RD71 - Annual Report of the State Water Commission


    Executive Summary:
    [Replaced by author on 7/26/06.]

    The State Water Commission is a 15-member legislative body, established by statute that is charged with (i) studying all aspects of water supply and allocation problems in the Commonwealth, whether these problems are of a qualitative or a quantitative nature, and (ii) coordinating the legislative recommendations of all state entities that have responsibilities with respect to water supply and allocation issues. During 2004, the Commission received a presentation on the status of the water plan regulations, and reviewed the final report of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, which had been requested by the General Assembly (Senate Joint Resolution No. 381) to study the efficacy of desalinization as part of a strategy to meet Virginia's drinking water needs.

    In 2003, Senate Bill 1221 was enacted by the General Assembly requiring the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to develop criteria for local and regional plans and establish a comprehensive water supply planning process for the development of local, regional, and state water supply plans. The legislation also authorized the Water Policy Technical Advisory Committee to work with DEQ and the Department of Health on the development of the water plans, criteria and guidelines for development of a plan, and proposed water plan regulations. The WP-TAC completed the draft regulations in September 2004 and submitted them to DEQ for review. Mr. Bob Burnley, Director of DEQ, provided a summary of the draft regulations to the Commission. Under the draft regulations:

    • All counties, cities, and towns will submit a plan to the State Water Control Board, individually or as part of a region; and
    • Local governments and community water systems will coordinate and cooperate with each other on the development of the plan.

    Local governments are required to submit their plan to the State Water Control Board within three to six years, according to a staggered schedule based on population. Regional groups will have six years to submit a plan. The plan must include:

    • A description of existing water resources;
    • A description of existing water use;
    • A description of existing water resource conditions;
    • An assessment of project demand over a 30-50 year period;
    • A description of water management actions;
    • A statement of future demand; and
    • An analysis of alternatives to meet a projected deficiency in supply.

    To assist local governments in the development of their local program, the DEQ will (i) provide technical assistance, (ii) provide guidance on compliance options, (iii) identify acceptable methods for the projection of future water demands, and (iv) provide information regarding known conflicts relating to the development of alternatives. The DEQ will review all local and regional plans to determine whether they comply with the regulation and are consistent with the State Water Resources Plan. A locality will be required to review its plan every five years to assess its adequacy.

    According to Mr. Burnley, the local benefits of water supply planning include:

    1. Improves information on resource issues that impact long-term plans and projects;
    2. Focuses attention on the most viable water supply alternative;
    3. Improves coordination and preparation for permitting and regulatory processes; and
    4. Provides an economic development tool by documenting plans for meeting water supply needs.

    The development of a state water plan will provide a greater understanding of water resources and water demands. Currently, there is no one source for this type of information that can be used for evaluating water supply projects; increasing public involvement in resource management decisions; identifying and addressing conflicts among users earlier, and improving responsiveness and preparation for drought situations.

    In order to finance the water supply initiative, DEQ plans to submit a budget request for an additional $650,000 in FY 2006 to be used to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments. However, continued financial assistance will be needed each year thereafter for such a grant program. In addition, the agency will request $350,000 in FY 2006 for development of groundwater data for use in local and regional planning efforts and will seek authorization for three additional positions. It is anticipated that the regulatory process establishing the requirements for developing local and regional plans will begin with the issuance of the Notice of Intent of Regulatory Action in November 2004. A draft of any changes to the proposed regulation will be presented to the State Water Control Board (SWCB) by October 2005 followed by a public comment period during Spring 2006. The final regulation will be considered by the SWCB in June 2006 and the regulation will become effective by December 2006.

    Dr. Tamin Younos, Interim Director of the Virginia Water Resource Center presented the results of his study examining the feasibility of using desalinization to supplement drinking water supplies in Virginia (SJR 381). His presentation included a discussion of (i) the technology, (ii) the scope and critical issues related to desalinization, (iii) the rationale for possible implementation of desalinization in Eastern Virginia, and (iv) conclusions and recommendations. According to Dr. Younos, there are several reasons for implementing desalinization projects in Eastern Virginia. First, major cities in Eastern Virginia are within designated Groundwater Management Areas, and because of this, permitting of additional withdrawals in these regions is problematic. Second, construction of new reservoirs in Eastern Virginia is less likely because of environmental concerns, high costs, and the difficulty in purchasing the needed land. Finally, the proposed King William Reservoir will only supply up to 60 percent of the Lower Peninsula's future water needs. There are currently four desalinization plants operating in Eastern Virginia but their costs for the desalinization of brackish water ranges from $3.40/1,000 gallons (Lee Hall Plant) to $6.63/1,000 gallons (Gloucester Plant) compared to $1.00/1,000 gallons for conventional water treatment.

    The study concluded that desalinization is not the magic bullet, stand alone solution to future water demand in Eastern Virginia. Rather, the technology should be considered as a viable component of an overall water supply management plan for Eastern Virginia. Desalinization technologies for water treatment are available and are being implemented in the Hampton Roads area for treating brackish ground water at a reasonable cost. However, questions remain regarding environmentally sound and cost effective management of the disposal of brine from these desalinization plants. Dr. Younos suggested that legislative and state government leadership is needed if the following recommended actions are to occur:

    • Development of a comprehensive database of available water resources in Virginia;
    • Development of a viable regional water supply allocation plan, which should include the development of alternative water sources such as saline water, water conservation, and water reuse;
    • Development of a strategic plan for future implementation of large-scale desalinization plants in Eastern Virginia;
    • Formation of an inter-governmental task force to coordinate and expedite permit reviews for proposed desalinization plants;
    • Development of a mechanism that will enable utilities and power companies to provide energy at reduced cost to existing and future desalinization plants; thereby, making the desalinization process more cost competitive; and
    • Funding of research on (a) the impact of desalinization on ecosystems, (b) the cost effectiveness of brine management technologies, and (c) the cost effectiveness of treating and using tidal waters.

    This Executive Summary will serve as the State Water Commission's 2005 Final Report.