1. Virginia’s Water Quantity Management

2. Quality – Quantity Relationship  Key concept: both are beneficial uses of available flow or supply  Water quality beneficial uses include waste or pollution assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat  Water quantity beneficial uses include water withdrawals for human activities, navigation, and recreation  These uses sometimes compete for the same gallon  As available supply decreases the potential for conflict increases

3. Water Quantity History in VA

4.  “Every one for themselves” planning  “Water has always been there” planning  “Won’t be a drought worse than the 1930s drought” planning  Started to plan when water use reached 80% of permitted capacity (VDH)  Extended drought from 1999-2002 exposed some inadequacies in planning Water Planning pre-2003

5. Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply  Ground Water Characterization  Ground Water Withdrawal Permitting  Wellhead Protection  Ground Water Protection Steering Committee  Surface Water Withdrawal Permitting  State-wide Water Withdrawal Reporting  Local and Regional Water Supply Planning  Surface and Ground Water Monitoring  State Drought Monitoring and Response  Interstate Water Commissions

6.  Manage water withdrawals and use through regulatory programs:  Virginia Water Protection Program,  Ground Water Management Act of 1992,  Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Program  Water Use Reporting Program  Other tools like:  Potomac Low Flow Allocation Agreement VA Water Quantity Mgmt Tools

7. GW Management Areas  Covers about 2/3 of the Coastal Plain  Regulates an estimated 57% of withdrawals >300,000 gpm in CP  Does not include most single family wells (est. 40 mgd)

8. GW Availability Problem Areas  Ground water has been drawn down significantly in parts of the Coastal Plain.  Places along the fall line are declining more rapidly than other areas.  Field data is showing water levels are lower than model predictions in these areas.

10. 2007 Beverly Quinlan Areas where measured water levels are approaching aquifer tops or critical surfaces

11. 2007 Beverly Quinlan Areas where measured water levels are approaching aquifer tops or critical surfaces

12. VCP Model Simulated Water Levels Top of Potomac Aquifer 2005 Total Permitted Withdrawal Steady-State Simulation RASA Model Simulated Water Levels

13. Citizens on Ground Water Figure Populations and percentages of populations in Virginia Coastal Plain localities served by self-supplied ground water in 2000 (from Pope, USGS SIR 2007-5250)

14. 2007 Water Use

15. 2007 Public Water Supply Water Withdrawals and Purchases

16. 2003-2007 Public Water Supply Water Use with Population Growth

17. Data Limitations for State and Local Water Planning

18. Current Monitoring Network

19. Policy Limitations  Unlike other neighboring states, Virginia has not had a stated policy to promote and facilitate the development of basic data to characterize water resources to determine surface and groundwater resource availability statewide.  Water supply is a state and local responsibility--there are no federal mandates for this effort and funding is solely state general fund money.  State budget cuts have greater impact on water resource programs more than those with federal funding or mandates.  Multiple agencies regulating the resource limits data development and sharing without clear legislative policy.

20. How much groundwater do we have?  Important question for many localities to plan in an informed manner  Can’t be answered anywhere in Virginia  Our groundwater monitoring capability peaked in the 1980s and adequate investment has not returned or kept pace with growing data needs.  Modeling tools have not been updated since the early 1990s

22. Well Construction Database

23. Uses of Well Data

24. Coastal Cross Section

25. Geologic Mapping available from VGDMR and USGS 2008 Spring Database Water Use = Hydrologic Mapping Well Database

26. Available Publications about Ground Water Conditions in Virginia Sparse

27. How much surface water do we have?  Important question for many localities and industries to plan in an informed manner  Can be answered better than groundwater  Our surface water monitoring capability peaked in the 1980s and adequate investment has not returned or kept pace with growing data needs.

28. Gaps in surface water data  Limited understanding of agricultural use  Lack of certainty on the amount of water grandfathered withdrawals can take  Lack of pre-determined in-stream flow criteria for beneficial uses  No river basin water budgets  Limited resources to investigate impacts of changing weather patterns

29. Agricultural Use  Use amounts and patterns are not well understood  Appears to be under-reported and reported data can be problematic  Use typically occurs during times of water scarcity  Currently there are no agricultural water withdrawals under permit

30. VWP Excluded Max Capacity  Required by 9VAC25-210-30  Sent out: 1274  Responded: 369  Follow-up is in process  Goal is to provide an analysis of the impact of this grandfathering in the first State Water Plan

31. Users Excluded From VWP

32. Coastal Plain Groundwater Management  Resolution of state monitoring wells is inadequate  Uncertainty causes us to make conservative assumptions in reviewing withdrawal proposals  Existing models cannot be refined or new models built without additional data  Salt water intrusion is a threat to supplies that cannot be evaluated without additional monitoring  Current model is 20 years old

33. Managing Cumulative Impacts to Surface Water  The permit program needs to be more comprehensive in the future  Agricultural use must be better addressed  Determining water availability is uncertain because the needs of recreation, navigation, and fish and wildlife habitat are not adequately defined  Requirements for water withdrawal reporting can be improved by including return flows, sales, and transfers, and real measurements

34. Future Challenges and Opportunities  Water resource data needs.  Water reuse/desal opportunities need to become mainstream alternatives.  Climate change is mostly about impacts to water.  Population growth continues in areas without sufficient water resources.  Current system promotes inequity.

35. Future of Water Supply Planning  Driven by managing our expectations Water availability limited by geographic location drives optimization Water availability limited by geographic location drives optimization Focus on water use efficiency Focus on water use efficiency Revenues generated from full cost pricing Revenues generated from full cost pricing Need for storage Need for storage  Regional solutions  Greater state role seems likely  Use of integrated regional modeling infrastructure

36. Implications  Greater interdependence among utilities is likely—could see some system consolidation  Revenue may be driven more by customer rates and less by surplus water sales  Focus on the maintenance of existing systems to help minimize loss and extend system life  Promoting conservation will be more common  Permits will be more complex in how systems are operated  Systems will become more conjunctive

37. Scott Kudlas, Director Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply Planning (804) 698-4456 scott.kudlas@deq.virginia.gov http://www.deq.virginia.gov/watersupplyplanning/home page.html