The Central Puget Sound area faces significant challenges in meeting the water needs for people and fish habitat with available resources. Although seemingly abundant to this area, water is a limited natural resource. Demands on this resource have been increasing and are likely to continue to do so in the future, although they will increase more slowly due to conservation. The King, Pierce, and Snohomish County area has experienced rapid growth over the past 10 years, and an additional 27 percent increase in the area’s population is anticipated between 2000 and 2020. In the longer term, a 61 percent increase in population is expected between 2000 and 2050. At the same time, the region is working to recover threatened species of fish by improving fish habitat. In some cases, this may require making less water available for municipal purposes as more water is left in rivers. There is also considerable uncertainty in the overall volume of water resources available to meet the region’s needs. The Central Puget Sound Water Suppliers’ Forum (Forum) is working with utilities and other stakeholders to address these issues.

 

At least 24 of the 158 largest utilities in the three-county region, including large regional purveyors, anticipate that their demands will exceed the capacity of their existing water supplies before 2020. That number of utilities will likely be higher because of factors such as growth rates that exceed prior projections and reductions in currently available water supplies in some areas. A combination of enhanced water conservation, alternative supplies such as reuse, and new water supplies will be needed to address these near- and long-term shortfalls.

 

These predicted shortfalls, coupled with variability in natural climatic conditions, unanticipated growth, fish habitat concerns, uncertainty in available supplies, and policy constraints, illustrate the challenges facing the Central Puget Sound region today. Clearly, water resource decisions are, and will continue to become, more complex. Effective water resource decision making will require input and direction from a variety of stakeholders who can collectively address and overcome these challenges.

 

Individual utilities and wholesale purveyors make regular assessments of water supply and demand at the local level. This assessment is only performed periodically by some at a subregional level and has never been done at the three-county regional level. Implementing solutions at a local level can solve some of the region’s water supply problems. In addition, by working together utilities can identify and implement creative subregional or regional options that can provide benefits to multiple utilities and possibly other stakeholders. Some subregional and regional solutions also have the potential to improve fish habitat. However, planning and implementation of regional supply options is more complex due to a variety of issues, including the varying values, priorities, and needs of the different stakeholders involved, the legal issues and ramifications of a regional project, and the possible overarching political issues that may accompany a project. Due to this complexity, many local, subregional, and regional water supply options require long lead times to plan and implement. To ensure that supplies are in place when and where they are needed, critical water resource decisions need to be made soon.

 

The Central Puget Sound region does not currently have a structure or process for making collective regional water resource decisions that encompass this complex set of issues, interests, and participants. In order to develop a sustainable water resources program for the region, such a process is needed now. The Forum and the region’s water utilities want to actively help develop and participate in this process.

 

 

The Forum formed to provide increased coordination in regional water supply planning. The Forum is a voluntary public water utility organization comprised of representatives from public water systems and local governments from King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. It is not a new regional governing body for public water supply. The wide range of large and small water suppliers represented by the Forum provide public water to most of the population in the three-county area.

 

One of the Forum’s main goals is to work collaboratively with state agencies, tribes, environmental organizations, businesses, and other interested stakeholders to develop a sustainable water resource management program for the region over the next 10 years. As a first step toward meeting that goal, the Forum has developed this Regional Water Supply Outlook.

 

 

 

The Outlook is an ongoing and adaptive planning tool which helps provide a foundation for future regional water resource planning and coordination in the Central Puget Sound area (comprising King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties).

 

The 2001 Outlook report presents the results of a two-year effort to assess the state of municipal water supply in the three-county area. The Outlook presents information on regional water supplies, regional water needs, and future supply options that water suppliers, counties, and others can use in making decisions. This information is essential to begin the development of a sustainable water resource management program to meet the needs of people in the region while addressing fish habitat needs. This Outlook, although commissioned by the Forum, was possible only through a collaborative effort that involved most of the water suppliers in the region, the three county governments, the region’s watershed planning groups, and a wide variety of other stakeholders.

 

This document is intended to provide a foundation for future water resource planning, but is not intended to be a decision-making document. Therefore, alternative water supply options are presented, but not evaluated. Further analysis and evaluation would be required prior to selection or implementation of any of the supply options presented in the Outlook.

 

This is the first time that water suppliers across the three counties have worked together to jointly assess municipal water supplies and demands on a regional basis. Concurrent to the Outlook planning process, the region’s watershed planning groups have begun to assemble preliminary information that helps begin to identify where low instream flows may be an impediment to the recovery of salmon and other fish species. Together, this information provides the first step in a holistic assessment of the region’s water supply needs.

 

The Outlook also identifies institutional constraints and water resource management issues that limit the ability of water suppliers to efficiently use existing supplies and implement future supply options to meet the municipal water supply needs of the region.

 

The Outlook was developed based on information provided by the 158 largest utilities in the three-county area, serving over 90 percent of the area’s population (see Figure S-1). These utilities supplied information through extensive survey and verification efforts about their past water use, existing supplies, forecast demands, and planned supply improvements. Estimates were also prepared of the amount water used by smaller utilities and residences served by private wells in the three-county area. Subregional and regional demand forecasts were prepared as part of the Outlook based on individual utilities’ past water use information and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s demographic forecast. This report focuses primarily on the regional results and supply options.

 

 

 

At current levels of water use, additional municipal water supplies will be needed to meet both near-term (through 2020) and long-term (through 2050 and beyond) water demand in the region. These additional supplies may include enhanced conservation, reclaimed water, conventional supplies, or other options. In addition to the long-term supply needs, at least 24 of the 158 largest utilities in the Central Puget Sound area, including large regional purveyors, anticipate that their existing supply sources will be insufficient to meet near-term demands. Existing and future conservation programs will likely defer, but not eliminate, the need for additional municipal supplies. The available water resource must also provide for other water needs such as water for fish and wildlife habitat, agriculture, and recreation. Water suppliers and local governments must consider the long-term municipal water supply requirements when planning new supplies in order to develop a sustainable water resources program that ensures availability of water resources for future generations.

 

The Outlook includes a regional profile of current and future municipal water supply and demand. Comparisons of supply and forecast demand indicate resource needs at the local, subregional, and regional levels through 2020, and through 2050 for the three-county region.

 

 

 

Though there is considerable variation between counties, much of the three-county area population is served by a handful of major sources of supply. For the purposes of this report a major supply is defined as one that provides at least 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply. These sources, shown on Figure S-1, include the Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma surface water sources that come from large rivers originating in the Cascades, and a few large groundwater sources. These major supplies have capacities ranging from the defined minimum of 10 mgd to 170 mgd, on an average annual basis. The Outlook includes estimates of supply capacity, provided by each utility, from groundwater sources, surface water sources, and wholesale purchases from other purveyors. However, many factors can affect the actual amount of water available from these sources, either temporarily or permanently.

 

 

 

• Uncertainty of a utility's ability to use existing water rights,
• Uncertainty of a utility's ability to obtain new water rights,
• The uncertainty surrounding potential reductions in supplies that may arise from existing systems that discontinue production of water. Reasons for discontinuation of production includes, but may not be limited to, lack of operational viability or inability to comply with new or existing water quality regulations,
• Uncertainty in how much water is needed, and when, in rivers and streams for fish habitat, and potential new regulations and/or requirements that may limit the supply utilities currently assume is usable,
• Tribal and other federal reserved rights which may withdraw a further share of water that is currently considered by utilities to be available for future use, and
• Uncertainty about the actual quantity of water available in any given year due to climatic variations such as droughts or global warming.

These factors make it difficult to accurately predict how much water is available for municipal supplies in the future. Where possible, quantification of or information about these factors as they relate to particular supplies can provide guidance in water supply planning efforts. As part of the Outlook, one of these factors was explored in detail: the information currently available on water needs for fish habitat.

 

 

 

 

not currently known for many of the region’s creeks and rivers. There are a number of factors that influence streamflow levels, including weather patterns, the amount of impervious surface, treated wastewater and stormwater used for aquifer recharge, and diversions.

 

Some of the supply options being considered in the Outlook require additional water resources, while others (such as increased conservation and reuse) do not. Within the three-county region, there are some areas where the current water resource may be sufficient to meet all future needs up to 2050. In other areas, water resources are already fully utilized and may be inadequate to provide for both sufficient fish habitat and growing municipal needs.

 

As potential future municipal water supply options are identified, it is important to consider how the potential municipal supply might impact current instream flow regimes and fish species. Furthermore, this instream flow information is needed to craft future water supply projects, evaluate the feasibility of future supply options, and evaluate the potential to help offset flow problems that impact the fisheries resource. This dynamic emphasizes the need for collaborative water resource management planning.

 

As a first step in acknowledging and understanding the water quantity requirements of fish, the Forum convened a workgroup to collect the most current available information was from Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) planning groups in the Pierce, King and Snohomish County region. Rather than generating original information, the Outlook relies on WRIA work products as the primary references to understand instream flow issues as they may pertain to regional fisheries issues.

 

The intention of the Forum is to acknowledge instream flow requirements for fish. However, it was soon found that very little specific flow information is currently available for most areas within the three-county region. Therefore, the Forum attempted to identify areas where flow is reported to be potentially problematic based on information available from watershed planning groups in the region. In all WRIAs, the reported flow information is preliminary, not comprehensive, and is subject to change. The lack of this information is an impediment to comprehensive water resource planning. Additional work will be required to develop a better understanding of the relationship between flows and fisheries life cycles. Eventually, this information will enable municipal water supply decision making that accounts for the water quantity needs of fish.

 

The seven WRIAs in the three-county area are engaged in watershed evaluation and planning under various authorities. Under laws enacted by the Legislature in 1998, watershed groups may develop watershed plans or strategies either under House Bill 2514 (the Watershed Management Act), House Bill 2496 (the Salmon Recovery Act), or both. The Watershed Management Act envisions a locally developed water resources plan having one mandatory element (water quantity) and three optional elements (instream flows, salmon habitat, and water quality). Plans under this Act may be very detailed as to water quantities in the watershed, but may be difficult to implement if they do not simultaneously address both fish habitat and municipal needs. On the other hand, the Salmon Recovery Act envisions development of short-term and long-term salmon recovery plans, based upon a “critical pathways” analysis that identifies “limiting factors” contributing to salmon decline, and an “adaptive management strategy” that incorporates ongoing monitoring of results and new information. Water quantity (including instream flows) may, or may not be prioritized as a limiting factor in a watershed. These plans are not intended to address water issues that are not fish-related (such as municipal water supplies).

 

Within the Central Puget Sound area, most watershed groups are functioning under the Salmon Recovery Act, and not the Watershed Management Act. Table S-1 details the authority under which each WRIA is operating.

 

 

The planning underway in the region under HB 2496 and the products generated could meet some of the requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for salmon recovery plans. However, because the plans developed under HB 2496 focus on salmon recovery—and not on other potential uses of the water—they may not result in adequate water quantity data with which decisions can be made for other water supply needs in the region. Such data will therefore require time to develop, and will require the investment of additional resources, unless alternative approaches to decision making are implemented.

 

In preparing the Outlook, the Forum worked with six of the seven WRIAs listed in Table S-1, encompassing the majority of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, to solicit relevant information pertaining to streamflow issues in each basin. Although a substantial portion of the Nisqually WRIA (WRIA 11) lies within Pierce County, WRIA 11 was not included in the data collection effort. The Forum’s efforts have focused on future growth in the region, and since growth is limited in this section of WRIA 11, the Forum did not pursue data collection from the Nisqually Watershed Council.

 

This Outlook presents an overview of pertinent information by WRIA, as well as a summary overview detailing the structure, processes, key players, and projects and a matrix of reported flow issues. The flow matrix presents preliminary information on streams, rivers, or reaches in which low flows have been identified as potentially problematic for salmon and other fish populations. These matrices are not comprehensive, as most WRIAs have only begun to scientifically assess low-flow issues in their planning areas. The areas identified within the matrices should not be considered the only or most critical problems in the basin—they are merely the issues that have been identified at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

¹ These forecasts are based on demographic projections prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). PSRC develops detailed projections for the near term (through 2020) and less detailed regional estimates through 2030. Beyond 2030, the Outlook forecasts are based on a statewide forecast prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 

 

One of the first steps in the Outlook was to prepare a “baseline” demand forecast using the regional demographic projection and current water use. This baseline forecast includes conservation achieved to date and anticipated reductions in water use levels due to continuing effects of the 1993 plumbing code, but does not include future reductions in water use due to existing or planned conservation programs, water reuse programs, or other technological advances. Because continued savings from existing conservation programs are not included, the baseline forecast most likely overestimates future water demands. However, as there are significant differences in the level of existing and planned conservation in the region, this baseline provides a consistent starting point across the region from which effects of future reductions in demand due to factors such as conservation can be measured.

 

The 1993 plumbing code requires efficient water-using fixtures for new construction and remodeling, which results in less water being used for much of the new growth in the area. This reduction in water use levels is called plumbing code savings. Most of the reductions in water use due to plumbing code savings will be achieved by 2020.

 

Both the regionally consistent baseline demand forecast and forecasts provided by individual utilities were used in the Outlook to compare forecast demands to existing supplies to identify areas that will likely experience water supply shortfalls if solutions are not implemented.

 

Baseline average day and peak day municipal water demand forecasts are presented in Figure S-3 and Table S-2. From 2000 through 2020, the regional average day demands are projected to increase by about 14 percent. From 2000 through 2050, they are expected to increase by about 39 percent. These increases are much less than the forecast population growth, primarily due to reduction in water use resulting from the 1993 plumbing code.

 

 

 

The Outlook provides detailed demographic and municipal water demand forecasts by subregion (county, major cities, and wholesale service areas) and for local utilities from 2000 to 2020. Demographic and demand forecasts were also prepared by urban growth area (UGA) and WRIA from 2000 to 2020.

 

 

Existing conservation programs in place today will continue to reduce water use levels. At a regional level, the 2020 average day demands will be about 40 mgd less than the baseline forecast in 2020 if existing programs achieve the expected reductions in water use. Figure S-4 shows the anticipated reduction in demands from 2000 through 2020 due to existing conservation programs. Regional demands are anticipated to increase more slowly than population due to ongoing conservation efforts. Table S-3 shows the forecast increase in population, baseline demand, and forecast demand with existing conservation programs. With these existing programs, the regional average day municipal demand is anticipated to increase by only 4.4 percent from 2000 through 2020, compared with a 27 percent increase in population over the same time frame. Furthermore, additional conservation efforts may be implemented in that time frame.

 

 

 

The Outlook developed several additional conservation scenarios (with increasing levels of conservation intensity) that would reduce future demands even further. These scenarios are described later in this summary.

 

 

 

Of the 158 utilities surveyed, 24 anticipate needing additional municipal water supplies to meet forecast 2020 average day and/or peak day demands, if the baseline demand occurs. These utilities are shown on Figure S-5, which indicates the year these utilities’ demands are forecast to exceed their existing supply capacities. The actual number of utilities needing additional supplies before 2020 could be higher when considering other factors such as local growth in excess of Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) projections, potential reductions in existing supplies, and increased water needs for fish habitat. Other utilities may not run completely out of available supplies by 2020, but will need to begin planning during that time for additional supplies that need to be in place shortly after 2020. At the same time, current conservation programs of some of these utilities may reduce the actual future demands of these utilities to a point where no shortfall will occur.

 

Most of the utilities whose demand is projected to exceed existing supply prior to 2020 have developed plans involving local or regional supply options to meet their future demands. The Outlook describes additional subregional or regional options that could not only meet the needs of these individual utilities, but also provide benefits to other utilities in the area. Several utilities in Figure S-5 have already reached their supply capacity. In some cases, these utilities have exceeded their water rights and have applications for new water rights pending. Others are purchasing water from adjacent utilities on an emergency basis. Detailed information on these utilities’ planned supply options is presented in the Outlook.

 

 

 

A common objective shared by utilities, state government, and local governments is to develop and implement a sustainable water resource program. Achieving such a program requires that related water resource management decisions can be made and implemented. As utilities plan and implement future supply options, including water conservation and more effective management of existing resources, each supply option must meet considerable technical, financial, and environmental requirements before it can be developed. However, in addition to these basic water resource management requirements and reviews, there are institutional constraints and management issues that add difficulty to the review and approval process. In some cases, these constraints rule out implementation of the most beneficial supply options.

 

An institutional constraint is defined as a rule, regulation, policy, or lack thereof that results in unnecessary cost, delay, or difficulty in implementing sound water resource management strategies. Development of an implementable regional water strategy that addresses the needs of both people and fish will require that policies, rules, and laws provide the tools to allow water to be delivered where it is needed in a timely manner.

 

Table S-4 presents a summary of the most significant institutional constraints and management issues faced by utilities, state government, and local governments in implementing future municipal supply options and developing a sustainable water resource program for the region.

 

Actions need to be taken to address and overcome these institutional constraints, and potential solutions for each constraint are described in the Outlook. The Forum recognizes the need for a collaborative water resource management process where issues such as these policy constraints can be addressed and critical decisions made. In light of this need, the Forum has developed a series of “Next Steps” to support continued regional planning efforts, improve how water resource management decisions are made, and jointly implement future supply options that best meet the needs of the region. These next steps are described at the end of this summary.

 

 

 

 

 

Although most individual utilities with projected supply shortfalls have specific plans to meet their needs at a local level, additional subregional and regional water supply options (including conservation, conventional supply options, water reuse, and other options) should be considered if they can be more cost-effective, benefit more people, and may help restore fish populations by improving fish habitat. Regional solutions may also help address longerterm needs to provide adequate water supplies for future generations. An example of a subregional solution that benefits multiple utilities and fish is the Tacoma Second Supply Project, which will be developed through a partnership of Tacoma, Seattle, Kent, Covington Water District, and Lakehaven Utility District. Environmental benefits of this project include, but are not limited to, increased summer minimum flows in the Green River to benefit Chinook and the potential for Green River water to offset diversions from the Cedar or South Fork Tolt Rivers. The Second Supply Project also provides an upstream passage facility at the diversion dam that will enable the movement of adult salmon into the upper watershed, where they have not been since 1911.

 

As part of the Outlook effort, the Forum convened four workgroups to engage a variety of stakeholders in a collaborative process to identify and describe the following types of future regional supply options:

• Options for Additional Conservation
• Conventional Supply Options
• Reuse Options
• Stormwater Options

 

It is unlikely that any one solution is sufficient to address all of the region’s needs. Therefore, a combination of the above types of solutions will likely be required to develop a sustainable water resource management program. Costs of the supply options identified vary considerably, and some options may not be cost effective when compared to other options.

 

 

 

 

The planning level estimated costs for implementing these scenarios range from $2 million to $69 million per year. This significant range of costs between scenarios illustrates the concept of diminishing returns, i.e., as more conservation is achieved, the cost of additional increments of conservation increases rapidly.

 

 

The scenarios presented below and the corresponding water savings assume the entire threecounty region would be participating in the efforts involved with each scenario.

• Scenario 1 represents an estimate of conservation measures already planned for implementation by utilities throughout the three-county region.
• Scenario 2 represents the estimated conservation savings that would be needed to keep summer season demand roughly constant from 2000 to 2020, despite projected population growth of 27 percent in the area.
• Scenario 3 is based on the objective of reducing total regional summer-season demand by 5 percent below 2000 levels.
• Scenario 4 is based on the objective of reducing total regional summer-season demand by 10 percent below 2000 levels.

Scenario 1 would achieve a 9 percent reduction in summer season demand, compared with the baseline demand projection. This scenario was developed to reflect estimated water savings projected in existing conservation programs, such as those programs under way for Seattle, Everett, Tacoma, and their wholesale customers, and conservation programs planned by other utilities in the region. Scenarios 2 through 4 reflect additional conservation savings over and above what is predicted to occur with current programs in place. Achieving the conservation levels described above is highly dependent upon the rate of participation by consumers implementing the conservation measures. Scenarios 2 and 3 would require that 66 percent of the three-county area population implement the conservation measures described in those scenarios. Scenario 4 would require a 77 percent participation level. These participation levels appear higher than those experienced in other regions, and will likely require a significant commitment by local governments and a combination of incentives to achieve.

 

Although the results of these scenarios indicate that the regional demand could be held constant or be reduced over the next 20 years, there is considerable variation in the potential for conservation for each individual utility. Even if they implement increased conservation programs, some utilities will likely need to explore and develop other supply options to meet their future needs.

 

supply option. In the region, past conservation programs and the 1993 plumbing code have already succeeded in helping to significantly defer the need for major new regional supplies. Regional demands are anticipated to continue to increase at a substantially lower rate than population due to future plumbing code savings and ongoing conservation efforts.

 

 

• Extraction of water from new ground or surface water sources,
• Extraction of additional water from existing ground or surface water sources,
• Storage of water (reservoirs, aquifer storage, and recovery, etc.) which makes more water available when it is needed, or
• Connection of systems through interties and sharing or conjunctive use of supplies.

This information is intended to inform water utilities, elected officials, and other stakeholders of the potential regional water supply options being considered by utilities in the three-county area. Table S-6 and Figure S-7 present 17 specific, major regional municipal water supply options that have been explored by Puget Sound water suppliers. These supply options are considered the most significant and/or likely in the region. Information about each of these supply options was provided by the lead utility or agency responsible for each project. Several generic supply options (e.g., interties and sharing among utilities, desalination, and storage impoundments) that could be implemented in the Puget Sound area, but are not currently proposed by a utility, are also discussed. The Outlook presents these options in a consistent format so that comparable information is presented for each option. It should be noted that these potential supply options are in different stages of development. While some are developed only in conceptual form, others have progressed to the design stage and are planned for construction within the next few years. Again, it is important to note that many of these supply options cannot be implemented without overcoming one or more of the institutional constraints or barriers described previously.

 

A commonly implemented generic supply option is construction of interties between utilities to allow existing water supplies to be fully utilized, where possible, before developing new sources of supply. This option has the potential for solving many of the region’s near-term water supply needs. However, effective sharing of water supplies between utilities through interties is not simple. Doing so would require:

• Infrastructure to move water where it is needed,
• Treatment facilities, where needed to address water quality issues associated with mixing of supplies,
• A framework for water utility agreements for resource sharing,
• Overcoming the specific institutional constraints that prevent efficient use of existing supplies,
• Ensuring availability of water and assuring new water rights or changes in water rights can be obtained where needed and where the water is available, and
• Understanding the habitat needs for fish.

For many areas needing additional supplies, there may be better options that are either more cost effective, have the potential to improve fish habitat, or have other benefits, particularly when considering the cost and environmental issues associated with construction of large transmission pipelines. The potential for reducing or deferring the need for new supplies through the use of interties is significant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Snohomish County, the project showing most promise is the Kimberly-Clark Industrial Cooling Water project, which will use approximately 8 mgd of reclaimed water from the City of Everett’s Water Pollution Control Facility for cooling purposes. This will save an estimated 4 mgd of potable water from the Lake Chaplain source. In addition, the planned irrigation of a poplar tree plantation adjacent to the Water Pollution Control Facility may use approximately 1.5 mgd of reclaimed water in the future.

 

In King County, the City of Snoqualmie currently operates a 1.5-mgd reclaimed water system for the Snoqualmie Ridge Golf Course. In addition, King County reuses 2 mgd of treated water at its West Point and South (Renton) wastewater treatment facilities for in-plant uses and for a nearby park; a golf course and industrial facility will soon be served. The County is also currently involved in the planning and design stage for a reclaimed water project in the Sammamish River Valley. The construction is expected to begin within one to two years. The project could eventually reach 5 to 7 mgd serving non-potable users in the valley. In general, King County is committed to expanded use of reclaimed water for both large and small users, and is implementing a five-year strategy to do so. The preliminary planning and design work for the proposed new third wastewater treatment plant will incorporate the ability to produce reclaimed water for use in north King County and south Snohomish County. However, reuse of that reclaimed water will require a delivery system that can convey water from the point of treatment to the point of use.

 

In Pierce County, the Pierce County Wastewater Utility uses about 1 mgd of treated wastewater for internal process uses such as screen washing at the treatment facility. In addition, there are several ongoing studies evaluating landscape irrigation using reclaimed water, and a study by the City of Tacoma that has identified the potential for 1.6 to 12 mgd of reuse opportunities at the Simpson Tacoma Kraft Mill.

 

 

 

In order for stormwater to augment or supplement water supply, the management emphasis must be focused on providing for more natural infiltration opportunities for stormwater, rather than movement of runoff. Storage, both in impoundments and in aquifers, must become a major component of stormwater management and be integrated into development activities. Local governments may have no choice but to do this in order to meet requirements under the Endangered Species Act to minimize habitat alterations that might harm fish. This shift in management emphasis will require changes in development regulations and design principles.

 

Table S-8 shows a summary of the stormwater management options presented in the Outlook. It is typical for water utilities to explore multiple future stormwater management options with the understanding that only a limited number would be developed for potential future implementation. The options listed below were identified as the most significant and/or likely to be implemented in the region.

 

Each stormwater management option is profiled in detail in the Outlook with general technical information, water rights issues, benefits of the management option, potential project constraints, and implementation issues. For stormwater to be used on a large scale in the region, particularly for uses that do not require potable water (e.g., landscape irrigation, industrial cooling), it must be built into water supply planning, and be available throughout the region at a price that appeals to potential users. It will also require continued efforts to address any water rights or environmental issues associated with its use.

 

 

 

 

Critical water resource management decisions need to be made soon, so that needed supply options can be planned and implemented in a timely manner. One of the Forum’s main goals is to help meet the water resource needs of the growing Central Puget Sound area by working with water suppliers, the state, tribes, and interested stakeholders to develop and implement a sustainable and adaptive water resource management program by 2010. To achieve that goal, the Forum has developed a series of “Next Steps” to support continued regional planning efforts, improve how water resource management decisions are made, and jointly implement future supply options that best meet the needs of the region. These are the Forum’s near-term next steps, which are part of a continuously evolving strategy:

1. Building on previous work (the Outlook), collaboratively build several alternative regional concepts for addressing future water resources for fish and people in the Central Puget Sound.
2. Work on the Governor’s Water Strategy (January 25, 2001) to solve issues the Forum has identified in the Outlook.
   • Accept the charge to be a leader in developing a strategy for Central Puget Sound in accordance with the Governor’s Water Strategy.
   • Work to address specific institutional constraints identified in the Outlook as part of the Governor’s Water Strategy process.
3. Continue a dialogue with other stakeholders to discuss key issues identified during the Outlook process and work toward the resolution of issues of mutual interest. Encourage water resource management decision making.
   • Accept the charge to be a leader in developing a strategy for Central Puget Sound in accordance with the Governor's Water Strategy.
   • Identify issues that the Forum would/could address within their framework.
   • Prioritize issues.
   • Identify approaches to address these issues.
   • Assure follow-up.
4. Seek development of a process to better coordinate growth and availability of water within the region.
5. Seek to coordinate water supply decision making by individual utilities with a regional water resources planning process.
6. Continue dialogue with stakeholders that participated in the Conservation Workgroup.
   • Participate in a grassroots effort to explore forming a new regional conservation group.
   • Continue to explore ways to promote conservation concepts.
7. Address ways to remove impediments that prohibit the effective and efficient sharing of existing water supplies between utilities.
8. Continue coordinating, through utility participation, with WRIA planning groups in the three-county area as watershed plans are developed.
9. Develop a process for periodic Outlook updates.
10. Work with the Washington State Department of Health, utilities, counties, local governments, and other stakeholders to coordinate more consistent demographic projections, demand forecasts, water supply yield, and data reporting.
11. Coordinate future water shortage response.
12. Support further development of non-traditional sources of supply (e.g., reclaimed water and stormwater).
13. Determine water use characteristics for the Central Puget Sound Region.

What’s in the 2001 Outlook Report?

2009 Outlook

2009 Outlook Downloads

2001 Outlook

2001 Outlook Downloads