Growth Management-oriented Water
Conservation and Reuse:
Operationalizing Integrated Watershed
and Water Resources Management Policy
in Oregon
Presented by:
Jamison Cavallaro, Project Manager
Cascadia Watershed Planners and Consultants
jamison@cascadiawatershed.com
www.cascadiawatershed.com
Pop Quiz (Density of ?… Caused by ? … Solved by ?)
Illustration courtesy of OSU Extension Service
Answer
Concentration of Water Pollution
caused by
?
solved by
Lessons learned from comprehensive land use and
transportation planning in Oregon including
federally-required MPOs
(? Need for new, improved implementing legislation ?)
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Presentation Overview
Definitions, Governance, Goals/Statutes/Rules/Codes, and
Analytical Framework
• Watershed-context of Water (Natural) Resources
• All levels of government, stakeholders, and citizens
• Regulatory Compliance Process for Intermodal
Infrastructure
• RWPC’s (Portland-Metro) 2004 Updated RWSP
Findings and Recommendations
• Institutional, technical, education/workforce training,
legal and more
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
…from Concepts to Definitions…
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
…from Concepts to Definitions…
In-Stream
Need Area
Schematic Courtesy of Center for Applied Optimization, U of Florida
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Decentralized and Distributed Wastewater Reuse Applications
(2009 Workshop Presentation) by Victor D’Amato, PE - Tetra Tech

Introduction
- Distributed Systems, Sustainability, and Why Distributed Systems?

Technological approaches
- Technology options
- Integrated resources management and resource-efficient design

Decision-support tools
- Green building rating systems and sustainability
- Multi-criteria decision models
- Full cost accounting

Applications: Case study examples
- Site, Neighborhood or Community, and Utility scale examples

Ongoing Research Projects
- WERF When to Consider Distributed Systems
- EPRI Case Studies for New Water Infrastructure Paradigm
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Working Definitions - Prof. Neil Griggs, Colorado State U.
www.waterencyclopedia.com/Hy-La/Integrated-Water-Resources-Management.html
•
•
•
•
Structural and nonstructural (comprehensive plans, zoning, other regulations
and review processes, pricing, edu./outreach programs, etc.) measures to
control human-made and natural water resources systems for beneficial uses.
- Human-made struct’l systems like reservoirs, canals, facilities, pipes, etc.
- Natural water resources like snowpack, rain, wetland, river, aqif, fplain, etc.
In the water-supply field, the term “integrated resources planning” has come
into use to express concepts of integration in supply development. Perhaps
the most comprehensive concept for water supply is “Total Water Mgmt.”
AWWA Research Foundation, August 1996 Exercise of stewardship of water
resources for the greatest good of society and the environment.
TWM: Supply is renewable, but limited, and should be managed on a
sustainable-use basis.
Functional Integration: to join purposes of water resources
management (w/in a watershed-context) such as to manage
supply, sanitary, and stormwater systems as well as critical
upland and aquatic habitat, flora, and fauna as a single unit.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Model of Governance for FI: Community Preparedness and/or MPO
1. Does the State of Oregon presently have the right-sized “Good” Governance
and Civil Society engagement mechanisms (and public sector-managed
collaborative policy-planning and rule-making processes)
for
Functional Integration
of
Watershed-context Water Resources Management?
2. How do we evaluate our transition towards IWWRM, and measure FI?
3. Despite the present climate of uncertainty, how would we know if or when
such mechanisms and processes are substantive enough to accelerate the
pace of transition and integration to meet federal and state requirements?
Involvement from all levels of government, stakeholder groups, and citizens is
key for many reasons. Should the State of Oregon adopt a Goal 20 - IWWRM?
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Statewide Goals, Oregon Admin. Rules, Ordinances and more
•
All most every Statewide Goal (1-19) relates to IWWRM,
especially Goals 1-8 and Goal 11
* Goal 1: Citizen Involvement * Goal 2: Land Use Planning * Goal 3-8: Natural Res.
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goalssummary.PDF
•
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services (OAR 660-015)
“To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.”
* Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Guidelines… A. Planning B. Implementation
(A.7) “Plans providing for public facilities and services should consider as a major
determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of the
planning area. The land conservation and development action provided for by such
plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources.”
(B.5) “Additional methods and devises for achieving desired types and levels
of public facilities and services should include but not be limited to the following:
1) tax incentives and disincentives; 2) land-use controls and ordinances;
3) multiple use and joint development practices; 4) fee and less-than-fee
acquisition techniques; and 5) enforcement of local health and safety codes.”
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Statewide Goals, OARs, Ordinances, and more
•
OAR 690-086 Water Management and Conservation Plans
-0010 Purpose (1) “WR Commission has adopted a statewide policy on Conservation
and Efficient Water Use (OAR 690-410-0060)… WRC shall evaluate implementation
of these rules w/in every three years and every three year thereafter. (2) Many
regions of Oregon face periodic and increasingly frequent water shortages during
summer periods. In addition, many communities are faced with the need to
reduce their impacts on the resource in response to state or federal listings of
stream-flow dependant species as sensitive, threatened or endangered, water quality
problem, and other flow issues. It is increasingly important to the state’s economy to
maintain adequate stream flows to support aquatic life, provide recreational
opportunities and maintain water quality. Continued implementation of
conservation measures can help restore streamflows, stabilize water supplies and
provide for future needs for economic development and growth. (4) Effective
water management requires an evaluation of the adequacy of water supplies to
meet current and future needs, identification of planned modifications in water
systems, and development of new water supplies. However, the approval of a water
management and conservation plan shall not substitute for compliance with
Statewide Planning Goals or any other comprehensive land use planning
requirement or constitute approval of applications for water rights, reservations,
storage, transfers, permit amendments/time ext.”
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Statewide Goals, OARs, Ordinances, and more
•
OAR 690-086 Water Management and Conservation Plans
-0010 (6) Regional cooperation will improve water management and help to
facilitate implementation of conservation measures. Water suppliers required under
OAR 690-086-0010 to 690-086-0920 to prepare WMCPs, and any other suppliers
or users, may jointly submit a single plan that addresses the suppliers’ conservation
opportunities and water development needs.
Regarding the need to assess Functional Integration and achieve
regulatory compliance, the question arises as to how best to
evaluate and measure the success(es) of any IWWRM Policy
Operationalization and Implementation Strategies…Goal 20 or not.
With or without future federal, state, regional, and local MPO
legislation for IWWRM (akin to ISTEA), it is still crucial to engage
in a review of established regulatory framework(s) for growth
management-oriented intermodal transportation infrastructure
goal-setting, rule-making, planning processes, management,
maintenance, and enforcement.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
2004 Regional Water Providers’ Consortium Updated RWSP
Targets from Portland Metro Area water purveyors for infrastructure
connectivity, demand management, and new albeit conventional supplies.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) 2004 Consortium’s Updated RWSP
The three questions this thesis paper from 2004 addressed:
1. Is it possible for the region to achieve a robust water savings
target of 100 million gallons a day (mgd) and 225 mgd by 2025
and 2050, respectively?
2. Is efficacy of water reclamation and conservation strategies
reasonable?
3. Does Oregon and the Portland metropolitan region have the
market and non-market planning mechanisms to operationalize
and implement watershed-context integrated water resource
management policies (IWRM)?
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) 2004 Consortium’s Updated RWSP
Consortium’s planning efforts indicated that
Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties
needed to more than double 2004 installed capacity.
The Target: About 300 Million Gallons a Day (mgd)
more than current installed capacity (approx. 500 mgd
in 2004) on peak days by the year 2050. The projects
under consideration to accommodate 2017-2025’s
anticipated demand could cost over one billion in 2004
dollars.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Pre-1996 Regional Water Supply Plan targets for 2020 and 2050
NOTE: Demand models from the early 1990’s for regional peakseason conservation goals targeted regional gpcd at roughly
237 by 2020 and 238 by 2050.
The City of Portland, annual gallons per capita daily (gpcd)
water use now stands at 125, down from 142 gpcd in 1994
(Rojas-Burke, 2004). What caused this reduction?
Which Portland residential and non-residential populations
consume above or below the median of 126 gpcd? In terms of
gpcd reductions, how much will residential and non-residential
customers outside of Portland achieve by year 2020 and 2050?
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Pre-1996 Regional Water Supply Plan targets
Original Regional Water Savings Targets for Early 1990’s Demand Models
Year
Peak Season Targets
in gallons per capita daily
Peak Season Targets
in million gallons daily
(gpcd)
(mgd)
1990
0.0
0.0
2000
8.0
11.0
2010
12.0
18.5
2020
14.0
23.5
2030
16.0
29.0
2040
18.0
34.8
2050
20.0
40.9
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
1996 Regional Water Supply Plan targets
The 1996 Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) increased
earlier targets. The 1996 RWSP emphasizes that by the
year 2050, reductions in water use from both naturally
occurring* and new outdoor conservation programs, 60.8
and 65.2 mgd respectively, will provide the region with
126 mgd of water that can be reallocated on a peak season
basis. Reallocation of existing supplies due to waterefficient conservation programs is called water savings.
* The 1996 RWSP states that the cause of naturally
occurring conservation is either market, legislative or code
changes.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Consortium’s 2004 Regional Water Supply Plan Update
Projected Annual and Peak-Season Conservation in Year 2025
Subregion
Annual Conservation
Savings
Peak-Season
Conservation Savings
(mg)
(mgd)
East
2747
11.5
Clackamas
472
1.7
JWC (Westside)
539
1.9
TVWD (Westside)
630
2.1
Other
490
1.7
TOTAL
4878
18.9
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Consortium’s 2004 RWSP Update
Maximum Annual and Peak-Season Conservation in Year 2025
Subregion
Annual Conservation
Savings
Peak-Season
Conservation Savings
(mg)
(mgd)
East
4176
16.2
Clackamas
1630
5.6
JWC (Westside)
1246
4.6
TVWD (Westside)
1038
3.7
Other
1211
4.5
TOTAL
9302
34.5
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Consortium’s 2004 RWSP Update
The last two tables identify the next 14 years of results
expected from investments in regional demand management
mechanisms. The investments range from $23 to 65 million
and offer potable water consumption reductions from 18.9
and 34.5 mgd.
The target of 34.5 mgd for 2025 did not appear to be robust
enough to delay or defer new water source development
projects for post-2017 needs (but the Great Recession did).
Recall: Why did annual gallons per capita daily (gpcd) water
use within the City of Portland drop from 142 gpcd in 1994 to
125 by 2004?
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Performance-based Permitting and Growth Management
Federal and State actions ensured potable water use
reductions in the early 1990's with plumbing code
amendments that required low flow plumbing fixtures.
Lorna Stickel, Project Manager at the Consortium and Water Resources Planning
Manager at the Portland Water Bureau, stated:
. . . Modernization in the plumbing code was a major contributing factor
for the water savings that has occurred in the Portland area since the
early 1990's. Another factor that influenced water demands was the
enactment of land-use policies that reduced lots sizes and required
more multi-family and mixed use zoning within the Portland metro
region. If executed properly, growth management can encourage water
conservation-oriented development patterns through comprehensive
planning and zoning codes that encourage more dense development
patterns. Using design review codes that encourage native plantings and
water conserving landscaping will result in less outdoor watering per acre
inside (Metro’s) Urban Growth Boundary. (Stickel, 2004).
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
…modernizing the building code is the tip of the iceberg!
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Due, in part, to the Great Recession a reflection on LCP is key
Potential Demand and Supply-side Options for 2017/2025/2050 Horizons
Type
Project
Expected Supply
(mgd)
Potable
Dam Raise for Bull Run Dam One
100
Potable
Dam Raise for Bull Run Dam Two
100
Potable
Develop Bull Run Dam Three
270
Non-Potable
Newberg/Willamette Pipeline
120
Potable
Dam Raise for Scoggins Dam
100
Potable
Local Supplies and Treatment
60+
Demand Mgmt.
“Natural” and New Conservation
126
Demand Mgmt,
Potable, and
Non-Potable
Robust Water Reclamation
(including alternative water supplies)
and Conservation
225+
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Findings and Recommendations



Least cost planning (LCP) and/or integrated resource methods have been
utilized to assess the feasibility of transportation and energy supply and
demand management options.
The Oregon Department of Transportation, desiring an efficient
transportation system policy framework, were advised by LCP analysts that
options such as demand management systems, pricing systems, and landuse systems should be evaluated along with road construction, transit
construction, and other supply oriented management systems (Rufolo,
Bronfman and Strathman, 1995).
The comprehensive nature of the LCP approach offers a tested analytical
framework that future water system analysts can attempt to emulate. More
central to the thesis of this paper, LCP validates the very idea of evaluating
alternatives to conventional water supply construction projects and the
potential efficacy of water reclamation and conservation as integral
components of functionally-integrated watershed and water
resources management in Oregon, throughout the Cascadia Watershed,
the West, and across North America…(Summer AWRA Conference in Utah)
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Findings and Recommendations
1. Is it possible for the region to achieve a robust water savings
target of 100 million gallons a day (mgd) and 225 mgd by 2025
and 2050, respectively?
YES.
2. Is efficacy of water reclamation and conservation strategies
reasonable?
YES.
3. Does Oregon and the Portland metropolitan region have the
market and non-market planning mechanisms to operationalize
and implement watershed-context integrated water resource
management policies?
It depends.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Findings and Recommendations
Percentage of Reclaimed Water Supplies as a System Diversity Baseline
(in Million Gallons a Day)
Quality/Type of Source Service
Potable
Irvine Water
Dist.
In California
(2002)
ALL Water
Dist.
In Florida
(2002)
Portland
area
In Oregon
(2004)
47
8,000
505
Reclaimed Wastewater for NonPotable
N/A
N/A
<1
Reclaimed Urban Rainwater for
Potable
21
585
<1
8
N/A
40
76
8,585
546
28%
7%
<1%
Other Non-Potable
TOTAL
% of System from Reclaimed
Water
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Findings and Recommendations
Previous table indicates that multi-supply source/multisanitation systems in Florida are almost one order of
magnitude more diversified than the Portland metropolitan
area’s current system.
The State of Oregon could move forward a watershed-context
directive with complementary rule-making to operationalize
and implement IWWRM to achieve water supply system
diversity of 15% by 2025. The MPO regions in Oregon may
need to target 15-20% by 2025 to facilitate the market and
non-market forces that can counteract the negative
externalities of conventional, bifurcated water supply,
sanitary, stormwater, and natural resource management and
conservation planning frameworks.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Rural to Urban Land Conversion (New Construction)
Source: D’Amato; Illustration: Courtesy of Ardent,
Conservation Design for Subdivisions
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Aging Water Supply Diversion Dam (Retrofit)
Figure 1. Entrance inaccessible during low flows
(pictured at high flow)
Figure 2. High turbulence in fish ladder makes passage difficult
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Intake work….but what about fish habitat?
Figure 3. Working to improve intake
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
(continued) Is it difficult for a community to go IWWRM?
Figure 4. Close-up of intake improvement
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon
Institutional, Technical, Education/Workforce Training, and Legal
There’s
plenty of
work to be
done
throughout
Oregon.
Operationalizing IWWRM Policy in Oregon