February 9, 2012


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

February 9, 2012

  1. 1.  Project Background/Planning Perspective Review UWMP Supply and Demand Projections Master Planning Process ◦ Scenario Development ◦ Supply/Facility Alternatives ◦ Evaluation Criteria Overview of Programmatic EIR and Climate Action Plan Schedule for Remaining Work 2
  2. 2. 3
  3. 3.  In-System Storage ◦ Olivenhain Reservoir  24,000 AF held for emergency storage ◦ Local Reservoirs  Currently 20,000 AF held in member agency reservoirs for drought carryover ◦ ESP/CSP  Hodges - 20,000 AF for emergency storage (2013)  San Vicente – 150,000 AF for emergency and carryover (2013) 4
  4. 4. Twin Oaks Valley (SDCWA) David C. McCollom (OMWD) (member agency agreement) R. M. Levy (Helix) (member agency agreement) 5
  5. 5. San Diego Regional Treatment Capacity(MGD) 2012Total Regional Water Treatment Plant Capacity 866Miramar City of San Diego 215Alvarado City of San Diego 200Levy Helix Water District 106Twin Oaks Valley San Diego County Water Authority 100Escondido-Vista City of Escondido 62Badger San Dieguito Water District/Santa Fe Irrigation Districts 36Olivenhain Olivenhain Municipal Water District 34Otay City of San Diego 36Perdue Sweetwater Authority 28Berglund City of Poway 24Weese City of Oceanside 25 • Untreated Conveyance Capacity 500 MGD • Untreated/Treated Split 70%/30% (2011) 6
  6. 6.  North to south gravity flow pipeline system Reliance on MWD / SDCWA to supplement local water Local WTPs in place to primarily treat local supplies‣ System improvements for Local Supplies 5% added imported water capacity‣ Identified a need for new MWD 95% storage facilities 1991 7
  7. 7. 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement IID water transfer, 35-yr take or pay, 4.88 maf • $1.45 billion Canal linings, 110 yrs, 4.32 maf • $175 million 1997 Water Resource Plan • Add IID water transfer 2005 Urban Water Management Plan • Add 56kaf desalination 1995 Urban Water 2006 Comprehensive Reliability and Management Plan 2000 Urban Water Cost Assessment “CRACA” Management Plan •Analyze cost/reliability of CIP 1993 Water •Validate storage decisions Resource Plan •Carlsbad desal is local project 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 111989 Water Distribution Plan 2009 CRACA “lite”• Increase system capacity and reliability Emergency Storage Project •Validate CIP scope/cost• 10 projects • Add 92 kaf of emergency storage •Drought mgmt impacts• $530 million CIP budget • Add $730 million to CIP • $1.594 billion CIP budget 2002 Water Facilities Master Plan • Preferred alternative “supply from the west” • Add up to 89 kaf of regional desalination • Add 100 kaf of carryover storage • Add 50-100 MGD of treatment capacity • $3.229 billion CIP budget 8
  8. 8. Options Considered in 2002 Master Plan Conveyance from the North Supply from the West Conveyance from the East 9
  9. 9.  Develop up to 80 MGD of seawater desal (supply from the west) Develop 50 to 100 MGD of new WTP capacity ◦ New treatment needed to maintain regional reliability 10
  10. 10.  Develop 100,000 AF carryover pool to manage seasonal peaks and drought conditions Implement internal system improvements Reaffirmed local supply development If all the above is achieved, Pipeline 6 may be postponed for several years 11
  11. 11.  Reduced demands/increased conservation Supply uncertainties Increased supply diversification Water rates and increasing price sensitivity 850 2005 UWMP Projected Demand (with BMP based conservation) 800 1990-2011 Historic Demand 750 Tota Demand (TAF) 700 650 600 2010 UWMP Projected Demand (after SBX7-7 retail compliance) 550 500 450 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 12
  12. 12. Member Agency 2010 Facility UWMP Plans 2012 Master2002 Plan AssetMaster Update Management Plan Program Current CIP 13
  13. 13. Water Use WaterDemand Water Scenario Efficiency ResourceForecast Supplies Planning Target MixEconometric Process to Water Resource mix Model Retail manage Authority to meet utilizing Compliance supply and member demands in SANDAG with SBX7-7: uncertainties agency normal and Regional 20% savings associated verifiable dry water Growth by 2020 with resource supplies years Forecast mix 14
  14. 14. 900 Demands 786 TAF MWD800700 Demands 527 TAF600 336 TAF Regional Seawater500 Desalination (Carlsbad) 56 TAF400 262 TAF 126 TAF300 Member Agency Local200 110 TAF Supplies 280 TAF100 155 TAF QSA Transfer Supplies 0 2011 Actual 2035 Projected Fiscal Year Normal Year 15
  15. 15.  Manage untreated and treated water supplies Maximize use of existing assets Integration of desalination supplies Treatment plant utilization Cost-effective facility implementation Optimize utilization of regional water resources Coordination with member agency facility plans Characterization of member agency demands 16
  16. 16.  Strategic long range plan for surface water storage Characterization of local supply development Energy use and renewable energy opportunities Prioritization of ongoing/new CIP projects Facility cost/rate implications 17
  17. 17. 11. Pipeline 6/P3/P4 switch 32. Camp Pendleton 4 Desalination 23. ESP North County Pump 8 Station 54. Twin Oaks Valley WTP 7 Expanded Service Area5. Crossover Pipeline6. Mission Trails Flow Regulatory Structure7. Carlsbad Desalination integration 68. System Regulatory Storage 18
  18. 18. UWMP Scenarios UWMP Scenarios Lead Supply Facility Facility Sensitivity Supplies Alternatives Requirements analysisDemands •Normal •Verifiable •Baseline •Current Water • P6 versus Authority CIP P3/P4 Demands mix •Expanded conversion •Dry Year •Additional Regional •ESP Facilities •Camp Demands Planned Desalination •Carlsbad Pendleton 50 Desal MGD or more •High •Conceptual •Maximize •MA Verifiable •Additional Demands Storage Local Supply Planned and •Balanced Mix Conceptual Supply •Current local Options Reservoir •Alternative Reservoir Operations Operations •Other Facilities to test for regional benefits •Alternative Demand Paths 19
  19. 19.  Build from UWMP scenarios  Single/multiple dry years  Limited MWD Supplies  Local supply mix Master Plan scenario considerations  Daily demand patterns – peak season  Local supply variability  Hydrology  Climate impacts Each scenario attempts to explore an aspect of supply and demand uncertainty 20
  20. 20.  Identify alternatives to address performance gaps ◦ Facility constraints ◦ Supply constraints Initial strategies for crafting Alternatives: ◦ Maximize imported water ◦ Expanded regional desalination ◦ Maximized storage options ◦ Balanced supply options Test performance of baseline aqueduct system against Master Plan Scenarios 21
  21. 21.  Scenario A – Current Trends ◦ Current estimates for supply and demand consistent with UWMP assumptions Scenario B – Reduced Imported Supplies, Climate Change and Lower Local Supply Development ◦ Increased imported water uncertainty, especially in dry years, coupled with factors that may slow the reduction in demands or the development of local projects. Presents an important upper boundary bracketing scenario. Scenario C – Enhanced Local Resource Management ◦ Local supply development and demand management is the focus. Presents an important lower boundary bracketing scenario. Scenario D – Adjusted Local Supply Development ◦ A limited achievement level (50%) of local supply development and demand management. Presents a scenario positioned between Scenarios A and C. 22
  22. 22. Master Plan AnalysisScenarios Alternatives Existing Scenario Aqueduct A System Alt 1 Imported WaterScenario Strategy B Model Results Deterministic and Alt 2 Stochastic Max Seawater DesalinationScenario C Alt 3 Max Storage Operations Scenario Alt 4 D Balanced Supply Option 23
  23. 23.  System capacity Supply reliability Costs of capital improvement program Environmental impacts Energy use and production optimization Supports WA diversification goals Improves water quality Feasibility Minimizes rate impacts Maximizes use of existing facilities 24
  24. 24. Scenario B1 Higher demands, slow member agency supply development or conservation measures Scenario B2 Scenario D Scenario A2 Adaptive Process  Monitoring Scenario A1 metrics Early Actions Mainline demand projections,  Implementation verifiable member agency projects and conservation timelines and phasingToday Scenario C  Risk-based and Slower growth in demands, more rapid adaptive member agency supply development or decision-making conservation measuresDecision Timelines Near-Term Actions Long-Term Actions Mid-Term Actions 25
  25. 25.  With the 2010 UWMP expected demand forecasts and normal or wet cycle hydrology shortages are minimal Carlsbad desalination production is important in managing shortages in all hydrological cycles If demands exceed UWMP expected demand forecasts, developing local or imported supplies is important for continued reliability In dry years - greater vulnerably until QSA supplies are ramped up Pipeline 6 appears to be beyond the 2035 planning horizon 26
  26. 26.  Feb 2012: Board workshop Spring 2012: Second board workshop Summer 2012: Release draft report to member agencies Oct 2012: Release Draft Program EIR Mar 2013: Board Certify Program EIR and Accept Final Master Plan Update 27
  27. 27. Master Climate Plan Action Plan 28
  28. 28. ‣ Inventory GHG sources (facilities, buildings, fleet)‣ Estimate emission changes over time, including new facilities from Master Plan‣ Identify mitigation actions to reduce GHGs‣ Document GHG reduction feasibility and implementation‣ Serve as significance thresholds for future actions‣ Allow for periodic updates 29
  29. 29. ‣ Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) ‣ Requires GHG emission reductions o 1990 levels by 2020 o 80% below 1990 levels by 2050‣ CEQA Guideline Revisions (SB 97) ‣ Requires analysis of GHG emissions ‣ Provides comprehensive approach through development of GHG emission reduction plan (Climate Action Plan)‣ Water Authority not required to comply with AB32 ‣ Cannot hinder the State from achieving the goals ‣ Must make CEQA determination on GHG emissions 30
  30. 30. ‣ CEQA streamlining for future projects‣ Can look at the “big” picture through comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts‣ Provides broad list of mitigation measures‣ Possible cost savings through energy efficiency and water conservation‣ Contributes to regional sustainability goals‣ Demonstrates leadership within the community 31
  31. 31. Program EIRMaster Climate Plan Action Plan 32
  32. 32. ‣ Provide Board, agencies, and public with: o Comprehensive environmental analysis of Master Plan o Opportunity for input into the decision-making process‣ Develop program-wide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential impacts‣ Assist Water Authority and other agencies in determining future CEQA documents that may be needed to implement future project components‣ Serve as starting point for future site- specific environmental findings 33
  33. 33.  Feb 2012: Board workshop Spring 2012: Second board workshop Summer 2012: Release draft report to member agencies Oct 2012: Release Draft Program EIR Mar 2013: Board Certify Program EIR and Accept Final Master Plan Update 34