Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded bySan Diego County Water Authority
Bay-Delta Update - Carlsbad City Council, Sept. 17, 2013
The document discusses the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project, outlining their history, facilities, and the metropolitan water district's role in water supply management in California. It highlights ongoing efforts for bay-delta restoration, supply reliability, and the complexities of financing projects related to water infrastructure. The document also raises key questions regarding water demand, project costs, and commitments from water contractors to pay for the proposed initiatives.
More Related Content
Similar to Bay-Delta Update - Carlsbad City Council, Sept. 17, 2013
Bay-Delta Update - Carlsbad City Council, Sept. 17, 2013
- 1. Thomas V. Wornham,Chair, Board of Directors Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager September 17, 2013 Carlsbad City Council 1
- 2. State Water ProjectFacilities Colorado River Aqueduct Water Authority Facilities MWD Water Facilities 2
- 3. State WaterProject: ◦ Feather River Project enacted in 1951 ◦ Ratified by voters in November 1960 -Burns-Porter Act; $1.5 billion bond ◦ Key facilities: Oroville Dam, California Aqueduct ◦ Began delivering water in 1967 ◦ Serves North and South Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Southern California ◦ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Is the largest contractor (50%) San Diego is MWD’s largest customer (25%) 3
- 4. Federal CentralValley Project ◦ Built by federal government beginning in 1937 ◦ Flood control, navigation, water supply for agriculture and urban purposes, hydroelectric power ◦ Key facilities: Shasta Dam, Friant Dam, Delta-Mendota Canal, Contra Costa Canal, Delta Cross Channel ◦ Westlands Water District is the largest contractor 4
- 5. Banks Pumping Plant StateWater Project Chinook salmon Central Valley steelhead Green sturgeon Delta smelt Longfin smelt 5
- 6. Water Authorityand San Diego business community support a Bay-Delta fix ◦ Water Authority and San Diego business leaders worked together to pass 2009 legislation that established coequal goals: Water Supply Reliability Ecosystem Restoration 2014 water bond would provide public funding for ecosystem restoration Water Authority board ◦ Adopted Bay-Delta Policy Principles to guide review of a Delta fix ◦ Has not endorsed a specific conveyance project Water Authority has review and process for Board consideration later this year 6
- 7. Water SupplyReliability ◦ Recognize, encourage and integrate local supplies and factor those into demands for Delta water Ecosystem Restoration ◦ Restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem (NCCP and HCP) Finance and Funding ◦ Encourage and support project that is cost-effective when compared with other water supply development options ◦ Require firm commitments to pay by all parties through take- or-pay contracts or legal equivalent Facilities ◦ “Right-sized” facilities to match firm commitments to pay Governance ◦ Support continued state ownership and operation of the State Water Project as a public resource 7
- 8. Preferred Alternative 9,000 cfs, twin-tunnel project advocated by Natural Resources Agency and water contractors (e.g. MWD) No Action Alternative Status quo conveyance facilities and capacity Delta Vision Foundation’s BDCP-Plus Strategy 5,000-6,000 cfs project, additional storage and integration with local supplies Natural Resources Defense Council’s Portfolio Alternative Single tunnel of at least 3,000 cfs, additional south of Delta storage, levee improvements, 1 million acre-feet of additional local supplies and conservation 8
- 9. Return on$25 billion investment: unknown ◦ Under “Decision Tree” process: spend the money, build project, operate it, then determine water yield MWD depends on water sales revenues to pay >80% of its bills: ◦ Member agencies have no obligation to buy any water from MWD ◦ MWD sales down 30% since 2007 and agencies plan to buy even less water in the future ◦ What is the certainty all MWD member agencies will pay their fair share of the Delta fix costs? 9
- 10. Based onBDCP’s Financing Chapter 8, who will bear the capital costs and debt obligations? Answer: Unknown. BDCP (page 8-80) says: ◦ “Details of the financing… are still being determined through on-going discussion between the state and federal governments and between the government, the state and federal water contractors and other interests.” Source: BDCP Web site fact sheet Estimated Funding to Implement the BDCP 10
- 11. Metropolitan Water District ImperialIrrigation District Transfer All American & Coachella Canal Lining Local Surface Water Groundwater Conservation (existing and additional) 2013 1991 Total = 645 TAF Recycled Water 297 TAF 46% 46 TAF 7% 21 TAF 3% 27 TAF 4% 80 TAF 13%103 TAF 16% 550 TAF 95% 28 TAF 5% 2020 Total = 779 TAF 231 TAF 30% 48 TAF 6% 27 TAF 4% 44 TAF 6% 103 TAF 13% 80 TAF 10% 190 TAF 24% 56 TAF 7% Seawater Desalination Total = 578 TAF TAF=Thousand Acre- 71 TAF 11% 11
- 12. 1990: 672,800acre-feet 2013: 297,000 acre-feet 2020: 231,000 acre-feet: 66% less than 1990 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1990 2013 2020 MWD purchases Total Water Use 12
- 13.
- 14. MWD 28 Other State Water Project Contractors MWD50% Central Valley Project Contractors 50% StateWater Project Contractors 14
- 15. Water Authority PaysAbout 25% of MWD’s Spending MWD Member Agencies (FY 2012) Anaheim Beverly Hills Burbank Calleguas Central Basin Compton Eastern Foothill Fullerton Glendale Inland Empire Las Virgenes Long Beach Los Angeles MWDOC* Pasadena San Diego San Fernando San Marino Santa Ana Santa Monica Three Valleys Torrance Upper San Gabriel West Basin Western San Diego County Water Authority 15
- 16. Canal Water Purchases* <1% IID Water Purchases* 20% MWDExchange Agreement Costs 28% Total Cost = $294M MWD Represents 80% of the Cost of Water Excludes MWD’s fixed RTS and CRC charges *Excludes the debt service for capital projects and recovery of settlement expenditures MWD Supply Costs 52% 16
- 17. $443 $890 22% 45% $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 2005 2014 $200$400 $/AF Untreated Tier 1 Rate $331 $593 34% 67% $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 2005 2014 $200 $400 $/AF MWD rate increase since 2005: 79% Treated Tier 1 Rate Range of Impacts $/AF Range of Impacts $/AF MWD rate increase since 2005: 101% Percentage Increase on 2014 MWD Rate Percentage Increase on 2014 MWD Rate 17
- 18. 1. After accountingfor 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. How much water will we get for $25 billion? “Decision Tree” process says build the project, operate it, then determine yield 4. Who is going to commit to pay for the project? What happens if some water contractors are unable to pay their share? “Step-up” provisions? Property taxes? 5. Should MWD contractually commit to pay $6+ billion without contractual commitments from its 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? 18
- 19. Meeting Imported WaterCommittee/Board Activity July 25, 2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of BDCP alternatives; provide input on policy questions to be addressed Aug. 8, 2013 Special Meeting Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including description of alternatives Aug. 22, 2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative project yield assumptions; projected costs Sept. 12 , 2013 Special Meeting BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative Sept. 26, 2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including responses to policy questions Oct. 10, 2013 Special Meeting Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta Policy Principles Oct. 24 2013 Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA comment letter Nov. 21, 2013 Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; earliest opportunity to consider adopting position on BDCP alternative(s) 19
- 20. Support theWater Authority’s review and analysis of alternatives Review results of Water Authority’s analysis before taking a formal position on any proposal 20
- 21.