The document provides an overview of a board workshop discussing the history of the Bay-Delta and proposals for addressing conflicts, including the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). It summarizes the purpose and status of the BDCP, which aims to restore the Delta ecosystem and provide water supply reliability. It also outlines four alternatives that will be reviewed by the Water Authority: the BDCP preferred alternative, the no action alternative, the NRDC's portfolio-based conceptual alternative, and the Delta Vision Foundation's BDCP Plus strategy. Key differences between the alternatives include proposed conveyance capacity, additional water supply elements, estimated Delta export yields, habitat restoration acreage, and costs.

1. Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager
Glenn Farrel, Government Relations Manager
Don Chadwick, Senior Water Resources Specialist
Amy Chen, Director of MWD Program
Board Workshop
August 8, 2013

2.  Delta History
◦ Central Valley Project
◦ State Water Project
◦ Delta conflicts
◦ Past efforts to resolve conflicts
◦ 2009 Comprehensive Delta Legislative Package
 Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
◦ Purpose
◦ Status
 Alternatives to be reviewed by Water
Authority
2

3. Meeting Imported Water Committee/Board Activity
7/25/2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of
BDCP alternatives;
Provide input on policy questions to be addressed
√
8/8/2013
Special Meeting
Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including
description of alternatives
◄
8/22/2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative
project yield assumptions; projected costs
9/12/2013
Special Meeting
BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative
9/26/2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including responses to policy
questions
10/10/2013
Special Meeting
Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta
Policy Principles
10/24/2013 Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA
comment letter
11/21/2013 Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; consider adopting position on BDCP
alternative(s)
3

4.  ADEIR/EIS: Administrative
Draft EIR/EIS
 BDCP: Bay-Delta Conservation
Plan
 CEQA: California
Environmental Quality Act
 DVF: Delta Vision Foundation
 DWR: Department of Water
Resources
 EIR: Environmental Impact
Report (State)
 EIS: Environmental Impact
Statement (Federal)
 ELT: Early long term
 ESA: Endangered Species
Act
 HCP: Habitat Conservation
Plan (Federal)
 LLT: Late long term
 NEPA: National
Environmental Policy Act
 NCCP: Natural Community
Conservation Plan (State)
 SWP: State Water Project
4

5. Part I

6.  Built by federal
government beginning
in 1937
 Flood control,
navigation, water supply
for agriculture and
urban purposes,
hydroelectric power
 Shasta Dam, Folsom
Reservoir, Friant Dam,
Delta-Mendota Canal,
Contra Costa Canal
 As much as 70% of CVP
water is allocated for
agricultural purposes
6

7.  Feather River Project enacted in
1951 – ratified by voters in
November 1960
◦ Burns-Porter Act: $1.75B bond
 Oroville Dam, California
Aqueduct, power generation
facilities, pumping plants
 SWP began delivering water in
1967
 Serves North and South Bay
Area, San Joaquin Valley,
Southern California
 30% agricultural use, 70%
urban
 MWD is the largest contractor
at nearly 46% SWP contractual
allocation
7

8.  700-mile sloughs and waterways, surround more
than 60 tracts and islands supported by levees
 500,000 residents, largest use of land is
agricultural, recreation destination, important
transportation and utilities corridor, estuary and
waterways
 Competing interests
◦ Water supply
◦ Ecosystem
 Deteriorating habitat impacts on water suppliers’
ability to export through the Delta
 History of major – but largely failed – efforts to
address water conflicts
8

9.  1960: Burns-Porter Act: Authorized Delta
facilities for “transfer of water across the
Delta”
 1965: Interagency Delta Commission
recommended Peripheral Canal as transfer
facility
 1973: Delta Environmental Advisory
Committee concludes a federal/state
peripheral canal is necessary to protect the
Delta ecosystem
9

10.  1980: State Legislature passed and the
Governor signed SB 200
◦ Authorized the peripheral canal
◦ Provided specific guarantees to protect Delta
◦ Intended to meet water needs of the SWP through
2000
 June 1982: California voters defeated
Proposition 9 – a veto referendum – which
included the peripheral canal
◦ 63-37%
10

11.  From 1987-1992, California endured a six-year
drought
◦ Limited water deliveries
◦ Deteriorated in-Delta and exported water quality
◦ Pushed fish species to brink of extinction
 1992: SWRCB releases draft D-1630 interim
standards that require reductions in Delta exports
to protect wildlife
 1993: Delta smelt declared endangered under the
federal Endangered Species Act
 1995: Winter-run Chinook salmon listed as
endangered
 1999: Spring-run Chinook salmon listed as
endangered
11

12.  1994: Bay-Delta Accord,
creating CalFed coordination
 Unprecedented collaboration
of federal, state, and
stakeholder interests
 Began 10-year period of
focused effort to on Delta
CalFed Framework signatories agreed to:
•Formulate water quality standards
•Coordinate operations of the SWP and CVP
•Work toward long-term Delta solutions
12

13.  Focus on water supply
reliability included:
 Storage
 Conveyance
 Water transfers
 Water use efficiency
CalFed recognized an
integrated approach to water
supply reliability
Inability to obtain consensus
needed for implementation
13

14.  1998: CalFed Plan and Record
of Decision
 2000: State and federal
governments sign CalFed
Record of Decision
 2003: Legislature created the
California Bay-Delta Authority
to oversee implementation of
the CalFed plan
◦ Develop policies and make
decisions at program milestones
◦ Provide direction to achieve
balanced implementation
◦ Track progress of CalFed
projects and activities
◦ Oversee activities of the 24
CalFed implementing agencies
14

15.  Stakeholder criticisms of the CalFed program:
◦ Lack of leadership
◦ Inability to advance CalFed program agenda
◦ Unable to demonstrate results
◦ Unable to measure achievements
◦ Lack of real “authority” to direct 24 implementing
agencies
◦ Cost concerns
 CalFed also came under scrutiny by the
Administration, Legislature, Little Hoover
Commission, and Legislative Analyst’s Office
 In 2006, the State Legislature dissolved the CalFed
Bay-Delta Authority
15

16.  Species decline in the Delta
◦ Aggressive restrictions on water
pumping
 2007-2011: Federal District Court
Judge Oliver Wanger issued a series
of decisions:
◦ Intended to protect endangered
Delta smelt and other species
◦ Resulted in restricted exports from
the Delta
◦ Loss of 586,000 acre-feet of SWP
and CVP water supply in average
year
 Wanger decisions coupled with dry
hydrology led to major water
shortages in 2008-2010
16

17. Regulatory Pumping Restrictions
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Delta Smelt
Salmon
Longfin Smelt
17

18. Part II

19.  2006: Stakeholders
commenced discussions that
led to formalization of the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
(BDCP) effort by 2008
◦ State, federal, and local
stakeholders
◦ Multi-species HCP and NCCP
under federal and state ESA
◦ Allow state and federal water
managers to obtain permits to
construct and operate new water
conveyance over a 50-year
timeframe
19

20.  Comprehensive conservation strategy for
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
 Restore and protect ecosystem health and
provides water supply reliability
◦ Protect species and conserve habitat they depend upon
 Allows issuance of federal and state
Endangered Species Act permits for a 50-
year term.
20

21.  Combined Natural Community
Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation
Plan/ (NCCP/HCP)
 Satisfies federal and state ESA requirements
◦ Federal ESA Section 10
◦ State Fish and Game Code Section 2835
 Foundation document for ESA Permits to
allow “take” of listed species for certain
construction and operations of SWP/CVP
 Permittees include DWR, USBR and certain
federal and state water contractors
21

22.  Approved December 2010 (permits in 2011)
 Covers future CIP and O&M activities
 Allowed ESA permitting by both State and
Federal agencies simultaneously
 Targeted natural communities containing
more than one species common to an area
◦ 63 species covered over 993,000 acre area
 Provided regulatory and economic
assurances to all parties for 55 years
◦ Less cost versus project by project mitigation
22

23.  Accommodate water
diversions and exports
 Work toward the recovery
of species and
conservation of habitats
◦ Conservation Standard is
greater than Fully Mitigate
Standard
 Reduce the likelihood of
additional species listings
 Provide stable regulatory
framework
23

24.  Identify the geographic
area for coverage
 Identify the species for
coverage together with
their required habitat
 Identify covered
activities & impacts
 Identify measures to
avoid, minimize or
mitigate for impacts
Delta Smelt
Long Fin Smelt
Chinook Salmon
24

25.  Combined EIR/EIS to review the environmental
effects of proposed BDCP and a reasonable
range of alternatives
 EIR/EIS is the foundational analytical
document used by the issuers of permits
 Lead agency for state-required EIR is DWR
 Co-lead agencies for federally-required EIS:
◦ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
◦ National Marine Fisheries Service
◦ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
25

26.  No permit coverage for unlisted species
which may become listed in the future
 No comprehensive way to stabilize water
supply reliability or contain mitigation costs
 Future planning and permitting only for
state and federal listed species on case-by
case- basis
 Any new species added to endangered list
results in new permit negotiations and
requirements
26

27.  Similar to Water Authority NCCP/HCP
◦ Coordinated and comprehensive conservation
strategy
 Dependent on adaptive management and monitoring
◦ Provides 50-year ESA compliance process
 Less costly than project by project mitigation
 Specific to Bay-Delta
◦ Broad-based public participation via the NCCP
Act, NEPA, and CEQA processes
◦ Improved Delta-wide ecological conditions
◦ Achieve a more reliable water supply
27

28.  Using an NCCP/HCP Approach
◦ Eliminate years of sequential
negotiations on endangered species
◦ Prevent future endangered species
listings by providing broad
ecosystem protections
◦ Comprehensive regional planning to
conserve natural resources
◦ More effective use of public and
private resources for habitat
◦ Reduce risk to species, projects, and
water supply
28

29.  All 12 chapters of the administrative draft of the
BDCP and the consultant draft of the EIR/EIS have
been released
 The public draft BDCP and final draft EIR/EIS are
expected to be released for public comment by
October 1, 2013
◦ 90-day comment period announced – challenging
timeframe given the administrative drafts are
approximately 25,000 pages
◦ Decision on the EIR/EIS is planned for April 2014
29

30. Part III

31. 31
 Objective is to provide the Board with an assessment
of which Delta fix proposal is most consistent with
and best advances the:
◦ Board’s Bay-Delta Policy Principles
◦ Reliability and supply diversification goals in the Water
Authority’s 2010 urban water management plan
 Goal: comment letter through BDCP environmental
review process
 Staff is reviewing four options to a Delta fix
◦ BDCP Preferred Alternative (included in BDCP draft)
◦ No Action Alternative (included in BDCP draft)
◦ NRDC’s Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative
◦ Delta Vision Foundation’s BDCP Plus Strategy

32.  Federal ESA requires analysis of alternatives in HCP
(avoid or reduce “take” of covered species)
 Alternatives to avoid or reduce “take” are distinct
from alternatives developed to satisfy CEQA/NEPA
◦ Alternatives to satisfy CEQA/NEPA must avoid or
substantially lessen impacts to human environment on wide
variety of issues
◦ Alternative actions evaluated in HCP are only required to
avoid or lessen impacts to covered fish and wildlife species
 Key question for staff analysis
◦ Is there a material difference between alternatives and in
use of different baselines
◦ (To be addressed at future Committee meeting)
32

33. Alternative North Delta
Conveyance
Capacity
Additional
Supply
Element
Delta Export
Yield
(MAF/YR)
Habitat
Restoration
(Acres)
Estimated
Cost
($Millions)
BDCP Administrative Draft EIR/EIS
Preferred 9,000 cfs No 4.4 to 5.3 145,000 $24,500
No Action Current
Operations
No 4.4 8,000 $231a
Concepts
NRDC
Portfolio
3,000cfs+ Local
Projects &
Storage
4.0 to 4.3b
(Delta Export)
0.9 to1.2
(Local Projects)
40,000 $14,000
to
$16,000c
Delta Vision
BDCP Plus
5,000cfs to
6,000cfs
Local
Projects &
Storage
Not
describedd
Not
described
Not
described
a Source: 6/25/13 MWD Pres.– estimated costs for habitat restoration
b NRDC initial est. BDCP ELT est. 4.2 maf; EIR/EIS LLT est. 4.8 maf
c Conceptual cost estimate – includes capital costs only
d BDCP ELT est. 4.5 maf, EIR/EIS LLT est. 5.4 maf
33

34.  Conservation Strategy comprised of 22 measures
◦ Strategy intends to achieve the BDCP co-equal goals within
a stable regulatory framework
 Conservation Measure 1 – Water Facilities and
Operations
◦ Dual conveyance facilities
 New north Delta conveyance (49% of flows): two 40-foot-
diameter, 35-mile-long tunnels capable of delivering 9,000cfs
via gravity
 Existing South Delta (51% of flows)
◦ Delta Export: 4.4 – 5.3 MAF
 Total estimated cost (capital and O&M)
◦ $24.7B
 Contractors: $16.8B
 Federal: $3.9B
 State: $3.7B
34

35.  Used a baseline for determining impacts of
federal actions under NEPA
 Existing through-Delta conveyance facilities
 Continued operations under current pumping
constraints
 Delta export: 4.4 maf
 Costs
◦ Existing biological opinions requires $231M for
habitat restoration
35

36.  Portfolio approach
◦ Dual conveyance facilities
 New north Delta conveyance (25% of flows): single
tunnel capable of delivering 3,000cfs via gravity
 Existing South Delta (75% of flows)
 Delta Exports: 4.0 to 4.3 MAF
◦ New south of Delta storage (1 MAF)
◦ Proposes increased investments in local projects and
conservation programs (926 TAF – 1,245 TAF)
 309 – 311 TAF of water recycling
 617 – 934 TAF of water efficiency savings
 Estimated investment (capital costs)
◦ $14-$16B (NRDC estimate)
36

37. DVF proposal emerged because it believes:
 BDCP
◦ Falls short of linked-action approach set forth in
DVF’s “Delta Vision Strategic Plan”
◦ Is insufficient to achieve the coequal goals
 NRDC Portfolio-Based Concept
◦ Includes additional components to BDCP that are
critical to achieve coequal goals
◦ Lacks near-term actions for levee system and
improved thru Delta conveyance; proposed isolated
facility is too small
37

38. BDCP Plus core elements:
 Delta Operations
 Conveyance and storage
 Thru-Delta conveyance
 Strategic levee system improvements
 Habitat restoration
 Delta channel hydrology
 Water use efficiency and alternative water
supplies
38

39.  August 22 Board Meeting: Staff will provide
an overview of the ADEIR/EIS and additional
technical analysis of the four alternatives
 Process of seven meetings of the Imported
Water Committee and Board between July 25
and November 21, 2013
◦ Goal: approve comment letter on EIR/EIS
◦ Consider formal Board position on BDCP alternative(s)
39

40. Meeting Imported Water Committee/Board Activity
7/25/2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of
BDCP alternatives;
Provide input on policy questions to be addressed
√
8/8/2013
Special Meeting
Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including
description of alternatives
◄
8/22/2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative
project yield assumptions; projected costs
9/12/2013
Special Meeting
BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative
9/26/2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including responses to policy
questions
10/10/2013
Special Meeting
Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta
Policy Principles
10/24/2013 Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA
comment letter
11/21/2013 Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; consider adopting position on BDCP
alternative(s)
40