Measuring Performance of Water Management Responses

tubacitychiropractorManagement

Nov 8, 2013 (4 years and 1 day ago)

73 views

1

Measuring
Performance of

Resource Management
Responses

Rich Juricich (DWR)

David Groves (RAND)

2

Presentation Overview


Evaluation Framework from Update
2005


Ideas to inform Update 2009


Capabilities of Update 2009 analytical
tools


Activities for today

3

Evaluation Framework from
Update 2005

Questions for

the Water Plan

What do we want to know? (Objectives)

Evaluation

Criteria

What we are measuring? (Indicators)


Metric

What is the quantity measured?

Measure

How are we measuring of progress?

4

Evaluation Framework from
Update 2005

Questions for

the Water Plan

“What will future water needs be?”

Evaluation

Criteria

Water demand by sector (urban,
agricultural, and environmental) and
hydrologic region

Metric

Amount of water demand (acre
-
feet)

Measure

Change

in demand from 2000 to
2030

5

Questions for

the Water Plan

Evaluation

Criteria

Metric

Measure

Results

6

Questions for Water Plan Analysis

From Update 2005


How does water scarcity affect the
economy and all beneficial uses?


How does water quality affect water
management and vice versa?


How does land use affect water
management?

7

More Questions From

Update 2005


How should local, regional, and state
agencies manage water during multiple
year droughts?


How will climate change affect water
management?


What are some of the costs, benefits, and
tradeoffs between different water
management strategies?

8

Categories of Evaluation Criteria
(or Indicators) from Update 2005


Agriculture


Catastrophic
vulnerability


Economic costs


Energy


Environmental justice


Flood management


Operation Flexibility


Public trust


Public acceptance


Recreation


Regional self
-
sufficiency


Third party impacts


Tribal resources


Urban


Water demand


Water supply

9

Ideas to Inform

Update 2009


What makes good criteria (indicators)


Other indicator efforts

10

Selecting Good Evaluation
Criteria (Indicators)


The indicator must be
measurable
;


The indicator should measure something
believed to be
important in its own right
;


A
few indicators

that can measure multiple
metrics is desirable

Adapted from Bob Wilkinson, UCSB and Sustainable Water Resource Roundtable

11

Selecting Good Evaluation
Criteria (Indicators)


The indicator should be measurable in a
timely manner

to be useful to the
discussion;


The indicator should be based on
information that can be used to compare
different
geographical

areas;


International comparability

is desirable.

Adapted from Bob Wilkinson, UCSB and Sustainable Water Resource Roundtable

12

Related effort: CALFED
Performance Measures Report


Supply reliability


Water quality


Levee integrity


Ecosystem restoration

13

Supply Reliability


Performance Measure 1:

The annual
number of incidences when water quality
standards, flow requirements, or other
agreements related to SWP operations
throughout the Delta are not met.


Target 1:

Zero incidences of not meeting
water quality and flow requirements, or
other agreements throughout the Delta
related to SWP operations.

14

Related effort: Sustainable Water
Resources Roundtable


Water availability


Water quality


Human uses and
health


Environmental uses
and health


Infrastructure and
Institutions

15

Water Consumption and Availability

16

Related effort: Blue Ribbon

Task Force


Supply reliability


Seismic and flood
durability


Ecosystem health
and resilience


Water quality


Schedule, cost, and
funding

17

Delta Water Use

18

Related Effort: RAND Study of
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (1)

Question to

Answer

“How reliable are IEUA’s supplies under

plausible scenarios of climate change?

Evaluation

Criteria

Balance of water demand and water
supply over time

Metric

(1) Annual surplus or deficit (af)

(2) % of years in which demand is met

Measure

Change

in (1) average surplus and
(2) average reliability

19

Related Effort: RAND Study of
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2)

Question to

Answer

“Would investments in increased
efficiency reduce costs?”

Evaluation

Criteria

Costs of delivering supply to meet
demand before and after additional
efficiency

Metric

Net present value of costs over time

Measure

Difference in costs with and without
additional efficiency

20

Other metrics evaluated

in IEUA study


Water needs


Demand by sector and
year


Water resources


Available water supply
by type


Supply adequacy


Met water demands


Overall supply surplus
or deficit


Supply reliability


% of years in which
shortage occurs


Groundwater
condition


Percolation


Extractions


Total storage


Management costs


Average cost of
providing supplies


Average cost of saving
water through
efficiency


21

Capabilities of Update
2009 analytical tools

22

A Scenario Analysis Has Four Key Elements

Exogenous Factors (X)

Management Levers (L)


Uncertain factors outside
of the control of water
managers


Basis for
“Scenarios”



Water management
options


“Response
Packages”


Relationships (R)

Performance Measures (M)

Mapping between
combinations of
exogenous factors (X)
and levers (L) to
outcomes (M)


a
“Model”


Water outcomes of
interest


X, L
M
R
X, L
M
R
23

Hydrologic Region Analysis
Using WEAP


Demand by sector


Indoor


Outdoor (influenced by weather/climate)


Current supplies


Annual yields by supply type


Changes due to hydrologic variability and
climate change


Projected supplies


Under current management


Under various response packages


Supply and demand balance

24

Planning Area WEAP Analysis for Sacramento
and San Joaquin River Regions


Hydrology


Major river flows
(monthly)


Snow accumulation
and patterns of melt


Groundwater
percolation


Water demand


Urban and agricultural
by Planning Area


Available and
delivered supply


By supply type an PA


Supply buffer


Supply reliability


Urban and agricultural


Critical environmental
flows


Frequency/magnitude
of dam spills


Performance of
response packages


Yield and cost


25

Activities for Today

26

Activities For Today


Review 9 questions most
relevant to Future Scenarios
and Management Responses


Help identify important policy
questions for these 9


Review Update 2005 criteria
and the sample indicators


What criteria (indicators) does
your organization use?


What criteria
must be

quantified in Update 2009?

Questions for

the Water Plan

Evaluation

Criteria

Metric

Measure

27

Fill Out

Evaluation Framework
worksheet

Framework
Element

Example
Stakeholder Response

Question

Can conservation/efficiency alone accommodate new
demand in the Central Valley
?

Evaluation Criteria

Water supply reliability
for current conditions and
future conditions
with and without
efficiency at
different levels

Metrics

% of years in which supply me
e
t
s
demand
for current
conditions and future conditions

Measures

Amount of efficiency required to maintain reliability


28

Reference Information


Rich Juricich


juricich@water.ca.gov


(916) 651
-
9225



David Groves, RAND Corp


groves@rand.org