Multi-Party Negotiations to
Resolve Truckee River
Water Quality Issues
Dave Dilks
Li
LimnoTech
T h
[email protected]
Outline
‹ Background
B k
d
‹ Clean
Cl
W
Water
t A
Actt and
d TMDL
TMDLs
‹ Multi-Party
Multi Party
Negotiations
Outline
‹ Background
B k
d
–
–
–
Problem statement
Regional setting
Environmental Issues
‹ Clean
Water Act and TMDLs
‹ Multi-Party
Negotiations
Problem Statement
‹
Long tterm planning
L
l
i iindicates
di t regional
i
l growth
th iin
Reno metropolitan area
–
‹
Growth potentially constrained by water quality issues
Resolution of growth and water quality issues
involve numerous parties
– State and Federal regulators
– Municipalities
– Water utility
– Indian tribe
Site Background
• Flows 114 miles from
Lake Tahoe to Pyramid
Lake
• Located in Great Basin
• Drains an area of 1,430
sq. miles
• Population > 300,000
Lake Tahoe
Downstream of Tahoe
Reno
Reno/Sparks
Reno/Sparks
Reno/Sparks
Downstream of Reno
Pyramid Lake
Environmental Issues: Water Diversions
‹ Newlands
–
–
Funded irrigation projects for the arid lands
of the American West
Led to creation of the United States Bureau
of Reclamation
‹ Newlands
–
–
–
Reclamation Act of 1902
Project
Truckee River water diverted to Lahontan
Reservoir at Derby Dam
55,000 acres of irrigated lands
>$10,000,000
$10 000 000 crop value
l annually
ll
Connection to Lahontan Reservoir
Derby Dam
Newlands Project
Environmental Ramifications of Diversion
‹ During
low flow, ~70% of water diverted
from Truckee to Lahontan
–
V
Very
llow fl
flows iin Truckee
T k b
below
l
di
diversion
i
‹ Water
levels have dropped 100 feet in
Pyramid Lake since diversion started
–
–
Water level drop led to excess stream erosion
and necessitated creation of Marble Bluff
Dam
Created spawning barrier to sacred cui-ui fish
Pyramid Lake
Marble Bluff Dam
Marble Bluff Fish Passage Facility
Environmental Issues: Dissolved Oxygen
‹ Oxygen
O
concentrations
t ti
iin T
Truckee
k
River historically violated State water
quality standards for dissolved oxygen
‹ Oxygen required by fish for survival
Photo courtesy of DRI –Brock/Memot
Truckee River Dissolved Oxygen Problems
Nutrients -> Algae
g -> Oxygen
yg
‹
‹
Excess nutrients grow attached algae
Low river flow exacerbates algal
effects on dissolved oxygen
Algal Effect on Dissolved Oxygen
14
Day = Photosynthesis y
y
+ Respiration
p
12
More Algal Effect
DO (m
mg/L)
10
Less Algal Effect
8
Night = Respiration
6
4
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria, July to October
2
Day 1
Time
Day 2
Outline
‹ Background
B k
d
‹ Clean
Water Act and TMDLs
‹ Multi
Multi-Party
Party
Negotiations
Clean Water Act and TMDLs
C
‹ Truckee
River placed on 303(d) list of
impaired waters
‹ Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean
Water Act
–
–
“Each State shall identifyy waters for which
(basic) effluent limitations are not stringent
enough to implement water quality standards”
“E h St
“Each
State
t shall
h ll establish
t bli h … th
the total
t t l
maximum daily load … at a level necessary to
implement the applicable water quality
standards”
Calculation of Maximum Allowable Load
‹ Typically
based upon application of water
quality model
–
Predicts relationship
p between p
pollutant loads
and resulting water quality
Point Source Loads
N
Nonpoint
i t Loads
L d
Water Q
Quality
y
Model
Water
Quality
Calculation of Maximum Allowable Load
‹ Water
q
quality
y model represents
p
known
ecological processes into mathematical form
ΦD =
K1/ 2 + α [Algae]
K1/ 2 + [Algae]
Calculation of Maximum Allowable Load
Point Source Loads
Water Quality
Model
N
Nonpoint
i t Loads
L d
Water
Quality
N
No
Reduce Loads
Acceptable Quality?
Yes
Done
TMDL Allocation
‹ Allocate
total allowable load to all
contributing sources
–
–
–
Maximum allowable load defines size of the “pie”
pie
Allocation defines how large each “slice” is
Must include a Margin of Safety
TMDL = 100 lb/d
Pt. Source 1
Pt Source 1
Pt.
NPS 1
NPS 2
NPS 3
MOS
Truckee River TMDL Developed in 1994
‹ Developed
by Nevada Department of
Environmental Protection
–
Determined
D
t
i d maximum
i
nitrogen
it
lload
d th
thatt would
ld
result in compliance with oxygen standards
• Assumed
ssu ed “worst
wo st case”
case 1988
988 flows
lows
‹ Resulting
–
–
TMDL = 1000 pounds nitrogen/day
500 lbs allocated to wastewater treatment plant
p
500 lbs/day for nonpoint sources
‹ Used
as the basis for setting
g nutrient
standards in the river
Desire to Revisit TMDL
‹ City
of Reno conducts regional planning in
late 1990s
–
–
Rapidly
R
idl increasing
i
i population
l ti growth
th
expected to continue
Concurrent
Co
cu e t increase
c ease in wastewater
wastewate flows
lows
expected
‹ Compliance
p
with TMDL determined not
economically feasible in the future
Why Revisit the TMDL?
‹ City
believed that water quality could be
maintained, while allowing for regional
growth
–
–
Improvement expected in Truckee River low
flows
More flexible TMDL structure could allow for
innovative approaches
Improvement in Truckee River Low Flows
‹ Dissolved
oxygen concentrations directly
related to stream flows
–
–
More dil
M
dilution
ti off wastewater
t
t
Deeper water mitigates impact of algae
‹ Truckee
River Operating Agreement
expected to result in higher flows
Sensitivity of Oxygen to River Flow
‹ High
flow summer
Sensitivity of Oxygen to River Flow
‹ Low
flow summer
Truckee River Operating Agreement
‹ Negotiated
agreement in accordance with
the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water
Rights Settlement Act of 1990
‹ Modifies operation of reservoirs in the
Truckee River basin
–
–
–
enhance conditions for fish
increase drought protection
improve river water quality
‹ Includes
p
purchase
of water rights
g
from
agricultural sources
Differences in Flows in Response to TROA
Flow at Segment 329, Wadsworth
400.00
TROM, No Action
350.00
Actual
300.00
200.00
150.00
100 00
100.00
50.00
Date
/1
98
8
12
/1
/1
98
8
11
/1
/1
98
8
10
/1
9/
1/
19
88
8/
1/
19
88
7/
1/
19
88
6/
1/
19
88
5/
1/
19
88
4/
1/
19
88
3/
1/
19
88
2/
1/
19
88
0.00
1/
1/
19
88
Flow (c
cfs)
250.00
Why Revisit the TMDL?
‹ Improvement
in Truckee River low flows
‹ Provide flexibility in structure of TMDL
–
–
Allows credit for watershed improvements
• TMDL trading
Allows credit for stream restoration
Third Party TMDLs
‹ TMDLs
–
typically developed by State or EPA
Limited resources available at the agencies to
conduct TMDLs
‹ “Third
party” TMDLs are now being
promoted
–
–
–
TMDL developed by someone other than the
lead water quality agency
Brings external resources to the process
Can expedite TMDL development
Third Party TMDLs
‹ City
–
–
of Reno decides to conduct TMDL
Sponsors multi-year stream monitoring
program
Develops updated water quality model of the
river
‹ Begins
negotiations with State
Department of Environmental Protection
and EPA to get TMDL adopted
Outline
‹ Background
B k
d
‹ Clean
Water Act and TMDLs
‹ Multi
Multi-Party
Party
–
–
–
Negotiations
Stakeholder process feasibility assessment
Development of work plan
Ongoing issues
Stakeholder Involvement
‹ TMDL
rules
l explicitly
li itl require
i public
bli
involvement
–
EPA guidance encourages early and
continuous stakeholder involvement in TMDL
development
‹ Acrimonious
relationship between parties
in the Truckee basin
‹ State/EPA suggests “stakeholder process
feasibility assessment” prior to initiating
third party TMDL
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment
‹ Led
by Center for Collaborative Policy at
California State, Sacramento
‹ Determine
D t
i whether
h th conditions
diti
are ffeasible
ibl
for a collaborative stakeholder process
www.csus.edu/ccp/publications/Lower_Truckee_TMDL_Final%20Report_(10-16-07).pdf
Collaborative Stakeholder Process
‹ Participants
work together in structured,
facilitated negotiation sessions
–
S k tto achieve
Seek
hi
self-interest
lf i t
t th
through
gh mutual
t l ggain
i
‹ Participants
commit at the outset of the
process to:
–
–
Be fully dedicated to achieving their self-interests
Achieve their self interests in a manner that is
supportive of, or at least not detrimental to,
other participants self-interests
Conditions for Feasibility
‹ Basic
elements necessary to conduct
collaborative stakeholder processes
–
–
–
Primary
P
i
parties
ti are id
identifiable
tifi bl
Primary parties will participate
Parties have a legitimate spokesperson



Needs to be recognized
Must be able to communicate and support
enlightened
li ht
d self-interest
lf i t
t
Must be able to advocate for collaborative solutions
with their constituency
Conditions for Feasibility
‹ Basic
–
Relative balance of influence among parties

–
–
elements (continued)
Parties need assurance that something is to be
gained, they will have influence, and no other
participant has primacy
No party
N
t h
has an assurance off a much
hb
better
tt
outcome in a different venue
Parties anticipate future interactions with
each other
Conditions for Feasibility
‹ Basic
–
–
–
elements (continued)
Parties have external pressures to reach
agreement
Parties have adequate resources to support
collaboration
Realistic timeline for completion
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment
‹ Identified
53 key stakeholders potentially
affected by TMDL
‹ Provided
P id d questionnaires,
ti
i
conducted
d t d
detailed follow-up interviews
–
Questions specifically tailored to address
“Conditions for feasibility”
Key Stakeholders
‹ Resource
management agencies
‹ Native American tribal representatives
‹ Local government representatives
‹ Environmental advocacy organizations
‹ Academic and research institutes
‹ Regional water resource managers
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment:
Findings
‹ Limited
understanding of Truckee River
water quality issues
‹ Governmental
G
t l entities
titi exist
i t a perpetual
t l
state of competition
–
–
Primarily over water
All governmental actions have become suspect
• “We
We don
don’tt understand what they are doing,
but we don’t like it”
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment:
Findings
‹ Understanding
–
that things aren’t working
Desire for change
‹ Common
C
d
desire
i to do
d what
h is
i b
best ffor the
h
resource
‹ Recognition
R
iti by
b some th
thatt a more h
holistic
li ti
approach is needed to fully restore the
resource
–
Nutrient TMDL is only part of the picture
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment:
Recommendations
‹ Three
–
–
–
alternatives considered
Nutrient TMDL with limited involvement
I l i nutrient
Inclusive
t i t TMDL approach
h
Regional water resources approach
‹ Inclusive
–
–
TMDL Approach recommended
Conduct nutrient TMDL with broad
involvement
Start parallel efforts to address other water
quality issues
Stakeholder Process Feasibility Assessment:
Conclusions and Outcomes
‹ Any
regional process that considers water
quality beyond the TMDL can only be
achieved by a group of regional interests
–
–
Western Regional Water Commission formed
Washoe County and Truckee Meadows Water
Authority officially added as “third parties”
‹ Begin
g
implementing
p
g inclusive TMDL
approach
TMDL Approach
‹ Develop
Work Plan
‹ Create Technical and Stakeholder
Ad i
Advisory
Committees
C
itt
‹ Conduct Public Outreach
‹ Revise TMDL
Work Plan
‹ Official
“Work Plan” being developed to
minimize confusion and maximize process
transparency and responsibilities
–
–
–
–
–
NDEP
EPA
City of Sparks
Cityy of Reno
Washoe County
–
–
–
Truckee Meadows
Water Authority
Center for
Collaborative Policy
LimnoTech
Work Plan: Mutual Understandings
‹ The
–
–
–
–
principal parties…
… share a goal to make scientifically defensible
decisions using existing data and tools
… share a goal to support a comprehensive,
transparent,
p
and equitable
q
p
public p
process for
all Truckee River stakeholders
… support a sequential watershed-based, water
quality improvement process
… will “evaluate” impacts to Lahontan
y
Reservoir
Reservoir and Pyramid
Work Plan: Conditions
‹ Representation
–
Each Principal Party will identify a primary
representative(s) vested with the highest
level of decision-making authority possible
‹ Decision
Decision-Making
Making
–
Process will be based on the principle of
“consensus with accountability”
Work Plan: Conditions
‹ Decision-Making
–
–
(continued)
In the event that the primary representatives
can not reach a consensus on a topic,
topic all
representatives will elevate the topic to their
respective next levels of organizational
leadership
3rd Parties and Regulators reserve the
responsibility to terminate the project should
issues between them be unresolvable
Work Plan: Current Status
‹ Work
–
Plan “completed”
After many, many meetings
‹ TROA
open
ratified,
ifi d but
b appeall period
i d still
ill
Issues
‹ Nutrient
water quality standards adopted
for Truckee R. as part of 1994 TMDL
–
–
Redundant
R
d d t protection
t ti ffor di
dissolved
l d oxygen
Applicable only for historical drought flows
‹ State
recognizes that standards should be
updated to reflect higher TROA flows
–
Water quality standards revisions take years
‹ Tribe
is currently updating their water
qualityy standards
q
–
Have nutrient standards set identical to State
Summary Observations
‹ Personalities
are important
‹ Frequent meetings and discussions have
b k down
broken
d
many b
barriers
i
within
ithi group
–
Huge barriers still exist with the Tribe,
founded on distrust
‹ Seasoned
regulators much more amenable
to “outside
outside the box
box” approaches