ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS THROUGH UTILITY-BASED ... 2... · ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS...

ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS THROUGH UTILITY-BASED INCENTIVE

PROGRAMS

1

San Pedro River, Arizona. Photo Credit: The Nature Conservancy

Salt River, Arizona. Photo Credit: Brittany Choate

Rushing Rivers Program: Conservation Savings

for Instream Flow

Water Resources Research Center

Webinar – May 10, 2012

Drew Beckwith, Water Policy Manager

dbeckwith@westernresources.org

(720) 763-3726

RRP Schematic

WTP

WWTP

Mountain View

5

6

RRP Initial Screen

SCREENING CRITERION WEIGHT

Strength of community connection to the stream 20%

Opportunity for saved water to stay in the stream for a meaningful distance

20%

Strength of physical relationship between municipal diversion and target stream reach

10%

Extent to which conservation savings could result in meaningful streamflow enhancement

15%

Additional factors increasing community’s likelihood of embracing program

20%

Additional factors increasing water utility’s likelihood of embracing program

10%

Other factors increasing implementation ease 5%

7

RRP Ranking

CRITERION

COMMUNITY SCORE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

Pagosa Springs 90% H H M H H H M H

Breckenridge 85% H H M H M H H M

Winter Park 73% H H L H H M M M

Steamboat Spgs 70% H H M M H M M M

Glenwood Spgs 60% M H M L M M H H

Gunnison 58% H H L L L M H H

Crested Butte 55% M M M L M H H M

Aspen 55% H H M L M H L L

Eagle 48% M M M L M M M H

Telluride 35% H L L L M H L L

8

Pagosa Area WSD

80 mi2 service area

~2,000 AFY

~7,000 taps

Majority residential

Significant 2nd homes

San Juan River!

9

Bill Communication

You saved 3,700 gallons this month by comparison

to last year.

Mountain View residents’ conservation efforts kept

10,000,000 gallons more water in the river this month.

10

PAWSD Bill (old)

11

PAWSD Bill (new?)

Change in Use (gallons)

12

Outreach

13

Questions & Comments

Consultant report available 1-page handout available

Drew Beckwith

dbeckwith@westernresources.org

(720) 763-3726

14

Santa Fe Watershed Management Project

(Water is for… Collaboration)

Santa Fe’s Water Supply System

285

25

Santa Fe

Upper Santa Fe Watershed

Wastewater Treatment

Plant

Canyon Rd. Water Treatment

Plant

Buckman Well Field

City Well Field

Nichols Res.

McClure Res.

Treated Effluent

Buckman Direct Diversion (2011)

Santa Fe’s Water Supply System

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 1

99

5

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

Ac

re-F

ee

t Y

ea

r

Ground Water

Conserved Water

San Juan-Chama Water via

the Buckman Direct Diversion

Santa Fe River

Gap between Demand and Available Supply

Historical Projected

Water Use

Watershed Property Ownership

Cerro Grande Fire, May 2000

Watershed Stand Conditions Prior to Treatment

• Dense ponderosa pine forests – Average 500 to 1,000

trees per acre, compared with 10-50 trees per acre historically in Southwest pine forests

– Suppression of tree growth and herbaceous vegetation

• Many small trees less than 16” in diameter

• Few fire resistant large trees

• Poor habitat

Watershed Fire History Study

Credit: Ellis Margolis, 2009. University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

Risk of Catastrophic Fire in Watershed

Pacheco Fire, June-July 2011

$9-10 million

Las Conchas Fire, June-Aug. 2011

$40 million

• Costs to fight fire

• Impact to water supply

– Damage to infrastructure

– Loss and replacement of source

• Impact to local economy

– Tourism is 40% of economy

– Peak months June-August

– P.A. $320 million/yr

Initial Forest Treatment Work

• NEPA initiated in fall of

2000

• September 2001, EIS

completed

• Treat up to $7,270

acres in non-wilderness

• $7 million federal funds

• Project monitoring,

Technical Advisory

Group

Watershed Treatment 2002-2011

• Total of 5,500 acres treated in

ponderosa pine zone:

• Hand Thinning and

Mastication (chunking)

• Pile burning

• Broadcast burning

• Re-broadcast burn in 2,000

acres

The Challenge:

• Provide a framework for long-term

maintenance work in treated areas (PP);

• Treat areas in Wilderness that pose significant

wildfire risk (MC), not included in 2001 EIS

• Long-term monitoring

• Education and Outreach

• Long-term financial model

Now What?

USFS Collaborative Forestry

Restoration Program (CFRP)

• Partners:

– City of Santa Fe Water Division and Fire Department

– USFS Espanola District

– Santa Fe Watershed Association

– The Nature Conservancy

• Comprehensive 20-yr

plan with innovative

payment for

ecosystem services

financial model

The Product: Santa Fe Municipal Watershed

Management Plan

•Water Management: Monitor and analyze watery quantity

& quality, stream habitat assessment and improvement,

infrastructure upgrades;

•Education and Outreach: Educational watershed classes

for 5th graders, guided hikes for adults, educational

publications, utility bill stuffers, video production, public

meetings and public opinion survey;

•Financial Management: City cost share forest work with

USFS through collection agreement, and payment for

ecosystem services;

•Vegetation Management: Maintenance burning every 5-7

years in ponderosa pine areas already treated, NEPA

Environmental Assessment, and fuels reduction work in

4,000 acres of mixed conifer located in wilderness.

Payment for Ecosystem Services

City Utility Bill • Water customers are the

beneficiaries of a healthy

watershed

• Indirect valuation:

ecosystem service =

cost of watershed

maintenance/monitoring

($200,000/yr)

• Utility rate payer impact

$6.50/yr (range $3.13 to

$9.40)

Payment for Ecosystem Services

cont. • Another rate increase?

– Recent 48% increase for BDD, 4 yr phase-in

• Not so fast…

– Water Trust Board $1.3 mil. grant

• Evaluation of project funding alternatives to PES

– Rate increase

– Bond

– Absorb in existing Water Utility operating budget

PES Implementation

• Existing rate increase will cover long-term project costs

• What to call it? – “Water Source Protection Fund”

Final thoughts: collaboration requires

•A lot of energy and trust

•Everyone needs to leave some of their

preconceptions at the door – not always easy

•Early and frequent engagement in the process of

developing a shared vision: makes people/groups

feel valued (because they are)

• Not all projects allow for necessary time to

gather a collective understanding of what needs

to be done- if you need to rush, may be better to

use more traditional methods of planning.

Conserve to Enhance (C2E): An Innovative Voluntary Mechanism

36

Program development funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Current funding includes Walton Family

Foundation.

How C2E Works 1. Water is conserved (at homes & businesses)

2. Money saved through water conservation

3. Money donated to a C2E fund

4. Money used to implement environmental enhancement projects

Water saved through conservation efforts

Donations support environmental enhancement

Tapping into Motivation

37

• Why should I save water?

• How do I save water?

• How are these things connected?

The environment can be a significant motivator that makes these connections.

Environmental Goals

38

• Meaningful, new funding for local projects

• Wide range of projects • Instream flows, green

infrastructure, stream restoration – whatever a community is interested in

• But maintain a connection to water!

Beaver Creek, AZ. Photo credit: Brittany Choate

• Connect personal water savings to river enhancement

• Raise awareness about community benefits of riparian & river systems

• Provide additional water for riparian restoration

• Increase local water conservation

• Inspire community engagement in restoration projects

Setting Goals: The Tucson Example

Tucson Environmental Enhancement Priorities

• Located in Tucson

• Existing project

• Public visitation

• Ecosystem Enhancement

• Funding Source

• Permits

Recipient Site Selection Process

• Identified 15 local restoration projects

• RFP to select recipient sites

• 3 sites asked to make presentations to Board

• 2 sites selected as C2E recipient sites

• Narrowed down to one site due to feasibility of project completion & benefit

41 Atturbury Wash, Tucson, AZ (Candice Rupprecht)

Flexibility & Adaptability

• Riparian Preservation & Restoration Listening Sessions, Summer 2011

– Large scale projects: $ & don’t need water

– Small scale (neighborhood) projects: need $, expertise, maybe water

• Tucson C2E expanding to include funding for neighborhood scale projects

Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona. (Candice Rupprecht)

Tucson Water Checkbox program announcement, June 2011

43

Expanding the Reach