1

Measuring Measuring Performance of Performance of

Resource Management Resource Management ResponsesResponsesRich Juricich (DWR)

David Groves (RAND)

2

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

● Evaluation Framework from Update 2005

● Ideas to inform Update 2009● Capabilities of Update 2009 analytical

tools● Activities for today

3

Evaluation Framework from Evaluation Framework from Update 2005Update 2005

Questions forthe Water Plan

What do we want to know? (Objectives)

EvaluationCriteria

What we are measuring? (Indicators)

MetricWhat is the quantity measured?

Measure How are we measuring of progress?

4

Evaluation Framework from Evaluation Framework from Update 2005Update 2005

Questions forthe Water Plan “What will future water needs be?”

EvaluationCriteria

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

Questions forthe Water Plan

EvaluationCriteria

Metric

Measure

ResultsResults

6

Questions for Water Plan AnalysisQuestions for Water Plan AnalysisFrom Update 2005From 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

More Questions FromMore Questions FromUpdate 2005Update 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

Categories of Evaluation Criteria Categories of Evaluation Criteria (or Indicators) from Update 2005(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

Ideas to Inform Ideas to Inform Update 2009Update 2009

● What makes good criteria (indicators)● Other indicator efforts

10

Selecting Good Evaluation Selecting Good Evaluation Criteria (Indicators)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

Selecting Good Evaluation Selecting Good Evaluation Criteria (Indicators)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

Related effort: CALFED Related effort: CALFED Performance Measures ReportPerformance Measures Report

● Supply reliability● Water quality● Levee integrity● Ecosystem restoration

13

Supply ReliabilitySupply 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

Related effort: Sustainable Water Related effort: Sustainable Water Resources RoundtableResources Roundtable

● Water availability● Water quality● Human uses and

health● Environmental uses

and health● Infrastructure and

Institutions

15

Water Consumption and Availability Water Consumption and Availability

16

Related effort: Blue Ribbon Related effort: Blue Ribbon Task ForceTask Force

● Supply reliability● Seismic and flood

durability● Ecosystem health

and resilience● Water quality● Schedule, cost, and

funding

17

Delta Water UseDelta Water Use

18

Related Effort: RAND Study of Related Effort: RAND Study of Inland Empire Utilities Agency (1)Inland Empire Utilities Agency (1)

Question toAnswer

“How reliable are IEUA’s supplies underplausible scenarios of climate change?

EvaluationCriteria

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

Related Effort: RAND Study of Related Effort: RAND Study of Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2)Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2)

Question toAnswer

“Would investments in increased efficiency reduce costs?”

EvaluationCriteria

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

Other metrics evaluatedOther metrics evaluatedin IEUA studyin 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

Capabilities of Update Capabilities of Update 2009 analytical tools2009 analytical tools

22

A Scenario Analysis Has Four Key ElementsA 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

X, L MR

X, L MR

23

Hydrologic Region Analysis Hydrologic Region Analysis Using WEAPUsing 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

Planning Area WEAP Analysis for Sacramento Planning Area WEAP Analysis for Sacramento and San Joaquin River Regionsand 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

Activities for TodayActivities for Today

26

Activities For TodayActivities 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 forthe Water Plan

EvaluationCriteria

Metric

Measure

27

Fill OutFill OutEvaluation Framework Evaluation Framework

worksheet worksheet

Framework Element Example Stakeholder Response

Question Can conservation/efficiency alone accommodate new demand in the Central Valley?

Evaluation Criteria Water supply reliability for current conditions and future conditions with and without efficiency at different levels

Metrics % of years in which supply meets demand for current conditions and future conditions

Measures Amount of efficiency required to maintain reliability

28

Reference InformationReference Information

● Rich Juricich juricich@water.ca.gov (916) 651-9225

● David Groves, RAND Corp groves@rand.org