•
For amounts withdrawn in excess of 500 MGY
$6.00/million gallons withdrawn
The fee would not exceed $9,500 annually for withdrawals from a water supply system on a contiguous property or a public water system. The fee would take effect in 2011. Fee revenue will be deposited in a program revenue appropriation supporting Great Lakes Compact implementation. The Department anticipates that between 200 and 300 persons will pay the fee annually.
State fiscal impact
Revenues that will be generated as a result of the annual withdrawal fee are the result of the fee provisions enacted in to law in
2009 Wisconsin Act 28. The Department assumes that the statutory statewide base fee of $125 on persons with water supply systems with the capacity to withdraw an average of 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period will be imposed on approximately 4900 persons and will generate approximately $612,500 annually. (Revenue from this base fee is not included on the attached fiscal estimate worksheet.)
Based on actual withdrawal data from public water supply systems and high capacity well owners, and assumptions related to surface water withdrawals, the Department expects that the fee will generate between $38000 and $400,000 annually. In addition, state-owned facilities (e.g., state fish hatcheries) that withdraw over 50 million gallons per year in the Great Lakes Basin would have to pay the fee. The Department lacks accurate data on total amounts of water withdrawn from state-owned facilities, therefore costs to the state are indeterminate at this time.
Local government fiscal impact
Based on 2009 data, there are approximately 180 public water systems in the Great Lakes Basin. Of those 180 systems, approximately 90 systems withdraw in excess of 50 million gallons per year and will be affected by this rule--e.g., systems withdrawing 100 million gallons of water per year will pay approximately $75 under the rule; systems withdrawing 1 billion gallons of water per year will pay approximately $4,600; and systems withdrawing 2.3 billion gallons of water per year will pay $9,500 per year. The Department anticipates that approximately 9 public water systems in the Great Lakes basin will pay the maximum $9,500 fee, 60 public water systems will pay a fee under $1,000, and more than 90 public water systems in the Great Lakes basin would pay no additional fee over the $125 statutory base fee.
Private sector fiscal impact
The Department lacks complete data on the number and nature of all operations withdrawing water above the threshold amount of 50 million gallons per year. However, based on the withdrawal data that does exist (e.g. high capacity well pumpage data), comparatively few small businesses will be affected by the rule.
Summary for state fiscal effect
Increase existing revenues.
Increase costs. May be possible to absorb within agency's budget.
Summary for local government fiscal effect
Increase costs — Mandatory.
Types of local government units affected
Towns, Villages, Cities, Counties, Water Utilities, School Districts, WTCS Districts.
Fund sources affected
PRO.
Affected Ch.
20 appropriations
Long-range fiscal implications
None are expected.
Agency Contact Person
Eric Ebersberger, Water Use Section
Room DG/5, Wis. Dept. of Natural Resources
Bureau of Drinking Water & Groundwater
Phone: (608) 266-9254
___________________________________________
CR 10-060, DNR # DG-24-10
NR 852 — Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency
Plain language analysis
This board order creates a new rule that clarifies and further defines new statutory requirements for water conservation and water use efficiency for withdrawals of waters of the state within the Great Lakes Basin, diversions of water from the Great Lakes Basin, and water withdrawals statewide that require a water loss approval. The new law implements the following:
1.
Specifies mandatory water conservation and efficiency measures for waters of the Great Lakes Basin and withdrawals statewide that require a water loss approval.
2.
Promotes voluntary statewide water conservation through the identification of water conservation and efficiency measures.
3.
Guides other department regulatory, planning, resource management, liaison and financial aid determinations.
Persons subject to this chapter are categorized into one of 3 levels:
1.
Tier 1 includes new and increased withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin that average 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period but that do not equal at least 1,000,000 gallons per day for any 30 consecutive days.
2.
Tier 2 includes new and increased withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin that equal 1,000,000 gallons per day or more for any 30 consecutive days.
3.
Tier 3 includes new and increased diversions in a community or county that straddles the sub-continental divide and new and increased withdrawals statewide that will result in a water loss averaging more than 2,000,000 gallons per day in any 30-day period.
This tiered approach is being used to differentiate between the requirements for different types and levels of regulated activities. The level of water conservation and efficiency requirements are increased from Tier 1, to Tier 2, to Tier 3.
In addition to completing a Water Conservation Plan, there are four mandatory water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) for all persons for whom water conservation and efficiency requirements are mandatory under this chapter. These CEMs have been determined to be cost-effective, environmentally sound and economically feasible for all water use sectors. Implementation of additional CEMs are required for Tier 2 and Tier 3 only.
The rule sets forth definitions, sector specific water conservation and efficiency measures, elements of a water conservation plan, procedures for conducting an environmentally sound and economically feasible analysis, process for approval and reporting, and process for enforcement.
Comparison with federal regulations
There are no comparable federal regulations pertaining to water conservation and water use efficiency. However, in passing the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (Compact), each of the Great Lakes states have similar requirements to establish a water conservation and efficiency program that is consistent with the goals and objectives identified by the Great Lakes Compact Council.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Published scientific literature, industry manuals, information from other states, consultation with the Department of Commerce and Public Service Commission, and input from an advisory committee were used as the basis for developing the water conservation plan requirements and required water conservation and efficiency measures.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine rule's effect on small business
Any person who diverts any amount of water, has a new or increased withdrawal averaging 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period from the Great Lakes Basin, or a withdrawal with a water loss over 2,000,000 gallons per day must complete a water conservation plan and implement water conservation and efficiency measures. To comply, small businesses follow the same requirements as other persons who withdraw water in the same quantity. The water conservation and water use efficiency requirements are clearly identified in this rule and do not include requirements to retrofit existing equipment. Water conservation and efficiency measures that are not environmentally sound or economically feasible do not need to be implemented.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The following table compares regulatory requirements for water conservation and efficiency in adjacent states:
Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency Comparison
|
Wisconsin
|
Illinois
|
Iowa
|
Michigan
|
Minnesota
|
Specifies mandatory water conservation and water use efficiency measures within user sectors for certain levels of new or increased withdrawals and diversions from waters of the Great Lakes Basin and for water withdrawals statewide that require a water loss approval.
Promotes voluntary statewide water conservation through the identification of water conservation and efficiency measures.
|
Specifies all water withdrawals over 100,000 gallons per day in the Great Lakes Basin to obtain a permit. Conservation practices within the user category are specified through permitting process. Requires permittees to submit a plan to reduce wasteful water and unaccounted for water by 8 percent. Requires permittees to submit an annual water use audit form.
|
Specifies all persons making a water
withdrawal of at
least 25,000 gallons per day to obtain a water use permit. Iowa statute provides for a water allocation (permit) system based on beneficial use preventing waste, unreasonable use
and unreasonable methods of use of water resources. Conservation is expected.
|
Specifies all persons making large quantity withdrawals averaging 100,000 gallons a day for 30-days to evaluate generic water conservation measures applicable to their sector for review and acceptance by the Department of Environmental Quality. Requires legislative review of the status and preparation and acceptance of water user sector conservation measures by April 1, 2010.
|
Specifies mandatory efficient use and conservation of water through permitting process for all water users withdrawing water at a rate of 10,000 gallons a day or a million gallons per year. Water conservation must be addressed in water supply plans required for public water systems serving more than 1000 people.
Requires mandatory conservation rate structures for all public water utilities located within the basin.
Specifies voluntary measures including information and education, retrofitting water fixtures and encouraging water reuse.
|
Small Business Impact
This rule will affect small businesses located in the Great Lakes Basin that supply their own water with water supply systems that actually withdraw water averaging 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period or have a new or increased withdrawal statewide that will result in a water loss averaging more than 2,000,000 gallons per day in any 30-day period. Water conservation and efficiency measures that are not environmentally sound or economically feasible do not need to be implemented. Small businesses that receive water from a public water supply will not be impacted by this rule.
Fiscal Estimate
Water conservation and water use efficiency rule summary
This new rule clarifies and further defines new statutory requirements for water conservation and water use efficiency for withdrawals of waters of the state within the Great Lakes Basin, diversions of water from the Great Lakes Basin, and water withdrawals statewide that require a water loss approval. The new law implements the following:
•
Specifies mandatory water conservation and efficiency measures for waters of the Great Lakes Basin and withdrawals statewide that require a water loss approval (i.e. withdrawals resulting in a water loss averaging more than 2,000,000 gallons per day in any 30-day period).
•
Promotes voluntary statewide water conservation through the identification of water conservation and efficiency measures.
•
Guides other Department regulatory, planning, resource management, liaison and financial aid determinations.
Persons subject to this chapter are categorized into one of 3 tiers:
•
Tier 1 includes new and increased withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin that average 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period but that do not equal at least 1,000,000 gallons per day for any 30 consecutive days.
•
Tier 2 includes new and increased withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin that equal 1,000,000 gallons per day or more for any 30 consecutive days.
•
Tier 3 includes new and increased diversions in a community or county that straddles the sub-continental divide and new and increased withdrawals statewide that will result in a water loss averaging more than 2,000,000 gallons per day in any 30-day period.
This tiered approach is being used to differentiate between the requirements for different types and levels of regulated activities. The level of water conservation and efficiency requirements are increased from Tier 1, to Tier 2, to Tier 3.
In addition to completing a Water Conservation Plan, there are four mandatory water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) for all persons for whom water conservation and efficiency requirements are mandatory under this chapter. These CEMs have been determined to be cost effective, environmentally sound and economically feasible for all water use sectors. Implementation of additional CEMs are required for Tier 2 and Tier 3 only.
The rule sets forth definitions, sector-specific water conservation and efficiency measures, elements of a water conservation plan, procedures for conducting an analysis of whether a conservation and efficiency measure is environmentally sound and economically feasible, a process for approval and reporting, and a process for enforcement.
State fiscal impact
All costs that the Department will incur are the result of the water conservation and efficiency requirements enacted in
2007 Wisconsin Act 227.
The primary financial impact to the state will be the review of water conservation plans, which include documentation of the implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures This review will be done internally by a Water Supply Specialist-Advanced. Annually, an estimated 30 water withdrawers will be impacted by this rule. Additionally, there will be annual costs associated with outreach on the voluntary water conservation and efficiency program, which will be done internally by a Natural Resources Staff Specialist. There will be a one-time cost to develop tools for water users to conduct a economical feasibility analysis.
Additionally, state facilities with new or increased withdrawals in the Great Lakes basin will have to comply with this rule. For example, the state operates several fish hatcheries that may be financially impacted if they expand or a new hatchery is established and need a new or increased water withdrawal. However, the Department cannot reliably predict the number of state-owned facilities in the Great Lakes basin that will require a new or increased water withdrawal above the threshold levels, therefore the assumptions included for the state fiscal effect below do not include dollar amounts for fiscal impacts for state fish hatcheries or other state-owned facilities.
Annual State Fiscal Impact
•
Estimated number of persons annually subject to NR 852 = 30 water withdrawers
•
Hours for the Department to review and approve water conservation plans = 20 hrs x 30 plans = 600
•
Annual fiscal impact to the Department for water conservation plan review = $35/hr x 600 hours = $21,000
•
Full time equivalent (FTE) for water conservation plan review = 600 hrs / 1820 hrsFTE = 0.3 FTE
•
Annual fiscal impact to the Department for water conservation outreach = $35/hr x 420 hrs = $14,700
•
Full time equivalent (FTE) for water conservation outreach = 420 hrs / 1820 hrs/FTE = 0.2 FTE
•
TOTAL ANNUAL STATE FISCAL IMPACT = $35,700 or 0.50 FTE
One-Time State Fiscal Impact
•
Estimated number of hours to complete economically feasible analysis tools = 1040 hrs
•
Economically feasible analysis tool development (developed internally) = 1040 hrs/ 1820 hrs/FTE = 0.6 FTE
•
One-time state fiscal impact for tool development (developed internally) = $35/hr x 1040 hrs = $36,400
•
One-time state fiscal impact for tool development (contracted out) = $70/hr x 1040 hrs = $72,800
•
TOTAL ONE-TIME STATE FISCAL IMPACT = $109,200
Local government fiscal impact
The Department assumes that approximately 5 municipal water systems per year will apply for a new or increased withdrawal and will be required to complete a water conservation plan and implement water conservation and efficiency measures. The number of permittees may increase in the long term along with continued population growth and increased economic activity.
Water conservation and efficiency measures do not include retrofitting requirements, but rather, the required elements include planning and operational changes to achieve water savings. CEMs included in this rule are designed to be revenue neutral; planning costs incurred should be offset by capital and operational costs avoided. If an element is not economically feasible as determined by a prescribed analysis, the water system will not be required to implement it. The cost to the permittee will primarily be an up front cost to complete a water conservation plan and establish CEMs. In subsequent years, water savings can be achieved with minimal capital and operational costs.
Public water systems regulated by the Public Service Commission have the ability to recover conservation and efficiency related costs through rates charged to customers.
Annual Local Government Fiscal Impact
•
Number of hours for permittee to complete requirements = 160
