Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Water Education Foundation San Diego Tour, by Dennis Cushman
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Water Education Foundation San Diego Tour, by Dennis Cushman

247
views

Published on

Overview of San Diego region's water supply challenges and solutions. Presentation made to San Diego Water Tour held by Water Education Foundation on September 8, 2011.

Overview of San Diego region's water supply challenges and solutions. Presentation made to San Diego Water Tour held by Water Education Foundation on September 8, 2011.

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
247
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Dennis A. Cushman AAssistant General Manager September 8, 2011 1
  • 2.  Wholesale water agency created by Legislature in 1944 ◦ 24 member agencies ◦ 36-member board of directors 36 member ◦ Serves 3.1 million people, $186 billion economy S i area Service ◦ 950,000 acres ◦ 97% of county’s population county s Build, own and maintain large- scale water infrastructure 2
  • 3. Local Water Agencies Water Authority Camp Lakeside WD City of Santa Fe secures supplies for Pendleton Carlsbad National City* Poway Rainbow ID South Bay 24 local agencies MWD MWD Irrigation District* ◦ 6 cities City of Del Mar M City of Oceanside O id Ramona MWD Vallecitos WD ◦ 14 water or utility City of Olivenhain Rincon Del Valley districts Escondido MWD Diablo MWD Center MWD ◦ 3 irrigation districts Fallbrook PUD Otay Water District City of San Diego Vista ID ◦ 1 military base Helix WD Padre Dam MWD San Dieguito Yuima MWD WD * Member of the Sweetwater Authority 3
  • 4. LAKE SHASTA g y San Diego County LAKE imports ~70% of its OROVILLE water supplyState Water Project ate oject (Bay-Delta) 15% Colorado River 53% Local Supplies and Conservation 32% *Estimated 4
  • 5. 55
  • 6. 1991 2011(estimated) 2020 26 TAF 72 TAF 28 TAF 103 TAF (5%) 80 TAF (12%) 80 TAF (5%) (13%) (13%) (10%) 44TAF 20 TAF (6%) 75 TAF (3%) 552 TAF (95%) (12%) 56 TAF 190 TAF (7%) (24%) 27 TAFTotal = 578 TAF 285 TAF 231 TAF (4%) (47%) 51 TAF (30%) (8%) 48 TAF (6%) Total = 611 TAF Total = 779 TAF Metropolitan Water District Recycled Water Imperial Irrigation District Transfer Seawater Desalination All American & Coachella Canal Lining Groundwater Conservation (existing and additional) Local Surface Water 6
  • 7.  Several hundred million dollars invested since 1991 ◦ 17 active non-potable recycling projects countywide ◦ >10 MGD brackish groundwater desalting ◦ Recycled water and groundwater supplies to double by 2020 Indirect Potable Reuse Local supplies to provide 30% of the region’s water supply by 2020 y 7
  • 8.  Carlsbad Desalination Project  Produce up to 56,000 AFY  Cooperati e agreement with Cooperative ith Poseidon to begin negotiations to purchase water from plant Camp Pendleton Project Encina Power Station, Carlsbad  56,000 to 168,000 AFY  Feasibility/technical studies under way Bi-national Desalination Project  In conjunction with agencies in Nevada, Arizona and Mexico  Studying site in Baja California 8
  • 9. Maintaining Water Use Efficiency State mandate for 20 percent reduction in water use by 2020 Maintain recent gains in conservation ti ◦ Regional water use down about 20% since 2007 Efficiency needs to be social norm Water efficient planting and rotating nozzleE Emphasis on outdoor h i d efficiency ◦ Market t a s o at o a et transformation 9
  • 10. IID and Canal Lining Deliveries 2003-2021Acre-Feet300,000250,000 IID Water W t Transfer200,000 Canal Lining g150,000100,000 50,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Calendar Year 10
  • 11.  $3.5 billion Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ◦ $1.5 billion Emergency Storage Project ◦ New and expanded surface storage ◦ Water treatment ◦ Pipelines ◦ Pump stations ◦ Power generation ◦ Aqueduct Protection Program  Pipeline relining program 11
  • 12. Major CIP Investments Since 1991PipelinesPi li Pipe Regional Canal Pumping/ P i / Regional R i l Hydro- Relining Water Linings Control Water Electric Storage Facilities Treatment 1991 2000-2013 2020 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. Project: All American & Coachella CanalLining ProjectsComplete: 2010 (AAC) and 2006 (CC)Cost: $452 million total, including $198 million from Water AuthorityBenefits: 80,000 AF/Y for 110 Years 14
  • 15. Project: Twin Oaks Water Treatment PlantComplete: 2008Cost: $179 millionBenefit: 100 MGD treated supply for region 15
  • 16. Project: Olivenhain Dam & ReservoirComplete: 2003C lCost: $198 millionBenefit: 22,000 AF of storageB fi 22 000 16
  • 17. 17
  • 18. Project: Lake Hodges ProjectsComplete: 2012Cost: $196 millionBenefits: 20,000 AF ESP storage; 40MW power 18
  • 19. Project: San Vicente Pipeline & TunnelComplete: 2011Cost: $459 millionBenefit: Improved Water Delivery 19
  • 20. Project: San Vicente Dam RaiseComplete: 2013Cost: $449 millionBenefit: Increase reservoircapacity by 152,000 acre-feet 20 20
  • 21. Rendering of dam raised by 117 feet 21 21
  • 22. Project: Pipeline Relining ProgramComplete: OngoingC l O iCost: $787 millionBenefit: Extended lif of major pipelinesB fit E t d d life f j i li 22
  • 23. Imported Supply Challenges San Diego County is semi-arid region ◦ D years more common than wet years Dry th t Supply reliability ◦ Bay-Delta Bay Delta ◦ Colorado River ◦ Climate change Protecting ratepayers ◦ MWD rate challenge 23
  • 24. Bay DeltaBay-Delta Issues Need Resolution  Pumping restrictions to protect threatened species have cut deliveries p  Restrictions mitigated this year ◦ Extremely high river flows Delta smelt ◦ Temporary judicial actions  No long-term plan in place for water reliability, reliability ecosystem recovery Central Valley steelhead Green sturgeon Chinook salmon Longfin smelt 24
  • 25. Colorado River Supplies  Drought 9 of last 11 years  Lake Mead elevation earlier this year: 1,082’ y , ◦ Lowest level since 1930s  Storage levels now rising g gLake Mead – 2010  Several more wet years needed for recovery  Growing demand in Southwest on river’s limited supply 25
  • 26. Potential Impacts from Climate Change Cli t Ch  More rain, less snow ◦ Decreases storage held as snowpack  Earlier snowmelt ◦ Runoff comes earlier than needed  Less weatherLake Oroville – April 2010 predictability  Water Authority working with other l d utilities to study effects and impacts 26
  • 27.  Experiencing significant new challenges: ◦ Large rate increases ◦ Significant decline in water sales  High cost of water  20%x2020  Economy 27
  • 28. 800 2,000 -38% 1,800 700 1,600 600 1,400 500 1,200000s/AF $ /AF 400 1,000 800 300 600 200 Actual Sales (in 000s/AF) 400 All-In Treated Rate ($/AF)* 100 Projected High-Rate S d h Scenario ($ ($/AF) ) 200 Projected Low-Rate Scenario ($/AF) 0 0 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016 Calendar Year 28
  • 29. , 700,000 619,407 600,000 556,592 491,924 500,000 455,456 , 410,320 0 320 422,285 400,000Acre-feet 300,000 200,000 100,000 - FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Estimate Budget Budget Municipal & Industrial Sales Agricultural Sales 29
  • 30.  Two-Year 2010 & 2011 budget reductions: $6M Reduction in spot water purchases: $1.7M R d ti i t t h $1 7M Selling stored water: $700,000 Deferral of 14 CIP projects: $150 million Reducing staff 12% since 2008 ◦ 33 3 FTE reduction in FY 12/FY 13 budget 33.3 30
  • 31.  Biggest driver of Water Authority rates is MWD’s rates and its rate structure ◦ Increased rates 75% since 2006 ◦ Water Authority suing MWD over how it misallocates water supply costs to transportation charges  Water Authority buys transportation services from MWD t move IID and C to d Canal Li i l Lining T Transfer water f t  Significant impact to Water Authority ratepayers 31
  • 32. MWD Impact on Wholesale Rates Estimated CY 2012 Wholesale Costs per Household *MWD Costs Payments to MWD for water and transportation comprise 55% of the $26.33IID/QSA CostsWater Authority wholesale cost of waterTreatment $4.15 $4 15 QSA Water $0.86 Supplies 8.6%Water Authority $4.42Operating Water AuthorityWater Authority $12.24 C t 34 7% Costs 34.7%Facilities TOTAL: $48/month * Based upon 0.5 AF of consumption a year 32
  • 33. MWD Sales Decline & Rate Increases 80% of MWD’s revenues come from water sales 2,500,000 MWD’s Projected Sales in $2,000 2020 are 16% Lower than $1,800 2000-2009 Average 2,000,000 2 000 000 $1,600 $1 600 -29% $1,400 -feet 1,500,000 $1,200 ales in Acre- $1,000 1,000,000 $800 $ $600 +75% 75%Sa 500,000 $400 $200 - $0 Actual Sales, including wheeled supplies. Source: MWD Jan. 2011 Long Range Finance Plan Projected. Source: MWD 2010 Integrated Resources Plan; includes wheeled supplies. MWD Tier 1 Treated Water Rate. Source: Actual MWD published rate Projected MWD Average Water Rate. Source: MWD Long-Range Finance Plan Forecast 2010-2020 Projected MWD Average Water Rate. Source: MWD 2010 Integrated Resources Plan (Buffer—MWD Developed 2020-2035)
  • 34.  Over past two decades: ◦ Achieved greater supply diversification ◦ Secured 280,000 AF/YR of long-term reliable new supplies from Colorado River ◦ Reduced reliance on MWD by 50%  Helped offset MWD water shortages from 2009- 2011 ◦ Achieved sustained water conservation ◦ Invested billions in new, major water supply infrastructure ◦ Vastly improved water supply reliability to protect region’s $186 billion economy and quality of life for 3.1 million people 34
  • 35.  Visit our website: sdcwa.org 35

×