Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California WaterFix Imported Water Committee, September 24, 2015

1. Imported Water Committee
September 24, 2015
Presented by:
Glenn Farrel, Government Relations Manager
Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager

2.  Water Authority’s involvement in the Bay-Delta
 Water Authority’s review of BDCP
 Transition from BDCP to California WaterFix
2

3. 3
LAKE
SHASTA
LAKE
OROVILLE
19% State Water Project
(Bay-Delta via MWD)
64% Colorado River
(Long-term transfers
and MWD)
Local Supplies
and Conservation
17%
Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta

4. CalFed formed to resolve issue of
transporting SWP water through
the Delta
Bay-Delta Accord initiated long-
term planning process to improve
the Delta
CalFed published plan to fix Delta
and address challenges over next
50 years
State created California Bay Delta
Authority to oversee
implementation of CalFed’s plan
4
1994
1994
2000
2003
2005
2006
2007
2009
2013
Little Hoover Commission found
CalFed to be “costly, underperforming,
unfocused and unaccountable.”
Legislature dissolves CBDA and
California Natural Resources absorbed
its functions
Bay Delta Conservation Plan process
initiated
Delta Reform Act creates Delta
Stewardship Council (Delta Plan) to
achieve state mandated co-equal goals
Administrative Drafts of BDCP released
BDCP Public Comments Received
California WaterFix Released
2014
2015

5.  Water Authority and San Diego business community
support a Bay-Delta fix
◦ Supported 2009 legislation that established co-equal goals:
 Water Supply Reliability
 Ecosystem Restoration
◦ San Diego legislative delegation’s support vital to passage of
legislation
 Water Authority Board of Directors:
◦ Adopted Bay-Delta Policy Principles to guide review of a Delta
solution
◦ Adopted Resolution supporting timely completion of BDCP
◦ No water agency in California has undertaken a more rigorous,
independent evaluation of BDCP than the Water Authority
◦ Has not endorsed a specific project or solution
5

6. 6
Bay Delta Conservation
Plan (BDCP)

7.  The BDCP is a joint Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan
◦ Provides regulatory stability and assurances for 50-
year term
 Purpose is to contribute to co-equal goals
(eco-restoration and water supply reliability)
 Uses adaptive management and monitoring
to adjust to changed conditions and new
information
7

8. BDCP Preferred Project: Twin
Tunnels
8
BDCP Estimate: $25 billion

9. Water Authority’s BDCP Review
Process
 Years-long Board and staff
education process on BDCP
proposal and related issues
 20 public meetings since January 2013
 Intensive, multi-disciplinary staff
analysis of BDCP environmental
and planning documents
 Year of extensive Board discussion
 Water Authority comment letters
submitted May and July 2014
9
BDCP Plan and EIR/EIS
Water Authority’s BDCP Analyses

10. 1. How big does the project
need to be?
2. How much water will San
Diego get?
3. How much will it ultimately
cost?
4. What is San Diego’s cost
obligation?
Unanswered Questions
10
5. Who is going to commit to pay for it?
6. How will Water Authority ratepayers be protected
from paying disproportionate share of costs?
7. Will the costs to San Diego ratepayers negatively
impact local supply development?

11. 11
California WaterFix

12. What is the California WaterFix?
12
 Makes physical and operational improvements to water
delivery system in Delta
◦ Responds to unprecedented level of public review and comment
 PRDEIR/SEIS released July 10, 2015
 Lead agencies:
◦ Department of Water Resources (CEQA)
◦ Bureau of Reclamation (NEPA)
 Cooperating/Trustee Agencies:
◦ National Marine Fisheries Services and
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FESA)
◦ CA Fish and Wildlife (CESA)

13. Key Difference Between BDCP
and California WaterFix
13
 BDCP’s strategy (Alternative 4) is a
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan
(HCP/NCCP)
o 50-year permit assurances
 ESA permits through federal Section 10 and
state Section 2835
 Large-scale regional habitat restoration and
new Delta water delivery infrastructure
‣ California Water Fix (Alternative 4A)
o No long-term permit assurances (year-to-year)
• Proposes FESA Section 7 consultation and CESA Section 2081(b)
permit process
• Includes new Delta water delivery infrastructure and required
mitigation, but without the HCP/NCCP components

14. ESA Permit Options
Section 7/Section 2081
(Current)
Section 10/Section 2835
(HCP/NCCP)
Avoid jeopardy Contribute to recovery
Consistent with existing
compliance approach (BiOps)
New comprehensive compliance
approach (IA)
Shorter term permit (years) Longer term permit (decades)
Listed species only Listed, unlisted and CA fully
protected species
Limited/No regulatory and water
supply assurances
Regulatory and water supply
assurances
Less contractor involvement More contractor involvement
Faster to obtain (months) Slower to obtain (years)
Less mitigation More mitigation
14

15. What are the risks of addressing
Delta Issues without a NCCP/HCP?
 Future planning and permitting for state and
federal listed species on case-by-case basis
 Limited options to issue permits for unlisted
species which may become listed in the future
 Safe Harbors Agreements
 Candidate Conservation Agreements (with assurances)
 Any new species added to endangered list can
result in new permit requirements
 No comprehensive way to stabilize future water
supply or contain mitigation costs
15

16.  Introduction of three new sub-alternatives
 Design Modification to Alternative 4 (BDCP
Preferred Alternative)
 Updated environmental analysis
 Fish and Aquatic Habitat
 Water Quality
 Effects Downstream of the Delta
 Air Quality Health Risk Assessment, Traffic and Noise
 Geotechnical Investigations
 Inclusion of Additional NEPA Determinations
 Estimated capital cost: $14.9 billion (2014$)
What’s Changed since the 2013
BDCP Draft EIR/EIS?
16

17. Key questions remain unanswered:
1. After accounting for local supply development, what is
the real demand for water from the Delta?
2. What is the right-sized project to meet the demand?
3. Where is a financing plan to pay for the project?
4. Who is going to commit to pay for it?
5. Should MWD contractually commit to pay billions of
dollars without contractual commitments from its 26
member agencies to pay it?
 Without such commitments, how will San Diego
County businesses and ratepayers be protected from
shouldering a disproportionate cost burden in the
future
What Hasn’t Changed?
17

18. What’s Next?
18
 Comment letters on recirculated EIR/EIS due by October
30, 2015
 Staff in process of preparing draft
comment letter
 Draft comment letter will be provided to the Board at
October 22 meeting
 Lead agencies will consider all comments received – even
those made with respect to the originally issued EIR/EIS
 Lead agencies will respond to all comments in writing,
incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS
 Final approvals – Record of Decision/Notice of
Determination