HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GUS_09.12.2014Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board and the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown
September 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM
at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the
Regular Session that follows.
B Introduction of Visitors
C Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council
Actions. – Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
D Industry Updates
Legislative Regular Agenda
E Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Board meeting held on
August 8, 2014. - Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
F Consideration and possible recommendation for the award of the Annual Electric System
Underground Construction and Maintenance Bid for Labor services to Pedro S.S. Services, Inc. of
Austin, Texas, in the estimated amount of $3,500,000.00. -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
G Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the annual agreement for Material
Acquisition to purchase electric distribution, fiber and substation materials for the FY 2014-2015
from Techline Ltd. under their contract with the Lower Colorado River Authority (“LCRA”)
Electric Material Acquisition Program in the estimated amount of $ 3,890,000.00. -- Paul Elkins,
Energy Services Manager
H Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the annual task orders: Task Order MEI-
15-001 for Planned Capital Improvement Projects in the amount of $550,000.00, Task Order MEI-
15-002 for Electric System Engineering Planning and Engineering Assistance in the amount of
$150,000.00 and Task order MEI-15-003 for New Development Engineering and Design
Assistance in the amount of $400,000.00 with McCord Engineering, Inc., of College Station,
Texas, for professional engineering services. -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
I Consideration and possible recommendation to renew annual contracts for Tree Trimming and
Vegetation Management Bid to National Tree Expert Company, Inc. of Burnet, Texas, in the
estimated amount of $310,000.00. -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
J Consideration and possible recommendation to amend the contract with the CH2M HILL for the
management, operation, and maintenance of the City’s water and wastewater facilities for the
period starting October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 in the amount of $3,333,220.48. --
David W Thomison, Water Services Manager / Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
K Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Excel Construction Services,
LTD of Leander, Texas for the construction of the Sequoia Spur EST (elevated water storage
tank), pumping and piping improvements in the amount of $4,830,250.00. -- Wesley Wright, P.E.,
Director of Engineering / Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
L Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract for the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone (EARZ) – 2013-2014, Wastewater Rehabilitation to IPR South Central, LLC of
Houston, Texas, for the amount of $1,622,753.50. -- Wesley Wright, P.E. Director of
Engineering / Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
M Discussion related to long term State and Regional water planning process as it relates to water
resources for GUS and CTSUD service territories. - Jim Briggs, General Manager, Utilities
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular
Session that follows.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Introduction of Visitors
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council
Actions. – Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
GUS Projects:
EARZ 2013-14
Park Lift Station and Miscellaneous Lift Station Improvements
Public Training Facility Offsite WW
Sequoia Spur EST
Snead Drive Streets and Wastewater Improvements
Tin Barn Alley/17th & Austin Avenue Waterline Improvements
Council Actions
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Michael Hallmark
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Project Updates and Council Action Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Industry Updates
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Board meeting held on
August 8, 2014. - Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review, revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on August 8,
2014.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Sheila K. Mitchell/GUS Board Liaison
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GUS Board August 8 2014 DRAFT Minutes Backup Material
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
August 8, 2014 at 2:00PM
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Present: Arthur Yaeger– Chair, Robert Kostka – Vice Chair, Patty Eason
(arrived at 2:02PM), Steve Fought, Bill Stump, Joyce Mapes, Ed Pastor
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mike Babin, Glenn Dishong, Wesley Wright, Michael Hallmark, David Munk,
Jimmy Sikes, Chris Foster, Leticia Zavala, Paul Elkins, Kathy Ragsdale, Skye Masson, Sheila
Mitchell, [Terry Crain, Justin Ford, Richard Pajestka, Greg Holt, Matt Braun, John Gonzales,
Jose Reyes, Josh Darden (all departed meeting at 2:20PM)]
Others Present: Mark Ramseur/Pope Dawson Engineers
Regular Session
A. Call to Order by Chairman Yaeger at 2:00PM
Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene
an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action
in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
Discussion: Sikes acknowledged electric staff who participated in Texas Lineman’s rodeo.
Dishong provided update later in agenda.
C. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council Actions. –
Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
Discussion: Hallmark noted reports included in packet. No further discussion.
D. Industry Updates
Discussion: Dishong provided update on Texas Lineman’s Rodeo competition and presented
pictures from competition. This was the City’s first time to compete and entry was initiated by
the team. Sikes further commented on details of team and rodeo. Elkins commented on time
requirements for Hurt Man Rescue event. Darden coordinated the team. Ford and Braun
commented on their experience. Sikes noted Pajestka was a judge in the competition. Reyes,
Gonzales and Holt were the BBQ Cooking Team. Darden commented on his experience and the
interest it has created in other employees in department; has brought department closer together.
Fought commented the shirts for the team were very nice. Yaeger stated he enjoyed hearing they
participated in the competition. Eason would like team to be present at a Council meeting for
recognition. Crain commented on training for the event.
Babin updated board on change of time for September board meeting to 1:00pm and will wrap
up by 2:30 to allow staff and a couple of board members to attend a meeting later that afternoon
at CTSUD. Babin spoke about water supply updates noting next month a more details report will
be presented. Eason will not be present at GUS Board meeting on 12th due to her commitment at
the Lone Star Rail District meeting; Kostka will be out of town. Quorum should still be present
for meeting. Babin updated on agreement reached with City of Leander and CTSUD CCN
transfer; additional updates next month. Review of upcoming state legislation to be introduced
shouldn’t have anything of concern but updates will be forthcoming on any changes. Babin
updated on the Texas Railroad Commission’s consideration of some rule changes regarding
municipal involvement in natural gas utility rate changes. This could affect us if changes are
made; more details as this moves forward. Babin discussed article in Austin American Statesman
regarding renewable energy and the Wall Street Journal article regarding Germany, and Foster
spoke in further detail, noting Georgetown has already implemented meters to handle these
changes. Babin provided further detail regarding purchased power, wind and solar power.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
E. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GUS Board meeting held on
July 11, 2014. – Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
Discussion: None. Motion by Kostka, seconded by Fought to approve the minutes from the
Regular GUS Board meeting held on July 11, 2014. Approved 7-0-0
F. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract for the Rivery and Georgetown
East Substation Transformer Additions, Construction Bid 201441, to Lambda Construction I, Ltd. of
New Braunfels, TX in the amount of $275,269.00. – Jimmy Sikes, T&D Service Manager
Discussion: Sikes noted this is construction and installation of new transformers. Eight bids were
received; 3 qualified. Stump asked and Sikes explained specifics on work to be done. Pastor
asked and Sikes explained work is specialized therefore our lineman are not qualified nor do they
have the equipment to perform the work. Motion by Fought, seconded by Mapes to approve the
contract for the Rivery and Georgetown East Substation Transformer Additions, Construction
Bid 201441, to Lambda Construction I, Ltd. of New Braunfels, TX in the amount of $275,269.00.
Approved 7-0-0
Elkins departed at 2:38PM; returned at 2:39PM
Board moved to Item H for consideration and approval and then returned to Item G for consideration and approval.
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement
between Jonah Special Utility District and the City of Georgetown in the amount of $200,000.00. –
Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
Discussion: Dishong presented item explaining details of agreement; what City will receive and
what JSPUD will receive, giving the effect this has on the upcoming year’s budget. Pastor asked
what percentage of the Williamson County Regional Water Line Jonah had; will it have any effect
on negotiations with CTSUD? Dishong stated they had approximately three percent and
explained it improves the combined utilities total water reserves. Stump asked if City is in
position to use the water? Dishong stated this increases the additional reserves which we are not
currently using and will not need to use for some time. Mapes asked why we’re purchasing this if
we’re not using right now; Dishong responded the water is the only water available in the Basin
and if we did not purchase, someone else can. Pastor asked why Jonah is agreeing to this and
Dishong responded Jonah felt their water future would be better served in Lake Granger.
Additional general questions from the Board regarding water. Motion by Fought, seconded by
Pastor to approve an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement between Jonah Special Utility District
and the City of Georgetown in the amount of $200,000.00. Approved 7-0-0
Wright stepped out at 2:47PM; returned at 2:48PM
Board returned to Item G for consideration and approval and then to Item I for consideration and approval.
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to revise the solid waste retail rates in accordance with
the Council approved annual rate adjustment to the 2012 Solid Waste Service Agreement between
Texas Disposal Systems and the City of Georgetown. – Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager/Micki
Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Discussion: Zavala presented item with background of Texas Disposal Systems (TDS) contract
noting rate adjustment presented to Council in July. She noted adjustment is in-line with TDS
rate adjustment. No questions from Board. Motion by Fought, seconded by Mapes to revise the
solid waste retail rates in accordance with the Council approved annual rate adjustment to the
2012 Solid Waste Service Agreement between Texas Disposal Systems and the City of
Georgetown. Approved 7-0-0
Masson stepped out at 3:05PM; returned at 3:06PM
Board moved to Item I for consideration and approval.
I. Consideration and possible recommendation concerning the Hillwood Development Agreement
utility elements. – Bridget Chapman, City Attorney/Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director
Discussion: Wright presented item and reviewed presentation included in packet for the
proposed development. A presentation was made to Council a couple of weeks ago and is being
reviewed by the relevant Advisory Boards. Wright explained the development agreement is
currently in draft form as details are being reviewed. Pastor asked and Wright explained electric
service to area per agreement; most of proposed development is a dual certified area with
Georgetown Electric and Pedernales Electric (PEC). Developer will take Georgetown Electric
where available. Stump asked and Ramser responded developer is in the process of looking at a
more detailed site layout. Stump spoke about roof-top solar. Fought asked about PEC service
area; Foster/Babin commented we are not able to capture any of the PEC service area due to
regulations. Pastor asked and Ramser noted planned Fire station in development. Motion by
Fought, seconded by Pastor to move forward with the utility elements of the agreement.
Approved 7-0-0
Adjournment
Motion by Pastor, seconded by Fought to adjourn the meeting. Approved 7-0-0 Adjourned at 3:18PM
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of ____________, 2013, at _________, and remained so posted for at least 72 hours
preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
_____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation for the award of the Annual Electric System Underground
Construction and Maintenance Bid for Labor services to Pedro S.S. Services, Inc. of Austin, Texas, in the estimated
amount of $3,500,000.00. -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Electric System Underground Construction and Maintenance bid is an annual contract for labor only contract
services with optional four (4) one (1) year extensions that would begin October 1, 2015. These extensions are
renewable annually upon the agreement by both the City and Pedro S.S. Services, Inc. The contractor will bill for
labor services rendered based on unit pricing as outlined with the agreement not to exceed the estimated amount of
$3,500,000.00 and is based on anticipated CIP, Development and Maintenance projects to be constructed in the
term of this agreement. The bid process notified approximately 140 vendors of which only two were present at the
non-mandatory pre-bid meeting. The purchasing department received only one submittal from all vendors notified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is recommending award of this bid to Pedro S.S. Services, Inc. of Austin, Texas based on their submittal and
their excellent service and workmanship over the past 5 years serving as the City’s Underground Electric
Contractor.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for the planned expenditures are available in the Electric Operations Capital Improvement and Operations
Budget’s:
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
Fund Actual Budget Budget Balance Available
610-5-0523-51-530 Maintenance Distribution
System $ 200,000.00 $ 462,075.00 $ 462,075.00
610-5-0523-52-905 Developer Projects $ 700,000.00 $ 950,000.00 $ 950,000.00
610-5-0523-52-915 Street Lighting $ 50,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00
610-9-0580-90-300 System Improvement $ 2,550,000.00 $ 3,460,000.00 $ 3,460,000.00
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the annual agreement for Material Acquisition to purchase
electric distribution, fiber and substation materials for the FY 2014-2015 from Techline Ltd. under their contract
with the Lower Colorado River Authority (“LCRA”) Electric Material Acquisition Program in the estimated
amount of $ 3,890,000.00. -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Renewal of this agreement will allow the City of Georgetown to take advantage of lower prices and stock
availability for the continued purchase of electric distribution, fiber and substation materials for use on CIP and
Operational projects directly from Techline, the vendor awarded the Electric Material Acquisition Services
Contract by LCRA.
Materials purchased through this agreement were competitively bid by LCRA, and are not included on any
solicitation issued and awarded by the City. Materials are purchased on an as needed basis and are stocked in the
City’s warehouse for use by the Department’s for new construction projects, maintenance of the systems or stock
replenishment. The estimated total for this requirement is $ 3,890,000.00 that is based on planned projects and
maintenance history in previous years.
According to Texas Local Government Code 271.102 (c), the City satisfies any state laws requiring the local
government to seek competitive bids for the purchase of the goods and services when purchasing under
Subchapter F. Cooperative Purchasing Program. The Texas Local Government Code 271.101 states that a
municipality may participate in a local agreement with a special district. The City’s agreement with LCRA
allowing access to this contract has been renewed.
This is a continuation of the previous agreement for FY 2013-2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of purchases of materials under the agreement with LCRA.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for the planned expenditures are available in the Electric Operations Capital Improvement and Operations
Budget’s:
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
Fund Actual Budget Budget Balance Available
610-5-0523-51-530 Maintenance Distribution
System $ 450,000.00 $ 462,075.00 $ 462,075.00
610-5-0523-52-905 Developer Projects $ 800,000.00 $ 950,000.00 $ 950,000.00
610-5-0523-52-915 Street Lighting $ 80,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00
610-5-0523-52-901 Capacitor Projects $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00
610-5-0523-52-902 Switches & Devices $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
610-9-0580-90-300 System Improvement $ 1,730,000.00 $
3,460,000.00 $ 3,460,000.00
610-9-0585-90-003 Electric Substations 500,000.00 $
4,637,000.00 $ 4,637,000.00
610-9-0585-90-021 Fiber Equipment 200,000.00 $ 765,000.00 $ 765,000.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2003 Materials Acquisition Services Agreement Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the annual task orders: Task Order MEI-
15-001 for Planned Capital Improvement Projects in the amount of $550,000.00, Task Order MEI-
15-002 for Electric System Engineering Planning and Engineering Assistance in the amount of
$150,000.00 and Task order MEI-15-003 for New Development Engineering and Design
Assistance in the amount of $400,000.00 with McCord Engineering, Inc., of College Station, Texas,
for professional engineering services. -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Professional Engineering services are required for the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement
Projects, New Development Engineering and Design Assistance, Electric System Engineering
Planning and specialized studies. McCord Engineering, Inc. (MEI) is familiar with our electric
utility system, standards and specifications and has highly qualified professionals to work on our
projects. MEI has worked for the City of Georgetown for over 20 years and has successfully
completed a variety of development and capital improvement projects for the utility.
Attached for your review and consideration is Task Order MEI-15-001 in the amount of
$550,000.00. The purpose of this task order is to provide preliminary and final electric system
engineering and design for planned Capital Improvement projects detailed within the task order and
five year CIP plan.
Attached for your review and consideration is Task Order MEI-15-002 in the amount of
$150,000.00. The purpose of this task order is to serve as general engineering support for system
planning, reliability and other various tasks such as Master Plan updates, system appraisal
evaluations, Milsoft Mapping assistance and policy recommendations.
Attached for your review and consideration is Task Order MEI-15-003 in the amount of
$400,000.00. The purpose of this task order is to provide preliminary and final electric design for
New Development Projects. These unplanned projects require MEI’s assistance to produce service
delivery design project packages as well as load impact evaluation for new electric loads connected
to the existing system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests a recommendation for the approval of Task Order MEI-15-001, MEI-15-002 and
Task Order MEI-15-003 as described above with McCord Engineering, Inc., of College Station,
Texas.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Electric Operations and CIP accounts absorb the engineering fees for MEI with new development
accounts receiving reimbursement for the engineering fees through contribution in aid of
construction (CIAC) from developers.
Funds Actual Budget Available Budget Balance
610-9-0580-90-
300 System Improvement $ 550,000.00 $ 3,460,000.00 $ 3,460,000.00
610-5-0523-51-
530
Consultant
Engineering $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
610-5-0523-52-New Developer
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager
905 Projects $ 400,000.00 $ 950,000.00 $ 950,000.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Task Order MEI-15-001 Backup Material
Task Order MEI-15-002 Backup Material
Task Order MEI-15-003 Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to renew annual contracts for Tree Trimming and
Vegetation Management Bid to National Tree Expert Company, Inc. of Burnet, Texas, in the estimated
amount of $310,000.00. -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This contract was enacted on March 22, 2010 resultant of bid # 201119. National Tree has performed
well over the past year with tree trimming services across the City’s Electric System. The term for the
fourth renewal of this contract will begin October 1, 2014 and end September 30, 2015. The main
services include scheduled trimming of existing main and lateral lines to a planned 5 year trim cycle.
Services also include tree trimming, canopy trimming, dead tree removals adjacent to street ROW and in
parks and removal of trees for extensions and upgrades to existing facilities. The contractor will bill for
labor services rendered based upon labor units and hourly time and equipment billing as outlined with
this agreement in an amount not to exceed $310,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommendation is to renew these agreements as presented to National Tree Expert Company,
Inc. of Burnet, Texas.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in the FY 13/14 budgets for Electric Operations, Parks and
Transportation:
SUBMITTED BY:
Glenn Dishong, Utility Director
Funds Actual Budget Available Budget Balance
610-5-0523-51-
511 ROW Maintenance $275,000.00 $200,000.00 $275,000.00
225-5-0211-51-
310 Contracts and Leases $12,500.00 Varies $74,518.00
100-5-0211-51-
310 Contracts and Leases $12,500.00 Varies $35,000.00
100-5-0846-52-
911
Unscheduled Street
Maintenance $10,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Signed Agreement Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to amend the contract with the CH2M HILL for the
management, operation, and maintenance of the City’s water and wastewater facilities for the period
starting October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 in the amount of $3,333,220.48. -- David W
Thomison, Water Services Manager / Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City’s contract with CH2MHILL for the operation of the City’s water and wastewater facilities is
for a period of 5 years starting on October 1, 2013 and ending on September 30, 2018. The terms of the
contract provide for an annual amendment to adjust the total fee based upon standard cost escalators,
changes in production volume, and other factors.
The annual cost of service is comprised of a Base Fee, a Volumetric Fee, a Repairs Budget, and
additional items that are not expected to continue throughout the term of the contract.
Water Fee Element FY 13/14 FY 14/15 %Change
Base Fee $758,700.00 $776,272.16 2.3%
Projected Volumetric Fee $535,977.53 $543,901.27 1.5%
Repairs Budget $210,000.00 $210,000.00 0%
Sludge Hauling $108,800.00 $68,000.00 (37)%
The total change in fee from the prior year (decrease of $14,504.10) represents an decrease of (0.9)%
from the prior year.
Wastewater Fee Element FY 13/14 FY 14/15 %Change
Base Fee $1,100,540.00 $1,126,029.47 2.3%
Projected Volumetric Fee $105,733.00 $100,467.58 (5.0) %
Sludge Disposal Budget $282,657.63 $393,550.00 28%
Repairs Budget $115,000.00 $115,000.00 0%
The total change in fee from the prior year (increase of $113,116.42) represents an increase of 6.5%
from the prior year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends approval of the amendment one to water and wastewater treatment plant
management, operations and maintenance contract with CH2MHILL and recommends a combined
operating budget for FY14/15 of $3,333,220.48 represents a total combined increase of 3.5%.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are available in the Water/Wastewater Plant Management Budget.
660-5-0531-51-305 Wastewater Plant Operations $1,735,047.05 $1,769,431.00
SUBMITTED BY:
David W Thomison, Water Services Manager / Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
Fund Cost Budget
660-5-0529-51-304 Water Plant Operations $1,598,173.43 $1,707,455.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Contract Amendment Backup Material
AMENDMENT NO. 1
to the
AGREEMENT
for
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE and MANAGEMENT SERVICES
for the
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Agreement for Operations, Maintenance and Management
Services for the Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of Georgetown, Texas
dated October 1, 2013, is made this ____ day of ________, 2014, (the “Effective Date”) between
the city of Georgetown, Texas (hereinafter “City”), a Texas home rule municipality, and
Operations Management International, Inc. (hereinafter “CH2M HILL”), a California
corporation. City and CH2M HILL are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of municipal water and wastewater treatment systems;
and
WHEREAS, the City selected CH2M HILL to operate, manage, maintain, and repair the
City’s water and wastewater treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the “Agreement for Operations, Maintenance, and
Management Services for the Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of
Georgetown, Texas” which was effective October 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Agreement provides that any amendment to the
Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and agreed to between the Parties.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth
herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. GENERAL.
1.1. This Agreement is an Amendment to the Agreement. Except as expressly
modified herein, the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
1.2. The words and phrases contained in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the same
meanings as set forth in the Agreement, unless a different definition is set forth
herein.
2. Paragraph 3.6 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
3.6 CH2M HILL shall provide the City with an estimate of the actual cost of
treatment in the Volumetric Fee, the Sludge Disposal Budget and the Repairs
cost in the Repairs Budget by July 31 for the current contract year (Oct 1 to Sep
30) with the estimate based upon actual and predicted treatment volumes, actual
and predicted sludge disposal costs, actual and predicted Repair costs, and actual
and predicted chemical costs for the remainder of the contract year. The sum of
the actual Volumetric Fee, Sludge Disposal Budget and the Repairs Budget
underages or overages resulting in a net increase or decrease in cost shall be used
by the City to budget for the reconciliation described in Paragraph 3.7.
3. Paragraph 3.7 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
3.7 CH2M HILL and the City shall reconcile the estimated cost of treatment in the
Volumetric Fee, the Sludge Disposal Budget and the Repairs cost in the Repairs
Budget by December 31 of each year for the preceding contract year (Oct 1 to
Sep 30) with the actual cost based upon actual treatment volumes, actual Repair
costs, and actual chemical costs. The sum of the actual Volumetric Fee, Sludge
Disposal Budget and the Repairs Budget underages or overages resulting in a
net increase in cost shall be invoiced to the City as a reconciliation invoice. The
sum of the actual Volumetric Fee, Sludge Disposal Budget and the Repairs
Budget underages or overages resulting in a net decrease in cost shall be paid by
CH2M HILL to the City as a reconciliation payment.
4. Appendix D is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the Appendix D attached
hereto.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Authorized signature: Authorized signature:
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Name: Scott Neelley Name: Dale Ross
Title: Vice President Title: Mayor
Date:_________________________ Date:__________________________
Attest: City of Georgetown, Texas
_____________________________ ______________________________
Name: Jessica Brettle Name: Bridget Chapman
Title: City Secretary Title: City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the ___ day of ____________, 2014, by
Dale Ross, a person known to me in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, on behalf
of the City of Georgetown.
___________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF COLORADO §
§ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COUNTY OF ____________ §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the ___ day of ____________, 2014, by
________________________, a person known to me in his capacity as
__________________________________________Operations Management International, Inc.
___________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Colorado
APPENDIX D
COMPENSATION, PAYMENT AND FEE ADJUSTMENT FORMULA
D.1. COMPENSATION
D.1.1. City shall pay to CH2M HILL as compensation for services performed under
this Agreement a Fee of Three Million Three Hundred Thirty Three Thousand
Two Hundred Twenty Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($3,333,220.48) for the
2014-2015 year of this Agreement. The monthly payment for this contract year
shall be one twelfth (1/12th) of the Fee or Two Hundred Seventy Seven
Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight Dollars and Thirty Seven Cents
($277,768.37). Subsequent years’ fees shall be determined as hereinafter
specified, consistent with the terms of this Agreement. The Fee is comprised of
a Water Base Fee, a Water Volumetric Budget, Water Sludge Disposal Budget,
a Base Wastewater Fee, Wastewater Volumetric Budget, Wastewater Sludge
Disposal Budget, Water Treatment Facilities Repairs Budget and Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Repairs Budget.
D.1.2 The services provided under this Agreement are based on reasonably expected
overtime for peak production periods and normal breakdowns requiring services
after normal daytime hours. Any additional Direct Costs including straight or
overtime wages as a result of a declaration of an Unforeseen Circumstances will
be paid by the City under the terms of an amendment to this Agreement or a
Change Order as a result of a Change in Scope.
D.2 COST AND PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR WATER
CONTRACT YEAR OCT 1, 2014 – SEPT 30, 2015
Production Projection (Water) (MG) 5,700
Base Water Fee $ 776,272.16
Volumetric Water Budget
See the matrix per plant below $ 543,901.27
Water Treatment Facilities Repairs Budget $ 210,000.00
Water Sludge Disposal Budget $ 68,000.00
Total Estimated Annual Fee for Water FY 14-15 $ 1,598,173.43
Monthly Payment (FY 14-15) $ 133,181.12
D.2.1. Water Volumetric Rate - The average Volumetric Rate of $95.42 per million
gallons treated covers all chemicals. CH2M HILL and City agree to the
following target dosage benchmarks when applying chemicals to plant treatment
processes. Upon completion of the contract year, if the volumetric rate is higher
than $95.42 in part or in whole due to dosages beyond the benchmarks, CH2M
HILL will be responsible for 50% of the increase in the volumetric rate due to
chemical doses above the target dosage, with such share of the increase not
being passed on to the City. If the Volumetric Rate is less than $95.42 per
million gallons in part due to chemical cost reductions or dosages less than the
benchmarks due to careful treatment practices, City will receive a credit for
50% of the decrease in the volumetric rate. However if the Volumetric Rate is
higher than $95.42 solely due to chemical cost increase then the City shall
reimburse the additional cost as part of the reconciliation payment at the end of
the contract year to CH2M HILL. All credits and reimbursements under this
Paragraph shall be performed in accordance to Paragraph 3.7 of the Agreement.
D.2.2. Water Sludge Disposal Rate – The Sludge Disposal Rate of $42.50 per wet
cubic yard produced for the water plant dewatered sludge haul. Upon
completion of the contract year, if the Sludge Disposal Rate is higher than
$42.50 in part or in whole due to fuel increases, volume increases or other
hauling costs increases, CH2M HILL will be responsible for 50% of the
increase in the Sludge Disposal Rate, with such share of the increase not being
passed on to the City. If the Sludge Disposal Rate is less than $42.50 per wet
cubic yard, City will receive a credit for 50% of the decrease in the volumetric
rate. All credits and reimbursements under this Paragraph shall be performed in
accordance to Paragraph 3.7 of the Agreement.
D.2.3 Water Treatment Plant Matrix.
Lake Park Southside
65% 25% 10%
Alum 34 4 0
Polymer 1.6 1 0
FL2 0.6 0.6 0
LAS/NH3 1.6 1.6 1.2
Chlorine 6 5 4
Lake Park Southside
65% 25% 10%
5,700 3,705 1,425 570
Alum 126,070.78 5,704.56 -
Polymer 48,450.73 11,646.81 -
FL2 7,045.13 2,709.67 -
LAS/NH3 59,327.42 22,818.24 6,845.47
Chlorine 177,982.27 57,045.60 18,254.59
Projected Volumetric Fee 418,876.33 99,924.88 25,100.06
Volumetric Rate 113.06 70.12 44.04
*Average Volumetric Rate 95.42
Chemical
Total (MG)
Projected Costs for 2014 / 2015
D.3 COST AND PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR WASTEWATER
CONTRACT YEAR OCT 1, 2014 – SEPT 30, 2015
Treatment Projection (Wastewater) (MG) 1,500
Base Wastewater Fee $ 1,126,029.47
Waste Water Volumetric Budget
See the matrix per plant below $ 100,467.58
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Repairs Budget $ 115,000.00
Wastewater Sludge Disposal Budget $ 393,550.00
_____________________________________________________________________
Total Estimated Annual Fee for Wastewater FY 14-15 $ 1,735,047.05
Monthly Payment (FY 14-15) $ 144,587.25
D.3.1 Wastewater Volumetric Rate - The average Volumetric Rate of $66.98 per
million gallons treated covers all chemicals. CH2M HILL and City agree to the
following target dosage benchmarks when applying chemicals to plant treatment
processes. Upon completion of the contract year, if the volumetric rate is higher
than $66.98 in part or in whole due to dosages beyond the benchmarks, CH2M
HILL will be responsible for 50% of the increase in the volumetric rate due to
chemical doses above the target dosage, with such share of the increase not
being passed on to the City. If the Volumetric Rate is less than $66.98 per
million gallons in part due to chemical cost reductions or dosages less than the
benchmarks due to careful treatment practices, City will receive a credit for
50% of the decrease in the volumetric rate. However if the Volumetric rate is
higher than $66.98 solely due to chemical cost increase then the City shall
reimburse the additional cost as part of the reconciliation payment at the end of
the contract year to CH2M HILL. All credits and reimbursements under this
Paragraph shall be performed in accordance to Paragraph 3.7 of the Agreement.
D.3.2 Wastewater Sludge Disposal Rate – The Sludge Disposal Rate of $42.50 per
wet cubic yard wastewater plant dewatered sludge haul. Upon completion of the
contract year, if the Sludge Disposal Rate is higher than $42.50 in part or in
whole due to fuel increases, volume increases or other hauling costs increases,
CH2M HILL will be responsible for 50% of the increase in the Sludge Disposal
Rate, with such share of the increase not being passed on to the City. If the
Sludge Disposal Rate is less than $42.50 per wet cubic yard, City will receive a
credit for 50% of the decrease in the volumetric rate. All credits and
reimbursements under this Paragraph shall be performed in accordance to
Paragraph 3.7 of the Agreement.
D.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Matrix.
D.4 ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT
D.4.1 Fee Adjustment Formula:
BF = BF0 [1+(.25(C-C0)/C0)+(.75E)]
Where:
BF0 = Base Fee is the total of the Base Water Fee specified in Appendix
D, Section D.2 and the Base Wastewater Fee specified in
Appendix D, Section D.3
BF = Adjusted Base Fee (for the following contract year)
C0 = Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for All Urban Consumers (Houston,
Texas) as published by U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the CPI Detailed Report for the month June in
the year prior to the beginning of the period for which an adjusted
base fee is being calculated
C = CPI for All Urban Consumers (Houston, Texas) as published by
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in the CPI
Detailed Report for the month of June prior to the beginning of the
period for which an adjusted base fee is being calculated.
E = Average Employment Cost Index (ECI) for Total Compensation
for Civilian Workers, Not Seasonally Adjusted as published by U.
S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Detailed
Report Series ID: CIU1010000000000A for the second quarter
prior to the beginning of the period for which an adjusted base fee
is being calculated.
D.4.2 Volumetric Rate Adjustment Formula:
The Water Volumetric Rate, Water Sludge Disposal Rate, the Wastewater
Volumetric Rate, Wastewater Sludge Disposal Rate and Wastewater Liquid Sludge Haul
Rate shall be negotiated each year, three (3) months prior to anniversary of the Effective
Date hereof by using the actual chemical cost at the time and adjusting target chemical
dosages and/or sludge hauling rates. Should City and CH2M HILL fail to agree, the
Water Volumetric Rate, Water Sludge Disposal Rate, the Wastewater Volumetric Rate,
Wastewater Sludge Disposal Rate and Wastewater Liquid Sludge Haul Rate will be
determined by the prior years’ actual Chemical Costs plus application of the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) component of the Fee Adjustment formula, as set forth below.
VR = VR0[1+((C-C0)/C0)]
San Gabriel Pecan Branch Dove Springs Berry Creek Cimarron Hills Total
Chemical Cost 41,157.90 30,327.58 10,092.00 11,071.35 7,818.75 100,467.58
Annual Flow MG/Y 500 450 475 50 25 1,500
Chemical Cost/MG/Y 82.32 67.39 21.25 221.43 312.75 66.98
Where:
VR0 = Volumetric Rate specified in Section D.2.1 and D.3.1
V = Adjusted Volumetric Rate (for the following contract year)
C0 = Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for All Urban Consumers (Houston, Texas)
as published by U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in
the CPI Detailed Report for the month of June for the year prior to the
beginning of the period for which an adjusted base fee is being calculated
C = CPI for All Urban Consumers (Houston, Texas) as published by U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in the CPI Detailed
Report for the month of June prior to the beginning of the period for which
an adjusted base fee is being calculated.
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Excel Construction Services,
LTD of Leander, Texas for the construction of the Sequoia Spur EST (elevated water storage
tank), pumping and piping improvements in the amount of $4,830,250.00. -- Wesley Wright, P.E.,
Director of Engineering / Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The proposed project includes construction of a 1.5 million gallon elevated water storage tank,
new pump station, and all piping necessary to connect the pump station to the EST; the
improvements will provide additional elevated storage capacity and redundancy to the water
system.
This project was publicly advertised on August 3, 2014 and August 10, 2014. Five (5) utility
contractors obtained plans. From these plan holders on August 21, 2014 we receive three (3)
competitive bids. The low qualified bidder for the project was Excel Construction Services with a
total bid of $4,830,250.00.
Excel has completed plant construction projects at the LWTP, Rabbit Hill Pump Station, and the
San Gabriel WWTP Expansion in the past. Therefore, staff believes Excel is qualified to construct
this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
CDM Smith and staff recommend awarding the contract for the construction of the Sequoia Spur
EST and Pumping Improvements to Excel Construction Services, LTD for $4,830,250.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See attached budget sheet
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright / Michael Hallmark
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Budget Work Sheet Backup Material
recommendation Letter Backup Material
Bid Tab Backup Material
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract for the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone (EARZ) – 2013-2014, Wastewater Rehabilitation to IPR South Central, LLC of
Houston, Texas, for the amount of $1,622,753.50. -- Wesley Wright, P.E. Director of
Engineering / Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requires the utility to test all wastewater
lines over the EARZ in a five year period.
The results of the EARZ – 2013-2014 required the remediation of wastewater lines that indicated
exfiltration. We also repair any infiltration problems within the system.
This project includes the 14,550 LF of mechanical root cleaning of existing wastewater lines
varying from 6 to 18-inches in diameter, 20,200 LF of cured-in-place varying from 6 to 18-inches
in diameter, 3,135 LF of pipe bursting wastewater lines varying from 6 to 18-inches in diameter,
310 vertical feet of epoxy coating existing manholes.
This project was publicly advertised on August 3, 2014 and August 10, 2014. Nine (9) utility
contractors obtained plans. From these plan holders, Three (3) competitive bids were received.
The low qualified bidder for the project was IPR South Central, LLC with a total bid of
$1,622,753.50; and the Engineers preliminary estimate was $1,998,000.00. IPR South Central
completed EARZ 2012-2013, Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LLC has reviewed the current
workload, construction history and financials for IPR South Central, LLC as well as contacted
several references. Therefore KPA recommends the award to IPR South Central, LLC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval to award the contract for EARZ – 2013-2014, IPR South Central, LLC
of Houston, Texas, for $1,622,753.50
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See attached budget worksheet
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright / Michael Hallmark
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Budget Worksheet Backup Material
recommendation Letter Backup Material
Bid Tab Backup Material
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:3CG 8/25/2014
Division/Department:GUS / Wastewater Director Approval
Prepared By:Michael Hallmark Finance Approval
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 2,500,000.00
(FY 14-15 CIP Projected)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B)Budget
Consulting 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 1,622,733.50 1,622,733.50 65%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 0.00 1,622,733.50
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
660-9-0581-90-037 (FY14-15 CIP Projected)2,500,000.00
Total Budget 2,500,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2,500,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years FY 14-15 Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 1,622,733.50 1,622,733.50 65%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 1,622,733.50 1,622,733.50
Comments:
EARZ 2013-2014 IPR South Central, LLC
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Discussion related to long term State and Regional water planning process as it relates to water
resources for GUS and CTSUD service territories. - Jim Briggs, General Manager, Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
I have had a request to discuss long term water resource planning. Included is an executive
summary of the State of Texas water planning process. Staff will be available to provide insight
and updates on the current 2014 Region “G” Planning Process, currently underway.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Jim Briggs - General Manager, Utilities
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Executive Summary 2011 State Water Plan Backup Material
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011
Regional Water Plans
82nd Legislative Session
(this page intentionally left blank)
P.O. Box 13231, 1700 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78711-3231, www.twdb.state.tx.us
Phone (512) 463-7847, Fax (512) 475-2053
1-800-RELAYTX (for hearing impaired)
January 20, 2011
The People of Texas
The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor of Texas
The Honorable Joe Straus, III, Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives
Members, Senate Natural Resources Committee, Texas Senate
Members, House Natural Resources Committee, Texas House of Representatives
In October, November, and December of 2010, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) approved
sixteen 2011 Regional Water Plans. This represents the culmination of the third round of regional water
planning, since the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 1997, and represents the exemplary work and dedicated
efforts of over 400 voting and nonvoting members of the regional water planning groups. By January 5,
2012, the TWDB will develop, adopt, and submit the 2012 State Water Plan.
“Water for Texas: Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans” presents the highlights of the
statewide totals of the regional plan results, as well as summaries of the plans of each of the 16
regions. The primary result of these water plans is a simple one: If the drought of record were to
occur today, Texas would not have enough water to meet the needs of its people, its businesses, and
its agricultural enterprises. These plans present the information regarding the recommended
conservation and other types of water management strategies that would be necessary to meet the
state’s needs in drought conditions, their cost, and estimates of the state’s financial assistance that
would be required to implement these strategies. The plans also present the sobering news of the
economic losses likely to occur if these water supply needs cannot be met. As the state continues to
experience rapid growth and declining water supplies, implementation of these plans is crucial to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare and economic development in the state.
We hope that this report will provide valuable information to you as important water supply issues are
deliberated during the 82nd Legislative Session. We would also like to thank the 16 planning groups and
our state agency partners, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, and the Texas Department of Agriculture for their assistance to the planning
groups and the planning process. We greatly appreciate their input and assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward G. Vaughan, Chairman
. .Our Mission Board Members . . . James E. Herring, Member Joe M. Crutcher, Member To provide leadership, planning, financial . Edward G. Vaughan, Chairman . . Thomas Weir Labatt III, Member Lewis H. McMahan, Member assistance, information, and education for Jack Hunt, Vice Chairman . .the conservation and responsible . .development of water for Texas . J. Kevin Ward, Executive Administrator
(this page intentionally left blank)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...............................................................................i
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1‐1
2.0 Highlights of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
Population Projections ...................................................................... 2‐1
Water Demand Projections ............................................................... 2‐2
Existing Water Supplies ..................................................................... 2‐3
Identified Water Needs ..................................................................... 2‐4
Recommended Water Management Strategies ............................... 2‐5
Unmet Needs ................................................................................... 2‐11
Economic Impacts of Not Meeting Water Needs ............................ 2‐12
Funding Assistance Needed ............................................................ 2‐15
3.0 Regional Water Plan Summaries
Panhandle (A) Region....................................................................... . A‐1
Region B ............................................................................................. B‐1
Region C ............................................................................................ C‐1
North East Texas (D) Region ............................................................. D‐1
Far West Texas (E) Region................................................................. E‐1
Region F ............................................................................................. F‐1
Brazos G Region ................................................................................G‐1
Region H ............................................................................................H‐1
East Texas (I) Region .......................................................................... I‐1
Plateau (J) Region ............................................................................... J‐1
Lower Colorado (K) Region ................................................................ K‐1
South Central Texas (L) Region ..........................................................L‐1
Rio Grande (M) Region .....................................................................M‐1
Coastal Bend (N) Region ...................................................................N‐1
Llano Estacado (O) Region ................................................................O‐1
Lavaca (P) Region .............................................................................. P‐1
Appendix A: Reservoir Sites and Stream Segments Recommended for Unique Designations
Appendix B: Glossary of Selected Water Planning Terms
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides a brief overview of the regional water planning process, highlights from the
2011 regional water plans, costs of the recommended water management strategies recommended in
the plans, infrastructure financing needs, social and economic impacts of not meeting water needs, and
a brief summary of information from each of the 16 plans. The 2012 State Water Plan, which will be
delivered to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House and Legislature on January 5,
2012, will provide more detail on each plan and also provide additional analyses and Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB) policy recommendations on how to meet Texas’ need for water during the
next 50 years.
Results
In the first decade of the planning horizon, if the drought of record were to occur, the demand for
water in Texas would exceed the supply, creating a need for additional water in excess of 3.6 million
acre-feet per year.
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
Total Water Demands
10,000,000 Total Water Supply
5,000,000
0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Figure E.1 – Statewide Existing Water Supplies and Projected Demands (acre-feet/year)
By 2060, more than 46 million people are expected to call Texas home – more than 80 percent greater
than the 2010 population. It is projected that almost 22 million acre-feet of water per year would be
required to meet the water demands of the state’s homes, businesses, and agricultural enterprises if the
drought of record were to occur. However, without implementation of recommended water
management strategies, only 15 million acre-feet would be available to meet those demands. The true
discrepancy between demand and supply is even greater than the difference between these figures
indicates, as surplus existing water supplies in some areas are not necessarily available to meet
demands in other areas. The total needs for water in 2060 for all water user groups would amount to
i
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
8.3 million acre-feet (Figure E.2). If no water management strategies could be implemented to meet
these needs, Texas businesses and workers could lose $115.7 billion in income, 1.1 million jobs would
not be created, and 1.4 million in population growth would not be achieved.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
MUNICIPAL MANUFACTURING MINING IRRIGATION STEAM ELECTRIC LIVESTOCK
POWER
Existing Water Supplies Projected Water Demands Identified Water Needs
Figure E.2 – 2060 Statewide Existing Supplies, Projected Demands, and Identified Water Needs by
Water User Category (acre-feet/year)
The regional planning groups recommended water management strategies to meet the identified water
needs that, if implemented, would provide an additional 9.0 million acre-feet in additional water
supplies. Approximately 34 percent of the volume of these strategies would come from conservation
and reuse, about 16 percent from new major reservoirs, and about 35 percent from connection of other
surface water supplies. The capital cost of these strategies was estimated to be $53 billion, $46 billion
of which would go toward meeting municipal water needs. A survey of municipal water suppliers
indicated that, if the capacity was available, they would look to state loan programs, including loans with
subsidies, for $27 billion to implement these recommended strategies.
The identified water needs (8.3 million acre-feet) are less than the 8.8 million acre-feet identified in the
2007 State Water Plan, due in large part to the implementation of previously recommended water
management strategies made possible by appropriations by the 80th and 81st Legislatures to fund State
Water Plan projects. However, the cost of implementing the strategies to meet these needs has
increased significantly from the $31 billion estimated in the 2007 plan. This increase can be attributed
largely to the need to recommend an increased volume of strategies in areas of high population growth,
as well as inflation in construction costs.
ii
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Regional Planning Process
In response to the drought of the 1950s and in recognition of the need to plan for the future, the
legislature created the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to develop water supplies and prepare
plans to meet the state’s future water needs. In 1997, the legislature established a new water planning
process, based on a consensus-driven local and regional approach. Coordinating this process are
planning groups representing each of 16 regional water planning areas (see Figure 1.1). The planning
groups, each made up of about 20 members, represent a variety of interests, including agriculture,
industry, environment, public, municipalities, business, water districts, river authorities, water utilities,
counties, and power generation. Each planning group approves bylaws to govern its methods of
conducting business and designates a political subdivision, such as a river authority, groundwater
conservation district, or council of governments, to administer the planning process and manage any
grant contracts related to developing regional water plans. TWDB, in coordination with the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of Agriculture, and Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, adopts rules and guidelines, and provides funding to support the regional planning process.
The planning groups conduct all functions at open meetings in an open and participatory manner. They
hold public meetings when they develop their scopes of work and hold hearings on their draft plans
before adopting their regional water plans. This public involvement helps direct the planning and
determine which water management strategies to recommend. Consensus building within the planning
groups is crucial to ensure sufficient support for adopting the plan. Planning group members adopt plans
by vote at open meetings in accordance with each group’s respective bylaws.
The ongoing work of the regional water planning process consists of 10 tasks:
describing the regional water planning area
quantifying current and projected population and water demand over a 50-year planning
horizon
evaluating and quantifying current water supplies
identifying surpluses and needs
evaluating water management strategies and preparing plans to meet the needs
evaluating impacts of water management strategies on water quality
describing how the plan is consistent with long-term protection of the state’s water,
agricultural, and natural resources
recommending regulatory, administrative, and legislative changes
describing how sponsors of water management strategies will finance projects
adopting the plan, including the required level of public participation
1-1
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
Figure 1.1 - The 16 Regional Water Planning Areas
1-2
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
Evaluation and Selection of Water Management Strategies
A key goal of regional water planning is to evaluate and recommend water management strategies to
meet water supply needs under drought conditions. A recommended water management strategy is a
specific plan to increase water supply, maximize the efficient use of existing supply, or reduce demands
to address a specific water need. Water management strategies include water conservation and drought
management; development of new groundwater and surface water supplies; improved management of
existing water supplies, renewal of contracts for existing supplies, improving reservoir operations,
reallocating reservoir storage, using groundwater and surface water conjunctively, and conveying water
from one area to another; water reuse; and innovative approaches such as desalination of seawater and
brackish groundwater, and brush control.
After receiving public input, each of the 16 planning groups identified potentially feasible water
management strategies for detailed analyses. As a result of their analyses, planning groups
recommended a portfolio of water management strategies tailored to meet each region’s water supply
needs. Some strategies were carried forward from the prior planning cycle and reassessed due to
changing conditions or new information. Other water management strategies considered by planning
groups introduced new approaches to meeting water supply needs.
Plan Adoption and Approval
Once the planning group adopts its regional water plan, the plan is sent to the TWDB for approval. The
TWDB then compiles information from the approved regional water plans and other sources to develop
the state water plan. The 2011 Regional Water Plans summarize the dedicated efforts of over 400
planning group members, numerous technical experts, the public, and several state agencies (the TWDB,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of Agriculture, and Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality).
1-3
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
2.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2011 REGIONAL WATER PLANS
Population Projections
The population in Texas is expected to nearly double between the years 2010 and 2060, growing from
25,388,403 to 46,323,725. The growth rates, however, will vary considerably across the state. While
some planning areas will more than double their populations over the planning horizon others will grow
only slightly (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1).
Table 2.1 – State Population
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 388,104 423,380 453,354 484,954 516,729 541,035
B 210,642 218,918 223,251 224,165 223,215 221,734
C 6,670,493 7,971,728 9,171,650 10,399,038 11,645,686 13,045,592
D 772,163 843,027 908,748 978,298 1,073,570 1,213,095
E 863,190 1,032,970 1,175,743 1,298,436 1,420,877 1,542,824
F 618,889 656,480 682,132 700,806 714,045 724,094
G 1,957,767 2,278,243 2,576,783 2,873,382 3,164,776 3,448,879
H 6,020,078 6,995,442 7,986,480 8,998,002 10,132,237 11,346,082
I 1,090,382 1,166,057 1,232,138 1,294,976 1,377,760 1,482,448
J 135,723 158,645 178,342 190,551 198,594 205,910
K 1,412,834 1,714,282 2,008,142 2,295,627 2,580,533 2,831,937
L 2,460,599 2,892,933 3,292,970 3,644,661 3,984,258 4,297,786
M 1,628,278 2,030,994 2,470,814 2,936,748 3,433,188 3,935,223
N 617,143 693,940 758,427 810,650 853,964 885,665
O 492,627 521,930 540,908 552,188 553,691 551,758
P 49,491 51,419 52,138 51,940 51,044 49,663
Total 25,388,403 29,650,388 33,712,020 37,734,422 41,924,167 46,323,725
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
142%
100%96% 88% 82%79% 76% 75%
57% 52% 44%39% 36%
17% 12%5% <1%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Texas
Figure 2.1 – Percent Growth in Population 2010‐2060
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐1
Water Demand Projections
Although the population is projected to nearly double over 50 years, water demand in Texas is projected
to increase by only 22 percent, from approximately 18 million acre‐feet/year of water in 2010 to a
projected demand of about 22 million acre‐feet/year in 2060. This smaller increase is primarily due to
declining demand for agricultural irrigation water and increased emphasis on municipal water
conservation (Table 2.2, Figure 2.2).
Table 2.2 – Projected Water Demands (acre‐feet/year)
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 1,628,344 1,526,943 1,498,555 1,441,072 1,315,820 1,199,644
B 171,164 171,806 174,361 171,958 169,419 169,153
C 1,761,352 2,078,743 2,377,737 2,655,101 2,942,320 3,272,460
D 561,076 605,527 653,207 704,086 760,410 838,977
E 648,126 665,084 677,668 681,137 689,787 699,586
F 803,376 807,802 809,655 810,490 812,112 814,991
G 870,180 979,223 1,058,290 1,110,070 1,181,452 1,248,514
H 2,376,414 2,600,348 2,815,482 3,035,445 3,276,501 3,524,666
I 730,911 1,083,549 1,277,417 1,340,598 1,411,268 1,490,596
J 51,928 54,407 56,345 57,332 58,068 58,643
K 1,086,692 1,180,160 1,231,018 1,315,609 1,359,261 1,382,534
L 981,370 1,091,573 1,145,898 1,192,457 1,240,200 1,291,567
M 1,482,932 1,466,938 1,437,076 1,512,792 1,595,338 1,681,920
N 232,503 257,942 274,806 291,240 307,234 324,938
O 4,394,418 4,238,925 4,103,634 3,968,576 3,841,484 3,724,155
P 229,813 229,984 230,003 229,923 229,853 229,854
Total 18,010,599 19,038,954 19,821,152 20,517,886 21,190,527 21,952,198
12,000,000
10,000,000
Irrigation
8,000,000 Municipal
Manufacturing6,000,000
Steam Electric
4,000,000 County‐other
Livestock
2,000,000 Mining
‐
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Figure 2.2 – Projected Water Demands (acre‐feet/year)
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐2
Existing Water Supplies
Existing water supplies—the amount of water that is legally and physically available based on existing
water right permits, contracts, firm yield, and infrastructure during drought—are projected to decrease
about 10 percent, from approximately 17 million acre‐feet in 2010 to about 15.3 million acre‐feet in
2060. This decrease is due primarily to accumulation of sediment in reservoirs; the depletion of the
Ogallala Aquifer; and decreased groundwater availability, for example, mandatory reductions due to
regulations associated with Gulf Coast Aquifer subsidence (Table 2.3, Figure 2.3).
Table 2.3 – Existing Water Supplies (acre‐feet/year)
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 1,196,916 1,094,863 1,029,767 957,773 872,582 799,058
B 173,965 169,678 165,422 161,134 156,880 152,582
C 1,789,897 1,760,241 1,754,727 1,758,685 1,750,357 1,734,823
D 999,745 1,004,127 1,005,860 1,006,957 1,016,302 1,036,488
E 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593
F 641,304 637,073 637,180 632,869 632,223 631,535
G 1,163,224 1,159,631 1,163,506 1,153,727 1,146,527 1,146,400
H 2,621,660 2,540,446 2,524,982 2,573,538 2,607,089 2,605,917
I 900,264 1,177,716 1,360,070 1,387,636 1,408,409 1,434,729
J 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708
K 1,162,884 1,162,957 1,164,773 1,166,295 1,168,813 1,169,071
L 1,034,803 1,034,065 1,028,324 1,023,508 1,022,510 1,021,937
M 1,114,576 1,111,507 1,107,937 1,102,455 1,095,882 1,089,836
N 244,446 250,029 254,100 255,994 256,231 256,438
O 3,156,072 2,523,443 2,035,875 1,647,310 1,482,838 1,408,272
P 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148
Total 16,983,205 16,409,225 16,015,972 15,611,330 15,400,092 15,270,535
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
Existing Groundwater Supplies
Existing Surface Water Supplies
Existing Reuse Supplies
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Figure 2.3 – Existing Water Supplies (acre‐feet/year)
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐3
Identified Water Needs
If Texas went into a repeat of the drought of record, the state would face an immediate need for
additional water supplies of 3.6 million acre‐feet/year with approximately 8% of that need associated
directly with municipal water users (Table 2.4, Figure 2.4). These identified needs are then projected to
increase by an additional 130% between 2010 and 2060 to 8.3 million acre‐feet/year (Table 2.4, Figure
2.4 and Figure 2.5). Municipal water needs grow 10‐fold over the planning horizon, far exceeding the
changes in all other water user categories.
Table 2.4 – Identified Water Needs by Region (acre‐feet/year)
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 454,876 454,118 487,316 501,830 462,230 418,414
B 23,559 28,347 34,074 35,802 37,485 40,397
C 69,087 399,917 686,836 953,949 1,244,618 1,588,236
D 10,252 14,724 18,696 31,954 60,005 96,142
E 209,591 213,091 215,624 210,794 216,113 226,569
F 191,057 200,868 204,186 211,018 214,792 219,995
G 131,489 196,761 228,978 272,584 334,773 390,732
H 290,890 524,137 698,776 833,518 1,004,872 1,236,335
I 28,856 83,032 83,153 106,900 141,866 182,145
J 1,494 1,878 2,044 2,057 2,275 2,389
K 255,709 303,240 294,534 309,813 340,898 367,671
L 174,235 265,567 308,444 350,063 390,297 436,751
M 435,922 401,858 362,249 434,329 519,622 609,906
N 3,404 14,084 27,102 41,949 57,994 75,744
O 1,275,057 1,750,409 2,107,876 2,364,996 2,405,010 2,366,036
P 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739
Total 3,623,217 4,919,770 5,827,627 6,729,295 7,500,589 8,325,201
‐
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Irrigation
Municipal
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
County‐other
Mining
Livestock
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Figure 2.4 – Projected Water Needs by User Category (acre‐feet/year)
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐4
Although, in some regions there appears to be sufficient existing water supplies region‐wide to meet
drought of record demands in the early planning decades, local existing water supplies are not available
to all users throughout the region, and therefore water needs were identified as a result of this
geographic mismatch of existing supply and anticipated shortage (Figure 2.5).
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Projected demand
Existing supply
Identified need
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Figure 2.5 – 2060 Existing Water Supplies, Projected Demands, and Needs – by Region (acre‐feet/year)
Recommended Water Management Strategies
Regional water planning groups evaluated and recommended water management strategies to meet the
identified water needs that, if implemented, would account for an additional 9.0 million acre‐feet/year
in additional water supplies by 2060 (Table 2.5) at a capital cost of $53 billion (Table 2.6).
In Figure 2.6, the quantity of each region’s recommended water management strategies is shown in
addition to the region’s existing water supplies. Care should be taken not to interpret this total as total
water availability, as water management strategies include demand reductions through conservation as
well as some redistribution of existing supplies. Table 2.7 shows a simple accounting of total capital cost
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐5
in relation to total water management supplies in 2060, showing an effective unit capacity cost of
implemented water management strategies.
Some regions recommended water management strategies that would provide more water than there
were identified needs to address uncertainties, for example, regarding: implementation of projects;
population and water demand projections; and climate change (Figure 2.7).
Table 2.5 – Recommended Water Management Strategy Supply Volumes (acre‐feet/year)
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A 2,718 332,468 545,207 617,843 631,629 648,221
B 15,373 40,312 40,289 49,294 76,252 77,003
C 79,898 674,664 1,131,057 1,303,003 2,045,260 2,360,302
D 11,330 16,160 20,180 33,977 62,092 98,466
E 3,376 66,225 79,866 98,816 112,382 130,526
F 90,944 157,243 218,705 236,087 235,400 235,198
G 137,858 405,581 436,895 496,528 562,803 587,084
H 378,759 622,426 863,980 1,040,504 1,202,010 1,501,180
I 53,418 363,106 399,517 427,199 607,272 638,076
J 13,713 16,501 20,360 20,862 20,888 23,010
K 350,583 576,795 554,504 571,085 565,296 646,167
L 188,297 376,003 542,606 571,553 631,476 765,738
M 90,934 182,911 275,692 389,319 526,225 673,846
N 46,954 81,020 130,539 130,017 133,430 156,326
O 517,459 503,886 504,643 464,588 429,136 395,957
P 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,740 67,739 67,739
Total 2,049,353 4,483,040 5,831,779 6,518,415 7,909,290 9,004,839
Table 2.6 – Recommended Water Management Strategy Capital Costs (millions $)
Region 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 TOTAL
A $187 $129 $137 $287 $0 $0 $739
B $110 $0 $0 $7 $383 $0 $499
C $9,922 $3,976 $3,891 $928 $17 $2,747 $21,482
D $39 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39
E $0 $382 $0 $246 $214 $0 $842
F $231 $439 $245 $0 $0 $0 $915
G $2,064 $745 $94 $273 $10 $0 $3,186
H $4,710 $4,922 $287 $1,135 $458 $506 $12,019
I $363 $350 $79 $80 $0 $12 $885
J $11 $44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55
K $663 $67 $4 $169 $0 $4 $907
L $1,022 $2,973 $2,321 $2 $12 $1,294 $7,623
M $2,070 $124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,195
N $45 $113 $360 $0 $0 $139 $656
O $669 $273 $167 $0 $0 $0 $1,108
P $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $22,105 $14,537 $7,585 $3,127 $1,095 $4,702 $53,150
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐6
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Figure 2.6 – Existing Supplies and Recommended Water Management Strategy Supplies (acre‐
feet/year) *Note that some strategies include demand reduction or shifts of existing supplies to other users.
Table 2.7 – Average Unit Capacity Cost of Recommended Strategies*
Water Management Strategy Supplies
Existing Water Supplies
*
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Average Unit Capacity
2060 Strategy Cost ‐(Total Capital
Supplies (acre‐Cost/Total WMS
Region feet/year) Total Capital Costs Yields)*
A 648,221 $739,043,420 $1,140
B 77,003 $499,168,169 $6,482
C 2,360,302 $21,481,952,189 $9,101
D 98,466 $38,508,104 $391
E 130,526 $842,099,633 $6,452
F 235,198 $914,554,558 $3,888
G 587,084 $3,186,357,303 $5,427
H 1,501,180 $12,019,061,335 $8,006
I 638,076 $884,829,743 $1,387
J 23,010 $54,792,390 $2,381
K 646,167 $907,239,116 $1,404
L 765,738 $7,622,886,271 $9,955
M 673,846 $2,194,663,908 $3,257
N 156,326 $656,110,917 $4,197
O 395,957 $1,108,391,955 $2,799
P 67,739 $0 $0
*This region‐wide average is not equivalent to the unit cost of produced water. It is based on total capital costs and the
associated built capacity (supply provided in a single year) of all recommended strategies and is highly variable based on
underlying strategy types. Cost is not based on debt service, operation, and maintenance costs associated with annual water
volumes.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐7
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Needs met by plan
Recommended
Identified need strategy supplies
Figure 2.7 – 2060 Water Needs, Needs Met by Plans, and Strategy Supply – by Region (acre‐feet/year)
In addition to increased surface water supplies and groundwater development, the recommended water
management strategies include significant conservation savings, groundwater desalination, reuse, and
seawater desalination (Table 2.8, Figure 2.8).
Table 2.8 – Recommended Water Management Strategy Supply Volumes (acre‐feet/year)
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Municipal Conservation 137,847 264,885 353,620 436,632 538,997 647,361
Irrigation Conservation 624,151 1,125,494 1,351,175 1,415,814 1,463,846 1,505,465
Other Conservation 4,660 9,242 15,977 18,469 21,371 23,432
New Major Reservoir 19,672 432,291 918,391 948,355 1,230,573 1,499,671
Other Surface Water 742,447 1,510,997 1,815,624 2,031,532 2,700,690 3,050,049
Groundwater 254,057 443,614 599,151 668,690 738,484 800,795
Reuse 100,592 428,263 487,795 637,089 766,402 915,589
Groundwater Desalination 56,553 81,156 103,435 133,278 163,083 181,568
Conjunctive use 26,505 88,001 87,496 113,035 136,351 135,846
Aquifer Storage & Recovery 22,181 61,743 61,743 72,243 72,243 80,869
Weather Modification ‐15,206 15,206 15,206 15,206 15,206
Drought Management 41,701 461 461 461 461 1,912
Brush Control 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862
Seawater Desalination 125 125 143 6,049 40,021 125,514
Surface Water Desalination ‐2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
Total WMS Supply Volumes 2,049,353 4,483,040 5,831,779 6,518,415 7,909,290 9,004,839
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐8
Regional water planning groups recommended 26 major reservoirs, many of which are off‐channel
reservoirs (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). Conservation savings include municipal, irrigation and ‘other’ which
includes mining, manufacturing, and power generation conservation.
Municipal
Conservation
7.2%
Irrigation
Conservation
16.7%Other Conservation
New Major Reservoir
16.7%
Other Surface Water
33.9%
Groundwater
8.9%
Reuse
10.2%
Groundwater
Desalination
2.0%
Conjunctive
use
1.5%
Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
0.9%
Weather
Modification
0.2%
Drought
Management
<0.1%
Brush Control
0.2%
Seawater
Desalination
1.4%
Surface Water
Desalination
<0.1%
0.3%
Figure 2.8 – 2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies ‐Relative Volumes
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐9
Figure 2.9 – Major Reservoirs Recommended in the 2011 Regional Water Plans
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐10
Unmet Needs
Some identified water needs could not be feasibly met by regional water planning groups because no
water management strategy could be identified that could be implemented in those particular planning
decades (Table 2.9).
Table 2.9 – Unmet Needs 2010‐2060 (acre‐feet/year)
Region Water Use 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A Irrigation (454,628) (254,900) (127,413) (97,003) (60,375) (30,307)
B Irrigation (9,911) ‐‐‐‐‐
C Irrigation (87) ‐‐‐‐‐
D Irrigation (56) ‐(14) (115) (238) (388)
E Irrigation (209,591) (168,904) (163,246) (158,209) (159,914) (161,775)
F Irrigation (153,159) (125,967) (100,485) (97,453) (96,177) (94,108)
F Steam Electric (1,219) (3,969) (5,512) (7,441) (10,608) (14,935)
G Irrigation (49,973) (45,234) (40,664) (38,358) (36,113) (33,932)
G Mining (1,800) (2,001) (2,116) (2,281) (2,446) (2,567)
G Municipal (2,196) ‐‐‐‐‐
G Steam Electric (36,086) ‐‐‐‐‐
I Mining (7,772) (8,620) (9,191) (9,760) (10,333) (10,772)
I Steam Electric (2,588) ‐‐‐‐‐
L Irrigation (48,378) (44,815) (42,090) (39,473) (36,959) (34,544)
M Irrigation (394,896) (285,316) (149,547) (116,309) (93,810) (68,700)
N Mining (1,591) (2,448) (3,023) (3,374) (3,660) (3,876)
O Irrigation (862,586) (1,348,515) (1,728,725) (2,000,555) (2,057,677) (2,043,247)
O Livestock (1) (763) (3,191) (9,506) (14,708) (17,574)
Total (2,236,518) (2,291,452) (2,375,217) (2,579,837) (2,583,018) (2,516,725)
The water demands, supplies, identified needs and recommended water management strategies for
each region are presented in more detail in the regional plan summaries in the next chapter of this
report.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐11
Economic Impacts of Not Meeting Water Needs
If drought of record conditions were to recur and water management strategies identified in regional
water plans are not implemented, planning areas could suffer significant economic losses (Table 2.10).
Assuming such conditions took place statewide, models show that Texas businesses and workers could
lose approximately $11.9 billion in income in 2010. By 2060 lost income increases to roughly $115.7
billion. Foregone state and local business taxes associated with lost commerce could amount to $1.1
billion in 2010 and $9.8 billion in 2060. Lost jobs total approximately 115,000 in 2010 and 1.1 million in
2060. By 2060, the state's projected population growth would be reduced by about 1.4 million people,
with 403 thousand fewer students in Texas schools.
Table 2.10 Annual economic losses from not meeting water supply needs for 2010‐2060
(monetary figures reported in millions of dollars)
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Region A
Regional income ($) 183 309 472 509 538 906
State and local business taxes ($) 11 30 53 57 62 116
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 2,970 3,417 4,067 4,459 4,806 4,879
Population Losses 3,693 4,234 4,670 5,548 6,338 6,864
Declines in school enrollment 1,042 1,201 1,237 1,025 1,171 1,270
Region B
Regional income ($) 5 5 5 5 5 6
State and local business taxes ($) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 85 88 92 96 100 108
Population Losses 13 522 1,156 1,254 1,354 1,451
Declines in school enrollment 4 148 328 356 384 412
Region C
Regional income ($) 2,336 5,176 12,883 19,246 24,741 49,721
State and local business taxes ($) 130 341 848 1,288 1,672 3,060
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 23,808 52,165 131,257 206,836 270,935 546,676
Population Losses 33,019 74,375 190,664 301,075 394,560 796,606
Declines in school enrollment 10,348 24,340 64,415 102,345 134,283 271,468
Region D
Regional income ($) 357 515 620 871 1,341 1,960
State and local business taxes ($) 51 73 88 123 189 267
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 1,224 1,780 2,150 2,998 4,639 6,784
Population Losses 1,472 2,144 2,590 3,611 5,588 8,171
Declines in school enrollment 415 608 735 1,024 1,585 2,318
Region E
Regional income ($) 41 749 1,212 1,690 2,144 2,810
State and local business taxes ($) 2 51 78 107 137 179
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 340 2,447 3,944 5,669 7,380 9,843
Population Losses 409 2,947 4,745 6,787 8,814 11,750
Declines in school enrollment 115 836 1,257 1,254 1,628 2,173
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐12
Region F
Regional income ($) 1,444 1,715 2,195 2,729 3,061 3,470
State and local business taxes ($) 145 176 236 288 330 380
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 19,225 21,784 26,293 34,853 37,661 40,877
Population Losses 25,050 26,239 31,670 41,980 45,362 49,236
Declines in school enrollment 7,065 7,444 8,389 7,759 8,378 9,106
Region G
Regional income ($) 1,890 4,375 5,621 6,297 7,183 8,204
State and local business taxes ($) 214 530 693 778 893 1,027
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 14,699 33,660 39,733 48,896 58,432 73,117
Population Losses 15,801 35,645 41,465 51,910 61,309 71,604
Declines in school enrollment 4,457 10,112 11,764 14,727 17,393 20,314
Region H
Regional income ($) 3,195 5,189 10,012 12,910 15,759 18,637
State and local business taxes ($) 326 536 1,024 1,375 1,689 2,036
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 20,176 37,849 82,478 100,622 126,412 149,380
Population Losses 24,433 45,514 99,071 122,686 152,028 175,839
Declines in school enrollment 6,891 12,913 26,242 22,674 28,078 32,522
Region I
Regional income ($) 1,264 3,279 2,087 3,609 5,027 5,957
State and local business taxes ($) 116 334 213 358 528 627
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 8,739 20,661 11,018 16,886 24,091 28,872
Population Losses 10,511 24,754 13,269 20,337 29,015 34,773
Declines in school enrollment 2,965 7,023 3,764 5,770 8,232 9,865
Region J
Regional income ($) 2 2 2 2 2 2
State and local business taxes ($) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 63 63 61 59 60 61
Population Losses 80 80 80 80 80 80
Declines in school enrollment 20 20 20 20 20 20
Region K
Regional income ($) 138 1,326 1,396 2,246 2,407 2,933
State and local business taxes ($) 15 179 186 305 326 393
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 1,989 8,447 9,860 14,651 16,273 21,576
Population Losses 2,393 10,174 11,876 17,647 19,601 25,988
Declines in school enrollment 675 2,886 3,146 3,261 3,620 4,807
Region L
Regional income ($) 299 5,279 5,943 7,034 8,192 8,944
State and local business taxes ($) 39 564 668 775 885 965
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 10,128 19,948 39,716 53,848 67,085 78,736
Population Losses 12,886 43,823 58,402 74,857 86,896 54,411
Declines in school enrollment 3,635 12,433 15,470 13,835 16,049 10,064
Region M
Regional income ($) 324 325 382 909 1,568 2,935
State and local business taxes ($) 27 34 43 104 179 337
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 5,081 5,609 6,664 17,658 32,124 62,574
Population Losses 6,112 6,756 8,027 21,269 38,597 75,252
Declines in school enrollment 1,724 1,917 2,277 6,034 10,950 21,349
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐13
Region N
Regional income ($) 56 427 1,612 2,484 5,999 7,796
State and local business taxes ($) 3 22 74 123 274 352
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 430 3,125 11,275 16,375 42,420 55,025
Population Losses 520 3,770 13,590 19,730 51,100 66,280
Declines in school enrollment 130 890 2,990 3,030 7,840 10,180
Region O
Regional income ($) 356 714 949 1,214 1,415 1,437
State and local business taxes ($) 18 38 53 71 83 86
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 5,546 10,843 14,760 19,532 23,761 23,966
Population Losses 7,160 13,910 18,670 24,590 29,830 30,030
Declines in school enrollment 1,680 3,270 4,380 5,770 7,000 7,040
Region P
Regional income ($) 16 16 16 16 16 16
State and local business taxes ($) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 215 215 215 215 215 215
Population Losses 258 259 259 259 259 259
Declines in school enrollment 73 73 73 73 73 73
Total
Regional income ($) 11,905 29,400 45,409 61,771 79,398 115,734
State and local business taxes ($) 1,100 2,909 4,261 5,755 7,249 9,828
Number of full‐and part‐time jobs 114,718 222,101 383,583 543,653 716,394 1,102,689
Population Losses 143,810 295,146 500,204 713,620 930,731 1,408,594
Declines in school enrollment 41,239 86,114 146,487 188,957 246,684 402,981
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐14
Funding Assistance Needed
TWDB and regional water planning groups evaluated the amount of funding needed from state financial
assistance programs to support local and regional water providers in implementing water management
strategies recommended in the regional water plans to meet municipal needs (Table 2.11). For the 2011
regional water plans, planning groups solicited information from 686 water providers including
municipalities to determine if they need financial assistance from the state help implement water
management strategies.
Table 2.11 – 2060 Existing Supplies, Projected Demands, Identified Needs, Water Management
Strategy (WMSs) Supplies (acre‐feet/year), WMSs Capital Cost, and Reported Financial Assistance
Needed
Water Water Water WMS WMS Capital Financial Assistance
Supplies Demands Needs Supplies Cost (millions $) Needed (millions $)
A 799,058 1,199,644 418,414 648,221 $739 $624
B 152,582 169,153 40,397 77,003 $499 $384
C 1,734,823 3,272,460 1,588,236 2,360,302 $21,482 $11,743
D 1,036,488 838,977 96,142 98,466 $39 $5
E 514,593 699,586 226,569 130,526 $842 $500
F 631,535 814,991 219,995 235,198 $915 $593
G 1,146,400 1,248,514 390,732 587,084 $3,186 $1,153
H 2,605,917 3,524,666 1,236,335 1,501,180 $12,019 $7,142
I 1,434,729 1,490,596 182,145 638,076 $885 $500
J 104,708 58,643 2,389 23,010 $55 $20
K 1,169,071 1,382,534 367,671 646,167 $907 $154
L 1,021,937 1,291,567 436,751 765,738 $7,623 $3,517
M 1,089,836 1,681,920 609,906 673,846 $2,195 $445
N 256,438 324,938 75,744 156,326 $656 $0
O 1,408,272 3,724,155 2,366,036 395,957 $1,108 $78
P 164,148 229,854 67,739 67,739 $0 $0
Total 15,270,535 21,952,198 8,325,201 9,004,839 $53,150 $26,857
Of the 694 entities surveyed, 269 responded (39 percent, representing over 92 percent of the
total capital cost of recommended municipal water management strategies) and reported an
anticipated need of $26.9 billion in loans from TWDB financial assistance programs which
provide interest rate savings; payment deferrals; or interest rate subsidies. This amount
represents about 58 percent of total capital costs for water supply management strategies
recommended for municipal water user groups in the 2011 regional water plans (Table 2.11).
Of the total reported needs for state financial assistance, nearly $15.7 billion is expected to
occur between the years 2010 and 2020, $4.2 billion will occur between 2020 and 2030 and $4.1
billion between 2030 and 2040 (Figure 2.10).
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐15
$b
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Survey respondents stated that over $20 billion (75 percent) of requested funds would target
site acquisition and construction activities and $3.3 billion (12 percent) would finance project
permitting, planning, and design activities. Of the $26.9 billion total, survey respondents
identified approximately $0.4 billion for projects in rural and economically distressed areas of
the state.
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
8
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
5
20
4
7
20
5
0
20
6
0
Year
Figure 2.10 – Demand for TWDB Financial Assistance Programs Reported by Sponsors of 2011 Regional
Water Plan Projects by Year of Anticipated Need ($ billions)
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans 2‐16
SUMMARY OF PANHANDLE (A) REGION
Located in the northern Panhandle, the Panhandle Regional Water Planning Area includes 21 counties split
between portions of the Canadian and Red River basins (Figure A.1). Groundwater currently provides
approximately 90 percent of the existing water supplies in the region, with the Ogallala aquifer alone providing 88
percent of the region’s supply. Surface water supplies are associated primarily with Lake Meredith and Greenbelt
Lake.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 – 418,414 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 648,221 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $739 million
Conservation accounts for 86% of 2060 strategy volumes
Conservation primarily associated with irrigation
Significant groundwater development
Significant unmet irrigation needs in near‐term
Figure A.1 ‐Panhandle Region
Almost two percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region A, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 39 percent to 541,035.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans A‐1
Table A.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 388,104 423,380 453,354 484,954 516,729 541,035
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 40,636 47,381 47,348 47,284 47,189 47,043
Groundwater 1,131,151 1,018,554 951,799 877,961 790,795 714,438
Reuse 25,129 28,928 30,620 32,528 34,598 37,577
Total Water Supply 1,196,916 1,094,863 1,029,767 957,773 872,582 799,058
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 68,137 72,793 76,638 80,648 84,614 87,658
County‐other 9,468 11,097 12,550 14,035 15,516 16,584
Manufacturing 43,930 47,275 49,998 52,612 54,860 58,231
Mining 14,012 14,065 13,218 11,696 10,495 9,542
Irrigation 1,429,990 1,311,372 1,271,548 1,203,332 1,066,736 936,929
Steam Electric 25,139 26,996 29,116 30,907 33,163 37,415
Livestock 37,668 43,345 45,487 47,842 50,436 53,285
Total Water Demands 1,628,344 1,526,943 1,498,555 1,441,072 1,315,820 1,199,644
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal ‐967 7,354 13,968 20,492 25,712
County‐other ‐108 1,190 2,663 4,235 5,502
Manufacturing 173 800 1,317 2,845 4,212 5,866
Irrigation 454,628 452,144 477,338 482,226 433,155 381,180
Steam Electric 75 99 117 128 136 154
Total Water Needs 454,876 454,118 487,316 501,830 462,230 418,414
Municipal
Conservation
0.7%
Irrigation
Conservation
85.2%
Other Surface
Water
0.6%
Groundwater
11.1% Weather
Modification
2.3%
Figure A.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans A‐2
‐
Table A.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy
Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
A CRMWA ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS $88,200,000
‐‐‐‐‐‐
A CRMWA ROBERTS COUNTY WELL FIELD $21,824,000
‐‐
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
A DRILL ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER WELL $98,400,920 2,718 8,718 12,013 16,472 20,519 23,000
A IRRIGATION CONSERVATION $0
‐
297,114 485,080 540,861 549,383 552,385
A MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0
‐
1,963 3,641 3,979 4,278 4,529
A PALO DURO RESERVOIR $114,730,000
‐‐
3,875 3,833 3,792 3,750
A POTTER COUNTY WELL FIELD $128,511,300
‐
9,467 10,292 11,182 11,141 10,831
A PRECIPITATION ENHANCEMENT $0
‐
15,206 15,206 15,206 15,206 15,206
A ROBERTS COUNTY WELL FIELD ‐AMARILLO $287,377,200
‐‐‐
11,210 11,210 22,420
A VOLUNTARY TRANSFER FROM OTHER USERS $0
‐‐
100 100 1,100 1,100
A VOLUNTARY TRANSFER FROM OTHER USERS* $0 200 800 2,458 3,579 5,311 6,563
Total $739,043,420 2,718 332,468 545,207 617,843 631,629 648,221
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans A‐3
SUMMARY OF REGION B
The Region B Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 11 counties and portions of three river basins
(Red, Brazos, and Trinity) in north central Texas bordering the Red River (Figure B.1). Groundwater currently
provides almost 34 percent of the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the Seymour aquifer.
Surface water supplies are derived from reservoirs within the region and one reservoir (Greenbelt) located in
Region A, with the largest single source being the Lake Kemp and Lake Diversion System. Significant water quality
issues impact both surface and groundwater sources in the region.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐40,397 acre‐
feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐77,003
acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $499 million
Conservation accounts for 19% of 2060 strategy
volumes
One new major reservoir (Ringgold – see Figure 2.9)
Limited unmet irrigation needs in 2010
Figure B.1 ‐Region B
Less than one percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region B, and between 2010
and 2060 its population is projected to increase by five percent to 221,734.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans B‐1
Table B.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 210,642 218,918 223,251 224,165 223,215 221,734
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 115,509 111,239 106,991 102,724 98,477 94,179
Groundwater 58,456 58,439 58,431 58,410 58,403 58,403
Total Existing Water Supply 173,965 169,678 165,422 161,134 156,880 152,582
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 36,695 35,394 35,964 35,532 35,107 34,964
County‐other 4,269 4,261 4,232 4,132 3,855 3,732
Manufacturing 3,547 3,755 3,968 4,260 4,524 4,524
Mining 909 845 811 785 792 792
Irrigation 99,895 97,702 95,537 93,400 91,292 91,292
Steam Electric 13,360 17,360 21,360 21,360 21,360 21,360
Livestock 12,489 12,489 12,489 12,489 12,489 12,489
Total Water Demands 171,164 171,806 174,361 171,958 169,419 169,153
Ne
e
d
s
County‐other 437 468 491 502 460 462
Mining 177 153 145 149 162 162
Irrigation 22,945 23,926 24,909 25,893 26,876 29,058
Steam Electric ‐3,800 8,529 9,258 9,987 10,715
Total Water Needs 23,559 28,347 34,074 35,802 37,485 40,397
Municipal
Conservation
2.2%
Irrigation
Conservation
16.9%
New Major
Reservoir
35.1%
Other Surface
Water
44.7%
Groundwater
1.0%
Reuse
0.2%
Figure B.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans B‐2
‐
Table B.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy
Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
B CONSTRUCT LAKE RINGGOLD $382,900,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐27,000 27,000
B DEVELOP OTHER AQUIFER SUPPLIES $957,975 245 245 245 245 245 245
B DEVELOP TRINITY AQUIFER SUPPLIES $1,059,638 271 271 271 271 271 271
B DEVELOP TRINITY AQUIFER SUPPLIES (INCLUDES OVERDRAFTING) $265,887 68 68 68 68 68 68
B ENCLOSE CANAL LATERALS IN PIPE $7,658,469 13,034 13,034 13,034 13,034 13,034 13,034
B INCREASE WATER CONSERVATION POOL AT LAKE KEMP $130,000 ‐24,834 24,776 24,718 24,660 24,600
B MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0 197 764 799 841 857 1,668
B NITRATE REMOVAL PLANT $647,000 50 50 50 50 50 50
B PURCHASE WATER FROM LOCAL PROVIDER $2,798,700 1,508 1,046 1,046 1,046 1,046 1,046
B WASTEWATER REUSE $1,206,500 ‐‐‐171 171 171
B WICHITA RIVER DIVERSION $5,380,000 ‐‐‐8,850 8,850 8,850
B EMERGENCY INTERCONNECT MILLERS CREEK RESERVOIR* $714,000 250 250 250 250 250 250
B PURCHASE WATER FROM LOCAL PROVIDER* $0 ‐462 462 462 462 462
B WICHITA BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT* $95,450,000 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500
Total $499,168,169 15,373 40,312 40,289 49,294 76,252 77,003
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans B‐3
SUMMARY OF REGION C
The Region C Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 16 counties (Figure C.1). Overlapping much of
the upper portion of the Trinity River Basin, the region also includes parts of the Red, Brazos, Sulphur, and Sabine
river basins. Surface water currently provides almost 83 percent of the existing water supplies in the region and 22
percent of the water available to Region C is imported from other regions. Reuse water is the second largest
source of supply in the region. Groundwater provides approximately 7 percent of the existing supplies primarily
from the Trinity, Woodbine, and Carrizo‐Wilcox aquifers.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐
1,588,236 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume
in 2060 – 2,360,302 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $21.5 billion
Conservation accounts for 12% of
2060 strategy volumes
Four new major reservoirs (Ralph Hall,
Lower Bois D’Arc, Marvin Nichols,
Fastrill Replacement Project – see
Figure 2.9)
Reuse accounts for 12% of 2060
strategy volumes
Significant costs associated with
numerous conveyance projects
Figure C.1‐Region C
Approximately 26 percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region C, and between 2010
and 2060 its population is projected to increase by 96 percent to 13,045,592.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans C‐1
Table C.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 6,670,493 7,971,728 9,171,650 10,399,038 11,645,686 13,045,592
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 1,481,272 1,406,598 1,359,808 1,343,319 1,328,097 1,305,588
Groundwater 125,939 121,827 121,916 122,074 122,117 122,106
Reuse 182,686 231,816 273,003 293,292 300,143 307,129
Total Water Supply 1,789,897 1,760,241 1,754,727 1,758,685 1,750,357 1,734,823
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 1,512,231 1,796,086 2,048,664 2,304,240 2,571,450 2,882,356
County‐other 34,738 37,584 38,932 39,874 40,725 41,800
Manufacturing 72,026 81,273 90,010 98,486 105,808 110,597
Mining 41,520 38,961 41,630 44,486 47,435 50,200
Irrigation 40,776 40,966 41,165 41,373 41,596 41,831
Steam Electric 40,813 64,625 98,088 107,394 116,058 126,428
Livestock 19,248 19,248 19,248 19,248 19,248 19,248
Total Water Demands 1,761,352 2,078,743 2,377,737 2,655,101 2,942,320 3,272,460
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 67,519 362,099 614,610 859,838 1,127,749 1,445,025
County‐other 87 5,158 7,931 10,118 12,295 14,302
Manufacturing 557 11,946 21,151 30,369 39,640 48,894
Mining 414 4,909 10,036 14,782 19,445 23,779
Irrigation 510 2,588 3,412 4,007 4,492 4,913
Steam Electric ‐13,217 29,696 34,835 40,997 51,323
Total Water Needs 69,087 399,917 686,836 953,949 1,244,618 1,588,236
Municipal
Conservation
12.1%
Irrigation
Conservation
0.1%Other
Conservation
0.1%
New Major
Reservoir
30.8%
Other Surface
Water
45.1%
Groundwater
0.2%
Reuse
11.6%
Figure C.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans C‐2
‐
Table C.2‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
C ADDITIONAL DRY YEAR SUPPLY $1,750,000 25,000
‐
‐‐‐‐
C
ADDITIONAL PIPELINE FROM LAKE TAWAKONI (MORE LAKE FORK
SUPPLY) $496,243,000
‐
77,994 75,777 73,563 71,346 69,128
C COLLIN‐GRAYSON MUNICIPAL ALLIANCE SYSTEM $77,366,000
‐
3,255 8,614 14,192 20,604 27,412
C COOKE COUNTY PROJECT $50,280,000
‐
2,240 2,240 3,360 4,480 4,480
C DIRECT REUSE $264,783,000 1,552 14,327 29,283 38,649 43,184 46,250
C DIRECT REUSE ‐FRISCO $31,448,606
‐
2,240 3,359 5,650 5,649 5,650
C DWU REUSE $82,920,000
‐
34,902 41,326 39,907 47,001 50,382
C ENNIS REUSE $31,779,000
‐
‐‐333 2,199 3,696
C FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS $2,314,558,600
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
C FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS‐REUSE SOURCES $590,686,000
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
C FANNIN COUNTY PROJECT $38,471,000
‐
1,254 2,400 3,862 4,439 5,113
C FASTRILL REPLACEMENT (REGION C COMPONENT)** $1,980,278,000
‐
‐‐‐‐112,100
C GOLF COURSE CONSERVATION $0 56 942 1,808 2,261 2,690 3,121
C GRAYSON COUNTY PROJECT $136,016,000 200 7,560 10,920 13,440 19,040 24,640
C INDIRECT REUSE $0
‐
4,368 4,368 4,368 4,368 4,368
C INDIRECT REUSE ‐JACKSBORO FOR JACK CO MINING $200,000 385 385 385 385 385 385
C
LAKE PALESTINE CONNECTION (INTEGRATED PIPELINE WITH
TRWD) $887,954,000
‐
111,776 110,670 109,563 108,455 107,347
C LAKE RALPH HALL $286,401,000
‐
34,050 34,050 34,050 34,050 34,050
C LAKE RALPH HALL ‐INDIRECT REUSE $0 0 6,129 12,258 18,387 18,387 18,387
C LAKE TEXOMA ‐AUTHORIZED (BLEND) $336,356,000
‐
‐69,200 68,500 113,000 113,000
C LAKE TEXOMA ‐INTERIM PURCHASE FROM GTUA $0
‐
21,900 21,900 21,899
‐
‐
C LOWER BOIS D ARC CREEK RESERVOIR $615,498,000
‐
54,796 117,800 114,138 111,361 108,487
C MAIN STEM PS (ADDITIONAL EAST FORK) NTMWD $0
‐
34,900 15,100
‐
‐‐
C
MAIN STEM TRINITY PUMP STATION (LAKE RAY HUBBARD
INDIRECT REUSE ‐DWU) $142,567,000
‐
17,168 15,004 20,010 13,700 11,105
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans C‐3
‐
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
C MANUFACTURING CONSERVATION $0 1 131 1,530 2,259 2,457 2,618
C MARVIN NICHOLS RESERVOIR $3,345,052,000
‐
‐227,400 227,400 472,300 472,300
C MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION‐BASIC $1,151,575 41,967 97,040 137,705 175,858 216,941 264,429
C MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION‐EXPANDED $480,774 4,756 9,862 13,907 16,910 18,824 20,541
C NEW WELLS ‐CARRIZO WILCOX AQUIFER $1,853,000 154 181 183 465 466 467
C NEW WELLS ‐TRINITY AQUIFER $7,778,150 1,882 2,042 2,306 2,306 2,306 2,306
C NEW WELLS ‐WOODBINE AQUIFER $14,543,000 763 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932
C OKLAHOMA WATER TO IRVING $194,825,000
‐
‐25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
C OKLAHOMA WATER TO NTMWD, TRWD, UTRWD $756,044,500
‐
‐‐‐‐115,000
C OVERDRAFT TRINITY AQUIFER ‐EXISTING WELLS $0 2,168
‐
‐‐‐‐
C OVERDRAFT TRINITY AQUIFER ‐NEW WELLS $269,000 75
‐
‐‐‐‐
C PURCHASE FROM WATER PROVIDER (1) $0 46
‐
‐‐‐‐
C REDISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES $0 530 13,979 18,526 24,028 33,981 58,031
C SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT‐FUTURE‐ONLY SOURCES $8,217,000
‐
280 220 219 217 215
C SUPPLEMENTAL WELLS $495,381,934
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
C TOLEDO BEND PROJECT $2,406,236,000 363 329 272 232 400,229 400,217
C TRA 10‐MILE CREEK REUSE PROJECT $14,895,000
‐
‐6,760 6,760 6,760 6,760
C TRA DENTON CREEK WWTP REUSE $9,506,000
‐
3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750
C TRA ELLIS COUNTY REUSE $10,384,000
‐
‐‐‐‐2,200
C TRA FREESTONE COUNTY REUSE $17,266,000
‐
‐‐‐6,760 6,760
C TRA KAUFMAN COUNTY REUSE $9,761,000
‐
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
C TRA LAS COLINAS REUSE $14,530,000
‐
7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
C TRA TARRANT COUNTY PROJECT $59,008,000
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
C TRWD THIRD PIPELINE AND REUSE $914,424,000
‐
105,500 105,500 105,500 105,500 105,500
C WATER TREATMENT PLANT ‐EXPANSION $19,970,000
‐
1,260 1,081 3,180 2,786 2,268
C WATER TREATMENT PLANT ‐NEW $308,309,400
‐
192 523 587 613 807
C WRIGHT PATMAN ‐REALLOCATION OF FLOOD POOL $896,478,000
‐
‐‐112,100 112,100 112,100
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans C‐4
‐
2040 2050 2060 Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
C CONVEYANCE PROJECT (1)* $413,884,000 194 10,417 17,255 19,490 23,046 25,178
C CONVEYANCE PROJECT (2)* $69,299,100
‐
1,672 1,299 1,234 1,226 1,237
C CONVEYANCE PROJECT (3)* $6,465,400
‐
213 1,009 1,717 1,957 2,016
C GRAYSON COUNTY PROJECT* $146,071,000
‐
5,600 8,400 8,400 14,000 19,600
C PURCHASE FROM WATER PROVIDER (1)* $164,114,900 402 27,039 32,425 31,243 30,709 30,103
C PURCHASE FROM WATER PROVIDER (2)* $3,538,000
‐
52 50 50 50 86
C PURCHASE FROM WATER PROVIDER (3)* $65,481,250
‐
4,004 4,493 6,083 5,626 6,417
C WATER TREATMENT PLANT ‐EXPANSION* $2,708,430,000
‐
484 828 2,279 2,545 2,618
C WATER TREATMENT PLANT‐EXPANSION‐REUSE SOURCES* $32,750,000
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
Total $21,481,952,189 79,898 674,664 1,131,057 1,303,003 2,045,260 2,360,302
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
** Estimated planning costs and water supply associated with this strategy are based on the Neches River Run‐of River strategy. This project, however is only one of several water
management strategies being considered to meet these 2060 needs, and through action by the Region C Water Planning Group, any of those other strategies may be substituted
into the plan to represent the 'Fastrill Reservoir Replacement' strategy. Those other strategies include: additional water conservation, Lake Texoma, Toledo Bend Reservoir, Lake
O’ the Pines, Lake Livingston, Ogallala groundwater in Roberts County (Region A), Marvin Nichols Reservoir, Lake Columbia, George Parkhouse Reservoir (North), George
Parkhouse Reservoir (South), and Oklahoma Water.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans C‐5
SUMMARY OF NORTH EAST TEXAS (D) REGION
The North East Texas Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 19 counties and portions of six river
basins (the Red, Sulphur, Cypress, Sabine, Neches, and Trinity as shown in Figure D.1). Surface water currently
provides approximately 83 percent of the existing water supplies in the region, mostly from 14 reservoirs within
the region and 3 reservoirs located in other regions. Groundwater supplies are associated primarily with the
Carrizo‐Wilcox Aquifer.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐96,142 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐98,466 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $39 million
Limited unmet irrigation needs
Surface water contract strategies to meet most needs including contracting for water from new
reservoir in Region C.
Opposition to Marvin Nichols Reservoir
Three unique stream segments recommended for designation (see Appendix A, Figure II)
Figure D.1 ‐North East Texas Region
Approximately three percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region D, and between
2010 and 2060 its population is projected to increase by 57 percent to 1,213,095.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans D‐1
Table D.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 772,163 843,027 908,748 978,298 1,073,570 1,213,095
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 831,239 838,379 843,707 848,652 855,180 864,067
Groundwater 84,864 87,501 89,332 90,800 92,361 94,786
Reuse 83,642 78,247 72,821 67,505 68,761 77,635
Total Water Supply 999,745 1,004,127 1,005,860 1,006,957 1,016,302 1,036,488
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 90,171 96,359 102,345 109,227 119,821 135,811
County‐other 29,780 32,352 34,404 36,177 38,637 42,367
Manufacturing 301,091 328,568 351,427 373,504 392,387 421,496
Mining 8,802 9,605 10,108 10,595 11,111 11,625
Irrigation 15,504 15,415 15,329 15,182 14,949 14,728
Steam Electric 89,038 96,492 112,809 132,703 156,951 186,509
Livestock 26,690 26,736 26,785 26,698 26,554 26,441
Total Water Demands 561,076 605,527 653,207 704,086 760,410 838,977
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 1,404 2,082 2,834 3,856 8,190 16,711
County‐other 153 276 411 587 748 1,574
Irrigation 56 ‐14 115 238 388
Steam Electric 8,639 12,366 15,437 27,396 50,829 77,469
Total Water Needs 10,252 14,724 18,696 31,954 60,005 96,142
Other Surface
Water
93.1%
Groundwater
6.9%
Figure D.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans D‐2
‐
Table D.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region
Recommended Water Management
Strategy
Total
Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
D DRILL NEW WELL $32,260,219 1,094 1,636 1,969 3,100 4,888 6,757
D INCREASE EXISTING CONTRACT $0 1,576 2,001 3,345 13,199 34,692 59,478
D NEW SURFACE WATER CONTRACT $6,247,886 8,660 12,523 14,866 17,678 22,512 32,231
D INCREASE EXISTING CONTRACT* $0 ‐340 558 711 1,280 1,471
Total $38,508,104 11,330 16,160 20,180 33,977 62,092 98,466
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN REGION C STRATEGIES
(incl. supply from Bois D'Arc reservoir)
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans D‐3
SUMMARY OF FAR WEST TEXAS (E) REGION
Reaching from El Paso to the Big Bend country and Pecos River, the Far West Texas Regional Water Planning Area
includes seven counties and lies within the Rio Grande basin (Figure E.1). Groundwater currently provides almost
75 percent of the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the Edwards‐Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer and the
Hueco‐Mesilla Bolson. Surface water supplies are run‐of‐river water rights on the Rio Grande River.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 – 226,569 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐130,526
acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $842 million
Conservation accounts for 40% of 2060 strategy volumes
Significant unmet irrigation needs
Groundwater desalination accounts for 21% of 2060
strategy volumes
One additional unique stream segment recommended for
designation (see Appendix A, Figure II)
Figure E.1 ‐Far West Texas Region
Approximately three percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region E, and between
2010 and 2060 its population is projected to increase by 79 percent to 1,542,824.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans E‐1
Table E.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 863,190 1,032,970 1,175,743 1,298,436 1,420,877 1,542,824
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 85,912 85,912 85,912 85,912 85,912 85,912
Groundwater 384,650 384,650 384,650 384,650 384,650 384,650
Reuse 44,031 44,031 44,031 44,031 44,031 44,031
Total Water Supply 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593 514,593
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 122,105 140,829 156,086 168,970 181,995 194,972
County‐other 7,371 10,479 12,968 14,894 16,877 19,167
Manufacturing 9,187 10,000 10,698 11,373 11,947 12,861
Mining 2,397 2,417 2,424 2,432 2,439 2,451
Irrigation 499,092 489,579 482,538 469,084 460,402 451,882
Steam Electric 3,131 6,937 8,111 9,541 11,284 13,410
Livestock 4,843 4,843 4,843 4,843 4,843 4,843
Total Water Demands 648,126 665,084 677,668 681,137 689,787 699,586
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal ‐3,867 7,675 10,875 19,239 31,584
County‐other ‐3,114 5,625 7,589 9,584 11,876
Manufacturing ‐813 1,511 2,186 2,760 3,674
Irrigation 209,591 201,491 195,833 183,734 176,377 169,156
Steam Electric ‐3,806 4,980 6,410 8,153 10,279
Total Water Needs 209,591 213,091 215,624 210,794 216,113 226,569
Reuse Groundwater
Desalination
2.8%
Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
3.8%
Surface Water
Desalination
2.1%
Municipal
Conservation
16.9%
Irrigation
Conservation
23.2%
Groundwater
23.7%
6.4%
21.2%
Conjunctive use
Figure E.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans E‐2
‐
Table E.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
E ADDITIONAL ONE WELL $702,770
‐
500 500 500 500 500
E ADDITIONAL WELLS $1,006,762
‐
175 175 350 350 350
E ADDITIONAL WELLS AND DESALINATION PLANT
EXPANSIONS $34,344,000
‐
1,607 3,304 4,764 6,245 7,726
E ARSENIC TREATMENT FACILITY $1,996,232
‐
276 276 276 276 276
E IRRIGATION SCHEDULING $0
‐
5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275
E IWMS ‐CONJUNCTIVE USE WITH ADDITIONAL
SURFACE WATER $0
‐
‐‐3,600 3,600 3,600
E IWMS ‐CONSERVATION $0
‐
3,000 7,000 11,000 16,000 22,000
E IWMS ‐DESALINATION OF AGRICULTURAL DRAIN
WATER $16,675,000
‐
2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
E IWMS ‐DIRECT REUSE $25,257,000
‐
2,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
E IWMS ‐IMPORT FROM DELL VALLEY $214,113,000 ‐‐
‐‐
10,000 20,000
E IWMS ‐IMPORT FROM DIABLO FARMS $245,506,000
‐
‐‐10,000 10,000 10,000
E IWMS ‐RECHARGE OF GROUNDWATER WITH
TREATED SURFACE WATER $14,625,000
‐
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
E PURCHASE WATER FROM EPWU $0 3,376 16,939 21,512 18,156 14,074 13,569
E PURCHASE WATER FROM LVWD $0
‐
1,441 2,812 3,883 5,050 6,218
E TAILWATER REUSE $0
‐
2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312 2,312
E WATER DISTRICT DELIVERY SYSTEMS $147,635,869
‐
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
E IWMS ‐CONJUNCTIVE USE WITH ADDITIONAL
SURFACE WATER* $140,238,000
‐
5,000 15,000 16,400 16,400 16,400
E PURCHASE WATER FROM EPWU* $0
‐
605 1,161 9,193 18,231 24,706
Total $842,099,633 3,376 66,225 79,866 98,816 112,382 130,526
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans E‐3
SUMMARY OF REGION F
Located in the Edwards Plateau, the Region F Regional Water Planning Area includes 32 counties, portions of the
Brazos, Colorado, and Rio Grande basins (Figure F.1). Groundwater currently provides approximately 75 percent of
the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the Edwards‐Trinity (Plateau), Pecos Valley, and Ogallala
aquifers. Surface water is supplied to Region F from 17 reservoirs located in the region and provides most of the
municipal water supply in the region.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 – 219,995
acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 –
235,198 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $915 million
Conservation accounts for 35% of 2060 strategy
volumes
Subordination of downstream senior water
rights as strategy to increase reliability of
significant supply volume
Unmet needs in irrigation and steam electric
power
Figure F.1 ‐Region F
Approximately two percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region F, and between
2010 and 2060 its population is projected to increase by 17 percent to 724,094.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans F‐1
Table F.1‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 618,889 656,480 682,132 700,806 714,045 724,094
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 138,352 137,285 136,063 134,929 133,840 132,821
Groundwater 483,937 480,479 481,658 478,331 478,624 478,805
Reuse 19,015 19,309 19,459 19,609 19,759 19,909
Total Water Supply 641,304 637,073 637,180 632,869 632,223 631,535
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 122,593 127,135 129,747 131,320 133,361 135,597
County‐other 19,372 20,693 21,533 21,886 21,979 22,035
Manufacturing 9,757 10,595 11,294 11,960 12,524 13,313
Mining 31,850 33,097 33,795 34,479 35,154 35,794
Irrigation 578,606 573,227 567,846 562,461 557,080 551,774
Steam Electric 18,138 19,995 22,380 25,324 28,954 33,418
Livestock 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060
Total Water Demands 803,376 807,802 809,655 810,490 812,112 814,991
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 21,537 30,464 35,442 43,088 45,923 49,060
County‐other 501 811 658 618 588 559
Manufacturing 3,537 4,138 3,747 4,403 4,707 5,152
Mining 503 660 29 143 232 375
Irrigation 157,884 154,955 152,930 149,472 146,995 144,276
Steam Electric 7,095 9,840 11,380 13,294 16,347 20,573
Livestock ‐‐‐‐‐‐
Total Water Needs 191,057 200,868 204,186 211,018 214,792 219,995
Reuse
Groundwater
Desalination
6.8%
Brush Control
3.6%
4.3%
Municipal
Conservation
Irrigation
Conservation
30.7%
Other Surface
Water
32.2%
Groundwater
17.1%
5.3%
Figure F.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans F‐2
‐
Table F.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
F ADVANCED TREATMENT $2,582,000
‐‐‐‐‐‐
F BOTTLED WATER PROGRAM $3,000 1 1 1 1 1 1
F BRUSH CONTROL $23,020,000 8,362 8,362 8,362 8,362 8,362 8,362
F DESALINATION $213,760,990
‐
950 950 16,050 16,050 16,050
F DEVELOP CENOZOIC AQUIFER SUPPLIES $244,775,000
‐‐
19,600 19,600 19,600 19,600
F DEVELOP DOCKUM AQUIFER SUPPLIES $17,855,000
‐
2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
F DEVELOP ELLENBURGER AQUIFER SUPPLIES $5,148,000
‐
200 200 200 200 200
F DEVELOP HICKORY AQUIFER SUPPLIES $174,991,000 160 6,860 10,160 12,160 12,160 12,160
F IRRIGATION CONSERVATION $68,650,668
‐
36,125 72,244 72,244 72,244 72,244
F MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0 3,197 6,988 8,307 8,897 9,525 10,179
F NEW WTP AND STORAGE FACILITIES $2,436,000
‐‐‐‐‐‐
F NEW/RENEW WATER SUPPLY $8,964,000 392 5,622 15,629 16,180 17,073 16,866
F REHABILITATION OF PIPELINE $7,521,900
‐‐
2,281 2,267 2,254 2,240
F REPLACEMENT WELL $13,941,000
‐‐‐‐‐‐
F REUSE $130,906,000
‐
12,380 12,380 12,490 12,490 12,490
F SUBORDINATION $0 78,832 77,555 66,391 65,436 63,241 62,606
Total $914,554,558 90,944 157,243 218,705 236,087 235,400 235,198
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans F‐3
SUMMARY OF BRAZOS (G) REGION
The Brazos G Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 37 counties. Over 90% of the region lies within
the Brazos river basin and the remainder is located in the Colorado river basin (Figure G.1). Surface water
currently provides 68 percent of the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the Brazos River and its
tributaries. Groundwater supplies are associated with six major aquifers in the region.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐390,732 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 587,084 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $3.2 billion
Conservation accounts for 7% of 2060 strategy volumes
Five new major reservoirs ( Brushy Creek, Cedar Ridge, Millers Creek
Augmentation*, Turkey Peak *, Coryell County Reservoir* ); three sites
indicated * also recommended for designation as unique reservoir sites
(see Figure 2.9 and Appendix A, Figure I)
Conjunctive use strategies account for 12% of 2060 strategy volumes
Brazos River Authority System Operation strategy accounts for 14% of
strategy volumes
Unmet irrigation and mining needs in all decades; limited unmet steam
electric power and municipal needs in 2010 decade
+
Figure G.1 ‐Brazos G Region
Almost eight percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region G, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 76 percent to 3,448,879.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans G‐1
Table G.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 1,957,767 2,278,243 2,576,783 2,873,382 3,164,776 3,448,879
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 790,543 787,031 791,011 792,331 792,252 792,258
Groundwater 355,337 355,256 355,151 344,052 336,931 336,798
Reuse 17,344 17,344 17,344 17,344 17,344 17,344
Total Water Supply 1,163,224 1,159,631 1,163,506 1,153,727 1,146,527 1,146,400
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 328,006 382,974 430,635 477,748 524,700 572,602
County‐other 33,413 34,488 35,471 37,403 40,327 42,881
Manufacturing 19,787 23,201 25,077 26,962 30,191 31,942
Mining 36,664 37,591 38,037 27,251 20,744 21,243
Irrigation 232,541 227,697 222,691 217,859 213,055 208,386
Steam Electric 168,193 221,696 254,803 271,271 300,859 319,884
Livestock 51,576 51,576 51,576 51,576 51,576 51,576
Total Water Demands 870,180 979,223 1,058,290 1,110,070 1,181,452 1,248,514
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 20,549 53,971 76,295 109,962 147,780 188,632
County‐other 395 361 299 997 2,753 3,835
Manufacturing 2,762 3,441 4,108 4,783 5,393 6,054
Mining 9,670 10,544 10,963 11,301 11,704 12,158
Irrigation 59,571 56,961 54,422 51,942 49,527 47,181
Steam Electric 38,542 71,483 82,891 93,599 117,616 132,872
Total Water Needs 131,489 196,761 228,978 272,584 334,773 390,732
Groundwater Reuse
Municipal
Conservation
3.6%
Irrigation
Conservation
1.2% Other
Conservation
2.3%New Major
Reservoir
9.2%
Other Surface
Water
52.6%
3.8% 14.3%
Conjunctive use
12.0%
Aquifer Storge &
Recovery
1.1%
Figure G.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans G‐2
‐
Table G.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
G ADDITIONAL CARRIZO AQUIFER DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDES
OVERDRAFTING) $23,676,071 1,481 1,884 2,184 5,084 6,963 6,963
G ADDITIONAL EDWARDS‐TRINITY (PLATEAU) AQUIFER
DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDES OVERDRAFTING) $679,000 114 114 114 114 114 114
G ADDITIONAL GULF COAST AQUIFER DEVELOPMENT $31,630,000
‐‐
‐5,600 5,600 5,600
G ADDITIONAL TRINITY AQUIFER DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDES
OVERDRAFTING) $19,278,000 723 322 522 1,357 1,708 2,025
G AQUIFER STORAGE & RECOVERY (BRAZOS RIVER TO SEYMOUR
AQUIFER) $38,625,000 6,208 6,208 6,208 6,208 6,208 6,208
G BELTON TO STILLHOUSE PIPELINE $36,038,000
‐
30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
G BOSQUE COUNTY REGIONAL PROJECT $5,150,000
‐‐
190 190 190 190
G BRA SUPPLY THROUGH THE EWCRWTS $44,706,000 4,601 6,260 6,260 6,958 6,958 6,958
G BRA SWATS EXPANSION $39,971,000 375 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545 3,545
G BRA SYSTEM OPERATIONS PERMIT $204,281,000 750 77,020 82,242 84,742 84,742 84,899
G BRUSHY CREEK RESERVOIR $18,553,000 2,090 2,090 2,090 2,090 2,090 2,090
G CEDAR RIDGE RESERVOIR $285,214,000
‐
23,380 23,380 23,380 23,380 23,380
G CITY OF GROESBECK OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR $10,412,000
‐‐
‐‐1,755 1,755
G CONJUCTIVE MANAGEMENT OF CHAMPION WELL FIELD AND OAK
CREEK RESERVOIR WITH SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT $0 688 755 878 948 953 963
G CORYELL COUNTY RESERVOIR (BRA SYSTEM) $37,489,000
‐
3,365 3,365 3,365 3,365 3,365
G EXPANSION OF CHAMPION WELL FIELD $15,015,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
G FUTURE PHASES OF LAKE WHITNEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT $110,843,000
‐
7,572 7,572 7,572 7,572 7,572
G GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER CONJUNCTIVE USE (LAKE
GRANGER AUGMENTATION) $643,928,000 26,505 26,001 25,496 47,435 70,751 70,246
G INCREASE TREATMENT CAPACITY $195,654,000 15,176 28,176 36,016 40,047 51,330 58,435
G INTERCONNECTION OF CITY OF WACO SYSTEM WITH
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES $14,652,000 837 837 837 1,564 1,664 1,814
G IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION $0 3,390 5,519 7,550 7,376 7,206 7,041
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans G‐3
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans G‐4
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year) ‐
G LIMESTONE COUNTY CARRIZO ‐WILCOX AQUIFER DEVELOPMENT $18,458,000 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,600 3,600 3,600
G MANUFACTURING WATER CONSERVATION $0 140 275 440 494 545 594
G MIDWAY PIPELINE PROJECT (WEST CENTRAL BRAZOS
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM)
$13,524,731 843 843 843 843 843 843
G MILLERS CREEK AUGMENTATION $46,948,000 17,582 17,582 17,582 17,582 17,582 17,582
G MINING WATER CONSERVATION $0 340 611 885 913 941 973
G MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION $0 4,873 13,572 14,379 15,865 18,497 21,347
G NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT
$3,522,000 224 224 224 224 224 224
G NEW WEST LOOP REUSE LINE
$5,495,500 680 680 680 680 680 680
G OAK CREEK RESERVOIR WITH SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT $0 1,679 1,671 1,557 1,435 1,301 1,154
G PHASE I LAKE WHITNEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
$41,453,000 2,128 2,128 2,128 2,128 2,128 2,128
G PURCHASE WATER FROM CITY OF BRYAN
$1,201,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
G RAISE LEVEL OF GIBBONS CREEK RESERVOIR
$12,140,600 ‐ 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,870
G REALLOCATION OF SOURCE
$0 9,081 35,928 35,928 40,028 45,728 52,628
G REGIONAL SURFACE WATER SUPPLY TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY
FROM LAKE TRAVIS
$391,533,000 600 34,148 41,187 41,187 44,459 44,459
G REHABILITATE EXISTING WELLS
$350,000 ‐ 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100
G RESTRUCTURE CONTRACT
$0 502 470 437 406 373 341
G SOMERVELL COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (PHASES 1 ‐4) $29,923,000 840 840 840 840 840 840
G SOMERVELL COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (PHASES 5 ‐13) $74,228,000 ‐ ‐ 960 960 960 960
G STEAM‐ELECTRIC CONSERVATION $0 2,114 4,896 8,219 9,109 10,822 11,803
G STONEWALL, KENT, AND GARZA CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT
$163,226,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
G STORAGE REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL RESERVOIRS ‐LAKE
AQUILLA $11,447,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,050 2,050 2,050
G TURKEY PEAK RESERVOIR
$50,227,000 ‐ 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600
G VOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION $6,391,000 11,251 11,942 13,564 14,425 15,236 16,558
G WASTEWATER REUSE
$115,432,500 17,043 38,653 40,523 51,114 64,830 70,087
G CORYELL COUNTY RESERVOIR (BRA SYSTEM)*
$14,399,000 ‐ ‐ 3,365 3,365 3,365 3,365
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
‐
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
G GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER CONJUNCTIVE USE (LAKE
GRANGER AUGMENTATION)* $229,822,000
‐‐
‐33,814 37,839 39,710
G INCREASE CURRENT CONTRACT* $0 43 43 543 1,043 1,543 2,143
G INCREASE TREATMENT CAPACITY* $13,951,000
‐
2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
G LIMESTONE COUNTY CARRIZO‐WILCOX AQUIFER DEVELOPMENT* $0 148 146 144 142 141 141
G NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT* $35,822,000
‐
8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400
G STORAGE REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL RESERVOIRS ‐LAKE
AQUILLA* $0
‐‐
‐375 745 999
G TURKEY PEAK RESERVOIR* $0
‐
7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600
G VOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION* $91,940,000 3,529 19,162 28,296 29,099 29,903 30,757
G WASTEWATER REUSE* $39,128,901 9,232 10,831 11,760 11,760 11,760 11,760
Total $3,186,357,303 137,858 405,581 436,895 496,528 562,803 587,084
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans G‐5
SUMMARY OF REGION H
The Region H Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 15 counties, portions of three river basins, four
coastal basins, and Galveston Bay (Figure H.1). Surface water currently provides approximately 70 percent of the
existing water supplies in the region with the largest source being the Lake Livingston/Wallisville System.
Groundwater supplies are associated primarily with the Gulf Coast aquifer and decrease in volume due to land
subsidence regulations.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐1,236,335 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 1,501,180 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $12 billion
Conservation accounts for 12% of 2060 strategy volumes
Five new major reservoirs (Allens Creek, Dow Off‐Channel, GCWA Off‐
Channel, Brazoria Off‐Channel, Fort Bend Off‐Channel – see Figure 2.9)
Reuse accounts for 19% of 2060 strategy volumes
Figure H.1 ‐Region H
Almost 24 percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region H, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 88 percent to 11,346,082.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐1
Table H.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 6,020,078 6,995,442 7,986,480 8,998,002 10,132,237 11,346,082
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 1,843,815 1,899,087 1,932,954 1,971,925 2,013,605 2,021,690
Groundwater 777,845 641,359 591,590 586,814 578,644 569,361
Reuse ‐‐438 14,799 14,840 14,866
Total Water Supply 2,621,660 2,540,446 2,524,982 2,573,538 2,607,089 2,605,917
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 968,949 1,117,677 1,236,037 1,341,483 1,444,026 1,558,706
County‐other 73,915 75,235 102,549 144,360 211,236 286,111
Manufacturing 722,873 783,835 836,597 886,668 927,860 950,102
Mining 57,043 60,782 63,053 65,285 67,501 69,457
Irrigation 450,175 438,257 433,686 430,930 430,930 430,930
Steam Electric 91,231 112,334 131,332 154,491 182,720 217,132
Livestock 12,228 12,228 12,228 12,228 12,228 12,228
Total Water Demands 2,376,414 2,600,348 2,815,482 3,035,445 3,276,501 3,524,666
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 42,081 206,131 317,539 367,712 428,499 534,252
County‐other 13,070 21,975 42,697 85,430 150,770 224,682
Manufacturing 75,164 131,531 168,597 202,219 231,118 255,604
Mining 5,992 10,595 13,850 16,278 18,736 20,984
Irrigation 151,366 141,232 137,995 137,113 140,733 144,802
Steam Electric 3,203 12,609 18,058 24,726 34,976 55,972
Livestock 14 64 40 40 40 39
Total Water Needs 290,890 524,137 698,776 833,518 1,004,872 1,236,335
Municipal
Conservation
7.0%
Irrigation
Conservation
5.2%
Other
Conservation
<1%
New Major
Reservoir
16.5%
Other Surface
Water
38.7%
Groundwater
11.3%
Reuse
18.8% Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
0.3% Seawater
Desalination
2.2%
Figure H.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐2
‐
Table H.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
H ALLENS CREEK RESERVOIR $222,752,400
‐
57,393 55,096 87,781 99,650 99,650
H BRA SYSTEM OPERATIONS PERMIT $0
‐
6,621 18,870 25,350 25,350 25,350
H BRAZORIA CO. INTERRUPTIBLE SUPPLIES FOR IRR. $0 104,977 86,759 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000
H BRAZORIA OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR $173,898,602 ‐‐‐
‐‐
24,000
H BRAZOS SALTWATER BARRIER $44,470,739 ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
H BWA TO WUG CONTRACT $22,363,694 7,750 7,750 7,750 7,750 7,750 7,750
H CHCRWA TO WUG CONTRACT $2,048,820
‐
977 862 720 631 546
H CITY OF MISSOURI CITY GRP ‐ASR $58,967,437
‐
4,147 4,147 4,147 4,147 4,147
H CITY OF MISSOURI CITY GRP PARTICIPATION $6,618,706
‐
1,004 1,860 1,896 1,896 1,896
H CITY OF MISSOURI CITY GRP REUSE $9,100,352
‐
640 640 640 640 640
H CLCND WEST CHAMBERS SYSTEM $20,380,000
‐
1,691 1,978 2,235 2,511 2,804
H COH GRP PARTICIPATION $58,235,873 3,762 11,417 16,809 19,870 22,399 24,990
H COH TO WUG CONTRACT $63,420,357
‐
6,128 4,816 4,742 5,400 6,027
H DOW OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR $124,468,000
‐
21,800 21,800 21,800 21,800 21,800
H EXPANDED USE OF GW $165,928,999
‐
40,159 62,297 68,916 80,337 90,617
H FB WCID 1 TO WUG CONTRACT $1,815,739
‐
148 824 940 1,016 1,016
H FORT BEND MUD 25 GRP (REUSE) $776,145
‐
589 589 589 589 589
H FORT BEND OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR $202,514,788
‐
‐‐‐90 45,943
H FREEPORT DESALINATION PLANT $255,699,000
‐
‐‐‐33,600 33,600
H FULSHEAR REUSE $566,625
‐
287 430 430 430 430
H GALVESTON TO WUG CONTRACT $10,542,328
‐
7,262 7,262 7,262 7,262 7,262
H GC WCID 1 TO WUG CONTRACT $1,807,960
‐
766 909 940 975 1,014
H GCWA OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR $197,448,012
‐
‐39,500 39,500 39,500 39,500
H GCWA TO WUG CONTRACT $132,634,164
‐
29,718 30,708 31,618 32,719 34,057
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐3
‐
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
H HOUSTON BAYOUS PERMIT $20,956,000 ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
H HOUSTON INDIRECT REUSE $721,822,850
‐
‐‐66,420 114,679 128,801
H INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION $0
‐
558 558 558 558 558
H INTERIM STRATEGIES $1,155,965 503 ‐‐
‐‐‐
H INTERIM STRATEGIES ‐TEMPORARY OVERDRAFT $85,545,570 45,009 ‐‐
‐‐‐
H IRRIGATION CONSERVATION $757,436 71,275 71,275 71,275 71,275 77,881 77,881
H LNVA TO WUG CONTRACT $405,835 16 23 26 29 33 37
H MONTGOMERY MUD 8/9 INDIRECT REUSE $12,245,687
‐
657 816 1,120 1,120 1,120
H MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0 1,680 3,635 3,954 4,269 4,716 5,232
H MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION ‐LARGE WUG $0 31,612 38,940 42,664 46,276 50,073 54,484
H MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION ‐MEDIUM WUG $0 2,658 4,377 5,062 5,684 6,384 7,189
H MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION ‐SMALL WUG $0 9,655 18,366 24,016 28,274 33,219 38,589
H NEW GROUNDWATER WELLS FOR LIVESTOCK $18,635
‐
41 41 41 41 41
H NFBWA GRP PARTICIPATION $1,638,063
‐
106 258 295 466 687
H NHCRWA GRP PARTICIPATION $17,814,585 761 2,933 4,243 5,573 6,664 8,088
H NHCRWA INDIRECT REUSE $66,778,694
‐
‐‐7,300 16,300 16,300
H NHCRWA TO WUG CONTRACT $42,207,965
‐
56,453 83,041 64,491 34,726 27,478
H REALLOCATION OF EXISTING SUPPLIES $275,269,912 59,614 56,931 54,011 66,006 76,391 152,895
H RICHMOND ROSENBERG GRP (WFB SWTP) $117,220,150
‐
7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
H RIVER PLANTATION GRP (REUSE) $484,926 168 368 368 368 368 368
H SJRA TO WUG CONTRACT $264,926,229 23,008 27,754 37,090 54,777 54,805 54,849
H SJRA WRAP PARTICIPATION $89,604,231
‐
21,441 27,020 30,247 28,720 26,896
H SUGAR LAND GRP PARTICIPATION $6,360,101
‐
480 1,763 2,380 2,381 2,155
H SUGAR LAND GRP REUSE $78,783,825
‐
560 5,040 5,040 5,040 5,040
H TRA TO HOUSTON CONTRACT $0
‐
‐116,738 123,524 123,524 123,524
H TRA TO SJRA CONTRACT $302,781,597
‐
‐‐7,935 39,096 76,476
H TRA TO WUG CONTRACT $249,479,472 13,823 17,083 19,972 22,888 25,732 28,672
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐4
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐5
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year) ‐
H WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FOR MUN. IRRIGATION
$48,043,249 ‐ ‐ 7,272 15,425 25,561 36,388
H WASTEWATER REUSE FOR INDUSTRY
$332,051,761 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 67,200
H WHCRWA GRP PARTICIPATION $35,268,970 2,488 7,689 10,105 11,683 13,340 15,104
H BAWA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$900,444 ‐ ‐ 191 349 496 496
H BRA TO BRAZOSPORT WATER AUTHORITY CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 232 248 3,114 6,366 10,870
H BRA TO GCWA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 35,558 80,016 100,410 112,400 131,128
H BRA TO NRG CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,000
H BRA TO RICHMOND ‐ROSENBERG CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,182 6,120 11,290
H BRA TO SUGAR LAND CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 2,054 5,894 7,232 7,750 9,512
H BRA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$652,480,634 ‐ 49,416 35,211 62,308 100,156 145,264
H BWA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$2,102,169 ‐ 116 124 1,557 3,183 5,435
H CHCRWA GRP*
$0 2,375 4,146 4,789 4,806 4,806 4,806
H CHCRWA INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION* $0 2,375 4,146 4,789 4,806 4,806 4,806
H CHCRWA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$1,867,449 ‐ 794 1,129 1,500 1,668 1,668
H CHCRWA TRANSMISSION LINE*
$0 2,375 4,146 4,789 4,806 4,806 4,806
H CITY OF MISSOURI CITY GRP*
$24,003,201 ‐ 395 4,644 8,362 8,362 12,775
H CLCND TO WUG CONTRACT*
$30,827,919 ‐ 1,691 1,978 2,235 2,511 2,804
H COH DISTRIBUTION EXPANSION* $261,040,000 ‐ 280,000 128,000 64,000 48,000 48,000
H COH TO BAWA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 26 262 398 535 692
H COH TO BRA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 54,996 50,402 115,772 139,510 139,510
H COH TO CHCRWA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 1,771 2,414 2,431 2,431 2,431
H COH TO CITY OF PASADENA CONTRACT*
$0 1,865 2,278 2,665 3,153 3,579 4,068
H COH TO NCWA CONTRACT*
$0 1,954 2,392 2,869 3,511 4,157 4,912
H COH TO NFBWA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 888 35,942 62,322 82,344 100,884
H COH TO NHCRWA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 56,453 83,041 83,041 78,041 83,041
H COH TO SJRA CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 36,377 55,538 54,582 53,581 52,534
H COH TO WHCRWA CONTRACT*
$0 1,241 31,837 46,324 52,759 55,549 58,402
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐6
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year) ‐
H COH TO WUG CONTRACT*
$183,896,349 ‐ 14,981 31,413 30,449 34,995 34,995
H COH TREATMENT EXPANSION* $2,045,672,161 16,000 280,000 128,000 64,000 48,000 48,000
H DOW TO WUG CONTRACT*
$155,206,615 ‐ 21,800 21,800 21,800 21,800 21,800
H FB WCID 2 TO WUG CONTRACT*
$2,049,847 ‐ 491 1,092 1,092 1,092 1,092
H FORT BEND WCID #2 GRP*
$24,828,857 ‐ 2,296 5,753 5,753 5,753 5,753
H GCWA FBC WCID #2 CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 491 1,092 1,092 1,092 1,092
H GCWA TO CITY OF GALVESTON CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 7,262 7,262 7,262 7,262 7,262
H GCWA TO GC WCID #1 CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 766 909 940 975 1,014
H GCWA TO MISSOURI CITY CONTRACT*
$0 ‐ 713 6,330 10,661 10,911 15,435
H GCWA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$144,117,128 ‐ 135 54,513 58,116 60,587 65,213
H HARRIS COUNTY MUD 50 WTP*
$6,131,600 560 560 560 560 588 632
H HUNTSVILLE WTP*
$61,023,906 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200
H LLWSSSC SURFACE WATER PROJECT*
$3,087,974 954 954 954 954 954 954
H LUCE BAYOU TRANSFER*
$253,916,914 ‐ 128,259 206,276 207,629 205,171 270,742
H MISSOURI CITY TO WUG CONTRACT *
$4,807,747 ‐ 713 6,330 10,661 10,911 15,435
H NCWA TO WUG CONTRACT *
$3,632,614 ‐ ‐ 2,088 3,078 3,852 3,852
H NFBWA GRP*
$0 35,009 61,021 70,363 84,943 96,103 106,402
H NFBWA INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION *
$225,000,000 35,009 61,021 70,363 84,943 96,103 106,402
H NFBWA SHARED TRANSMISSION LINE*
$213,000,000 ‐ 21,878 39,405 52,595 62,606 71,876
H NFBWA TO WUG CONTRACT*
$44,964,481 ‐ 444 13,085 27,315 38,155 38,155
H NHCRWA GRP*
$0 34,714 91,167 117,755 99,625 81,126 117,755
H NHCRWA INTERNAL 2010 DISTRIBUTION* $153,149,640 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714
H NHCRWA INTERNAL 2020 DISTRIBUTION* $345,292,192 ‐ 91,167 91,167 91,167 91,167 91,167
H NHCRWA INTERNAL 2030 DISTRIBUTION* $37,439,584 ‐ ‐ 117,755 117,755 117,755 117,755
H NHCRWA TRANSMISSION 2010*
$80,690,624 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714 34,714
H NHCRWA TRANSMISSION 2020*
$172,558,512 ‐ 91,167 91,167 91,167 91,167 91,167
H NHCRWA TRANSMISSION 2030*
$0 ‐ ‐ 117,755 117,755 117,755 117,755
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
‐
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
H NRG TO WUG CONTRACT* $0 ‐‐‐
‐‐
8,500
H PASADENA TO WUG CONTRACT* $2,918,547
‐
967 1,941 2,765 3,317 3,317
H PEARLAND SWTP* $265,000,000 6,720 6,720 6,720 13,420 13,420 13,420
H PECAN GROVE GRP* $15,960,000 866 866 1,731 1,731 1,731 1,731
H RICHMOND‐ROSENBERG TO WUG CONTRACT* $0
‐
‐‐1,091 3,060 5,645
H SEALY GW TREATMENT EXPANSION* $6,450,000
‐
360 360 360 360 888
H SJRA TO COH CONTRACT* $0
‐
‐1,356 5,300 3,875 2,428
H SJRA TO WUG CONTRACT* $43,842,177
‐
‐‐7,935 39,096 76,476
H SJRA WRAP * $900,000,000
‐
36,377 55,538 62,517 92,677 129,010
H SJRA WRAP PARTICIPATION* $128,252,622
‐
36,377 55,538 54,582 53,581 52,534
H SUGAR LAND GRP* $82,576,224
‐
1,027 2,947 3,616 3,875 4,756
H SUGAR LAND TO WUG CONTRACT* $4,982,927
‐
1,027 2,947 3,616 3,875 4,756
H WHCRWA GRP* $0 21,678 52,274 66,761 73,196 75,985 78,839
H WHCRWA INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION* $552,472,000 21,678 52,274 66,761 73,196 75,985 78,839
H WHCRWA TO WUG* $44,753,636
‐
31,837 46,324 40,241 43,031 38,961
H WHCRWA TRANSMISSION LINE* $290,084,193 21,678 52,274 66,761 73,196 75,985 78,839
Total $12,019,061,335 378,759 622,426 863,980 1,040,504 1,202,010 1,501,180
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans H‐7
SUMMARY OF EAST TEXAS (I) REGION
The East Texas Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 20 counties within portions of the Sabine,
Neches, and Trinity river basins and the Neches‐Trinity coastal basin (Figure I.1). Surface water currently provides
73 percent of the existing water supplies in the region from the 14 major reservoirs in the region and run‐of‐river
water rights on the Neches and Sabine. Groundwater supplies are associated primarily with the Gulf Coast and
Carrizo‐Wilcox Aquifers.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐182,145 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 638,076 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $885 million
Conservation accounts for 7% of 2060 strategy volumes
Two new major reservoirs (Lake Columbia, Fastrill Replacement Project – see
Figure 2.9)
Limited unmet steam electric power and mining needs
Figure I.1 ‐East Texas Region
Almost five percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region I, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 36 percent to 1,482,448.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans I‐1
‐
Table I.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 1,090,382 1,166,057 1,232,138 1,294,976 1,377,760 1,482,448
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 661,511 941,613 1,123,982 1,151,585 1,172,399 1,198,769
Groundwater 220,676 220,883 220,855 220,805 220,753 220,689
Reuse 18,077 15,220 15,233 15,246 15,257 15,271
Total Water Supply 900,264 1,177,716 1,360,070 1,387,636 1,408,409 1,434,729
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 153,520 159,266 164,327 169,332 178,627 191,273
County‐other 36,039 37,562 38,434 38,861 40,078 42,349
Manufacturing 299,992 591,904 784,140 821,841 857,902 893,476
Mining 21,662 37,297 17,331 18,385 19,432 20,314
Irrigation 151,100 151,417 151,771 152,153 152,575 153,040
Steam Electric 44,985 80,989 94,515 111,006 131,108 155,611
Livestock 23,613 25,114 26,899 29,020 31,546 34,533
Total Water Demands 730,911 1,083,549 1,277,417 1,340,598 1,411,268 1,490,596
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 3,340 5,548 7,042 9,049 12,214 16,408
County‐other 1,072 1,803 2,272 2,584 3,152 4,101
Manufacturing 3,392 16,014 24,580 33,256 40,999 49,588
Mining 14,812 29,744 9,395 10,075 10,748 11,276
Irrigation 1,675 1,805 2,156 2,536 2,955 3,416
Steam Electric 3,588 25,922 33,615 43,053 62,778 85,212
Livestock 977 2,196 4,093 6,347 9,020 12,144
Total Water Needs 28,856 83,032 83,153 106,900 141,866 182,145
Municipal
Conservation
0.3%
Irrigation
Conservation
6.3%
New Major
Reservoir
15.4%
Other Surface
Water
73.0%
Groundwater
4.6%
Reuse
0.5%
Figure I.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans I‐2
‐
Table I.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
I ANGELINA COUNTY REGIONAL PROJECT $53,164,000 ‐
‐‐
11,210 11,210 11,210
I EXPAND LOCAL SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES $1,983,800 50 150 707 990 1,000 1,190
I FASTRILL REPLACEMENT (REGION I COMPONENT)** $0 ‐
‐‐
‐‐22,400
I FOREST GROVE RESERVOIR PROJECT $26,619,000 ‐
‐‐
2,240 2,240 2,240
I INDIRECT REUSE $0
‐
2,872 2,872 2,872 2,872 2,872
I INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $1,000,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
I LAKE KURTH REGIONAL SYSTEM $56,488,600 6,800 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400
I LAKE NACONICHE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM $24,890,050
‐
800 1,200 1,200 1,700 1,700
I LAKE PALESTINE INFRASTRUCTURE $79,389,250
‐
‐16,815 16,815 16,815 16,815
I MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0 111 480 811 1,085 1,381 1,701
I NEW SOURCE ‐LAKE COLUMBIA $231,865,000
‐
75,700 75,700 75,700 75,700 75,700
I NEW WELLS ‐CARRIZO WILCOX AQUIFER $39,623,385 11,787 13,493 15,656 17,006 20,433 21,403
I NEW WELLS ‐GULF COAST AQUIFER $6,818,213 804 1,992 2,199 3,033 3,038 3,043
I NEW WELLS ‐QUEEN CITY AQUIFER $5,646,042 137 231 318 455 650 1,097
I NEW WELLS ‐YEGUA JACKSON AQUIFER $2,581,793 710 730 971 1,110 1,302 1,376
I OVERDRAFT CARRIZO WILCOX AQUIFER $4,209,789 100 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,540
I OVERDRAFT GULF COAST AQUIFER $2,359,067 844 996 996 996 1,149 1,149
I PERMIT AMENDMENT ‐HOUSTON COUNTY LAKE $0 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
I PERMIT AMMENDMENT FOR SAM RAYBURN $0
‐
28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (1) $17,495,246 5,396 42,367 46,133 51,148 51,167 54,200
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (2) $109,419,358 2,152 29,995 38,839 42,939 86,040 89,365
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (3) $0 27
‐‐
‐5,175 5,175
I REALLOCATION OF FLOOD STORAGE (RAYBURN) $0 ‐
‐‐
‐122,000 122,000
I
SALTWATER BARRIER CONJUNCTIVE OPERATION WITH
RAYBURN/STEINHAGEN $2,000,000
‐
111,000 111,000 111,000 111,000 111,000
I WHOLESALE CUSTOMER CONSERVATION $1,400,000 20,000 30,000 33,000 35,000 40,000 40,000
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans I‐3
‐
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
I ANRA TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM* $35,127,250 ‐
‐‐
‐‐‐
I INDIRECT REUSE* $0
‐
1,377 1,589 1,784 1,993 2,198
I NEW WTP* $12,387,000 ‐
‐‐
‐‐2,240
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (1)* $0 1,080 2,508 2,633 2,908 3,308 3,708
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (2)* $113,947,150 13,350 45,201 33,051 34,351 45,751 56,251
I PURCHASE WATER FROM PROVIDER (3)* $56,415,750
‐
10,251 10,251 10,251 10,251 10,251
Total $884,829,743 53,418 363,106 399,517 427,199 607,272 638,076
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
** Estimated planning costs and water supply associated with this strategy are based on the Neches River Run‐of River strategy. This project, however is only one of
several water management strategies being considered to meet these 2060 needs, and through action by the Region C Water Planning Group, any of those other
strategies may be substituted into the plan to represent the 'Fastrill Reservoir Replacement' strategy. Those other strategies include: additional water conservation,
Lake Texoma, Toledo Bend Reservoir, Lake O’ the Pines, Lake Livingston, Ogallala groundwater in Roberts County (Region A), Marvin Nichols Reservoir, Lake
Columbia, George Parkhouse Reservoir (North), George Parkhouse Reservoir (South), and Oklahoma Water.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans I‐4
SUMMARY PLATEAU (J) REGION
Located on the southern edge of the Edwards Plateau, the Plateau Regional Water Planning Area includes six
counties and portions of the Colorado, Guadalupe, Nueces, Rio Grande, and San Antonio river basins (Figure J.1).
Groundwater currently provides almost 82 percent of the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the
Edwards‐Trinity (Plateau), Trinity, and Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) aquifers. Surface water supplies are
associated primarily with San Felipe Springs and run‐of‐river water rights on the Guadalupe and Nueces Rivers.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐2,389 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 23,010 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $55 million
Conservation accounts for 3% of 2060 strategy volumes
Brush control strategy supply not available during drought of record
conditions
Aquifer Storage and Recovery accounts for 21% of 2060 strategy volumes
Figure J.1 ‐Plateau Texas Region
Less than one percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region J, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 52 percent to 205,910.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans J‐1
[2”‐4” columns]
Table J.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 135,723 158,645 178,342 190,551 198,594 205,910
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 19,269 19,269 19,269 19,269 19,269 19,269
Groundwater 85,439 85,439 85,439 85,439 85,439 85,439
Total Water Supply 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708 104,708
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 20,695 22,068 23,101 23,795 24,563 25,106
County‐other 8,625 10,515 12,170 13,178 13,836 14,526
Manufacturing 30 33 36 39 41 44
Mining 403 394 389 385 381 378
Irrigation 19,423 18,645 17,897 17,183 16,495 15,837
Livestock 2,752 2,752 2,752 2,752 2,752 2,752
Total Water Demands 51,928 54,407 56,345 57,332 58,068 58,643
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 1,494 1,878 2,044 2,057 2,275 2,389
Total Water Needs 1,494 1,878 2,044 2,057 2,275 2,389
Municipal
Conservation
3.0%
21.1%
Other Surface
Water
28.6%
Groundwater
1.7%
Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
Brush Control
45.6%
Figure J.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans J‐2
‐
Table J.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy
Total
Capital
Costs
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
J ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER WELLS $240,350 222 222 222 222 222 222
J CONSERVATION: BRUSH MANAGEMENT** $3,937,790 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
J CONSERVATION: PUBLIC INFORMATION $0 65 69 71 71 76 77
CONSERVATION: SYSTEM WATER AUDIT AND
J WATER LOSS AUDIT $0 514 553 570 572 593 604
J GROUNDWATER WELLS $247,250 172 172 172 172 172 172
J INCREASED WATER TREATMENT AND ASR CAPACITY $6,650,000 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240
J PURCHASE WATER FROM UGRA $0
‐
‐3,840 3,840 3,840 5,450
J REPLACE PRESSURE TANK $7,000 ‐
‐‐‐‐
‐
SURFACE WATER ACQUISITION, TREATMENT AND
J ASR $36,660,000
‐
1,624 1,624 2,124 2,124 2,624
J SURFACE WATER STORAGE $7,050,000
‐
1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121
Total $54,792,390 13,713 16,501 20,360 20,862 20,888 23,010
** Supply would not available during drought of record conditions
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans J‐3
SUMMARY OF LOWER COLORADO (K) REGION
The Lower Colorado Regional Water Planning Area includes all or parts of 14 counties within the Colorado River
Basin down to Matagorda Bay (Figure K.1). Surface water from the Lower Colorado River Authority’s Highland
Lakes system and run‐of‐river water rights on the Colorado River currently provide almost 77 percent of the
existing water supplies in the region. Groundwater supplies are associated primarily with the Gulf Coast, Trinity,
and Carrizo‐Wilcox aquifers.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐367,671 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐
646,167 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $907 million
Conservation accounts for 38% of 2060 strategy volumes
One new major reservoir (LCRA/SAWS Project Off‐Channel –
see Figure 2.9)
Reuse accounts for 21% of 2060 strategy volumes
Figure K.1 ‐Lower Colorado Region
Almost six percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region K, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 100 percent to 2,831,937.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans K‐1
[2”‐4” columns]
Table K.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 1,412,834 1,714,282 2,008,142 2,295,627 2,580,533 2,831,937
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 892,327 892,689 894,886 897,359 900,286 900,477
Groundwater 270,557 270,268 269,887 268,936 268,527 268,594
Total Water Supply 1,162,884 1,162,957 1,164,773 1,166,295 1,168,813 1,169,071
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 239,013 288,152 336,733 382,613 428,105 467,075
County‐other 29,630 33,820 36,697 40,438 44,673 49,273
Manufacturing 38,162 44,916 56,233 69,264 77,374 85,698
Mining 30,620 31,252 31,613 26,964 27,304 27,598
Irrigation 589,705 567,272 545,634 524,809 504,695 468,763
Steam Electric 146,167 201,353 210,713 258,126 263,715 270,732
Livestock 13,395 13,395 13,395 13,395 13,395 13,395
Total Water Demands 1,086,692 1,180,160 1,231,018 1,315,609 1,359,261 1,382,534
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 6,671 17,867 25,289 36,420 76,771 120,999
County‐other 223 1,725 4,347 8,128 11,610 14,892
Manufacturing 146 298 452 605 741 934
Mining 13,550 13,146 12,366 6,972 5,574 5,794
Irrigation 234,738 217,011 198,717 181,070 164,084 135,822
Steam Electric 193 53,005 53,175 76,430 81,930 89,042
Livestock 188 188 188 188 188 188
Total Water Needs 255,709 303,240 294,534 309,813 340,898 367,671
Reuse
GroundwaterGroundwater 21.3%
Drought
Management
0.3%
New
Reservoir
7.3%
Municipal
Conservation
11.9%
Irrigation
Conservation
25.5%
Other
Conservation
<1%
Other Surface
Water
16.8%
5.8% Desalination
<1%
Conjunctive use
9.6%
Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
1.5%
Figure K.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans K‐2
‐
Table K.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
K ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0
‐
‐
‐
522 1,027 1,844
K AMEND LCRA CONTRACT $0 3,708 5,265 6,165 8,503 10,955 12,911
K AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY $168,711,000
‐
‐
‐
10,000 10,000 10,000
K BLEND BRACKISH SURFACE WATER IN STPNOC RESERVOIR $0
‐
17,505 17,505 17,505 17,505 17,625
K COA CONSERVATION $0 11,030 18,795 24,036 25,385 30,401 36,370
K COA DIRECT REUSE (MUNICIPAL & MANUFACTURING) $302,250,510 5,143 13,620 22,077 30,268 36,218 40,468
K COA DIRECT REUSE (STEAM ELECTRIC) $302,250,510 2,315 3,315 7,315 8,315 12,315 13,315
K COA RETURN FLOWS $0 46,853 45,641 49,862 62,330 64,645 74,366
K CONJUNCTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER ‐INCLUDES OVERDRAFTS $0
‐
62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000
K DEVELOPMENT OF CARRIZO‐WILCOX AQUIFER $12,242,071
‐
1,687 1,687 1,687 2,662 2,933
K DEVELOPMENT OF ELLENBURGER‐SAN SABA AQUIFER $5,601,523 478 478 478 478 519 542
K DEVELOPMENT OF GULF COAST AQUIFER $164,000
‐
‐
‐
‐‐82
K DEVELOPMENT OF HICKORY AQUIFER $4,697,200 512 488 406 331 261 196
K DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RICE VARIETIES $0
‐
40,800 40,800 40,800 40,800 40,800
K DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER AQUIFER $3,104,788 4,291 4,291 4,370 4,582 4,839 5,180
K DEVELOPMENT OF QUEEN CITY AQUIFER $4,190,135
‐
‐
‐
‐‐580
K DEVELOPMENT OF SALINE ZONE OF EDWARDS‐BFZ AQUIFER $19,753,964
‐
250 2,750 2,850 5,500 7,100
K DEVELOPMENT OF TRINITY AQUIFER $4,084,198
‐
‐75 200 301 400
K DOWNSTREAM RETURN FLOWS $0
‐
‐460 1,836 3,443 4,590
K DROUGHT MANAGEMENT $0 461 461 461 461 461 1,912
K ENHANCED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION $0
‐
‐2,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
K EXPAND SUPPLY FROM STPNOC RESERVOIR $0 193 ‐‐‐
‐‐
K EXPANSION OF CARRIZO‐WILCOX AQUIFER $16,872,960 4,350 5,815 8,476 9,779 12,950 12,920
K EXPANSION OF ELLENBURGER‐SAN SABA AQUIFER $14,482,800 681 756 788 1,229 1,633 2,076
K EXPANSION OF GULF COAST AQUIFER $1,475,140 4,486 4,261 3,659 2,573 1,185 1,409
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans K‐3
‐
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
K EXPANSION OF HICKORY AQUIFER $611,320 62 62 62 62 62 62
K EXPANSION OF OTHER AQUIFER $1,721,920
‐
416 777 1,366 2,017 2,814
K EXPANSION OF QUEEN CITY AQUIFER $0 98 40 40 31 24 17
K EXPANSION OF SPARTA AQUIFER $0 188 208 129 129 129 129
K EXPANSION OF TRINITY AQUIFER $3,609,180 428 431 988 937 1,147 1,124
K EXPANSION OF YEGUA‐JACKSON AQUIFER $0
‐
‐
‐
‐‐9
K FIRM‐UP RUN‐OF‐RIVER WITH OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR ‐
LCRA/SAWS PROJECT (REGION K COMPONENT) $0
‐
‐
‐
‐‐47,000
K GOLDTHWAITE CHANNEL DAM $1,841,800 300 300 300 300 300 300
K HB 1437 ON‐FARM CONSERVATION $3,817,897 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 14,800 25,000
K IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS $0
‐
65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
K LCRA WMP INTERRUPTIBLE WATER SUPPLY $0 255,493 196,568 137,643 78,718 19,793
‐
K MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION $0 3,468 6,462 9,644 12,684 15,444 18,380
K NEW LCRA CONTRACTS $17,556,000
‐
35,564 36,782 59,422 60,177 69,910
K ON‐FARM CONSERVATION $0
‐
34,150 34,150 34,150 34,150 34,150
K PURCHASE WATER FROM COA $2,280,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100
K PURCHASE WATER FROM WEST TRAVIS COUNTY REGIONAL WS $0 846 925 989 1,015 990 958
K REUSE BY HIGHLAND LAKES COMMUNITIES $15,920,000
‐
500 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
K TEMPORARY DROUGHT PERIOD USE OF GULF COAST AQUIFER $0
‐
‐
‐
‐‐47
K TEMPORARY DROUGHT PERIOD USE OF QUEEN CITY AQUIFER $0 21 10 ‐‐
‐‐
K WATER ALLOCATION $0 67 110 ‐‐
‐‐
K WATER RIGHT PERMIT AMENDMENT $0
‐
5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
K WATER TRANSFER $0 11 21 30 37 43 48
K HB 1437 FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY* $0 126 246 349 426 536 645
K NEW LCRA CONTRACTS* $0 300 300 300 300 300 300
Total $907,239,116 350,583 576,795 554,504 571,085 565,296 646,167
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans K‐4
SUMMARY OF SOUTH CENTRAL (L) REGION
Reaching from the Gulf Coast to the Hill Country, the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Area includes all
or parts of 21 counties, portions of nine river and coastal basins, the Guadalupe Estuary, and San Antonio Bay
(Figure L.1). Groundwater currently provides almost 70 percent of the existing water supplies in the region
primarily from the Edwards and Carrizo‐Wilcox aquifers. Surface water supplies are associated primarily with
Canyon Reservoir and run‐of‐river water rights on the Guadalupe River.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐436,751 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐765,738 acre‐
feet/year
Total capital cost $7.6 billion
Conservation accounts for 11% of 2060 strategy volumes
Five new, major off‐channel reservoirs (GBRA Mid‐Basin, Exelon,
New Appropriation Project; LCRA/SAWS Project Off‐Channel,
Lavaca Off‐Channel – see Figure 2.9)
Significant Carrizo‐Wilcox Aquifer development
Five unique stream segments recommended for designation
(see Appendix A, Figure II)
Limited unmet irrigation needs
Figure L.1 ‐South Central Texas Region
Almost 10 percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region L, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 75 percent to 4,297,786.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans L‐1
‐
Table L.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 2,460,599 2,892,933 3,292,970 3,644,661 3,984,258 4,297,786
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 301,491 301,475 299,956 295,938 295,922 295,913
Groundwater 717,263 716,541 712,319 711,521 710,539 709,975
Reuse 16,049 16,049 16,049 16,049 16,049 16,049
Total Water Supply 1,034,803 1,034,065 1,028,324 1,023,508 1,022,510 1,021,937
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 369,694 422,007 471,529 512,671 555,281 597,619
County‐other 26,302 29,104 31,846 34,465 37,062 39,616
Manufacturing 119,310 132,836 144,801 156,692 167,182 179,715
Mining 14,524 15,704 16,454 17,212 17,977 18,644
Irrigation 379,026 361,187 344,777 329,395 315,143 301,679
Steam Electric 46,560 104,781 110,537 116,068 121,601 128,340
Livestock 25,954 25,954 25,954 25,954 25,954 25,954
Total Water Demands 981,370 1,091,573 1,145,898 1,192,457 1,240,200 1,291,567
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 94,650 134,541 173,989 212,815 249,735 288,618
County‐other 2,003 3,073 4,228 5,430 7,042 8,768
Manufacturing 6,539 13,888 20,946 27,911 34,068 43,072
Mining 521 726 1,771 1,992 2,293 2,493
Irrigation 68,465 62,376 56,519 50,894 45,502 41,782
Steam Electric 2,054 50,962 50,991 51,021 51,657 52,018
Livestock 3 1 ‐‐‐‐
Total Water Needs 174,235 265,567 308,444 350,063 390,297 436,751
Municipal
Conservation
9.5%
Irrigation
Conservation
0.9%
Other
Conservation
0.3%
New Major
Reservoir
24.2%Other Surface
Water
Groundwater
30.7%
Reuse
6.1%
Groundwater
Desalination
5.5% Aquifer Storage &
Recovery
6.6%
Seawater
Desalination
11.0%
5.2%
Figure L.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans L‐2
‐
Table L.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
L ASR PROJECT AND PHASED EXPANSION $0 3,800 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
L BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALINATION (WILCOX
AQUIFER) $378,330,000
‐
12,000 28,600 35,120 40,720 42,220
L CONSTRUCTION OF LAVACA RIVER OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR DIVERSION
PROJECT (REGION L COMPONENT) $85,429,083
‐
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
L CRWA SIESTA PROJECT $53,481,000
‐‐
1,000 5,042 5,042 5,042
L CRWA WELLS RANCH PROJECT PHASE I $0 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200
L CRWA WELLS RANCH PROJECT PHASE II (INCL. GONZALES CO.) $34,910,000 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
L DROUGHT MANAGEMENT $0 41,240
‐‐‐
‐‐
L EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ‐TYPE 2 PROJECTS $527,643,000
‐
13,451 13,451 13,451 13,451 21,577
L EDWARDS TRANSFERS $0 45,896 47,479 48,931 49,870 50,855 51,875
L FACILITIES EXPANSION $142,282,000
‐‐‐‐
‐‐
L FIRM‐UP RUN‐OF‐RIVER WITH OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR ‐LCRA/SAWS
PROJECT (REGION L COMPONENT) $1,986,684,000
‐‐
90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
L GBRA EXELON PROJECT $280,598,000
‐
49,126 49,126 49,126 49,126 49,126
L GBRA LOWER BASIN STORAGE $33,800,000
‐‐
28,369 28,369 28,369 28,369
L GBRA MID BASIN (SURFACE WATER) $546,941,000
‐
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
L GBRA NEW APPROPRIATION (LOWER BASIN) $246,849,000
‐‐
11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300
L GBRA SIMSBORO PROJECT (OVERDRAFT) $330,782,000
‐
30,000 30,000 30,000 49,777 49,777
L HAYS/CALDWELL PUA PROJECT (INCL. GONZALES CO.) $307,717,752
‐
7,289 14,597 19,418 25,868 33,314
L INDUSTRIAL, STEAM‐ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION, AND MINING WATER
CONSERVATION $0 521 726 1,771 1,992 2,293 2,493
L IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION $0 20,087 17,561 14,429 11,421 8,543 7,238
L LIVESTOCK WATER CONSERVATION $0 3 1
‐‐
‐‐
L LOCAL GROUNDWATER (GULF COAST AQUIFER) $2,194,000
‐‐‐
161 161 161
L LOCAL GROUNDWATER (TRINITY AQUIFER) $30,224,000 2,016 3,145 3,468 3,629 3,952 4,436
L LOCAL GROUNDWATER CARRIZO‐WILCOX AQUIFER (INCLUDES $166,718,000 6,773 11,610 15,441 17,256 23,946 33,874
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans L‐3
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans L‐4
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year) ‐
OVERDRAFTS)
L MEDINA LAKE FIRM ‐UP (ASR) $146,237,000 9,933 9,933 9,933 9,933 9,933 9,933
L MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION $0 13,232 22,744 31,618 40,531 53,925 72,566
L PURCHASE FROM NBU/REDISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES $0 1,443 552 552 552 552 552
L PURCHASE FROM WWP (GUADALUPE ‐BLANCO RIVER AUTHORITY) $0 8,940 4,805 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L PURCHASE FROM WWP (LNRA)/REDISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES $0 46 145 322 499 489 489
L PURCHASE FROM WWP(SSLGC)/REDISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES $0 581 719 876 1,034 1,197 1,376
L RECYCLED WATER PROGRAMS $465,339,000 21,666 26,046 30,151 34,178 37,706 41,737
L REGIONAL CARRIZO FOR SAWS (INCL. GONZALES CO.) $136,550,000 ‐ 11,687 11,687 11,687 11,687 11,687
L REGIONAL CARRIZO FOR SSLGC PROJECT EXPANSION (INCL. GONZALES CO.) $28,189,000 ‐ 10,364 10,364 10,364 10,364 10,364
L SEAWATER DESALINATION $1,293,827,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 84,012
L STORAGE ABOVE CANYON RESERVOIR (ASR) $37,326,000 ‐ 3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140
L TWA REGIONAL CARRIZO (INCL. GONZALES CO.) $313,060,000 ‐ 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
L WESTERN CANYON WTP EXPANSION $11,727,436 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,600 5,600
L WIMBERLEY AND WOODCREEK WATER SUPPLY PROJECT $33,771,000 1,120 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480
L BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALINATION (WILCOX AQUIFER)* $0 ‐ ‐ 3,596 3,596 9,196 9,196
L CRWA SIESTA PROJECT* $0 ‐ ‐ 1,000 5,042 3,711 4,211
L CRWA WELLS RANCH PROJECT PHASE I* $0 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200
L CRWA WELLS RANCH PROJECT PHASE II (INCL. GONZALES CO.)* $0 1,296 4,626 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
L EDWARDS TRANSFERS* $0 5,259 6,220 8,297 12,483 20,823 21,138
L FACILITIES EXPANSION* $2,277,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L GBRA LOWER BASIN STORAGE* $0 ‐ ‐ 7,786 10,755 13,416 16,391
L GBRA MID BASIN (SURFACE WATER)* $0 ‐ 12,855 13,554 13,988 14,424 14,794
L GBRA NEW APPROPRIATION (LOWER BASIN)* $0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 81 193 310
L GBRA SIMSBORO PROJECT (OVERDRAFT)* $0 ‐ 9,268 14,174 20,954 28,024 35,786
L HAYS/CALDWELL PUA PROJECT (INCL. GONZALES CO.)* $0 ‐ 1,370 7,521 5,344 5,986 7,502
L LOCAL GROUNDWATER (TRINITY AQUIFER)* $0 296 283 403 705 963 1,216
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
‐
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
L LOCAL GROUNDWATER CARRIZO‐WILCOX AQUIFER (INCLUDES
OVERDRAFTS)* $0 120 120 120 120 120 120
L MEDINA LAKE FIRM‐UP (ASR)* $0 500 500 500 500 500 500
L RECYCLED WATER PROGRAMS* $0 4,240 7,367 15,127 15,127 15,127 15,127
L REGIONAL CARRIZO FOR SSLGC PROJECT EXPANSION (INCL. GONZALES
CO.)* $0
‐
616 2,302 4,082 5,764 7,573
L STORAGE ABOVE CANYON RESERVOIR (ASR)* $0
‐
3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140
L TWA REGIONAL CARRIZO (INCL. GONZALES CO.)* $0
‐
6,828 13,717 17,591 21,556 25,575
L WESTERN CANYON WTP EXPANSION* $0
‐‐‐‐
‐650
L WIMBERLEY AND WOODCREEK WATER SUPPLY PROJECT* $0 1,120 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480
Total $7,622,886,271 188,297 376,003 542,606 571,553 631,476 765,738
* DENOTES STRATEGIES WITH SUPPLY VOLUMES INCLUDED IN OTHER STRATEGIES
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans L‐5
SUMMARY OF RIO GRANDE (M) REGION
The Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Area includes 8 counties along the lower portion of the Rio Grande river
basin to the Gulf of Mexico (Figure M.1). Surface water from the Amistad‐Falcon System and run‐of‐river water
rights on the Rio Grande currently provides 90 percent of the existing water supplies in the region. Groundwater
supplies are associated primarily with the Gulf Coast and Carrizo‐Wilcox aquifers.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐609,906 acre‐
feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 –
673,846 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $2.2 billion
Conservation accounts for 43% of 2060 strategy
volumes
Two new major reservoirs (Brownsville Weir,
Laredo Low Water Weir – see Figure 2.9)
Significant unmet irrigation needs
Figure M.1 ‐Rio Grande Region
Almost six percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region M, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 142 percent to 3,935,223.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans M‐1
[2”‐4” columns]
Table M.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 1,628,278 2,030,994 2,470,814 2,936,748 3,433,188 3,935,223
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 1,008,597 1,002,180 996,295 990,244 983,767 977,867
Groundwater 81,302 84,650 86,965 87,534 87,438 87,292
Reuse 24,677 24,677 24,677 24,677 24,677 24,677
Total Water Supply 1,114,576 1,111,507 1,107,937 1,102,455 1,095,882 1,089,836
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 259,524 314,153 374,224 438,453 508,331 581,043
County‐other 28,799 35,257 42,172 49,405 57,144 64,963
Manufacturing 7,509 8,274 8,966 9,654 10,256 11,059
Mining 4,186 4,341 4,433 4,523 4,612 4,692
Irrigation 1,163,634 1,082,232 981,748 981,748 981,748 981,748
Steam Electric 13,463 16,864 19,716 23,192 27,430 32,598
Livestock 5,817 5,817 5,817 5,817 5,817 5,817
Total Water Demands 1,482,932 1,466,938 1,437,076 1,512,792 1,595,338 1,681,920
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 20,889 53,849 98,933 154,514 221,595 292,700
County‐other 5,590 10,428 16,786 23,491 30,698 37,925
Manufacturing 1,921 2,355 2,748 3,137 3,729 4,524
Irrigation 407,522 333,246 239,408 245,896 252,386 258,375
Steam Electric ‐1,980 4,374 7,291 11,214 16,382
Total Water Needs 435,922 401,858 362,249 434,329 519,622 609,906
Groundwater
3.6%
Seawater
Desalination
1.2%
Municipal
Conservation
4.9%
New Major
Reservoir
3.5%
Irrigation
Conservation
37.7%
Other Surface
Water
25.8%
Reuse
9.7%
Groundwater
Desalination
13.7%
Figure M.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans M‐2
‐
Table M.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
M ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS THROUGH CONTRACT $16,263,877 312 738 1,665 2,352 3,198 4,671
M ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS THROUGH PURCHASE $631,081,709 9,611 19,461 41,602 70,944 110,913 151,237
M ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS THROUGH URBANIZATION $56,167,089 299 3,433 6,467 9,496 12,868 16,406
M ADVANCED WATER CONSERVATION $22,583,710 2,917 6,339 11,986 16,512 24,867 32,793
M BANCO MORALES RESERVOIR $25,790,900
‐
238 238 238 238 238
M BRACKISH WATER DESALINATION $267,290,631 56,553 63,239 67,221 73,984 86,708 92,212
M BROWNSVILLE WEIR & RESERVOIR $98,411,077
‐
20,643 20,643 20,643 20,643 23,643
M EXPAND EXISTING GROUNDWATER WELLS $27,474,302 3,772 8,572 17,139 20,492 22,284 24,520
M IRRIGATION CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CONSERVATION $131,899,803 11,204 37,711 63,762 89,347 114,465 139,217
M LAREDO LOW WATER WEIR $294,400,000
‐‐‐‐
‐‐
M NON‐POTABLE REUSE $174,944,916 2,417 9,891 16,425 28,087 42,938 64,116
M ON‐FARM WATER CONSERVATION $194,569,720 1,622 10,419 26,299 49,073 78,550 114,619
M POTABLE REUSE $7,519,850 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,150 1,290
M
PROPOSED ELEVATED STORAGE TANK AND INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY OF ELSA $8,325,386 105 105 105 105 105 105
M RESACA RESTORATION $52,000,000 877 877 877 877 877 877
M SEAWATER DESALINATION $185,940,937 125 125 143 6,049 6,421 7,902
Total $2,194,663,908 90,934 182,911 275,692 389,319 526,225 673,846
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans M‐3
SUMMARY OF COASTAL BEND (N) REGION
The Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Area includes 11 counties, portions of the Nueces river basin, and its
adjoining coastal basins, including the Nueces Estuary (Figure N.1). Surface water currently provides 76 percent of
the existing water supplies in the region primarily from the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake Corpus Christi.
Groundwater supplies are associated primarily with the Gulf Coast aquifer.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐75,744 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 156,326 acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $656 million
Conservation accounts for 5% of 2060 strategy volumes
Two new major reservoirs (Lavaca Off‐Channel, Nueces Off‐Channel – see Figure 2.9)
Limited unmet mining needs
Figure N.1 ‐Coastal Bend Region
Over two percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region N, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 44 percent to 885,665.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans N‐1
4” columns]
Table N.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 617,143 693,940 758,427 810,650 853,964 885,665
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 186,866 191,078 195,658 197,472 197,994 198,814
Groundwater 57,580 58,951 58,442 58,522 58,237 57,624
Total Water Supply 244,446 250,029 254,100 255,994 256,231 256,438
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 100,231 111,366 120,543 128,115 134,959 140,636
County‐other 11,264 11,495 11,520 11,310 11,077 10,838
Manufacturing 63,820 69,255 73,861 78,371 82,283 88,122
Mining 15,150 16,524 16,640 17,490 18,347 19,114
Irrigation 25,884 26,152 26,671 27,433 28,450 29,726
Steam Electric 7,316 14,312 16,733 19,683 23,280 27,664
Livestock 8,838 8,838 8,838 8,838 8,838 8,838
Total Water Demands 232,503 257,942 274,806 291,240 307,234 324,938
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 138 256 366 464 550 627
County‐other 428 301 387 363 1,890 1,768
Manufacturing 409 7,980 15,859 25,181 34,686 46,905
Mining 1,802 2,996 4,471 6,166 6,897 7,584
Irrigation 627 569 1,264 2,316 3,784 5,677
Steam Electric ‐1,982 4,755 7,459 10,187 13,183
Total Water Needs 3,404 14,084 27,102 41,949 57,994 75,744
Municipal
Conservation
1.5%
Irrigation
Conservation
0.2%
Other
Conservation
2.8%
New Major
Reservoir
29.8%
Other Surface
Water
45.3%
Groundwater
20.2%
Reuse
0.2%
Figure N.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans N‐2
‐
Table N.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
N CONSTRUCTION OF LAVACA RIVER OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR
DIVERSION PROJECT (REGION N COMPONENT) $138,753,917
‐
‐
‐‐‐
16,242
N GARWOOD PIPELINE $112,798,000
‐
35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
N GULF COAST AQUIFER SUPPLIES $13,413,000 1,975 2,535 11,535 11,535 13,551 13,551
N GULF COAST AQUIFER SUPPLIES (REGIONAL) $59,245,000
‐
‐11,000 11,000 11,000 18,000
N IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION $0 17 52 103 169 248 342
N MANUFACTURING WATER CONSERVATION $0 1,260 1,418 1,576 1,734 1,892 2,050
N MINING WATER CONSERVATION $0 281 626 998 1,410 1,863 2,343
N MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION $0 106 353 721 1,153 1,763 2,415
N O.N. STEVENS WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS $31,324,000 42,329 40,048 38,102 36,366 34,817 32,996
N OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR NEAR LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI $300,577,000
‐
‐30,340 30,340 30,340 30,340
N RECLAIMED WASTEWATER SUPPLIES $0 250 250 250 250 250 250
N VOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION $0 736 738 914 1,060 2,706 2,797
Total $656,110,917 46,954 81,020 130,539 130,017 133,430 156,326
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans N‐3
SUMMARY OF LLANO ESTACADO (O) REGION
The Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning Area includes 21 counties in the Southern High Plains of Texas in the
upstream portion of four river basins (Figure O.1). Groundwater currently provides over 97 percent of the existing
water supplies in the region. Surface water is supplied by four reservoirs in or near the region, primarily from Lake
Meredith in the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority’s system.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐2,366,036 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 – 395,957
acre‐feet/year
Total capital cost $1.1 billion
Conservation accounts for 74% of 2060 strategy volumes
Two new major reservoirs (Jim Bertram Lake 07, Post – see
Figure 2.9)
Significant unmet irrigation and livestock needs
Figure O.1 ‐Llano Estacado Region
Almost two percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region O, and between 2010 and
2060 its population is projected to increase by 12 percent to 551,758.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans O‐1
4” columns]
Table O.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 492,627 521,930 540,908 552,188 553,691 551,758
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 28,261 33,707 33,590 33,490 32,096 32,042
Groundwater 3,076,297 2,454,665 1,966,463 1,577,083 1,412,889 1,337,017
Reuse 51,514 35,071 35,822 36,737 37,853 39,213
Total Water Supply 3,156,072 2,523,443 2,035,875 1,647,310 1,482,838 1,408,272
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 87,488 91,053 92,823 93,459 93,458 93,935
County‐other 11,949 12,420 12,652 12,583 12,399 12,005
Manufacturing 15,698 16,669 17,460 18,216 18,865 19,919
Mining 16,324 10,280 6,359 2,852 728 258
Irrigation 4,186,018 4,024,942 3,882,780 3,740,678 3,604,568 3,474,163
Steam Electric 25,645 25,821 30,188 35,511 42,000 49,910
Livestock 51,296 57,740 61,372 65,277 69,466 73,965
Total Water Demands 4,394,418 4,238,925 4,103,634 3,968,576 3,841,484 3,724,155
Ne
e
d
s
Municipal 10,349 14,247 20,116 23,771 28,489 30,458
Irrigation 1,264,707 1,735,399 2,084,569 2,331,719 2,361,813 2,318,004
Livestock 1 763 3,191 9,506 14,708 17,574
Total Water Needs 1,275,057 1,750,409 2,107,876 2,364,996 2,405,010 2,366,036
Municipal
Conservation
2.6%
Irrigation
Conservation
71.5%
New Major
Reservoir
11.0%
Other Surface
Water
6.5%
Groundwater
7.0%Reuse
0.6%
Groundwater
Desalination
0.8%
Figure O.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans O‐2
‐
Table O.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy Total Capital
Costs 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
O CRMWA REGION O LOCAL GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT $56,574,000
‐
‐15,500 14,130 12,717 11,445
O IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION $345,824,000 479,466 431,517 388,366 349,528 314,577 283,118
O LAKE ALAN HENRY PIPELINE FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK $294,329,000 21,880 21,880 21,880 21,880 21,880 21,880
O LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY FOR LAKE ALAN HENRY WSC $7,334,502 270 270 270 270 270 270
O LOCAL GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT $21,438,369 10,034 12,711 15,253 15,871 16,841 16,175
O LUBBOCK BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALINATION $13,167,000
‐
3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360
O LUBBOCK JIM BERTRAM LAKE 7 $68,288,400
‐
17,650 17,650 17,650 17,650 17,650
O LUBBOCK NORTH FORK DIVERSION OPERATION (A) $153,040,000
‐
3,675 3,675 3,675 3,675 3,675
O MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION $0 5,809 10,583 10,729 10,264 10,206 10,424
O POST RESERVOIR‐DELIVERED TO LAH PIPELINE $110,307,000
‐
‐25,720 25,720 25,720 25,720
O RECLAIMED WATER‐WHITE RIVER MWD $38,089,684
‐
2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240
Total $1,108,391,955 517,459 503,886 504,643 464,588 429,136 395,957
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans O‐3
SUMMARY OF LAVACA (P) REGION
The Lavaca Regional Water Planning Area, mostly within the Lavaca river basin, is composed of Jackson and Lavaca
counties and County Precinct 3 of Wharton County (Figure P.1). Groundwater currently provides 99 percent of the
existing water supplies in the region from the Gulf Coast aquifer. Surface water supply is from Lake Texana.
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Additional supply needed in 2060 ‐67,739 acre‐feet/year
Recommended water strategy volume in 2060 ‐67,739 acre‐feet/year
Figure P.1 ‐Lavaca Region
Less than one percent of the state’s 2010 total population is projected to reside in Region P, and between 2010
and 2060 its population is projected to increase by less than one percent to 49,663.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans P‐1
[2” ‐4”
columns]
Table P.1 ‐Population, Water Supply, Demand, and Needs 2010‐2060
Year 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Population Projections 49,491 51,419 52,138 51,940 51,044 49,663
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Surface Water 1,832 1,832 1,832 1,832 1,832 1,832
Groundwater 162,316 162,316 162,316 162,316 162,316 162,316
Total Water Supply 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148 164,148
De
m
a
n
d
s
Municipal 4,841 4,927 4,975 4,996 5,032 5,092
County‐other 2,374 2,378 2,283 2,119 1,957 1,800
Manufacturing 1,089 1,162 1,223 1,281 1,331 1,425
Mining 164 172 177 182 188 192
Irrigation 217,846 217,846 217,846 217,846 217,846 217,846
Livestock 3,499 3,499 3,499 3,499 3,499 3,499
Total Water Demands 229,813 229,984 230,003 229,923 229,853 229,854
Ne
e
d
s
Irrigation 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739
Total Water Needs 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,739
Groundwater
100%
Figure P.2 ‐2060 Recommended Water Management Strategies – Relative Share of Supply
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans P‐2
‐
Table P.2 ‐Recommended Water Management Strategies
Water Supply Volume (acre feet/year)
Region Recommended Water Management Strategy
Total
Capital
Costs
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CONJUNCTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER (TEMPORARY P $0 5,053 5,053 5,053 5,054 5,053 5,053 OVERDRAFT) ‐JACKSON COUNTY
CONJUNCTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER (TEMPORARY P $0 62,686 62,686 62,686 62,686 62,686 62,686 OVERDRAFT) ‐WHARTON COUNTY
Total $0 67,739 67,739 67,739 67,740 67,739 67,739
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans P‐3
2060
APPENDIX A
Figure I - Locations Recommended in the Brazos G RWPG Water Plan for Designation as Unique Reservoir Sites
Figure II - Locations Recommended by Regional Water Planning Groups for Designation as River and Stream
Segments of Unique Ecological Value
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
APPENDIX B
Glossary of Selected Water Planning Terms
acre-foot: volume of water needed to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. It equals 325,851 gallons.
aquifer: geologic formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of
water to wells and springs. The formation could be sand, gravel,
limestone, sandstone, or fractured igneous rocks.
availability: maximum amount of water available during the drought of record, regardless of whether the supply is
physically or legally available.
brackish water: water with total dissolved solids between 1,000 and 10,000 milligrams per liter.
capital cost: portion of the estimated cost (based on 2008 dollars) of a water management strategy that includes
both the direct costs of constructing facilities, such as materials, labor, and equipment, and the indirect expenses
associated with construction activities, such as costs for engineering studies, legal counsel, land acquisition,
contingencies, environmental mitigation, interest during construction, and permitting costs.
conjunctive use: the combined use of groundwater and surface water sources that optimizes the beneficial
characteristics of each source.
desalination: process of removing salt from seawater or brackish water.
drought: term is generally applied to periods of less than average precipitation over a certain period of time.
Associated definitions include meteorological drought (abnormally dry weather), agricultural drought (adverse
impact on crop or range production), and hydrologic drought (below average water content in aquifers and/or
reservoirs).
drought of record: period of time during recorded history when natural hydrological conditions provided the least
amount of water supply.
existing water supply: maximum amount of water available from existing sources for use during drought of record
conditions that is physically and legally available for use.
firm yield: maximum water volume a reservoir can provide each year under a repeat of the drought of record.
flood control storage: storage in a lake or reservoir, between two designated water surface elevations, that is
dedicated to storing floodwater so that flood damages downstream are eliminated or reduced.
groundwater availability model: numerical groundwater flow models used by TWDB to determine groundwater
availability of the major and minor aquifers in Texas.
groundwater management area: area designated and delineated by TWDB as an area suitable for management of
groundwater resources.
infrastructure: physical means for meeting water and wastewater needs, such as dams, wells, conveyance
systems, and water treatment plants.
interbasin transfer: physical conveyance of surface water from one river basin to another.
major reservoir: reservoir having a storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
APPENDIX B
needs: projected water demands in excess of existing water supplies for a water user group or a wholesale water
provider.
recharge: amount of water that infiltrates to the water table of an aquifer.
recommended water management strategy: specific project or action to increase water supply or maximize
existing supply to meet a specific need.
reuse: use of surface water that has already been beneficially used once under a water right or the use of
groundwater which has already been used.
run-of-river diversion: Water right permit that allows the permit holder to divert water directly out of a stream or
river.
safe yield: firm yield in addition to an amount of water supply for an additional period of time.
sedimentation: action or process of depositing sediment in a reservoir, usually silts, sands, or gravel.
storage: natural or artificial impoundment and accumulation of water in surface or underground reservoirs, usually
for later withdrawal or release.
subordination agreement: contracts between junior and senior water right holders where the senior water right
holder agrees not to assert its priority right against the junior.
unmet needs: portion of the demand for water that exceeds water supply after inclusion of all recommended
water management strategies in a regional water plan.
water availability model: numerical surface water flow models to determine the availability of surface water for
permitting in the state.
water demand: quantity of water projected to meet the overall necessities of a water user group in a specific
future year.
water user group: identified user or group of users for which water demands and water supplies have been
identified and analyzed and plans developed to meet water needs. Water user groups are defined at the county
level for the manufacturing, irrigation, livestock, steam-electric power generation, and mining water use
categories. Municipal water user groups include (a) incorporated cities and selected Census Designated Places with
a population of 500 or more; (b) individual or groups of selected water utilities serving smaller municipalities or
unincorporated areas; and (c) rural areas not included in a listed city or utility, aggregated for each county.
wholesale water provider: person or entity, including river authorities and irrigation districts, that had contracts to
sell more than 1,000 acre-feet of water wholesale in any one year during the five years immediately preceding the
adoption of the last regional water plan.
Water for Texas:
Summary of the 2011 Regional Water Plans
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231
Austin, Texas 78711-3231
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY: