1. 1 Measuring Performance of Resource Management Responses Rich Juricich (DWR) David Groves (RAND)

2. 2 Presentation Overview ● Evaluation Framework from Update 2005 ● Ideas to inform Update 2009 ● Capabilities of Update 2009 analytical tools ● Activities for today

3. 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. 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. 5 Questions for the Water Plan Evaluation Criteria Metric Measure Results

6. 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. 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. 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. 9 Ideas to Inform Update 2009 ● What makes good criteria (indicators) ● Other indicator efforts

10. 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. 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. 12 Related effort: CALFED Performance Measures Report ● Supply reliability ● Water quality ● Levee integrity ● Ecosystem restoration

13. 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. 14 Related effort: Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable ● Water availability ● Water quality ● Human uses and health ● Environmental uses and health ● Infrastructure and Institutions

15. 15 Water Consumption and Availability

16. 16 Related effort: Blue Ribbon Task Force ● Supply reliability ● Seismic and flood durability ● Ecosystem health and resilience ● Water quality ● Schedule, cost, and funding

17. 17 Delta Water Use

18. 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. 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. 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. 21 Capabilities of Update 2009 analytical tools

22. 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

23. 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. 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. 25 Activities for Today

26. 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. 27 Fill Out Evaluation Framework worksheet

28. 28 Reference Information ● Rich Juricich  juricich@water.ca.gov juricich@water.ca.gov  (916) 651-9225 ● David Groves, RAND Corp  groves@rand.org groves@rand.org