the partnerships they build. We have tremendous abilities in the water sector to find new technologies and technically solve our greatest problems.

Where we have been lacking, in my opinion, is in deploying communications strategies to explain to our customers and communities why what we do is so important, or why we are embarking in a new kind of service technology.

Utilities have to be more transparent about why they do what they do. They have to tell better stories. They have to explain the problems they are solving and how those solutions are going to build stronger communities for generations to come. If utilities do not bring the public along and build strong partnerships, they will never get the community approval to embark on those solutions, and then the problems will be compounded.

For more information about the US Water Alliance and The Value of Water Coalition, visit http://uswateralliance.org/. You can reach Radhika Fox at (415) 921‑9010 or RFox@uswateralliance.org.

27

ADVERTISEMENT

No Lead No Iron No Baggies No Linings No Coatings No Composites No Cathodic Protection No Special Tools aves No ak leCorrosion e r b n i a m water without s e Chicopee s s e n i s u and b et No StreProblem t t e 100 homes s n a m i es Will water, clos

PVC has over 50 years of proven performance in the U.S and Canada.

Studies show it has the lowest break rates of all water pipe products in these markets. It has pressure ratings to 305 psi and Diamond Plastics keeps inventory on hand through 60” diameter.

Say yes to a safe sustainable solution, PVC. Proud Members of the PVC Pipe Association

800-PVC-Pipe

•

WWW.DPCPIPE.COM

See our 60” PVC at booth 335 in New Orleans for WEFTEC 2016, September 26 – 28.

ADVERTISEMENT

Small Changes Yield Big Savings Using energy optimization, we helped one of the nation’s largest wastewater utilities realize big savings. Minor equipment modifications, improved processes and electrical demand management at three regional plants reduced HRSD’s operational costs by over $400,000 annually.

Their investment paid for itself within two years.

hdrinc.com

B O A R D

P R O F I L E:

KEEPING THE PUMP PRIMED: A Conversation With Texas Water Development Board Chairman Bech Bruun

T

he Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is the state agency responsible for collecting and disseminating water-related data, assisting with regional planning, and preparing the state water plan for the development of the state’s water resources. The TWDB administers cost-effective financial assistance programs for the construction of water supply, wastewater treatment, flood control, and agricultural water conservation projects.

Bech Bruun has served as a TWDB board member since September 1, 2013. Governor Greg Abbott designated him chairman in June 2015.

Prior to his appointment to the board, Mr. Bruun served on the senior staff of Governor Rick Perry’s administration.

He has also worked as the government and customer relations manager for the Brazos River Authority. During the 81st legislative session, Mr. Bruun served as chief of staff to State Representative Todd Hunter (District 32) and as general counsel to the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.

Mr. Bruun has a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Texas at Austin and a law degree from the University of Texas School of Law. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

In the September 2015 issue of Municipal Water Leader, the magazine’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Mr. Bruun about the mission and programs of the TWDB. They continue that discussion in this issue, with a focus on the 2017 Texas State Water Plan.

Valentina Valenta: Please give our readers an overview of the 2017 Texas State Water Plan. How does it fit into the mission of the TWDB, and how does the board use the plan?

30

Bech Bruun: The board adopted the 2017 State Water Plan on May 19, 2016. The board produces a new plan every 5 years. As previous plans have done, the 2017 State Water Plan identifies specific water projects or strategies that will need to be implemented to address future water Bech Bruun speaking about the State Water Implementation Fund demands based on for Texas at the 2016 National Water a 50-year planning Resources Association Western horizon.

Water Seminar in Sun Valley, Idaho.

Texas is growing quickly. The 2017 State Water Plan tells us that our state’s population is projected to increase by about 73 percent by 2070. It also tells us that if Texas were to develop no new water supplies, we could face a potential water supply deficit of roughly 8.9 million acre-feet by 2070. Thus, the 2017 plan provides a detailed roadmap to ensure that we meet projected demand—it outlines approximately 5,500 water management strategies we could apply throughout the state over the next 50 years.

Bech Bruun looking upon Lake Arrowhead during the 2014 drought.

Municipal Water Leader

Valentina Valenta: How did you put this plan together?

Please also describe the roles of the regional planning groups.

Bech Bruun: As I mentioned, the state water plan is produced on a five-year rolling schedule. State legislation (Senate Bill 1) was passed in 1997 and put in place what we refer to as the bottom-up approach to state water planning. The state water plan comprises 16 regional plans developed by 16 regional water planning groups. Each of the 16 planning groups has roughly 18–24 volunteer members who represent various interests, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural. At the beginning of each five-year cycle, the planning groups receive water demand projections produced by the TWDB to determine how much new water each region will need to bring online to meet anticipated needs. Once regional projects are identified and adopted in the regional plans, they later become a part of the state water plan.

It is important to note that the state water plan was designed to advance adaptive management strategies; regional groups take a fresh look at demand projections and water management approaches every five years. It is not uncommon for a city to withdraw its plans to build a certain project included in an older plan if it identifies a more secure or cost-effective alternative to develop its future water supplies.

Valentina Valenta: Can you please tell us which regions are expected to have the most critical emerging water supply challenges and generally how the plan contemplates meeting those challenges?

Bech Bruun: The 2017 plan anticipates significant increases in demand in 7 of the 16 regions. The places where we will see the most significant challenges are the larger metropolitan areas that are projected to have tremendous population growth, such as the Dallas–Fort Worth and Houston areas.

For example, the Dallas–Fort Worth region, which is under the jurisdiction of the Region C planning group, is projected to have a 71 percent increase in water demand from now to 2070. So, in 2020 Region C is anticipated to need a little more than 1.7 million acre-feet per year to sustain the population. By 2070, the plan shows that Region C would need nearly 3 million acre-feet per year to meet projected demands. The 2017 State Water Plan shows that Region H, which covers the Houston area, anticipates a 37 percent increase in demand from 2020 to 2070. That means the Houston area would need a little less than 2.5 million acre-feet by 2020 and more than 3.4 million acre-feet by 2070 to meet demand.

Projected increases in population growth are not limited to the larger metropolitan areas. Region I, which covers Municipal Water Leader

Bech Bruun speaking at the Texas State Capitol for a press conference regarding water conservation.

the majority of East Texas, is highlighted in the 2017 State Water Plan as an area that is anticipated to have a 35 percent growth in population by 2070.

The plan contemplates meeting the challenges of population growth and water demand by detailing thousands of potential future water management strategies. Each strategy in the plan is listed with an associated project sponsor, the estimated capital cost, the planned decade of need, and the amount of new water to be supplied.

Valentina Valenta: Can you please tell our readers how much investment the plan foresees will be needed?

Bech Bruun: The total estimated capital cost of the 2017 State Water Plan is roughly $63 billion, which includes the cost of implementing all the water management strategies outlined by each of the 16 regional groups over the course of the next 50 years.

Valentina Valenta: How do you foresee the projected water supply project financing needs being met?

Roughly how much will be local though repayment of loans and bonds, and how much will be left to other levels of government, i.e., the state and federal governments?

31

Bech Bruun: Of the $63 billion in projected total capital costs needed to carry out the 2017 State Water Plan, we anticipate that roughly $36.2 billion will need to come from state financial assistance. The TWDB will be able to provide assistance through its State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT)—a lowinterest loan program [implemented by the state and approved by the state’s voters in 2013] that will help communities develop new infrastructure projects to meet projected demand by providing them with a long-term, cost-effective funding mechanism to expand their water supplies over the course of a 50-year planning cycle.

Valentina Valenta: Please give our readers a description of the role of reservoirs in the 2017 State Water Plan. What’s being done to get these projects permitted and online when they are needed?

Bech Bruun: The 2017 plan continues to identify major reservoirs as an important part of our state’s future water supply. When we are talking about the total volume of future water, we are planning for roughly 13 percent of anticipated future water volumes coming from new reservoirs. The SWIFT program has already provided financial assistance to various water providers throughout the state to build new reservoirs.

Reservoir development, like many other water infrastructure projects, has a unique set of challenges.

The TWDB, however, is structured to provide the financing to support any aspect of the development of a reservoir, from planning and design to land acquisition and construction.

Our local sponsors continue to identify a need to develop reservoir projects as part of their overall water management strategies, and the TWDB is poised to continue to support their efforts to help get them online as quickly as possible.

Valentina Valenta: What shortages in the plan cause you and the board the greatest concerns in terms of the difficulty of meeting them and the consequences of falling short?

Bech Bruun: The 2017 State Water Plan does identify some shortages for various water user sectors in different parts of the state. To avoid shortfalls, several regional planning groups have overplanned by including extra water supply projects in their regional plans as a buffer. That said, because the state water plan is based on adaptive water management principles, local sponsors do not have to wait 5 years for a new state water plan to be released in order to change their strategies. Local sponsors can ask the regional groups to amend their water management strategies mid-cycle if their needs 32

change or they identify a more effective or lower-cost alternative.

Valentina Valenta: Please assess the accomplishments of the state water planning process and the importance of the planning process for the future of the state. Do you foresee any significant changes in the way the plan is put together or implemented?

Bech Bruun: I think the state water plans continue to improve. The 2017 plan was the first to be fully informed and educated by the experience of the 2011 drought in Texas. As a result, new information was included in the 2017 plan that identified things such as emergency interconnects or different ways for cities to show us how they might respond to a significant drought, should one occur again. We learn from every five-year planning cycle.

A good indication of success is being able to show that not only did we put together a roadmap to identify the right projects for our future, but that these projects are actually being implemented. From 2012 to 2016, $1.9 billion in state water plan projects has been funded.

Through the SWIFT program, which began in 2015, $4.6 billion has been committed to state water plan projects. We have had a great state water planning framework since the 1960s, and now we also have a viable and successful funding mechanism to implement the projects outlined in those water roadmaps.

In July 2016, the TWDB committed over $759 million through the SWIFT program for state water plan projects for the 2016 budget cycle. When the SWIFT program was established in 2013, the legislature put in place a stated goal that at least 20 percent of the loans made available be directed toward conservation and reuse programs. I was pleased that the board supported the allocation of more than 20 percent of SWIFT program funding for the current cycle to conservation and reuse projects. I would highlight that as a new and significant success of the SWIFT program.

The feedback we are receiving about the SWIFT program from public utilities, water districts, river authorities, and those involved in project development and delivery is generally very positive. When loan borrowers speak about the application process under SWIFT, they tell us that the program is very accessible and efficient.

We are constantly striving to improve customer service for those seeking funding under SWIFT. That is one of our highest priorities. We do not take for granted that project sponsors are putting their trust in us to help them maintain vibrant and economically successful communities. Our goal is to continue building those relationships so we can all work together to ensure an adequate and dependable water supply for the future of Texas.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

TRUST THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND. You wouldn’t ask a mechanic to prepare your annual report. Or an architect to exercise your valves. WHY TRUST YOUR PROJECT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CONTRACTOR WHO ACTUALLY BUILDS IT?

GARNEY. THE STRENGTH OF SELF-PERFORMANCE.

100% EMPLOYEE OWNED

100% INVESTED IN YOUR PROJECT’S SUCCESS

KANSAS CITY, MO

ATLANTA, GA

DENVER, CO

HOUSTON, TX

MIAMI, FL

NASHVILLE, TN

ORLANDO, FL

PHOENIX, AZ

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

START YOUR PROJECT AT

GARNEY.COM

The George W. Shannon Wetlands: In Pursuit of Water Sustainability for People and the Environment

THE INNOVATORS

M

34

unicipal Water Leader’s writer, Valentina Valenta, spoke with Darrel Andrews, assistant director of Tarrant Regional Water District’s (TRWD) environmental division, about how the water utility’s strategy for water reuse led to the development of the George W. Shannon wetlands water reuse project. It is an important story about how water management and innovation unfolds.

TRWD is using a constructed wetland to treat water and provide valuable wildlife habitat. Water users benefit, as do waterfowl and the aquatic ecology.

TRWD’s work also represents valuable research related to how such constructed wetlands work and how they should be designed to optimally fulfill their joint water treatment and ecological functions. The results are exciting.

The Reuse Objective

TRWD’s water comes almost entirely from surface sources. Over the last 100 years, the district has built four reservoirs to meet the water supply needs of more than 2 million people in its rapidly growing North Texas service area. The district also uses two smaller area reservoirs in Fort Worth and Arlington as terminal storage for its system. TRWD does not treat water, but sells it wholesale to water utilities that do treat and distribute the water to consumers and businesses.

The two reservoirs northwest of Fort Worth, Lake Bridgeport and Eagle Mountain Lake, are in the upper part of the Trinity River basin. The water released from these two lakes flows downhill and is delivered to Lake Worth.

Tarrant County can be considered the system hub, where all the utility’s water is targeted. Both of the reservoirs upstream, Eagle Mountain and Lakes Bridgeport, are main stem Trinity River reservoirs.

Any precipitation that falls in the upper basin above those reservoirs will eventually be stored or released from those reservoirs.

There are also two reservoirs to the southeast of Tarrant County, Richland–Chambers and Cedar Creek.

These impoundments are on tributaries of the Trinity River, but not on the Trinity River itself. The Trinity River flows past Richland–Chambers and Cedar Creek.

About 85 percent of the water TRWD supplies to customers comes from Richland–Chambers and Cedar Creek. Through a 150-mile pipeline system, TRWD pumps water from these reservoirs to the metroplex— back to Fort Worth and Tarrant County. Customers— retail water utilities—receive the water, treat it, and

deliver it to homes and businesses. Then, the water goes to a wastewater plant, is treated, and is released to the Trinity River, where it starts its trip down the river to Houston and the gulf.

During the 1990s, the water district studied longrange water supply and came up with the idea of recapturing some of the Darrel Andrews flows passing Richland– Chambers or Cedar Creek and putting that water back into storage at one of these projects. The concept of such a water reuse plan came into being from those discussions.

Sediment Management Necessary to Trinity River Water Use

TRWD’s analysis and studies in the early 1990s showed that Trinity River water is high in sediment and nutrients, which would could negatively affect the water quality of the reservoirs if the water were to be reused. Mr. Andrews explains, “We looked at several different options. We looked at a chemical treatment plant, we looked at fish aquaculture, and we looked at wetlands. The wetlands came to the forefront as having a lot of potential to treat Trinity River water prior to its reintroduction to the reservoir.” The chemical treatment option produced so much sludge material that it posed serious disposal problems. Cost was a concern, but finding a disposal site was a bigger problem. As Mr. Andrews says, “Thus, we decided on the wetlands to clean the water.”

Starting Small and Scaling Up

TRWD started small and decided to build a 2.5acre wetlands project. The district operated the small wetlands from 1992 to 2000. The small prototype gave the district a chance to answer questions about whether the wetlands concept would work or whether the wetlands might have unexpected side effects. For example, one concern was whether a wetland might accumulate or concentrate heavy metals. The results of the prototype and associated testing were promising, and the district was ready to go beyond the prototype to a larger wetlands project after 8 years of study.

As part of the mitigation for the construction of Richland–Chambers reservoir, TRWD had purchased Municipal Water Leader

a large chunk of river bottom land next to Richland– Chambers and had deeded the parcel to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPW). The area had been incorporated into the TPW’s system as a wildlife management area.

About five years later, following its success with the small wetlands prototype, TRWD approached the TPW about building a project on that parcel to help improve the wetland functions there. TRWD entered into a partnership with the state wildlife agency to build a larger wetland on the wildlife management area. The district expanded the wetlands project from 2.5 acres to 250 acres in 2001, and operated that project for five years. Good science was integrated into the effort. Many questions were posed, including inquiries about water quality, soil, and vegetation type. TRWD and the wildlife agency wanted to know how fast they could move the water through the wetland, how deep the water needed to be to support aquatic vegetation, and what plants should be established in the wetland.

Another question involved the wild hogs that lived in the area: Would these animals be attracted to the area and possibly cause harm?

Based on the research and the success of the project as both a water reuse measure and as a wildlife area, TRWD scaled up to a 450-acre project. After that, the wetlands Municipal Water Leader

were working well enough that the district built the entire project out to a 2,000-acre system, which has been operable for the last three years.

The Project Works by Slowing the Flow and Settling Out Sediments

As Mr. Andrews explains, “The wetlands project works through the physical process of slowing the water down and letting sediment fall out. As water moves through the wetland under gravity flow, the heavier particles fall down. That’s just physics.” Removing sediment is an important objective because if it gets into the reservoir, TRWD’s retail water customers will face higher costs or more difficult water treatment. Additionally, if sediments from the Trinity River water were to be introduced into the reservoir and settle out, the new sediment takes up space in the reservoir and reduces available reservoir storage capacity, thus reducing water supply and reliability.

The nutrients are an issue because they tend to act like a fertilizer. If excess nutrients get into the reservoir, they will promote growth of algae and could also make the water harder for the water customers to treat.

The nutrients are reduced in several different ways. One of the best nutrient reduction mechanisms is the nutrients binding to the soil in the wetlands. As water flows through 35

the wetlands, the soil itself will pull some of the nutrients out. The second mechanism for nutrient removal is the biofilm on plants growing in the water pulling nutrients out of the water. The third mechanism for nutrient removal is the biology of the wetland plants themselves. As part of their normal metabolic and growth processes, the plants naturally pull nutrients out of the water.

According to Mr. Andrews, “TRWD pumps the water out of the Trinity River into the wetlands, and it takes about seven days to be filtered. The water then flows to Alligator Creek and flows down to the second pump station and is pumped back over the dam into Richland– Chambers reservoir. The district’s research suggests that after six or seven days, the water is as clean as that wetland can make it, so there is really no need to keep it in there longer.”

George W. Shannon Wetlands Water Reuse Project Provides Valuable Wildlife Habitat

The project ecology is targeted for waterfowl habitat.

That target means that the district, with TPW guidance, promotes plants that are good seed bearers, like millets and smartweed. These seeds provide food and vegetation that waterfowl can use when they are migrating along the flyway and stop over in the wetlands.

While the TPW’s biologists work to promote and manage the waterfowl, other animals thrive in the wetlands, too. There are many whitetail deer; it is a natural habitat for them. There are beavers, wading birds, egrets, bald eagles, alligators, and snakes. There are also feral hogs.

The Wetlands Adds Significantly to the TRWD’s Water Supplies The project is operated at variable rates depending on how much water the district might need from the system, but if Richland–Chambers is in need of the full yield of the wetlands project, the George W. Shannon project can produce up to 90 million gallons a day (mgd). On a typical summer day, Richland–Chambers will produce 250–300 mgd. Thus, the yield from the wetlands is about one-third of the yield of the reservoir In 2014, Texas was in a pretty severe drought.

Richland–Chambers is only part of Tarrant’s water supply system. The district has several other reservoirs, but the wetlands alone in 2014 contributed about 20 percent of the utility’s total system yield.

The Shannon Project Performs Well in Reducing Sediment and Nutrient Loads

“When the district initiated the wetlands project in the early 1990s, the project team had to establish the goal of how clean the water from the wetlands should be,” said Mr. Andrews. TRWD doesn’t treat water for drinking. Its customers, who are retail water outlets, perform the water

36

treatment. Mr. Andrews explained, “TRWD wanted the water to be clean enough to put into the reservoirs, and in about 1992, it logically set a goal of the wetlands being able to produce water that is as good or better than the water that Richland–Chambers would receive naturally from the watershed (creeks and streams) that feeds the reservoir.”

From that perspective, the big things the district measures are total suspended solids, total phosphorous, and total nitrogen. Mr. Andrews explained, “The sediment load is significantly improved from what would be delivered to the reservoir from the creeks. The wetlands achieve an improvement on both nitrogen phosphorous loads coming into the reservoir from the watershed.” Overall, the district reports that the wetlands will take out about 90 percent of the total suspended solids, 75 percent of the total nitrogen, and 60 percent of the total phosphorous. Mr. Andrews says, “If you compare the concentration of those three constituents as they come out of the wetlands and compare those constituents coming from the creeks, the wetlands is a very successful project.” Mr. Andrews also reports very favorable cost comparisons for the cost of water. He explains, “If we compare the water that comes out of the wetlands to building a new reservoir, the cost was half or better the cost of reservoir construction.”

The Project Leverages the Natural Seed Bank

In the early 1990s, when TRWD had the early small pilot scale of 2.5 acres, one of the biggest questions was whether the project team would need to undertake planting in the wetland. The district decided to plant two-thirds of the small system. One-third of the system was not planted, to allow the wetlands’ scientists to examine what would grow naturally from the seed bank. Mr. Andrews said, “The cells that weren’t planted performed just as well as the cells that were planted, and the two ecological systems had very similar plant species in them. So, when the district scaled up to the 250-acre project, it did some select planting of plants in specific locations related to design, aimed at getting even flow of water throughout the wetlands. Even flow is desirable because of the goal of a seven-day detention. Otherwise, there is a risk that water short circuits right through the middle of the cell, and retention times are reduced to a day or two.”

Essentially, the plants that grow in the wetlands are the same plants that were in the seed bank when TRWD built the final project. By relying on the natural seed bank, the district gets tremendous growth and has not had to do much planting at all.

Water Depth Can Be Critical

Mr. Andrews says that water depth can be very important for plant growth. “We have learned that if we get much over 18 or 20 inches of water depth, the plant Municipal Water Leader

community will change, so we try to maintain 6 to 12 inches of water out there so that we get a real vibrant growth of emergent species. Also, it is a dual-focused project. For the TPW, if we can promote plants that are attractive to waterfowl because of the way we manipulate our water levels, and if the wetlands have the right vegetation, then we will see tremendous use of the project for waterfowl. We want the right plant mix to promote water quality and high-quality habitat.”

Sediment Management Is Designed and Built Into the Wetlands Life Cycle

As discussed, the wetlands project settles out sediments as part of the treatment of water for reuse.

This feature of the project could pose concerns about the capacity of the wetlands area to hold sediments; however, the project design has carefully provided for this life cycle reality in the wetlands.

One of the things TRWD learned during the research phase before it built the project was that the deposition of sediment in a wetland like this can be problematic, so they designed the systems so that the very first structure or first cell that the water flows into from the river is a still cell, so that a lot of the sediment can fall out. In other words, TRWD designed the system so those first cells would trap most of the sediments.

Those first cells are called sedimentation basins.

TRWD scientists estimate that about every 10 years, they will have to drain those sedimentation basins, clean out the sediment, and restore their capacity so they can continue to provide the treatment as designed.

The design is premised on constraining sedimentation in the sedimentation cells, rather than the wetland cell themselves, because when sediment must be pulled out of wetland cells, the plants would also have to be pulled out, and reestablishing a wetlands project would essentially start all over again. However, the system is built with multiple trains so that if the district finds it necessary to perform maintenance on one of the sedimentation basins, other trains will continue in operation so the system will continue to function during maintenance.

Public Access to the Wetlands Provides Even More Benefits

The TPW is a partner in the Shannon project. The wetlands are built on the TPW’s land—the Richland Creek Wildlife Management Area. The TPW manages the public access to the property for fishing, hunting, and camping. It is very accessible to the public, and last year alone, 4,000 visitors used the area.

Municipal Water Leader

The Future of Wetlands at TRWD

Although the George W. Shannon Wetlands at Richland– Chambers will remain the same size, when the district obtained a water rights permit to pull water out of the Trinity River for the project, it also permitted its proposed sister wetlands project that will be built at Cedar Creek. The district has identified the property for the Cedar Creek wetlands but has not begun construction yet. Mr. Andrews explains how conservation has played a role in the timing of the next wetlands. “Because our water conservation program has been so successful here, we pushed the Cedar Creek wetlands project into the future, during the next 5 or 10 years. That will be our next big water supply project.”

TRWD’s George W. Shannon Wetlands Water Reuse project is a win for the area’s economy and its environment: The project is a source of high-quality water supply that meets the needs of retail water providers in the area and provides food and cover for migrating waterfowl and other wildlife native to the region.

Mr. Andrews leaves us with this interesting idea. “The pilot prototype was the first water supply project of its kind in the early 1990s. Because of our role as an entity that builds reservoirs, the amazing benefit of this wetlands project is that we built about a third of the volume of Richland–Chambers— and, translated to “reservoir terms,” that would have been 20,000 acres of creek river bottom that we would have had to impound water on—but we are only using 2,000 acres to do the same thing with the wetlands. So, the impact to the environment is much less because the footprint is so much smaller. Moreover, the 2,000‑acre project is also greatly helping to enhance the wetlands functions of the area.”

TRWD is perpetually innovating for people and the environment. The district’s pursuit of sustainability is not only providing economic and ecological benefits for its own service area, but is also providing valuable research and setting an example for water districts across the country.

Darrel Andrews currently serves as the Assistant Director of Environmental Services for the Tarrant Regional Water District. He has 30 years of experience in the field of water quality assessment and planning including reservoirs, streams, and watersheds systems. He serves on state and local work groups addressing water quality issues that impact reservoirs and watersheds in Texas. He has specialized experience over the past 20 years in the management of TRWD’s constructed wetland reuse projects for the treatment of effluent dominated Trinity River water. As well, he has overseen the development and implementation of the watershed protection efforts of TRWD’s reservoir system for the past 10 years. Mr. Andrews holds a bachelor’s of science degree in engineering geology from Abilene Christian University.

37

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Aledo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

S usta ina b le wat e r resourc es in th e 21s t c en tury

Engineering Architecture Environmental Science Planning Program Management Energy Construction Services For water insights and industry news, visit: www.freese.com/fni-water

817-735-7300 www.freese.com

2016 CALENDAR

July 10–13 National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Utility Leadership Conference & 46th Annual Meeting,

Denver, CO July 11–12 North Dakota Water Resources Districts, Joint Summer Meetings, Fargo, ND July 26–27 Kansas Water Congress, Summer Conference, Wichita, KS August 3–5 National Water Resources Association, Western Water Seminar, Sun Valley, ID August 23–25 Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Groundwater Summit, San Marcos, TX August 24–26 Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference and Membership Meeting, Steamboat Springs, Colorado September 23–24 Water Quality Association of Wisconsin, Annual Convention, Wisconsin Dells, WI October 12–14 Texas Water Conservation Association, Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX October 16–19 Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, 2016 Executive Management Conference, Scottsdale, AZ October 26–28 WESTCAS, Fall Conference, Phoenix, AZ November 3 Columbia Basin Development League, Annual Conference, Moses Lake, WA November 3–4 Idaho Water Users Association, Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID November 14–16 National Water Resources Association, Annual Convention, San Diego, CA November 20–22 Nebraska Water Resources Association & Nebraska State Irrigation Association, Joint Convention,

Kearney, NE November 29–December 2 Association of California Water Agencies, 2016 Fall Conference & Exhibition, Anaheim, CA December 14–16 Colorado River Water Users Association, 2016 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV February 18–25, 2017 New Zealand Water Leader Educational Tour, Sponsored by Irrigation Leader and

Municipal Water Leader magazines

___________________________________________________________________________

To include your event in the calendar, e-mail Municipal.Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.