Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rwmp Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews 2026 RWMP draft updates, data tables and interactive mapping tools
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft 2026 updates to chapters 1, 3 and 4 of the regional water management plan, including policy recategorization, data updates using EPA SDWIS, a clarified reclaimed vs. recycled water definition, and new interactive GIS/PowerBI tools and effluent management decision support.
The Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission on April 1 reviewed draft 2026 revisions to several chapters of the regional water management plan intended to align the plan with the 2024 regional plan update and to modernize data presentation.
Kim Rigden summarized Chapter 1 edits as primarily clerical and organizational changes to improve clarity and conformance with the regional plan. She said the update is a required five‑year review under the Western Regional Water Commission Act and listed policy recategorization (for example using WS prefixes for water supply policies), an expanded integrated source‑water protection discussion, and the proposed removal of an obsolete Truckee River restoration policy because that restoration approach has been implemented through other ongoing programs.
Kim Rigden introduced Laura Hawk, who presented draft updates to Chapter 3 (water purveyors and other water providers) and Chapter 4 (wastewater and effluent management). Hawk said major changes include updated data tables based on EPA SDWIS through 2025, a proposal to replace some tabular lists with interactive map figures, and a clearer distinction in terminology: “reclaimed water” to mean water produced by a water reclamation facility and “recycled water” to mean the intentionally managed reuse of reclaimed water as part of regional supplies. The chapter updates also incorporate an advanced purified water program into purveyor planning and portfolio descriptions.
Hawk and staff showed an online regional water management mapping tool (interactive GIS) and described a PowerBI‑based mult Criteria decision tool for effluent management alternatives. The tools are intended to host purveyor service areas, small system locations, wastewater reclamation facility summaries, recycled water use breakdowns and effluent management alternative fact sheets. Staff said the approach shifts the plan from static tables toward interactive figures and decision‑support tools that can be used in workshops and planning sessions.
Key schedule and process notes: staff emphasized these chapters were presented for information only and will be provided to commissioners and their staff for review over the next 30–60 days; a final draft is expected to return to the commission for action in June. Staff also said the mapping and datasets will be available on the commission’s website for interactive review.
Quotes from the meeting: Kim Rigden said the update aims “not to try to change a plan that’s working” but to improve clarity, alignment and implementation. Dr. Laura Hawk described the data and tool updates as necessary to present 2025 flows and recycled water breakdowns and to allow “interactive” analysis of effluent management options.
Next steps: commissioners will receive the revised drafts and staff will return a final draft in June; staff will reach out to commissioners’ offices over the next month to gather review comments.
