agenda item 5 - South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group

NOTICE OF OPEN MEETING OF THE
SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL
WATER PLANNING GROUP
TAKE NOTICE that a meeting of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group as established
by the Texas Water Development Board will be held on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at San
Antonio Water System (SAWS), Customer Service Building, Room CR 145, 2800 US Highway 281
North, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The following subjects will be considered for discussion
and/or action at said meeting.
1. Public Comment
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Status of Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP)
4. Chair’s Report
• Preliminary Stakeholder/Issues Identification Process for the San Antonio Bay System –
James Dodson, Coastal Bend Bays and Estuary Program
5. Review/Approve Administrator’s 2010 Budget
6. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Communications
7. Status Report Regarding Designation of Ecologically Unique Stream Segments in Region L
8. Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Gonzales County Groundwater Projects
Workgroup Recommendation
9. Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Guadalupe Basin Water Needs Workgroup
Recommendation
10. Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Consultants’ Work and Schedule
11. Possible Agenda Items for the Next South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group
12. Public Comment
The South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Area consists of Atascosa, Bexar, Caldwell, Calhoun,
Comal, Dewitt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, La Salle, Medina, Refugio,
Uvalde, Victoria, Wilson, Zavala and part of Hays Counties.

AGENDA ITEM 1
Public Comment

AGENDA ITEM 2
Approval of Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3
Status of Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP)

AGENDA ITEM 4
Chair’s Report
• Preliminary Stakeholder/Issues Identification Process for the San Antonio
Bay System – James Dodson, Coastal Bend Bays and Estuary Program

AGENDA ITEM 5
Review/Approve Administrator’s 2010 Budget

South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group
Statement of Administrative Costs for 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE 2008 BUDGET 2009 BUDGET PROPOSED
2010
Supplies $1,950.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00
Professional Services $750.00 $750.00 $1,250.00
Communications $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00
Travel $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Advertising $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Labor Costs $46,800.00 $49,800.00 $49,800.00
TOTAL $55,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00
Supplies – items that are consumed or deteriorated through use; computer paper, checks, office
supplies, and miscellaneous supplies (lunches).
Professional Services – legal fees, etc.
Communications – telephone and postage.
Travel – reimbursement of SCTRWPG member travel and other expenses.
Advertising – publishing notices in newspapers of general circulation within the planning area.
Labor Costs – SARA staff time associated with administration.

AGENDA ITEM 6
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Communications

AGENDA ITEM 7
Status Report Regarding Designation of Ecologically Unique Stream Segments in
Region L

AGENDA ITEM 8
Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Gonzales County Groundwater Projects
Workgroup Recommendation

Recommendation of the Gonzales County Groundwater Projects Workgroup
Approved September 15, 2009
The note, below, was approved by the Workgroup at its September 15, 2009 meeting. The
original note applied only to water management strategies that required groundwater from
Gonzales County. The Workgroup approved the note provided the wording was changed so that
it applies to any water management strategy that has a groundwater component that is subject to
permitting by any groundwater district. This note, if approved by the Region L planning group,
will be prominently included where needed in the Region L 2011 Regional Water Plan, and
particularly in the description of all water management strategies that require groundwater from
within the jurisdiction of any groundwater conservation district.
“Part or all of the water needed by this Water Management Strategy (WMS) is anticipated to be
supplied from locations within the jurisdiction of a groundwater conservation district (District)
and may exceed the amount of available water identified in the District’s approved
management plan, or may for other reasons not be permitted by the District. The amount of
water needed by this WMS that exceeds the available water in the District’s management plan,
or for other reasons is not permitted by the District, cannot be implemented as part of this
WMS unless and until all necessary permits are received from the District. The amount of
water needed by this WMS that exceeds the available water in the District’s management plan,
or for other reasons is not permitted by the District, introduces an added element of uncertainty
to reliance upon this WMS and, therefore, additional management supplies may be needed for
this WMS.”
In short, the note says that the water supply in the Plan, to be taken from locations within the
jurisdiction of groundwater conservation districts, amounts to only that amount of water
ultimately permitted by the districts, whatever that amount may be. This keeps the Plan from
having strategies that, individually or collectively, exceed the amount of water that a groundwater
district will actually permit. For these water management strategies, the safe assumption is that
no water will be permitted by a groundwater district, and that portion of the project’s supply
needs to be backed up by alternative projects.
- - -

AGENDA ITEM 9
Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Guadalupe Basin Water Needs
Workgroup Recommendation

Guadalupe Basin Water Needs Workgroup
Recommendations to the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group
As Approved on October 12, 2009
A. Regarding Protection of the San Antonio Bay and Estuaries, add the following provisions,
prominently, at appropriate locations in the 2011 Regional Water Plan:
(1) Pertaining to the development and implementation of the Lower Guadalupe Water
Supply Project for GBRA Needs:
As part of the development and implementation of the Lower Guadalupe Water Supply Project
for GBRA Needs, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority recognizes and supports the need to
address inflow amounts necessary to protect and preserve a healthy ecosystem in the San Antonio
Bay – Guadalupe Estuary system in conjunction with the development of water supplies to meet
human water needs. The specifics of the inflow requirements will be determined through the
state-mandated Senate Bill 3 environmental flows process which is intended to 1) determine the
water needs of the environment based on science and other factors, 2) reserve from new surface
water appropriation water needed for the environment as established in the environmental flows
process and 3) encourage voluntary efforts to provide water for the environment from existing
water rights.
The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority will work with Region L participants and other public
and private water rights holders in the basin toward the development of a voluntary strategy to
promote environmental stewardship and provide for the prudent management of the water and
environmental resources of the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers and the San Antonio Bay –
Guadalupe Estuary system within the framework of existing and future surface water rights, as
well as existing and future alternative sources of supply. Any effort to develop a voluntary
strategy will recognize and work in concert with the environmental flows process set out in
Senate Bill 3.
(2) Pertaining to water management strategies associated with GBRA’s applications for
new water rights in the mid and lower Guadalupe Basin:
The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (“GBRA”) is applying to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) for two new water rights to divert unappropriated flows of the
Guadalupe River. One water right application (number 12378) seeks to divert up to 75,000 acrefeet
from the Guadalupe River in Gonzales County, in the Middle Guadalupe River Basin. The
other application (number 12482) seeks to divert up to 189,484 acre-feet from the Guadalupe
River in Calhoun County, in the Lower Guadalupe River Basin. The lower basin application is in
addition to water already permitted for diversion under existing rights held jointly by GBRA and
Union Carbide Corporation.
The amount of water petitioned in both applications will have the potential to be available for
diversion only in non-drought years for two reasons. First, the new water rights will have brand
new priority dates, so the right to divert under those water rights will be junior (last in time)
relative to all existing water rights. Second, diversions of this new water will be subject to

environmental streamflow conditions to be imposed by the TCEQ for the protection of San
Antonio Bay and estuary system. GBRA acknowledges the importance of ensuring that those
rights are conditioned in order to ensure strong protection of instream flows and freshwater
inflows. Accordingly, GBRA indicates its commitment that any permits issued pursuant to the
applications, regardless of timing, will be made subject to the full application of environmental
flow standards adopted pursuant to Section 11.1471 of the Texas Water Code that are applicable
to affected portions of the Guadalupe River and to the San Antonio Bay estuary system.
B. Regarding Recommended and Alternative Water Management Strategies to
Meet Many of the Needs of the Guadalupe Basin
(1) Support those “Recommended” and “Alternative” Water Management Strategies
found on Page 3 at the end of the attached Table titled “10/23/2009 Draft”. Also attached
for interest is a chart showing projected water needs and new supplies for the upper and
mid Guadalupe Basin using the Recommended and Alternative supported by the
Workgroup.
C. Regarding the concern over “double dipping”
Agree that there are adequate safeguards, though a combination of care taken by our consulting
engineers and review by the Texas Water Development Board to largely ensure that there is no
“double dipping” of projects using the same water source.
- - -
2

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Projected Demands (acft/yr):
10/23/2009 DRAFT
Water Purchaser
Municipal (Canyon Reservoir)
Upper Basin - At or Above Canyon Reservoir
2000 2010 2020
Year (acft)
2030 2040 2050 2060
Canyon Lake WSC 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,129 8,198 10,466 12,769
City of Blanco 600 600 600 600 600 600 600
HH Ranch Properties 0 250 250 250 250 250 250
Domestic Contracts 25 17 17 17 17 17 17
Rebecca Creek MUD 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Kerr County MOU 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
WW Sports 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Yacht Club 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
SJWTX - Bulverde (Western Canyon) 0 400 400 400 400 400 400
SJWTX - Park Village (Western Canyon) 0 322 322 322 322 322 322
Bulverde City (Western Canyon) 0 653 1,342 2,128 2,910 3,723 4,595
City of Boerne (Western Canyon) 0 1,176 1,794 2,449 2,976 3,436 3,611
City of Fair Oaks Ranch (Western Canyon) 0 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850
Cordillera Ranch (Western Canyon) 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
DH Invest.-Johnson Ranch (Western Canyon) 0 400 400 400 400 400 400
Kendall & Tapatio (Western Canyon) 0 750 750 750 750 750 750
Comal Trace (Western Canyon) 0 100 100 100 100 100 100
SAWS (Western Canyon) 0 4,550 3,243 1,802 0 0 0
Western Canyon Sub-Total 0 11,201 11,201 11,201 10,708 11,981 13,028
Total Upper Basin Municipal (Canyon Reservoir) 4,760 18,203 18,203 20,332 21,908 25,449 28,799
Mid Basin - Below Canyon Dam to Above Victoria
CRWA - BMWD 3,500 0 0 0 0 0
CRWA - Cibolo 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350
CRWA - BMWD / Cibolo 500 0 0 0 0 0
CRWA - East Central SUD 1,100 0 0 0 0 0
CRWA - East Central SUD / Green Valley SUD 300 300 300 300 300 300
CRWA - Green Valley SUD 1,800 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
CRWA - Marion 100 100 100 100 100 100
CRWA - Springs Hill WSC 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425
CRWA - Springs Hill WSC / Green Valley SUD 500 500 500 500 500 500
CRWA Dunlap In District Balance 0 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200
CRWA Dunlap Current Contract Subtotal 10,025 10,575 10,575 10,575 10,575 10,575 10,575
CRWA Dunlap Future Contract 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
50% of Comal County-Other 0 891 986 1,089 1,181 1,333 1,480
New Braunfels Utilities 6,720 6,720 7,627 10,764 13,871 17,081 20,640
Comal County Manufacturing 5,199 6,033 6,784 7,514 8,141 9,022
City of Seguin 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Dittmar, Gary 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Dittmar, Ray 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Gonzales County WSC 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Green Valley SUD 200 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Springs Hill WSC 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Canyon Regional Water Authority (H/C WTP) 2,038 2,038 2,038 2,038 2,038 2,038 2,038
City of Buda (San Marcos WTP) 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120
City of Kyle (San Marcos WTP) 589 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957 2,957
City of Mustang Ridge (San Marcos WTP) 0 19 62 99 137 175 213
City of Niederwald (San Marcos WTP) 0 35 95 160 221 294 354
2428 Partners (San Marcos WTP) 0 3,136 3,136 3,136 3,136 3,136 3,136
Plum Creek WC/Monarch (San Marcos WTP) 0 560 560 560 560 738 941
City of San Marcos (San Marcos WTP) 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Wimberley WSC (San Marcos WTP) 0 219 440 667 885 1,179 1,409
Woodcreek & Woodcreek Utilities (San Marcos WTP) 0 478 944 1,433 1,910 2,501 2,967
County Line WSC (San Marcos WTP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crystal Clear WSC (San Marcos WTP) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Maxwell WSC (San Marcos WTP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Martindale WSC (San Marcos WTP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Goforth WSC (San Marcos WTP) 250 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050
Hays County-Other (San Marcos WTP) 0 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344
San Marcos WTP Sub-Total 7,759 21,718 22,508 23,326 24,120 25,294 26,291
Total Mid Basin Municipal (Canyon Reservoir) 32,952 52,351 59,977 64,786 69,509 74,672 80,256
1

Lower Basin - At or Below Victoria
10/23/2009 DRAFT
City of Victoria (pursuant to Canyon Amendment) 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240
Calhoun County Rural WSC 500 0 0 0 0 0 0
City of Port Lavaca 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Port O'Conner MUD 60 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Lower Basin Municipal (Canyon Reservoir) 3,300 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240
Industrial/Steam-Electric (Canyon Reservoir)
Mid Basin - Below Canyon Dam to Above Victoria
Acme 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
CMC Steel 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Comal Fair 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Comal Road Department 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
GPP (Panda Energy) 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,840
Guadalupe County 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hays Energy LP 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464
Henk Paving 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Std. Gypsum 258 258 258 258 258 258 258
Total Mid Basin Industrial/SE (Canyon Reservoir) 10,292 10,293 10,293 10,293 10,293 10,293 10,293
Lower Basin - At or Below Victoria
Coleto Creek 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Ineous (BP) 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seadrift Coke 334 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dow/UCC 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Lower Basin Industrial/SE (Canyon Reservoir) 5,534 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Irrigation (Canyon Reservoir)
Irrigation Contracts (Upper Basin) 173 188 188 188 188 188 188
Irrigation Contracts (Mid-Basin) 736 608 608 608 608 608 608
Canyon Reservoir Total 57,747 86,883 96,509 103,447 109,746 118,450 127,384
Mid-Basin Municipal (Run-of-River)
Lockhart 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120
Luling 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680
Mid-Basin Municipal (Run-of-River) Total 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
Lower Basin Municipal (Run-of-River, Firm)
Calhoun County Rural WSC 356 436 516 572 609 618 632
Port Lavaca 1,658 1,769 1,877 1,981 2,079 2,209 2,345
Port O'Conner MUD 186 198 210 222 234 248 264
Total Lower Basin Municipal (Run-of-River, Firm) 2,200 2,403 2,603 2,775 2,922 3,075 3,241
Lower Basin Industrial/SE (Run-of-River, Firm)
Ineous (BP) 2,200 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300
Seadrift Coke 666 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Victoria County Industry 0 0 2,969 5,921 8,860 11,489 14,441
Dow/UCC 15,000 15,100 15,100 15,100 15,100 15,100 15,100
Dow/UCC and Other Existing & New Industry 5,356 7,868 10,647 13,045 15,422 17,520 20,167
Total Lower Basin Industrial/SE (Run-of-River, Firm) 23,222 27,268 33,016 38,366 43,682 48,409 54,008
Lower Basin Industrial/SE (Run-of-River, Interruptible)
Exelon 0 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Total Lower Basin Industrial/SE (Run-of-River, Interruptible) 0 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Lower Basin Irrigation (Run-of-River, Interruptible)
Irrigation Agreements 8,077 15,568 13,654 12,096 11,041 10,285 9,581
Lower Basin (Run-of-River, Firm) Total 25,422 29,671 35,619 41,141 46,604 51,484 57,249
Lower Basin (Run-of-River, Interruptible) Total 8,077 15,568 88,654 87,096 86,041 85,285 84,581
Total Demand 94,046 134,922 223,582 234,484 245,191 258,019 272,014
Total Upper Basin Demand 4,933 18,391 18,391 20,520 22,096 25,637 28,987
Total Mid-Basin Demand 46,780 66,052 73,678 78,487 83,210 88,373 93,957
Total Lower Basin Demand 42,333 50,479 131,513 135,477 139,885 144,009 149,070
Total Demand 94,046 134,922 223,582 234,484 245,191 258,019 272,014
2

Existing Supplies (acft/yr):
10/23/2009 DRAFT
Source 2000 2010 2020
Year (acft)
2030 2040 2050 2060
Canyon Reservoir 87,700 87,575 87,450 87,325 87,200 87,075 86,950
Mid-Basin Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower Basin Rights (Interruptible) 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000
Lower Basin Rights (Firm) 89,501 89,501 89,501 89,501 89,501 89,501 89,501
Total Supply 263,201 263,076 262,951 262,826 262,701 262,576 262,451
Projected Management Supplies or Needs (acft/yr):
2000 2010 2020
Year (acft)
2030 2040 2050 2060
Canyon Reservoir Mgmt. Supplies / (Needs) 29,953 692 (9,059) (16,122) (22,546) (31,375) (40,434)
Mid-Basin Run-of-River Mgmt. Supplies / (Needs) (2,800) (2,800) (2,800) (2,800) (2,800) (2,800) (2,800)
Lower Basin Run-of-River Firm Mgmt. Supplies / (Needs) 64,079 59,830 53,882 48,360 42,897 38,017 32,252
Lower Basin Run-of-River Interruptible Mgmt. Supplies / (Needs) 77,923 70,432 (2,654) (1,096) (41) 715 1,419
Total System Management Supplies / (Needs) 169,155 128,154 39,369 28,342 17,510 4,558 (9,563)
Water Management Strategies (WMS) with Estimated Firm Yield (acft/yr):
Recommended WMS
Conservation 1
2000 2010 2020
Year (acft)
2030 2040 2050 2060
Wimberley/Woodcreek Project 2
4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480
Simsboro Groundwater Project 3,9
30,000 30,000 30,000 55,000 55,000
Regional Carrizo for Guadalupe Basin 4,9
GBRA Mid-Basin/Gonzales Project (Conjunctive Use)
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
4,9
GBRA Mid-Basin/Gonzales Project (Surface Water Only) 4
GBRA/Exelon Project 6
42,083 42,083 42,083 42,083 42,083
GBRA Lower Basin Storage 7
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Western Canyon WTP Expansion 5,600 5,600
GBRA New Appropriation (Lower Basin) 8
TBD
Alternative WMS
LGWSP for Upstream GBRA Needs 5
LGWSP for Upstream GBRA Needs - Reduced Capacity 5
WMS Needing Further Study Prior to Implementation
Storage Above Canyon Reservoir (Off-Channel or ASR)
Brush Management Above Canyon Reservoir
Seawater Desalination for Guadalupe River Basin
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
1
Assigned by Water User Group (WUG) based on Municipal Conservation WMS recommended by SCTRWPG.
2
Project includes facilities to deliver treated water developed by one or more existing or recommended WMS.
3
Source of water is Simsboro Aquifer in Regions K and G with delivery to the San Marcos WTP.
4
Source(s) of water include groundwater and/or a new appropriation of surface water to be withdrawn in Gonzales County and treated at the Luling and
San Marcos WTPs. Sources and facilities will be determined in the formulation and permitting phases of project development.
5 Project includes diversion, storage, transmission, treatment, and integration facilities necessary to deliver water available under existing GBRA/Dow water
rights from the GBRA Calhoun Canal System to meet projected needs in the upper and mid-basin areas.
6 Project includes diversion, transmission, and cooling reservoir facilities necessary for operations of a proposed nuclear power plant in Victoria County.
Firm yield shown is equivalent to consumptive water use through forced evaporation in the cooling reservoir and cooling towers and is developed through
storage of interruptible diversions of up to 75,000 acft/yr under existing GBRA/Dow water rights.
7 Phased development of off-channel storage to increase the reliability of interruptible run-of-river supplies available under existing GBRA/Dow water rights.
8 Project subject to senior water rights, full application of environmental flow standards adopted pursuant to Section 11.1471 of the Texas Water Code, and
the TCEQ permitting process.
9 Part or all of the water needed by this Water Management Strategy (WMS) is anticipated to be supplied from locations within the jurisdiction of a
groundwater conservation district (District) and may exceed the amount of available water identified in the District’s approved management plan,
or may for other reasons not be permitted by the District. The amount of water needed by this WMS that exceeds the available water in the District’s
management plan, or for other reasons is not permitted by the District, cannot be implemented as part of this WMS unless and until all necessary permits
are received from the District. The amount of water needed by this WMS that exceeds the available water in the District’s management plan, or for
other reasons is not permitted by the District, introduces an added element of uncertainty to reliance upon this WMS and, therefore, additional
management supplies may be needed for this WMS.
3

Projected Water Needs & New Supplies (acft/yr)
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority > Upper- & Mid-Basin Areas
" #!" '
!
" # " $ %&
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
"

AGENDA ITEM 10
Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding Consultants’ Work and Schedule

2011 South Central Texas Regional Water Plan
Proposed Workplan for Development
2009 2010
Tasks Description Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Task 1 Planning Area Description
Task 2 Population & Demand Projections
Task 3 Water Supply Analyses
Task 3a Surface Water Supply
Task 3b Groundwater Supply
Task 3c Reuse Water Supply
Task 4 Water Management Strategies
Task 4a Needs Assessment
WMS Input from WUGs & WWPs
Task 4b WMS Technical Evaluations
Brush Management
Drought Management
Storage above Canyon Reservoir
Medina Lake Firm-Up
Brackish Wilcox GW (RWA)
LCRA-SAWS Water Project
Seawater Desal
WMS Costing Updates
GBRA Exelon
LGWSP for GBRA - Reduced Cap
GBRA Mid-Basin (Surface Water)
GBRA Gonzales (Conjunctive Use)
GBRA Gonzales (Groundwater)
Reg Carrizo for SAWS
Brackish Wilcox for SAWS
Hays/Caldwell PUA Carrizo Project
CRWA Projects (3)
Edwards Aquifer R&R Systems*
Task 4c Cumulative Effects of RWP
Task 5 Water Quality & Rural/Urban Transfers
Task 6 Water Conservation & Drought Mgmt
Task 7 Long-term Resource Protection
Task 8 Policies and Recommendations
Ecologically Unique Stream Segments
Task 9 Infrastructure Funding
Task 10 Plan Adoption
* At RWPG Direction
HDR
Indicates that topic will be discussed at RWPG Meeting
Indicates that topic will be presented at RWPG Meeting
Completed
IPP Deadline:
March 1, 2010
RWP Deadline:
September 1, 2010
DRAFT
Updated: 2009-11-05

! ! " #
# $ #
! " #
$ %& # ' "( ) * +% + ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
2 ( ) ) .- .- ../ -2- ../
1 ) * 3 )
, ( 45 %
0 6 ( 7 + ( ) * ) 45 %8 9- ) % .- .- ../ -2- ../
/ + 6 ( 45 % ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
. 45 %: 3 ) * 45 % ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
; 4 + ( ) * ;4 +) # 45 % ( 45 % ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
; 4 + ( ) * ;4 +) # 45 % -% 45 % 5 5 5
! 45 % ; 5 + 45 %
$ 45 % % ; 5 45 %
2 45 % :5 + # 45 % .- .- ../ -2- ../
1 45 % :5 * 45 % .- .- ../ -2- ../
, < # 4 5 45 %8 + = .- .- ../ -2- ../
0 < # +% + +% + ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
/ < # ++;4 ) * 3 ++;4 ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
. 9 ( - ) % + 8 >( 8 5 8 % ,- !- ../ 0-1- ../
+ 6 %& # 45 %
; 4 .- .- ../ -2- ../
! 5 7 3 4 # +% + +% + ,- !- ../ -2- ../
$ 5 7 3 4 # % % 6 $- !- ../ 2-,- ../
2 5 7 3 4 # ++ + ++ + .- .- ../ -2- ../
1 % ) * %
, % ) * %
0 % + ) * %
/ ; %:+% + ) * ;+ ) +% + .- .- ../ -2- ../
!. ; 7 ? : 5 -5 ( .- .- ../ -2- ../
! + ) # 5 3 $- !- ../ 2-,- ../
! + #
!! ; +
!$ 5
!2 %& # +( -%
%?"
:2: ../

•
–
• ! " # $ "%
• % ! &
– ' ( ) ) * & +* & , ,- "* . ( /
– ' ( % ( ) 0 1& ( & . & " ( ) ) *
• ) $ " %*2)
– )
– % " 3 &
– % "
– % "3
– ) %
– % ' ) %
– 3 ! +4 5 6% ( 67 8 % /
– 3 " & ! +4 5 7 % ( /
• * 9 & " & ! & ( & & : 0 : ;
• * 9 & " & & ( & & : 0 : ;
Scenario # Treatment Distribution
1
2
3
Existing WWTP is achieving treatment
that meets the Type 1 effluent
requirements. Treatment upgrade
includes only the addition of chlorine for
distribution.
Existing WWTP is nearly achieving
treatment that meets the Type 1
effluent requirements. Treatment
upgrade includes tertiary treatment and
chlorine.
Existing WWTP requires extensive
upgrade to meet the Type 1 effluent
requirements. Treatment upgrade
includes additional secondary treatment,
tertiary treatment, and chlorine.
Treated wastewater is supplied to
demand location(s) from central
WWTP by addition of piping and
pump station.
Treated wastewater is supplied to
demand location(s) from central
WWTP by addition of piping and
pump station.
Treated wastewater is supplied to
demand location(s) from central
WWTP by addition of piping and
pump station.

• &
– ! 5 ! ) ) *
– . & 2 & & . (
• (
• * ( + /
• ! * #
– . ( 3 < " # . ( "
0 . + ! /
• %
Scenario
Capacity (MGD)
0.5 1 5 10
1 $938 $690 $506 $450
2 $1,894 $1,290 $694 $566
3 $2,588 $1,889 $1,212 $1,063
Scenario
! " ! ! " !
• 1 (
Implementation
Measures
Environmental Water
Needs / Instream Flows
Bays and Estuaries
Localized Fish and
Wildlife Habitat
Cultural Resources None anticipated.
Threatened and
Endangered Species
Maximum Capacity (MGD)
0.5 1 5 10
1 $171 $146 $99 $86
2 $750 $488 $206 $150
3 $1,144 $857 $540 $484
Development of additional wastewater treatment plant
facilities, distribution pipelines, and pump stations.
Potential low impacts on instream flows due to decreased
effluent/return flows; possible increased water quality.
Potential low negative impact due to reduced freshwater
inflow and nutrient loading.
Variable impacts depending on changes in volume of
effluent return flows; in the case of substantially reduced
stream flows, potential high negative impact to fish and
wildlife habitat.
None anticipated with recommended WMSs.

•
– ! " #"
– $ # #"% %" # & &"#" ! " ' (( ) * "
+ & , #" - % + "% . & / + &
– " #" . ""! " % . "& 0 * / )+, / %"
* "
• "
– 1 " " & #" % * " ! /" + & , #"
– 1 "%" &" 2 3"& % " * " ./ % % "& * " ! /"
4 ./ & ) 5"% % "! & "* % " * " %

• 6 "%
– + & , #" $ 5" & 1 !
– 2 7 ! " 2 / #" % 1 " "%
– "#" ! " 8 2+/ " ."
– 9 %! %% 1 " " 2! "% 2 / & ! " " 1 !
& - % " %
– 9" ! ."
– + #" " 9 " ! " 1
– $ ".
&* "
– " " &
– " 6 " & + " 1 " "% ! "% ( 2 / & ! " "
,". ) + % :% ! "
– + 6 "% ; < ( = (
– 9 1 >" + % ; < =(
– + % ; < (
– + % ; < (=
)+, 2 1 >" 9" ! + % :% ! "
– + 6 "% ; < ? =
– 9 1 >" + % ; < ( (
– + % ; < (? (? ==
– + % ; <
(

•
• ! ! !"
• #
– $ % % % % & $' ()*
+ ,+ -. % % & % / %0 !
& % / & & 1 & 1 2 %%%
*3 $ 4 5 6
• ) 7 &
– 7 7 8 9 .
– 7 7 8 9

: % '% % )
• : % * # ; % % % < .
)) - -=
• : % ( # " % % %
& $' ))
• : % # % % % /
% %/ %
: % * > < . !
• $ % #9 - ."=
• $ ' ? #9-- "!"
• * #9 5;
• $ & ) #9.6 ; 1
– , % 7 %@ 7 7 : A
% @ B B% / ()*6
• 2 % # 9 5 9"6 1
• < %%% #
– , % 7 %@ ()* + ,+-. % %
– ' % A $ 1
– ; % 5 % @ % % %
– ( ' %
– ! & $' 4 %
– $ % $ 1 6!
-
!

: % ( > ))
* !
• $ % #9 - .!"
• $ ' ? #9-- ==
• * #9 ""
• $ & ) #9!6!. 1
– , % 7 %@ 7 7 : A %
@ B B% / ()*6
• 2 % # 9 ! ; 9=6!. 1
• < %%% #
– ' % A $ 1
– ( ' %
– " % 5 % @ % % %
– ! & $' 4 %
– $ % $ 1 6!
: % > ))
< !
• $ % #9 - "5.
• $ ' ? #9 ; ;-5
• * #9 ;;
• $ & ) #9.65; 1
– , % 7 %@ 7 7 : A
% @ B B% / 6
• 2 % #9 !.- 9=6.- 1
• < %%% #
– ' %
– % 5 % @ % % %
– ! & $' 4 %
– $ % $ 1 6!
.
5
-

•
–
–
– !""" # $ % &' ( ) #
• !""" # $ ( *
• +!""" # $ , - *
• . /0 1 2 .
– # # 3 /
• - , # / / 1
# 4 . 5 % 4.5 ) ## &
• - # / / ( # ,
( 1 %, ) ## &
– 0 /0 -1 !# #
# & +6 # 1 * 7
! 1 * 48 - &

Potential Instream Flow Requirement (cfs)
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2 . 9
Consensus Criteria - Median
Consensus Criteria - Quartile
Consensus Criteria - 7Q2
Modified Lyons Method
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Month
8 9 10 11 12
• .
– : ##; 1 %

•
–
–
– !"#$$$ % & '!!()! * + %
• ! #$$$ % & * ,
• -#$$$ % & . ,
• / 01 2 3 /
– ! % % 4 0
• . % 0 0 2
% 5 / 6 ' 5/6 + %% (
• % 0 0 * % .
* 2 '. + %% (
– 4 4
• . 7 # 8$ % &
– * 9! %
• 7 :#)"$ % &
– * ": %
!

• 4 0
– % 2 0 2 * ' * +
0 % 2 2 1 %
' + 2 %
0 % 2 ; #
% 2 0 0 2 (
– ,2 % 0 2 * 2 2 0
2 ; # % 2 0 2
# 0 % 2 *
% 2 (
– ,2 % 0 2 * 2 2 0
2 ; # % 2 0 2
# % 2
* # 2 % # 0 % 2
* (
• % 4 0
– 1 01 2 #% % %
( -8 % 2 , #
2 , 5< (
• /
– !!() * =
– ) >
•
– , " ?
%)9? 2
– ) ? !$$
% 0
– ,
2
. *
– / 7 @ A # !:#$$$
– , 1 7 @!:!#$8!#$$$
– 4 7 @)"#)-"#$$$&
– 7 @ #- -& % &
• /
– !!() * =
– ) >
•
– , " ? %
)9? 2
– ) ? !$$
% 0
– , 2 .
*
– / 7 @ A # !:#$$$
– , 1 7 @!:!#$8!#$$$
– 4 7 @)"#$:A#$$$&
– 7 @ #-$-& % &
)
-
!

•
–
–
– !
– "#$ ! % &""'(" )* ! ) +
• " $ ! % + ,
• -$ ! % + . ,
"

• /+ 0
– ! 1 0 1
& * 0 ! 1 1
2 ! + &) *
1 ! + 0 ! 1 ) 3
+ $ ! 1 0
0 1 ) '
– ,1 ! 0 1 1 1 + 0
1 ) 3 $ ! 1
0 1 ) $ 0 ! 1
+ ! 1 ) '
– ,1 ! 0 1 1 1 + 0
1 ) 3 $ ! 1
0 1 ) $ !
1 $ 1 ! $
0 ! 1 '
• 4
– ( 5 " ! 0
– " 6
– , ( 5 !(75 1
– , 1 . &('7
)* & '8 )*
•
– 4 9 : 7 $ - $
– , 2 9 :"(;$"-#$
– / 9 :( $;;#$ %
– 9 : $" % ! %
(
-
"

•
•
"
• & '())) $ )*+ , -
• &.())) $ /*) , -
• &0(1)) $ 1*0 , -
• 2 # "
• ! "
!
# $
– & " ! # $ % ( 3 4 53
, ! $# - 3
– 6 &/))7 ())) !"
– 8 3 &
• & 5 ! ('))7 (+)) ! #
• #
– &91') #
• $
– & 9.(:)) ! #
– $$ &9/. "
– " & " - %
%
; '

• ! "
– $ , ! !
, " 3"" $
43 $ ! 3
= 3 $ $ >
"" ! " ( $
" *
– 3 $ , =
> ! " ( $
" ( " " $ ,
3 3 " $ *
– 3 $ , =
> ! " ( $
" ( 3 $3
3" , ( $ ( !
3"" $ , *
•
– #
• 3 &
– ? 3 &'+@ " & (0)) :())) $ @6 &/))7 ())) !" @
3 3 &9'.(+)) $
• % A " &9:' $ ' '17
• 3 " & $ $
• " &9.7 $ /7'17
• &
– $
• 4 &
– ? 3 &

$ % & '(
) )) )))
$ B 01('0/())) B ::('.0())) B .( +1())) B )

#$
% & '
!"
" ( $ !

•
• ! ) * !$
• #) * !$
•
– ) " +" $ ! , !
- $ ! " $
– . $) " /0 1 2 !
– 3 " 4)
• % ), $ + ! 5 2 1 20 ! &
• !
• % )6 10 &
• " #
• % ) 782 ! &
• , 4)7
• ) & $ 9 $ : $
•
– ( 5 $ $ 4 ( ! !4
< = $ " $ 5 ( (
" $ ! " $5 $ < = $ 4
$ ( " 5 $ $ ( >
$ ! 2 4 (
$ 4 ( *
– %( " 5 $ $ 4 ( ( $ (
5 ( > ! 2 (
$ 4 ( 2 $ (
" $ " 4 $ ( *
– %( " 5 $ $ 4 ( ( $ (
5 ( > ! 2 (
$ 4 ( 2 $" $$ $ " 4
" ( $2 ( 2 $$ !
" 4 $ $ ( *
;
6

• # $
– !
• $" )
– ? " );@ ()7 2 @. $)78 ! @
" $" )7 2 0 4
• $ )7 1 ( $
• " )?
• % )?
• % ) $
– " #
• A )
– ? " ) @ ()7620 @. $)76 ! @
" A )7 0 4
• $ " )?
• " )
• % ) 7 81 ( $
" $
– B C 2 0;2
– % B C 62;0/2
– " B C 2 2 4
– . $ B ! ) 2 4 < * : =
– - B C 288; 4 C0*/8 2 ! =
" % $ & #' $( ! # ) * ! $ +
– - B C 2;68 4

AGENDA ITEM 11
Possible Agenda Items for the Next South Central Texas Regional Water Planning
Group

AGENDA ITEM 12
Public Comment