rio grande regional water planning group (rgrwpg) … · 9/13/2017 · sonia lambert water...

1

AGENDA

RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) (REGION M)

9:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017

LRGVDC MAIN CAMPUS KEN JONES EXECUTIVE BOARD ROOM

301 W. RAILROAD ST., WESLACO, TEXAS

PRESIDING: TOMAS RODRIGUEZ, CHAIRMAN

1. Call to Order & Roll Call .................................................................................................................... Chairman 2. Consider Approval of July 12, 2017 Meeting Minutes ....................................................................... Chairman

3. Public Comment .................................................................................................................................. Chairman 4. Report on Open Meetings Training (TOMA) for RWPG Members ................................................... Chairman 5. Consider Approval to Advertise for Voting Member in Municipalities Category.............................. Chairman 6. Status Reports

A. Status on Current TWDB Contract Activities .......................................................................... Sara Eatman Black & Veatch

1. Population and Municipal Demand Projections

a. Revisions to Population Projection b. Sub-WUG Update

2. Revisions to Irrigation Projections

3. Groundwater Availability Changes

4. Contract Updates 5. Report on 2016 Process to Identify Potentially Feasible Water Management Strategies

ACTION ITEM

ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

ACTION ITEM

2

B. Financial Report ................................................................................................................... Marcie Oviedo LRGVDC

C. Status of Joint Groundwater Area Planning in GMA’s 4, 5, 7, 13, & 16 ............................. Armando Vela GMA 16

D. Status of No Charge Releases from the San Juan River .................................................... Sonny Hinojosa Vice Chair

E. Reports from Other Water Planning Groups

1. Reports from Liaisons with Regions: Region E, Glenn Jarvis; Region J, Chairman Tomas Rodriguez; Region L, Don McGhee, and Region N, Judge Humberto Gonzalez

F. Report on Water Conservation Plans and Drought Management Plans Filed with Region ......... Chairman

G. Report on Notices of Applications for Funding and Grants ......................................................... Chairman 7. Reports from Federal and State Agencies

A. TWDB ..................................................................................................................................William Alfaro Regional Water Planning

1. Contracts 2. Working Schedule and Upcoming Deadlines 3. Legislative Update 4. RWPG Consultant Conference Call 5. New Member Orientation – Part 2

B. IBWC .................................................................................................................................. Edward Drusina Commissioner

C. TCEQ Watermaster ......................................................................................................... Jose “Lupe” Luna Rio Grande Watermaster

D. TPWD ........................................................................................................................................ Willy Cupit

ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

3

8. Discussion and Consider Action RE: Meeting Schedule ................................................................... Chairman 9. Adjourn

Agenda items may be considered, deliberated and/or acted upon in a different order than numbered above. The Board of Directors of the Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (RGRWPG) (Region M) reserves the right to adjourn into Executive (Closed) Session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the items listed on this agenda as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. No final action will be taken in Executive Session.

PUBLIC INPUT POLICY

Public Input Policy: “At the beginning of each RGRWPG meeting, the RGRWPG will allow for an open public forum/comment period. This comment period shall not exceed one (1) hour in length, and each speaker will be allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes to speak. All individuals desiring to address the RGRWPG must be signed up to do so, prior to the open comment period. The purpose of this comment period is to provide the public an opportunity to address issues or topics that are under the jurisdiction of the RGRWPG as outlined within final implementation guidelines of Senate Bill 1, 75th Legislative Session (SB-1). For issues or topics which are not otherwise part of the posted agenda for the meeting, RGRWPG members may direct staff to investigate the issue or topic further. No action shall be taken on issues or topics which are not part of the posted agenda for the meeting. Members of the public may be recognized on posted agenda items deemed appropriate by the Chairman as these items are considered, and the same time limitation (3 minutes) applies.”

ITEM 2.

MEETING MINUTES

Minutes, RGRWPG, July 12, 2017, Page 1 of 5

MINUTES

MEETING OF THE RIO GRANDE REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP (RGRWPG) (REGION “M”)

9:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017

LRGVDC MAIN CAMPUS – KEN JONES EXECUTIVE BOARD ROOM

301 W. RAILROAD STREET, WESLACO, TX PRESIDING: PRESIDENT TOMAS RODRIGUEZ, CHAIRMAN

- DRAFT - 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Tomas Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 9.32 a.m. and announced that the meeting had been posted as required by statute, and that a quorum of the voting membership was present. The following voting members were in attendance: Board Members Category Tomas Rodriguez, Chairman Public Sonny Hinojosa, Vice Chairman Water Districts Donald McGhee, Secretary Industries Frank Schuster, Executive Committee Other Nick Benavides, Executive Committee Small Business Glenn Jarvis Other John Bruciak Municipalities Sonia Lambert Water Districts Carlos Garza Small Business Dennis Goldsberry Water Utility Armando Vela Groundwater Management Area Riazul Mia Municipalities Dale Murden Agriculture The following members were not in attendance: Mayor Jim Darling River Authorities Jorge Barrera Municipalities Judge Joe Rathmell Counties Jaime Flores Environmental Robert Pena, Jr. Electric Generating Utility Judge Humberto Gonzalez Counties Dr. Neal Wilkins Agriculture 2. Consider Approval RE: Minutes of February 8, 2017 Meeting Mr. Glenn Jarvis made a motion to approve the minutes of February 8, 2017 as presented. Mr. Carlos Garza seconded the motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously. 3. Hear Public Comment Dr. Ron Lacewell was recognized and informed the Group that the Water for Agriculture project awarded to the Texas Water Resources Institute was approved through USDA water portfolio for the Rio Grande; and he would like to make sure it is incorporated back into the Rio Grande Regional Water Plan. He also informed the Group that they were working on a TWDB Project on the demonstration of agriculture water efficiency for citrus and row crops, and a Dry Year Option for South Texas which has relevance to the Rio Grande Regional Water Plan.


Next, Mr. Javier Mendez, City Administrator for the City of Primera, was recognized and informed the Group that the City of Primera has exhausted their water rights and would like to amend the 2016 Rio Grande Regional Water Plan. He came before the Group to advise them of their need and intentions. 4. Presentation RE: Update on Lower Rio Grande Valley Transport Model Dr. Bill Hutchison was recognized and began a presentation titled “Lower Rio Grande Valley Groundwater Transport Model: Predictive Simulations”. The background of this project comes from the 2016 Rio Grande Reginal Water Plan (Plan). The Plan recommends an additional 23 water management strategies involving both brackish and fresh groundwater. This model is needed in order to evaluate groundwater level and quality changes, evaluate impacts to surface water, and evaluate potential for subsidence. The “takeaways” of this model are historic groundwater pumping in the LRGV has been low, and Region M strategies represent a large increase. The increased groundwater pumping lowers groundwater levels, induces flow from surrounding areas, and reduces surface water flow at a ratio of approximately 2:1. The draft Predictive Simulations report was delivered on June 30, 2017 and all reports can be found on the Texas Water Development Board website. 24.00 5. Presentation RE: Long Term Management of Carrizo Cane along the Rio Grande in the U.S. and Mexico by Biological and Mechanical Control Methods Dr. John Goolsby, USDA Agricultural Research Services, was recognized and gave a presentation titled “Biological Control of Arundo donax; an invasive weed of the Rio Grande Basin”. In this presentation Dr. Goolsby explained the impacts of Arundo in the Rio Grande Basin, gave a comparison to its native range in Europe, and explained the biological control program in Texas and Mexico. He also showed photographic evidence of the results from the new mechanical topping and biological program to achieve immediate visibility of the Rio Grande. In summary, Arundo donax, Carrizo cane is declining along the Rio Grande from Del Rio to Brownsville due to attack by biocontrol insects. A new topping technique synergizes with biocontrol to provide immediate visibility and is a scalable technology for the Rio Grande. A third agent, the Arundo leaf-miner, will further accelerate the decline of this non-native, invasive plant. 33.48 6. Presentation RE: Ocean Naiad – Seawater Desalination Project No one was present to speak on this topic. 7. Status Reports

A. Status on Current TWDB Contract Activities Ms. Sara Eatman, Black & Veatch was recognized to address the following items.

1. Population and Municipal Demand Projections

a. Review of Projections

Ms. Eatman went over the population and municipal demand as well as demands for irrigation, manufacturing, steam-electric, livestock, and mining. She informed the Group that, should they opt for the Sub-Water User Group (WUG) option, the deadline to submit is September 1, 2017

b. Summary of Survey Results

Ms. Eatman stated that surveys were emailed to 95 representatives of the 63 municipal WUGs. 27% of respondents approved of the projections, 12% did not respond.

c. Option to Establish Sub-WUGs

Ms. Eatman informed the Group that under the current definition of a WUG, the following entities do not qualify as such: Brownsville Navigation District, Llano Grande Lake Park East, Bruni Rural WSC, Oilton Rural WSC, IBWC Falcon Village, Town of Indian Lake, Quiet Village II, Llano Grande Lake Park West, La Miranda


Country Estates, and Trails End Mobile Home Park. The Group does have the option to include any of these entities as a Sub-WUG and categorize them away from the County-Other category. Mr. Glenn Jarvis made a motion to include the entities listed above as Sub-WUGs. Mr. Riazul Mia seconded the motion. Upon further discussion Mr. Jarvis modified his motion to include the ability to refer any issues obtaining information from the above mentioned entities from County-Other to Sub-WUGs to the Executive Committee for consideration and action. Mr. Mia seconded the modified motion, and upon a vote the motion carried unanimously. 1.38.45

2. Demand Projections for Non-Municipal Water Uses

Ms. Eatman explained the methodology used for the non-municipal demand projections for Irrigation, Manufacturing, Steam-Electric, and Livestock. 2.12.45

3. GMA 16 Groundwater Availability Projections

Ms. Eatman summarized the procedure to make the Groundwater Available Projections. 2.27.45 -2.30.33

B. Financial Report Ms. Debby Morales, LRGVDC, was recognized and reported that the current budget expenses total $4,091.05, leaving a 2017 budget balance of $13,158.95 for the remainder of 2017. The amount of current available funds is $73,429.51. 2.31.40

C. Status of Joint Groundwater Area Planning in GMA’s 4, 5, 7, 13, & 16

Mr. Armando Vela was recognized and reported that the main topics of discussion at GMA 16 are the types of Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) and the drawdown of water.

D. Discussion of IBWC Water Accounting at Fort Quitman

There was no new information to report on this item.

E. Status of No Charge Releases from the San Juan River Mr. Sonny Hinojosa was recognized and reported that the majority of irrigation districts in the region have filed a law suit against TCEQ because of the charged diversions from the San Juan River flood flows in 2015. There was an unfavorable decision regarding the pleas to the jurisdiction from the Travis County Court, so the irrigation districts have appealed that decision and the case is now in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi. However, TCEQ has stated that in the future they will not charge for any diversions of excess flows from the San Juan River. Mr. Hinojosa also reported that he communicated with Mr. Bech Bruun, the Governor’s liaison for the 1944 Treaty and IBWC and Mexico. Mr. Bruun informed him that currently Mexico has no intention to release any water. Mexico also does not intend to offer any water from the San Juan, which is good. However, during discussions in March, Mexico officials said they were going to try to release some water to catch up with their delivery deficit; they are behind on deliveries and there was supposedly a plan to release 50,000 acre feet to the Rio Grande. Unfortunately, due to the results of some elections in Mexico, that did not happen. 0

F. Reports from Other Water Planning Groups

1. Reports from Liaisons with Regions: Region E, Glenn Jarvis; Region J, Chairman

Tomas Rodriguez; Region L, Don McGhee, and Region N, Judge Humberto Gonzalez Mr. Carl Schwing from Region J was recognized and reported that there is a burn ban in effect for 50% of Kerr County, and that the City of Kerrville has constructed 4 wastewater treatment plant effluent rendition ponds.

Mr. Rodriguez reported he attended a Region J meeting in Del Rio and found that some of their topics of discussion were related to those of Region M. After becoming more familiar with the Region J Group he hopes to confer with them on shared concerns.


G. Report on Water Conservation Plans and Drought Management Plans Filed with Region Chairman Rodriguez noted that some entities remain in non-compliance of submitting their plans to Region M. Staff has posted this list on the Region M website: riograndewaterplan.org. Not submitting a plan to Region M will affect an entity’s ability to receive grant funds.

H. Report on Notices of Applications for Funding and Grants

Chairman Rodriguez noted that this list was in the meeting packet for review.

I. Status of Studies and Activities on Rio Grande Basin Groundwater Interaction with Surface Water Chairman Rodriguez informed the Group that the last report he had was that Dr. Ron Green had finished the study. Mr. Ria Mia stated that Dr. Green gave a presentation on the Study to the City of Laredo City Council and that they accepted the study. Chairman Rodriguez advises keeping abreast of this issue as it shows evidence of a relationship between pumping groundwater and the levels of surface water.

J. Report on North Alamo Water Supply Corporation (NAWSC) Feasibility Study of Higher

Energy Efficiency Alternatives for Brackish Groundwater Desalination Chairman Rodriguez noted that there was a letter in the meeting packet from NAWSC that states they have contracted with Freese and Nichols, Inc. to conduct this study and that the estimated duration of the study is 10 months. The projected start date is October 1, 2017. Upon completion the findings of the study will be shared with the Group.

8. Reports from Federal and State Agencies

A. TWDB 2.41.43

1. TWDB New Project Manager Assigned to Region M Mr. William Alfaro was recognized and introduced himself as Region M’s new Project Manager from TWDB. He began a presentation that included his background and qualifications.

2. Contract Amendment No. 1, and Consultant Contract Amendments

Mr. Alfaro informed the group that the LRGVDC contract amendment No. 1 has been executed by both parties. This amendment revises the scope of work, the task and expense budget, and the total committed funds.

3. Upcoming Deadlines

Mr. Alfaro informed the Group that the draft projections revision requests are due by January 12, 2018.

4. Current Rules (Pamphlet), and 5th Cycle Documents Availability

Copies of the current rules pamphlet were distributed to the group; that and the Fifth Cycle Working Documents are available on the TWDB website.

5. RWPG Chairs Conference Call Highlights

Mr. Alfaro informed the Group that during the Regional Water Planning Groups Chairs Conference Call on June 28, 2017 topics of discussion included an update on the state-wide Water Conservation Study, the 85th Legislature update on bills that were passed relevant to regional water planning, the 5th Cycle general timelines, and the projections updates.

2.54.27


6. Discussion on TWDB Approved SWIFT Projects Mr. Alfaro provided a spreadsheet of all projects in the Region M area funded by TWDB; due to the large size of the spreadsheet it has been made available on the Groups website: riograndewaterplan.org on the meetings page.

7. New Member Orientation – Part 1

Mr. Alfaro was recognized and gave a presentation that included the background of water planning in Texas, and an overview of regional water planning groups. 3.24.13

B. IBWC

No representative from the IBWC was present and no report was provided.

C. TCEQ Watermaster There were no representatives from the TCEQ Watermaster’s Office; the report on reservoir levels was on the tablets for review.

D. TPWD

Mr. Willy Cupit was recognized and informed the Group that staff continues to coordinate on HB 32 with the GLO, TWDB, and TCEQ to finalize the identification of discharge zones for seawater desalination discharge.

9. Discussion and Possible Action RE: Meeting Schedule

It was the consensus of the Group to schedule the next meeting on September 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

10. Adjourn

Prior to adjournment, Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Ron Garza, LRGVDC Executive Director to inform the Group about the LRGVDC’s Road to Recycling tire project. Mr. Garza gave a brief presentation and explained the benefits of this project as it relates to water issues in the Region M Area. There being no further business to come before the Group the meeting was adjourned at 1:17 p.m.

1.13.48 _____________________________________

Tomas Rodriguez, Chairman

ITEM 5.

VOTING MEMBER VACANCY

ITEM 6.A.

STATUS ON CURRENT TWDB

CONTRACT ACTIVITIES

6.A.1: Summary of Proposed Revisions to Draft Population and Demand Projections

Population and Municipal Demand Surveys with the draft population, GPCD, and demand were distributed to contacts at all WUGs, and the responses were used to guide the revision requests below. County population totals were maintained, so increases and decreases in WUG population were move to/from the County-Other WUG.

1. Cameron The survey respondents with comments are shown in the table below:

Brownsville Mr. Omar Anzaldua 2030 population looks low El Jardin WSC Ms. Mario Sais Population is a little low Laguna Madre Water District Mr. Carlos Galvan Low population and high demand Laguna Madre Water District Mr. Charles Ortiz Low population and high demand

Palm Valley Mr. Rosendo Flores

Demand and pop are too high - land-locked at 1300 residents and 313 AF/yr WR

1.1. Palm Valley Palm Valley is limited in their extent and are not expecting (nor have they experienced historically) significant growth. Using the largest value of the last 5 years of data, 1350 people. Increasing 1% each decade assuming some increased infill. The GPCD projected by TWDB is used to generate revised municipal demand projections.

Pop2020 Pop2030 Pop2040 Pop2050 Pop2060 Pop2070

DRAFT Population 1,538 1,797 2,059 2,342 2,633 2,931

DRAFT Demand 176 285 324 364 411 461

Revised Population 1,350 1,364 1,377 1,391 1,405 1,419

Revised Demand 250 246 244 245 245 248

1.2. Laguna Madre Laguna Madre estimates are on the 5-year, so the linear interpolation between 2015 and 2025 would be 18,783. This projection is used for 2020 with the TWDB’s estimated decadal growth rate. The GPCD and demand were also noted as too high, so the highest recorded/projected GPCD from their report was

used as a base year (286 from 386) and reduced by the efficiency gains calculated by TWDB for each decade.

2015 2025 2040 LMWD’s Population Est 17,124 20,441 26,464



DRAFT Demand 7,047 8,157 9,296 10,544 11,845 13,183


Revised Demand 5,828 6,489 7,043 7,497 7,852 8,100

1.3. El Jardin El Jardin is included in Brownsville’s plan, and the 2020 master plan projection of population in the service area is used with the TWDB projection growth rate for a revised population projection. TWDB GPCD projections were retained for the revised demand.



DRAFT Demand 1,400 1,586 1,785 2,011 2,254 2,508


Revised Demand 1,529 1,734 1,947 2,191 2,463 2,742

1.4. Brownsville Brownsville’s 2020 master plan projected population for the service area is used with the TWDB projection growth rate for a revised population projection. TWDB GPCD projections were retained for the revised demand.



DRAFT Demand 34,571 40,146 45,963 52,509 59,425 66,590


Revised Demand 35,575 41,221 47,249 53,990 60,790 68,162

1.5. County-Other County-Other was revised to offset the changes to the WUGs.



DRAFT Demand 5,291 5,151 5,886 6,504 7,360 7,708


Revised Demand 3,933 3,612 4,189 4,584 5,231 5,351

2. Hidalgo The survey respondents with comments are shown in the table below:

Hidalgo County MUD 1 Mr. Jeremiah Martin

Projections after 2030 may be too high, since the district is land-locked and can't expand

Hidalgo County MUD 1 Mr. Veronica Vasquez

Projections after 2030 may be too high, since the district is land-locked and can't expand

Pharr Mr. David Garza Demand is low (used 11,300 AF in 2016) Pharr Mr. Heriberto De Leon Demand is low (used 11,300 AF in 2016) Pharr Mr. Jesse Trejo Demand is low (used 11,300 AF in 2016) Weslaco Mr. Mardoqueo Hinojosa Population is high

2.1. Hidalgo County MUD Hidalgo County MUD population projections and growth rates are shown:


DRAFT Projection 7,909 9,822 11,741 13,663 15,588 17,458 DRAFT Decadal Growth Rate

0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11

Rather than starting with 19% growth rate, a 10-year growth rate was estimated using the 6-years of historical population data given ( (10/6)*(P2015-P2010)/P2010 ) which is 13%. The erosion rate of growth that was used in the TWDB projections is applied to the 13% decadal average of historical growth and applied to the 2020 projection.


Revised Growth Rate 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 Revised Population 7,909 8,937 9,912 10,843 11,737 12,576 Revised GPCD 88 85 84 84 83 83 Revised Demand 780 781 851 926 995 1,059

The draft GPCD is based off of the year with the lowest GPCD in the historical estimates, and the revision proposed is based off of the average of the 2010-2015 values, with efficiency savings applied over the planning horizon.

2.2. Pharr The draft projections were based on 27% growth from 2010, but the revision increases this growth rate to 33%, which is the recorded growth rate from 2010 – 2015. Pharr’s revised 2020 population of 89,220 which was used with the TWDB growth rates for the remaining projections. The largest reported GPCD from the Water Use Survey, (111) was used instead of the draft base year GPCD (108) and the efficiency gains estimated by TWDB were subtracted for future decade GPCD estimates.


DRAFT Population 84,521 104,950 125,461 146,013 166,566 186,546 DRAFT Demand 9,400 11,304 13,282 15,330 17,445 19,521 TWDB Growth Rate 0.27 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12 Rev Population 89,220 110,785 132,436 154,131 175,826 196,917 Rev GPCD 102 99 98 97 97 96 Rev Demands 10,223 12,305 14,465 16,700 19,006 21,268

2.3. Weslaco The draft projections showed a 45% increase in population between the 2010 projection and the 2020 projection, which was revised down to 33% based on the 2020-2030 decadal growth rate. The TWDB growth rate projection applied through the remainder of the planning horizon. The draft GPCD values were used.


DRAFT Population 48,270 59,939 71,653 83,390 95,128 106,539 DRAFT Demand 8,407 10,199 12,035 13,924 15,859 17,752 Rev Population 44,194 57,073 68,676 80,515 92,319 103,339 Rev Demands 8,168 9,909 11,693 13,528 15,408 17,247

2.4. County-Other Pop2020 Pop2030 Pop2040 Pop2050 Pop2060 Pop2070

DRAFT Population 24,323 31,825 39,382 46,765 54,116 61,161 DRAFT Demand 2,948 3,811 4,697 5,562 6,422 7,253 Rev Population 23,700 29,741 37,213 44,343 51,516 58,872 Rev Demands 2,867 3,565 4,418 5,265 6,117 6,990

3. Jim Hogg

No changes.

4. Maverick Eagle Pass noted that the draft population projections were low, and the GPCD high. The revision is based on the average of the TWDB 2010 population estimate and the population from the Water Use Survey for the base year, and the draft TWDB growth rate was applied to generate projections for the remainder of the planning horizon. The GPCD was based on the largest historical (2010-2015) GPCD estimate. Efficiency savings projected by TWDB for Eagle Pass were subtracted from the base GPCD for the decadal projections.


DRAFT Population 52,598 61,335 69,484 77,920 86,006 93,772 DRAFT GPCD 172 168 166 165 164 164 DRAFT Demand 10,145 11,561 12,908 14,374 15,840 17,262 Rev Population 57,119 66,607 75,457 84,618 93,399 101,833 Rev GPCD 151 147 145 144 143 143 Rev Demands 9,673 10,988 12,243 13,619 15,005 16,350

4.1. County-Other Pop2020 Pop2030 Pop2040 Pop2050 Pop2060 Pop2070

DRAFT Population 8,838 9,236 9,607 9,992 10,360 10,712 DRAFT Demand 1,180 1,198 1,224 1,261 1,304 1,348 Rev Population 4,317 3,964 3,634 3,294 2,967 2,651 Rev Demands 576 514 463 416 374 334

5. Starr

5.1. Union WSC Union WSC requested that population and demands be increased. The population projected was lower than the projections included in the 2016 RWP, but were higher than the population projected using the 2010 census population or utility-reported population served as a base year. The draft population was therefore retained. However, the GPCD used in the projections was the lowest of the 6 years shown in the Historical GPCD estimates. The requested revision is to use the average of the historical GPCD estimates (137) rather than the lowest year (108) as the base year projection. The efficiency savings estimated by TWDB were applied to subsequent decades.


DRAFT Population 7,215 8,161 9,032 9,894 10,667 11,367 DRAFT GPCD 100 97 96 95 95 95 DRAFT Demand 809 890 969 1,052 1,131 1,204

Rev GPCD 129 126 125 124 124 124 Rev Demands 1,043 1,155 1,262 1,373 1,477 1,573

5.2. County-Other Population for Union WSC was not revised, so there are not changes to County-Other.

6. Willacy No changes.

7. Webb Webb County Water Utility noted that their population and demands are slightly higher than anticipated, but erring on the side of conservative planning, these draft estimates were retained. No change is requested.

8. Zapata No changes.

6.A.2: Summary of Proposed Revisions to Draft Irrigation Demand Projections

1. Irrigation Demand Projections

1.1. 2016 RWP Projections The irrigation demand projections in the 2016 RWP were based on the historical use by county between 2005 and 2009. For each county, the year with the largest water use was selected as their demand, so the regional total reflected the sum of each county’s highest demand year.

The demand was expected to decline over the planning horizon, and the rate of decline was correlated with the increase in demand for municipal water. (This was based on the approximation that the water supply is relatively fixed in the region, and that urbanization will both decrease irrigation demand and increase municipal demands.) For 2030 – 2070, the decadal increase in municipal demands was subtracted from the irrigation demand in order to estimate the impact of urbanization.

1.2. DRAFT TWDB Projections The TWDB’s draft projections for the 2021 plan are based on the average use, by county, between 2010 and 2014. These demands are held constant through the planning horizon (2020-2070).

1.3. Proposed Revision Methodology Three possible base years irrigation demands were analyzed. The RWPG requested that 2011 be evaluated as a potential base year for the irrigation demand projections, which is representative of a year with little rainfall (high demand) and full reservoirs (minimal supply constraints) at 1,426,960 AF. The estimate used by TWDB (945,804) is used as a possible base year, which represents the average of 2010-2014 demands. Additionally, an average of the demands between 2010 and 2012 is used to represent an average drought period (1,074,963).

A rate of change is applied which is based on the rate of sedimentation estimated in the Amistad-Falcon Reservoir system, and the rate at which water rights have been historically converted from Class A and B to DMI. These trends are applied to surface water, and the groundwater-based demands are assumed to follow a similar urbanization trend.

PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLIES

Source 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Amistad-Falcon Reservoir - Firm Yield 1,060,616 1,059,260 1,057,903 1,056,547 1,055,191 1,053,834

Wat

er R

ight

Fa

ce V

alue

Class A 1,436,017 1,400,331 1,364,645 1,328,959 1,293,273 1,257,587

Class B 162,301 148,507 134,713 120,919 107,125 93,331

DMI 329,493 351,607 373,722 395,837 417,951 440,066

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Total Available for Irrigation 731,123 707,653 684,181 660,710 637,240 613,768

Class A Reliability 46.8% 46.7% 46.5% 46.4% 46.3% 46.1%

Class B Reliability 36.6% 36.5% 36.4% 36.3% 36.2% 36.1%

Proj

ecte

d Su

pplie

s

Class A Supply 671,761 653,469 635,158 616,829 598,480 580,107 Class B Supply 59,362 54,184 49,023 43,881 38,760 33,661 Total Irrigation Supply 731,123 707,653 684,181 660,710 637,240 613,768

Three Irrigation Demand Projection Options:

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2010

2013

2015

2017

2020

2022

2025

2027

2030

2032

2034

2037

2039

2042

2044

2046

2049

2051

2054

2056

2059

2061

2063

2066

2068

Distribution of Water Right Types

Class A Class B DMIClass A Class B DMILinear (Class A) Linear (Class B) Linear (DMI)

2010-2012 Average used as Base Year

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

CAMERON 392,739 380,132 367,523 354,915 342,308 329,699 HIDALGO 529,630 512,628 495,625 478,622 461,620 444,617 JIM HOGG 661 639 618 597 576 555 MAVERICK 52,855 51,158 49,461 47,764 46,068 44,371 STARR 17,292 16,737 16,181 15,626 15,071 14,516 WEBB 8,158 7,896 7,635 7,373 7,111 6,849 WILLACY 71,537 69,240 66,944 64,647 62,351 60,054 ZAPATA 3,583 3,468 3,353 3,238 3,123 3,008 Region Total 1,076,454 1,041,898 1,007,340 972,783 938,227 903,669

2011 Base Year

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

CAMERON 537,217 519,972 502,725 485,479 468,233 450,987 HIDALGO 688,667 666,560 644,451 622,343 600,236 578,127 JIM HOGG 360 348 337 325 314 302 MAVERICK 61,706 59,725 57,744 55,763 53,782 51,801 STARR 23,875 23,109 22,342 21,576 20,809 20,043 WEBB 10,425 10,090 9,756 9,421 9,086 8,752 WILLACY 99,610 96,412 93,215 90,017 86,819 83,621 ZAPATA 5,100 4,936 4,773 4,609 4,445 4,281 Region Total 1,426,960 1,381,153 1,335,342 1,289,532 1,243,725 1,197,914

TWDB Base Year (2010-2014 Average)

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

CAMERON 346,740 335,609 324,477 313,346 302,215 291,084 HIDALGO 460,353 445,575 430,796 416,017 401,239 386,460 JIM HOGG 220 213 206 199 192 185 MAVERICK 52,185 50,510 48,834 47,159 45,484 43,809 STARR 13,620 13,183 12,746 12,308 11,871 11,434 WEBB 5,718 5,534 5,351 5,167 4,984 4,800 WILLACY 64,215 62,154 60,092 58,031 55,969 53,908 ZAPATA 2,753 2,665 2,576 2,488 2,399 2,311 Region Total 945,804 915,442 885,078 854,716 824,354 793,990

ITEM 6. B.

FINANCIAL REPORT

ITEM 6.F.

WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY

PLANS

Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plans Received Since January 2010, the following plans have been received:

The highlighted entities need to send their current Plans to Region M in order to be in compliance

North Alamo Water Supply Corporation drought Contingency & Water Conservation Plan (2/2010) San Ygnacio MUD Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (7/29/2010) Eagle Pass Water Works Water conservation Plan (8/4/2010) Bruni Rural Water Supply Corporation Drought Contingency & Emergency Water Demand Management Plans

(1/24/2011 Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 (2/28/2011) Jim Hogg County W.C. & I.D. No. 2 Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan (3/31/2011) City of San Juan Water Conservation Plan (8/17/2011) Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd Water Conservation Plan (10/25/2011) Union Water Supply Corporation Drought Contingency Plan (11/29/2011) Brush Country Groundwater Conservation District Draft Groundwater Management Plan (6/27/2011) Kennedy county Groundwater Conservation District Management Plan (8/10/2012) Hidalgo County Irrigation District #16 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (8/17/2012) United irrigation District Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (8/17/2012) East Rio Hondo WSC Updated Corporation Tariff, section H & I (4/1/2013) Zapata County Waterworks Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (5/28/2013) McAllen Public Utility Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (12/12/2013) Hidalgo County ID #2 Municipal & Industrial Water Conservation Plan (4/23/2014) City of Laredo Division 4 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plans (4/30/2014) Cameron County ID #2 Water Conservation Plan (4/30/2014) Agua SUD Water Conservation Plan & Drought Contingency Plan (4/30/2014) Hidalgo County ID 5 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/30/2014) Hidalgo county ID 6 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (4/30/2014) Brownsville PUB Water Conservation Plan (5/1/2014) Southmost Regional Water Authority Water Conservation Plan (5/1/2014) Maverick County WCID #1 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Policy (5/28/2014) East Rio Hondo WSC Revised Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (6/3/2014) City of Roma Water Conservation & Drought contingency Plan (6/17/2014) Pharr Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (6/17/2014) United Irrigation District Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (7/15/2014) Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 16 Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (7/15/2014) Zapata County Water Works conservation Plan (Updated) (7/13/2014) Hidalgo County Drainage Dist. #1 Regional Water Management Program Water Conservation & Drought Contingency

Plans (8/25/2014) City of Raymondville Updated Water Conservation Plan and Updated Drought Contingency Plan (8/28/2014) Hidalgo County Irrigation #2 Water Allocation Rules and Regulations (8/28/2014) Delta Lake ID Water Conservation & Drought Policies (9/19/2014) Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 Amended Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan

(10/20/2014) City of Harlingen Waterworks System Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (6/15/2015) United Irrigation District Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (8/31/2015) City of Pharr Water Conservation & Drought Contingency Plan (10/16/2015) Cameron County Irrigation District #6 Drought Contingency Plan (3/14/2016) Kenedy County GCD Management Plan (5/9/2017)

ITEM 6.G.

NOTICES OF

APPLICATIONS FOR

FUNDING AND GRANTS

Report on Notices of Applications for Funding & Grants Received

Hidalgo County Drainage District #1 – TWDB Flood Protection Plan Grant Application for Update of Hidalgo County Master Drainage Plan (1/31/2013)

City of Edinburg – TWDB grant application requesting funding for a master drainage plan (2/4/2013)

City of McAllen – TWDB Grant for Sprague Road Interceptor Sewer Project (9/12/2013)

East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation – NEPA Environmental Information Document for Proposed Water Improvements

City of McAllen – TWDB Grant for feasibility study to look at existing stream gages (11/11/2013)

City of Laredo – TWDB grant for Regional Water and Wastewaters Facility Planning (2/14/2014)

City of La Joya – Treatment Plant Expansion (2/20/2014)

City of Edinburg – West Water Treatment Plan Expansion (2/24/2014)

Port Mansfield Public Utility District – Elevated Storage Tank Rehab (7/7/2014)

Port Mansfield Public Utilities District – Ground Water Storage System Replacement (9/18/2014)

Aqua Special Utility District – Eastern Wastewater System Project (2/12/2016)

City of Los Fresnos – Water Treatment and Distribution System Improvements Project (3/1/2016)

Sol y Mar Water System, City of San Juan – Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Project No. 62629 Water System Improvements (3/14/2016)

POWER Engineers, Inc. – Proposed Rio Grande LNG Interconnection Project Cameron County, TX (4/4/2016)

City of McAllen (CWSRF Project No. 73731) – North McAllen WWTP Reuse Project (5/9/2016)

Cameron County Drainage District #5 – Flood Early Warning, Flood Response Implementation, and Flood Protection Planning for CCDD#5 (6/20/2016)

Laguna Madre Water District (CWSRF Project No. 73730) – Port Isabel WWTP Phase I Improvements (7/5/2016)

ITEM 7. C.

TCEQRESERVOIR LEVELS

Water Levels at Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs (U.S. Ownership)

Acre Feet in Millions

9/2/2017, 51.58% of Capacity or 1,749,512 AF Down from 1,998,400 AF of Normal Conservation 1 year ago

NOTE: Mexico Ownership/Reservoir Capacity for September 2, 2017: 20.06% (507,504) A.F.

4.0

3.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Water Level at 100% Capacity

Reservoir Capacity

Water Level at 50% Capacity

Prepared by: LRGVDC Source: TCEQ Watermaster

Rio Grande Watermaster Report09/02/17

AmistadNormal Conservation Elevation 340.462 Meters 1,117.00 FeetWater Elevation 331.355 Meters 1,087.12 Feet -29.88Total Normal Conservation Capacity 4,040,325 TCM 3,275,532 Acre-FeetTotal Combined Storage 2,120,000 TCM 1,718,705 Acre-Feet 52.47%US Share of Current Storage 1,654,000 TCM 1,340,914 Acre-Feet 78.02%Mexico share of Current Storage 466,000 TCM 377,791 Acre-Feet 21.98%TOTAL RELEASES AVG 74.70 CMS 2,638 CFSUS Release AVG 70.90 CMS 2,504 CFS 94.91%Mexico Release AVG 3.80 CMS 134 CFS 5.09%TOTAL INFLOWS AVG 237.00 CMS 8,370 CFSUS Inflows AVG 124.00 CMS 4,379 CFSMexico Inflows AVG 113.00 CMS 3,991 CFSUS Reservoir Loss 12.10 CMS 427 CFS

FalconNormal Conservation Elevation 91.805 Meters 301.20 FeetWater Elevation 80.170 Meters 263.02 Feet -38.17Total Normal Conservation Capacity 3,264,813 TCM 2,646,817 Acre-FeetTotal Combined Storage 664,000 TCM 538,311 Acre-Feet 20.34%US Share of Current Storage 504,000 TCM 408,598 Acre-Feet 75.90%Mexico share of Current Storage 160,000 TCM 129,714 Acre-Feet 24.10%Total Releases AVG 57.90 CMS 2,045 CFSUS Release AVG 44.90 CMS 1,586 CFS 77.55%Mexico Release AVG 13.00 CMS 459 CFS 22.45%TOTAL INFLOWS AVG 60.60 CMS 2,140 CFSUS Inflows AVG 60.60 CMS 2,140 CFSMexico Inflows AVG 0.00 CMS 0 CFSUS Reservoir Loss 6.86 CMS 242 CFS

Overall Status

Normal Conservation Capacity - Amistad 4,040,325 TCM 3,275,532 Acre-FeetUS Share of Amistad Normal Conservation 2,270,663 TCM 1,840,849 Acre-FeetCurrent US share of Normal Conservation 1,654,000 TCM 1,340,914 Acre-Feet 72.84%

Normal Conservation Capacity - Falcon 3,264,813 TCM 2,646,817 Acre-FeetUS Share of Falcon Normal Conservation 1,913,180 TCM 1,551,034 Acre-FeetCurrent US share of Normal Conservation 504,000 TCM 408,598 Acre-Feet 26.34%

Normal Capacity - Amistad/Falcon System 7,305,138 TCM 5,922,348 Acre-Feet

Normal Conservation Capacity - US 4,183,843 TCM 3,391,883 Acre-Feet 57.27%Normal Conservation Capacity - Mexico 3,121,295 TCM 2,530,466 Acre-Feet 42.73%

Current Storage US 2,158,000 TCM 1,749,512 Acre-Feet 51.58%Current Storage Mexico 626,000 TCM 507,504 Acre-Feet 20.06%

Current Storage - Amistad - Falcon System 2,784,000 TCM 2,257,017 Acre-FeetPercent of Storage Capacity 38.11% 38.11%