Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-04; City Council; 6093; San Diego County Water Authority Pipeline No. 5CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. O Initial Dept.Hd DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1979 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER C. Mg i Subject: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY PIPELINE NO. 5. Statement of the Matter The City delegate to CPO, Councilmember Skotnicki, requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion and consideration of instructing the City's delegate. l Exhibit: CPO Agenda Report No. R-36 dated November 19, 1979. CPO Agenda Report No. R-34 dated October 15, 1979. Recommendation: None Council Action: 12-4-79 Council directed that tneir CPO representative support the construction of the proposed San Diego County Water Authority Pipeline No. 5 at CPO's Board of Director's Meeting. In addition, Council expressed support for the method proposed by the San Diego County Water Authority for funding the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Or THE SAN DIEGO REGION " Board of Directors Agenda Report too.: R-36 Date 11 19 79 CPO POSITION ON THE SAN DIEGO WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE No. 5 - STAFF RECCMENMTION Introduction At the October 15 Board of Directors meeting, presentations on future water supplies were made by representatives of agencies which have a significant influence on the availability of water in the San Diego Region. The trans - script of these presentations was delivered to you under separate cover. As a result of the meeting, the Board of Directors decided to take action on the proposed San Diego Pipeline No. 5 at its December meeting. This schedule allows time for the local governments to take a position on this issue. To assist the Directors in their consideration of this matter, the staff de- cided to make a recommendation, for information purposes only, at the Navember Board meeting. Accordingly, it is my REOC MENDATION that the CPO Board of Directors support the construction of San Diego Water Supply Pipeline No. 5. Discussion The staff's reccnmendation of support is based, in part, on some additional information which was presented at the October 15 Board meeting plus other information learned by the staff since that meeting. The information is: 1. Staff confirmed that the fifth pipeline would be used, during portions of each year, to transmit water for storage in some of the Region's reservoirs. 2. staff's estimate of imported water which could be available in future water short years has been revised fran 460,000 acre feet (see Report R-34) to at least 500,000 acre feet. This revised estimate is based on the information that approximately 433,000 acre feet of water should be available to the MHD from the Colorado River instead of the 300,000 acre feet figure used in previous analyses. T.-.a source of this revision was Mr. Myron Holburt's presentation as follows: MWD's entitlement to Colorado River water = 550,000 acre feet Less Indian Rights and miscellaneous uses = 117,000 acre feet Amount of Colorado River water available to the MWD = 433,000 acre feet 3. In the previous Board report on the region's future water supplies (R-34), the CPO staff questioned the possibility of switching raw water from Pipeline 3 to Pipeline 4 in order to provide :sufficient capacity to transmit the required proportionate amounts of raw and filtered water into the region during future water short years. The staff has learned that such a switch would be quite costly because those agencies connected to Pipeline 4 need to have filtered water and if Pipeline 4 were used for raw water instead, each of those agencies would have to build a filtration plant. The connections of the CWA member agencies and the locations of local filtration plants to the pipelines have been made in accordance with the type of water being transmitted through each pipe- line. Therefore, it is not possible to merely switch the types of water conveyed by each pipeline without building additional facilities to accommodate each agency's water needs. 4. The possibility of MWD banking water in Lake Mead is being explored. This would allow MWD to use more State Project water in wet years and bank the unused portion of its Colorado River water in Take Mead. The MWD could then withdraw water from its account in the lake during dry years. 5. MWD has arranged to have rights to any water not used by agriculture and domestic users in the Coachella Valley resulting from the current effort to line the area's irrigation canal. Lining the canal is projected to save 130,000 acre feet a year by preventing percolation of water into the ground. The staff has learned enough about the present and likely future water situation in the area to be satisfied that the fifth pipeline will be suf- ficiently useful to be a cost-effective expendit.tre of public funds. How- ever, additional transmission capacity should not be confused with the adequacy of water supply. As described by the various agency representatives on October 15, water supplies are likely to be short in some years during at least the next decade. Although the fifth pipeline will do a lot to help us avoid these shortages, conservation by both domestic and agri- cultural water users will probably be even more important than new faci- lities in reducing future water supply problems. Despite the many efforts K0 and CIA are making to find other water sources or management techniques to increacie the imported water supply, the various reports prepared for the Hoard on the availability of water and the testi- mony of the water experts at the kXtober 15 meeting illustrate why it is necessary to identify and implement water conservation measures through- out the region. Towards this end, the CPO Board has authorized a contract with the County Water Authority to prepare individualized water conser- vation plans for each agency (general purpose and special purpose) that supplies water in the San Diego -Riverside Planning area. RICHARD J. HUF Executive Director 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION " Board of Directors Agenda Report No.: R-34 Dates n/15 THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA AND THE SAN DIEGO WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE W. 5 Introduction The Board of Directors has discussed the San Diego region's water supply situ- ation and the value of the proposed pipeline No. 5 on three occasions prior to the October 15 meeting. The Board's interest in the area's future water supply was increased this year by the Metropolitan Water District's publication of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed fifth water supply pipeline for the San Diego region. CPO's ccumnts on the EIR led to a decision that the Board of Directors should establish a policy position on the fifth pipeline. At its July 16 meeting, fol- lowing review of the third staff report on the subject, the Board asked several questions about the proposed pipeline and the area's future water supply. These questions led to this staff report and the arrangements for presentations by representatives of the various water agencies whose actions affect the availability of imported water to the San Diego area. The attachment to this staff report contains a summary description of the region's aqueduct system, an information sheet about the proposed pipeline No. 5, and a letter from Dr. Phil Pryde giving his views on the region's future water supply situation. The questions asked at the July 16 Board meeting are listed below along with the name of the agency that has been asked to respond to each one. The speakers listed on the agenda for this meeting were asked to base their presentations on the answers to these questions. 1. Provide information on the amount of water available from the State Water Project with or without canpletion of the State Water Project. (Department of Water Resources) 2. Provide an analysis of the intentions and capabilities of Arizona with re- gard to the Central Arizona Project. (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Projects Office) 3. Analyze the Colorado River Water Supply, what rights does Southern California have to water stored in dams along the ColorpA-o River? (Colorado River Board) 4. What will be the price of water in 1995-2000? (?Metropolitan Water District) 5. Describe the relationship between the 5th pipeline and reservoir storage. Can peak flaws and related shortages be solved by increased storage instead of by constructing a 5th pipeline? (County Water Authority) It was the staff's responsibility to answer three additional questions. The questions for the staff are: QUESTION 1: Would pipeline No. 5 be zost-effective in reducing (or eliminating) seasonal water shortages in the years following completion of the Cent -al Arizona Project if the State Water Project is not completed? In summary, it was concluded that if the assumptions portrayed in Table 5 of this report are correct (specifically, the assumption that pipeline 3, rather than pipeline 4, must be used for raw water), then the 5th pipeline would be used to some extent each year regardless of whether it is a "critical", "firm/normal", or "wet" year. Based on this frequency of use of the 5th pipeline, it is the staff's opinion that the 5th pipeline is a cost-effective expenditure of public funds. However, if all the assumptions in Table 5 are correct, except that pipeline 4 can be used for raw water rather than pipeline 3, the proposed 5th pipeline would be used only during wet years (approximately 50% of all years in a 50 year period). Based on this frequency of use, the information is inconclusive about the cost-effectiveness of the 5th pipeline. QUESTION 2: What impacts could the potential future water shortages have on the allocation of water among the CIA member agencies? The staff assessed the impacts of water shortages assuming that: (a) water would be distributed on the basis of allocation rights, and (b) that each agency would reduce water demand by the same percentage. The conclusions from these two approaches are: a. Allocation of the available imported water supply in 1995 on the basis of each water agency's 1978 allocation right (expressed as a percentage) resulted in the five agencies with the most agriculture (DeLuz, Rainbow, Ramona, Valley Center, Yuima) suffering a 75%-99% shortfall and those three most urbanized agencies having a surplus of water available. As shown on Table 6, the other CIA member agencies generally suffer shortfalls in direct proportion to the amount of agricultural water users. 1). Each water agency would have to reduce demand by 26% in order to make the annual water demand in 1995 equal to the annual amount of water available during water short years. QUESTION 3: What are the impacts of water supply shortages, both present and future, on the region's agriculture, including permanent and annual types of crops? The major conclusions to be drawn from the staff analysis of question 3 are: 2 ON a. Row crops such as tomatoes and flower farms should be the least affected by water shortages. (However, water shortages and higher prices for available water, in c(iubination with other factors, may cause row crops to clirxif4x.ir in many parts, or the region anyway.) b. Avocado and citrus orcnards, should be the most significantly affected by water shortages. c. Irrigated field crops would be affected by water shortages; however, only 1% of all field crops in the County are irrigated. d. If water shortages beccume commonplace in future years, there will be even greater pressure to urbanize or "lot split" acreage which has a water system in place that is no longer used for agricultural irrigation. Discussion The following sections on projected water demands, available imported water supply, and the effects of conservation and reclamation on water demand are provided as a review and a lead-in to the staff's responses to the three questions listed above. Projections of Future Water Demand in the San Diego Region In the July 16, 1979 report to the hoard of Directors (R-8), the staff re- ported regional water demand figures at five year intervals beginning in 1980 and concicxiing with a figure of 698,000 acre feet as the projected average annual water demand for the :pan Diego region in the year 2000. These figures were derived from Report 929 published by the Metropolitan Water District, and entitled "Study of Alternative Methods of Meeting Forecasted Water remands of San Diego County Water Authority". Subsequent to that staff report, on August 8, 1979, the (31A reviewed and released its "Filtered Water Distribution Study". That study estimated total demand in the San Diego region in the year 2000 at 668,000 acre feet. This staff report uses 668,000 acre feet as the most accurate projection of water demand for the San Diego region in the year 2000. The following table lists the revised water demand projections for the San Diego region, using the figures shown in the CIA report: TABLE 1 PRCUECTED WATER DEMAND SAN DIEGD REGION 1980-2000 (Acre Feet/Year) Pipeline Capacity Pipeline Capacity Domestic Total Needed to Account Needed to Account Water Agricultural. Water for 30% Agri- for 50% Agri - Year Demand Water Demand Demand cultural Peaking cultural Peaking 1980 349,510 111,700 461,170 599,521 691,755 1985 392,080 128,050 520,130 676,169 780,195 1990 435,110 139,050 574,160 746,408 861,240 1995 474,725 146,900 621,675 808,177 932,512 2000 514,075 153,600 667,675 867,977 1,001,512 Projections of the Availability of Imported Water in the San Diego Region The July 16, 1979 report to the Board also included a projection of 460,000 acre feet of: imported water available to the San Diego region in the year 2000. This projection was based on estimates of the amount of water that would be available fran the State Water Project and the Colorado River after 1990 (when the Central Arizona Project is completed) if the State Water Project is not completed. It is necessary at this point to provide a summary review of the source and meaning of the 460,000 acre feet/year figure, using some information originally included in Report R-8. First, the Department of Water Resources has projected water availability from the State Water Project based on its current incomplete configuration. The amount of water available is dependent on many variables including rainfall, water storage capacity, and pumping capacity and water flow in the Delta. Because of all the variables, it is not possible to identify precisely the amount of water available for any given future year. however, based on in- formation for the 50 year period from 1920-1970, the UIR has been able to estimate the relative frequency of water availability. The Department was able to classify years as "Critical", "Firnoiormal", and "Wet", based on annual amounts of rainfall. It was found that, together, the Critical and Finobrmal years occurred in about one-half of the years during the 50-year study period. In both Critical and FirnvNormal years, the MqD would have approximately 1.0 million acre feet of water available from the State Water Project, or about 700,000 acre feet less than MD's projected year 2000 demand for State water of 1.7 million acre feet. In order to estimate the CWA's share of the 700,000 acre foot shortfall, the CFO staff has assumed that CWA's share will be the same as the percentage of its demand to the total projected MD water demand. Given present estimates, this percentage is about 34 percent. However, CwA's share of the shortfall could vary depending on the amount of State water used by other MD member agencies. (Me. Dennis Williams of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will be addressing this point in his pre- sentation to the Board of Directors.) Using the CFO assumption that CwA would share about 34 percent of the shortfall, the CWA would have approximately 460,000 feet available on an average annual basis to meet a regional demand previously estimated above in Table 1 as 668,000 acre feet/year. According to the Department of Water Resources, the CIA would be operating under these shortfall conditions 45 percent to 55 percent of the years within a 50-year period after the Central Arizona Project is completed in 1990. Table 5 in the section on the cost effectiveness of the 5th pipeline illustrates aaA's view of how a limited water supply (460,000 acre feet) would be managed given the pro- jected crater demand in 1990. For its part, the completion of the Central Arizona Project in 1990 will leave Southern California (the FWD and CWA) with a share of something between. 330,000 and 550,000 acre feet/year of water to import from the Colorado River. A range is given rather than a single number because of the uncertainty about losses resulting from evaporation and upstream water rights for Colorado River area Indian tribes. However, for purposes of this report, the 460,000 acre feet figure is based on the MD receiving only 330,000 acre feet the low end of the range --from the Colorado River. The Colorado River Board's representative, Mr. Myron Holburt, has been asked to give his view, at the CPO Board meeting, of the amount of water that would be available to WD from the Colorado River after 1990. Table 2, below, surrmarized the pertinent facts about water availability from the State Water Project in its current, unfinished condition. %be figures are based on the UIR's 50-year survey of the effects of annual rainfall on the availability of State Project water. TABLE 2 PROTECTED AVAILABILITY OF WATER FROM THE STATE WATER PROJECT IF 'IHE PROTECT IS NOT CCMPLE17ED Water Available from Probable Precipitation the State Water Project Frequency Daring Conditions (million Acre Feet) The 50-year Period Critical Year 1.9 5-7 years 10-15% FirnV'Normal Year 2.3 21-25 years 40-50% Wet Year 2.8 21-25 years 40-50% Source: Mr. Gerry Vader, Department of Water Resources. 'Ilelephone interview, July 3, 1979. Table 3, below, lists the projections of imported water available under "fWTVnoxmal" conditions to the San Diego region by 5-year intervals, 1980-2000, based on the completion of the Central Arizona Project by 1990 and the non -completion of the State Water Project. 5 -A TABLE 3 IMPORTED WATER AVAILNBLE TO THE SAN DISCO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UNDER FIRM/NORMAL PRECIPITATION CONDITIONS IF THE STATE WATER PROJECT IS NDT COMPLETED Average Annual Pipeline Capacity Average Annual or Water Availability Shortfall Year (Acre Feet) (Acre Feet) 4 Pipelines 5 Pipelines Water availability governed by pipe- line capacity 1980 600,000 n/a 1985 600,000 860,000 Water availability governed by State Water Project 1990 460,000 460,000 114,160 1995 460,000 460,000 161,625 2000 460,000 460,000 207,675 Water Conservation and Wastewater Reclamation as Compensation for a Possible Water Supply Shortfall - The Director of the Department of Water Resources has requested the MID member agencies to save 400,000 acre feet of imported water each year by the year 2000 through wastewater reclamation and water conservation. Using the same percentage (34%) as illustrative of GIA's share, the CIA member agencies should, based on the EWR request, save 136,000 acre feet of water per year by the year 2000. The reclamation projects to be implemented as part of the San Diego Water Reuse Study plus other wastewater reclamation projects being studied in the region should yield approximately 44,000 acre feet of water each year by the year 2000. Assuming a 15 percent reduction in total projected water demand of 668,000 acre feet in the year 2000, there would be a savings of 100,200 acre feet in the San Diego region. A 15 percent reduction in water use through water e ,nervation was used by the MWD as representative of a reasonable conservation goal in its Report 929, entitled "Study of Alternative Methods of Meeting Forecasted Water Demands of San Diego County Water Authority". Give; a 15 percent reduction in im- ported water use through water conservation and successful canpletion of present wastewater reclamation plans, the CWA member agencies could save 144,200 acre feet of water each year by the year 2000. This water savings would also mean that water shortages in the summers of "firm/normal" years would not as significant as they would be without conservation efforts. 6 d I The table below summarizes information presented in the foregoing discussions of regional water demand, the availability of imported water, and the ef- fects of conservation and reclamation on demand for imported water. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE WATER AVAILABILITY AND WATER DEMAND IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION (All figures are for the year 2000) Projected C11A 1w,"er Demand 668,000 acre feet Water Conservation @ 15% 100,200 acre feet Reclaimed Wastewater Available 44,000 acre feet CWA Water Demand Adjusted for Water 523,800 acre feet Conservation and Reclamation Estimated Water Available to CWA in Firm/ 460,000 acre feet Normal Years if State Water Project is Not Completed Estimated Water Supply Shortfall in CWA 63,800 acre feet in FirmVormal Years if State Project is Not Completed COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PIPELINE NO. 5 The foregoing discussion of projected water demand, supply, and conservation describes the possible future water situation in the San Diego region in "average annual" terms. However, in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 5th pipeline, it is useful to understand the region's water demand/ supply relationship as it might exist on a monthly basis during any year beginning in 1990 when the total amount of available imported water could be 460,000 acre feet. Table 5 on the following page illustrates the monthly flow of water, both treated and raw, for any post-1990 year in which the total amount of avail- able imported water is 460,000 acre feet. The figures for Table 5 were supplied by the County Water Authority. It is important for the reader to know that the information in Table 5 is based on a QVA operating plan that calls for the four existing pipelines to be used in the following manner: Pipelines 1 & 2: Pipeline 3: Pipeline 4: Converted from raw water transmission to treated water transmission in 1980-85. Raw water transmission Treated water transmission The significance of this division among UP, four pipelines for raw and treated water delivery will be explained below. 7 TABLE 5 POSCIBLE MONTHLY WATER FLOWS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY IN 1990 BASED ON 460,000 ACRE FEET OF TOTAL ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Total Notes Line 1. 1976.76 Aqueduct 42.300 42,600 39,000 33,800 31,600 24,800 28,300 27,200 32.100 36,800 43.100 44,300 425.900 Total Water Demand by Flows (acre feet/month) 744 cfs 588 cfs Month from CWA Records Line 2: Monthly Flow in 45,684 46,008 42,120 36,504 34,128 26,784 30,564 29.376 34,668 39,744 46,548 47.844 460.000 Monthly demand from Line 1 Firm/Normal Yeai after 804 cfs 635 cfs increased proportionately to 1990 (CAP completed, total 460,000 acre feet l SWP incomplete) Line 3: Treated Water 20,100 20,244 18.533 16,062 15.016 11,785 13,448 12,925 15,254 17.487 20,481 21,051 202.400 Daily peaks may exceed (44%of Line 2) 354 cfs 280 cfs pipeline capacity unless pipeline 3 Is converted to treated water Line 4: Raw Water 25,583 25,764 23,587 20,442 19,112 14,999 17,116 16,451 19.414 22,256 26.067 26,793 257,600 Treated water In pipelines (56%of Line 2) 450 cfs 356 cfs 1 V north of Escondido Line 5: Raw Water 17.200 17,200 16,640 17,200 16,640 17,200 17,200 15,520 17.200 16.640 17,200 16,640 202,480 Pipeline 3 only available Capacity in Pipeline 3 280 cfs raw water pipeline after 1983. (four pipeline::n service) Line 6: Raw Water System 8,383 8,564 6,947 3,242 2,471 (2,200) (84) 930 2,214 5,616 8,867 10,152 57,536 Pipeline 5 ,s intended to Shortage in Firm -Normal 171 cfs 12.284) eliminate this shortage Year co Line 1 of Table 5 list:. the actual monthly flows of water through the Q4A system in 1975-76. Line 2 uses the 460,000 acre feet as the total water avaitilble for the year (e.g., 1990) and apportions it by month using the same proMrtions as existed in 1975-76. Lines 3 and 4 divide the figures (liven in Line 2 into treated (44%) and raw water (56%) percentages. Line 6 reports the most significant information contained in the table. It reveals that, with four pipelines in service, the CIA would have a 57,000 acre feet deficiency in raw water transmission capacity. As might be expected, the four months experiencing the greatest shortages are May through August. This raw water shortage due to lack of transmission capability would probably affect significantly those agencies which depend totally on raw water and local filtration plants. These agencies are: City of Escondido, Poway MD, Ramona bWD and San Dieguito-Santa Fe Irrigation District. The other CWA member agencies either have connections to both raw and filtRered water pipelines or use water from filtered water pipelines exclusively. The CWA intends that the proposed 5th pipeline, with a design capacity of 500 cfs, would carry raw water along with pipeline 3 (280 cfs). Treated water would be carried by pipeline 4 (425 cfs)and, during 1980-85, pipe- lines 1 and 2 (180 cfs) would be converted to treated water delivery. As stated above, the figures presented in Table 5 are based on CWA's op- erating plan that puts all raw water delivery in pipeline 3 and uses pipe- lines 1, 2, and 4 for treated water delivery. The CPO staff has identified a possible alternative to the scenario pre- sented by the (IAA in Table 5. The staff's alternative suggests using pipe- line 4 instead of pipeline 3 for transmission of raw water. Pipeline 4 is larger than 3 and would enable the transmission of virtually all of the raw water needed to meet the raw water demands of GIA member agencies during water short (460,000 acre feet) years. Further, a sufficient amount of filtered water could be conveyed in pipelines 1, 2, and 3 to meet the fil- tered water demands of CWA member agencies during water short years. If this alternative is feasible, then an additional water shortage due to transmission capability would exist only in the peak water use month (shown as June in Table 5) and this additional shortage would be only about 600-700 acre feet, rather than the 57,386 acre feet shown in Table 5. Specifically, the figures are: peak month raw water demand of 26,793 acre feet and an ability to 'transmit 26,132 acre feet. The corresponding filtered water demand would be 20,481 acre feet (peak month) and an ability to transmit 28,284 acre feet. In response to a question about the feasibility of this alternative, the CIA informed CEO staff that, since the expansion of the treatment plant at Lake Skinner, pipeline 4, at 425 cfs, is the only one of the four pipe- lines with sufficient capacity to transmit the amount of treated water available from ti)e plant, that by converting pipeline 4 to raw water, the region would be merely substituting a treated water deficiency for a raw water deficiency (as in Table 5)'. Mr. Linden Burzell, the CWA representative, can address the feasibility of this alternative use of pipelines 3 and 4 during his presentation to the Board on October 15. lbe pn,sible atUukll water supply figure of 460,000 acre feet us«1 in this r(-,lx)rt could occur during about one-half of the years following 1990, the so-called "firm/normal" and "critical" (dry) years. F.Wen during these years, in the winter and spring months, the 5th pipeline could be used to bring in water for storage which can be used later during dry months. Assuming that pipeline 4 must be used for treated water transmission and Table 5) rather than vice - pipeline 3 for raw water delivery (as shown in versa, then the Sth pipeline would eliminate the deficiency illustrated in Line 6 of Table 5 and raw water transmission would provide additional raw water transmission capacity during the "wet" years which are also likely to occur, according to the DIR survey, about half the time. This additional transmission capacity would also be used for local storage of raw water which could be used during dry periods of "firm/normal" years. (In its presentation, the CIA will describe how arrangements would be made for the storage of water imported for later use, and which reservoirs would he most suitable to use for storage purposes.) This additional transmission capability is a significant contributing factor to the assessment of the Sth pipeline's "cost-effectiveness" as a public capital investment. Further, it was concluded that if the assump- tions portrayed in Table 5 are correct (specifically, the assumption that pipeline 3, rather than pipeline 4, must be used for raw water), then the Sth pipeline would be used to same extent each year regardless of whether it is a "critical", "firmC/rx)rmal", or "wet" year. Based on the frequency Of use of the Sth pipeline, it is the staff's opinion that the 5th pipeline is a cost-effective expenditure of public funds. However, if all the assumptions in Table 5 are correct, except that pipe- line 4 can be used for raw water rather than pipeline 3, the proposed Sth Pipeline would be used only during caet years (approximately So% of ail years in a 50 year period). Based on this frequency of use, the information is inconclusive about the cost-effectiveness of the 5th pipeline. Allocation of Imported Water Supplies to CM Member Agencies in Water Short Years The impacts of future water shortages could vary by water agency, depending on the manner in which the limited water supply is allocated. The staff assessed the imiaacts of the potential shortages on each CIA member agency in two ways; Each agency was limited to its allocation of right* to purchase the imported water supply from the County Water Authority. Each water agency reduced imported water demand by the same percentage in order to make total annual water demand equal water supply during a water short ("firm/normal") year. Assuming there are only 460,000 acre feet of water available annually to the CWA, and using 1995 projected water demand, the results of these two approaches are summarized below; *According to State law, allocation of rights to purchase CIA water is based on the taxes and fees paid by members of the CIA as a percentage of total taxes and fees received by the CIA. 10 1. Allocation of the available imported water supply in 1995 on the basis of each water agency's 1978 allocation right (expresses] as a percen- tage) resulted in the five agencies with the most agriculture suffering a 758-99% shortfall and those three most urbanized agencies having a surplus of water available. As shown on Table 6, the other (NA member agencies generally suffer shortfalls in direct proportion to the amount of agricultural water users. 2. Each water agency would have to reduce demand by 26% in order to make the annual water demand in 1995 equal to the annual amount of water available in water short years. As a comparison, the MD uses an assunption of a 15 percent reduction in water demand as a reasonable illustration of the effects of water conser- vation on total demand. It is not yet clear what lifestyle changes would be necessary if water conservation required a 26 percent reduction in per capita water use rather than a 15 percent reduction. (The CPO-CWA water conservation program to be undertaken this year should give the area an indication of the impacts of various levels of conservation efforts.) It is known, however, that until 1968 the average annual per capita domestic water use in the region was less than .16 acre feet (one acre foot _ about 327,000 gallons), and that a 26 percent reduction from the current average annual domestic water use would result in per capita consumption of .15 acre feet. Obviously, changes would be necessary for the region's citizens and businesses to revert to the domestic water consumption patterns of the past, but the figures show it has been done before. As for agriculture, if the agricultural water use projected for 1995 were reduced by 26 percent, the water used would still be a 23 percent increase over the amount of agricultural water consumed in the region in 1978. It is not possible to conclude in detail what the impacts of such a change in water use characteristics would be. New plantings would certainly be re- duced, and additional water conservation efforts would be necessary for local farmers. But these factors would be impacting the agricultural base that could exist in 1995, which is projected to be larger than the current one. It is not possible, therefore, to suggest that a 26 percent reduction in agricultural water would r.y;essarily result in the elimination of agri- culture in the San. Diego rec-in. Impacts on Agriculture of a Water Shortage Due to the Nonccmpletion of the State Water Project and the Loss of Colorado River Water Entitlement Agriculture is the region's fourth largest economic sector, producing more than $325 million worth of crops and dairy products during 1978. Agricultural production ranks San Diego among the top twenty U. S. counties in dollar value of output. In 1978 agriculture employed 9,400 workers on 85,200 acres of land. In the CPO Board Report R-79 (May 21, 1971), the staff evaluated a range of consecriences associated with a water shortage due to not building the 5th 11 l TABLE 6 h717ER AVAILABILITY IF IMPORTED WATER IS DISPRIBUIF.D (N BASIS OF ALl=TTON OF RIGHTS TO FUfI ME IMPOKIED WATER (Based on 460,000 acre-feet water supply and projected water demand in 1995) Agencies With Surplus Water Agricultural Domestic Demand Water Dmand Acre Feet Per As t of Total Agency Surplus Capita/Per Year Water Dmmkand Helix 12t .18 .47t National City/South Bay 29% .16 .54% City of San Diego 21% .2 0 includes Del Mar Camp Pendleton 0 Agencies With 158-50t Shortfall Agricultural Water Demand Domestic Demand As t of Total Agency Shortfall Acre Feet,/Capita Water Demand Carlsbad KAI) 46% .30 19% Poway MWD M .19 28% Rincon del Diablo 19% .21 31% San Dieguito-Santa Fe 37% .31 16% Padre Dam 44% .18 3.3% Agencies With 50t-758 Shortfall Agricultural Water Dean. Domestic Demand As t of Total Agency Shortfall Acre Feet/Capita Water Dm%and San Marcos -Vista 55% .23 23% Oceanside 52% .22 18% Olivenhain 62% .3 26t Otay 69% .2 18% Escondido 68% .21 31% Fallbrook 68% .21 63Z Agencies With a 758-998 Shortfall Agricultural Water Denard Agency Dmestic Demand As t of Total i - Shortfall Acre Feet/Capita Water Lxmand i Del= Heights 96% .2 99t 1 Rainbow 83t .25 81t 1 Ana 81% .18 75t P Valley Center 89% .20 93% Yuima FWD 78t .20 87% 12 j I d I TABIF. 8 INDICATORS OF WfiICN CROPS ARF LIKIM T) BC AF?ECIF,D By -amrrm WATER sB7RTAms (1) Percentage (2) (7) of Ctoo Type Percentage of (5) (6) Potential Which Was Total Irrigated (3) (4) Effect Entitlement for Use of Irrigated Agricultural Water Use of Drip of Higher Rights of ?eciaimo_d Crop 'type in 1975 Acreage in 1975 Crops Requirements Irrigation Water Prices water District Wastewater Orchards 994 698 Citrus - + - - - Avocado tJhew plantings + + - - - jMature groves - + + - - RDW Crops 89% 28% Tanatoes + + + + + - Ornamentals + + + + + Strawberries - + +• - - Field Crops 1% 38 Field crops - - - - a (Col. 3) Less than 3 acre feet/acre/year (+) More than 4 acre feet/acre/year (-) Source: Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Part II - Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse p. 2-B2-4 (Col. 4) Drip irrigation can be effectively used (+) Drip irrigation cannot be effectively used (-) Marsh, Albert. "Drip Irrigation in California." California Agriculture, May, 1977. (Col. 5) Econanic Viability is not significantly affected by higher water prices (+) Ecanonic viability is significantly affected by higher water prices (-) Source: Tiersland, Tors. "Economic Impact of Agriculture: on San Diego County." Eccnanic Research Bureau of the San Diego Chanber of Connerce. (Col. 6) Substantial portion of crop is not grown in districts which exceed entitled water use (+) Substantial portion of crop is grown in districts which do exceed entitled, water use (-) Source: CEO staff analysis. (Col. 7) Crop is tolerant of secondarily treated wastewater in host cases (+) Crop is not tolerant of seomiarily treated wastewater in most cases (-) Source: Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Part II Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse p. 2-B2-3 �5 I t) DiLitlo,.ient ritlhts oC a sixici.fic water district to water WIX)rced by thr OnunLy Wator Authority. <� IIA(.:ntial for tow of wastewater withouL a(bxting proluctivity. A few other factors contribute to the impact of water shortages on agri- culture: 1. Unlike row crops, orchards are not annual crops which can skip a planting reason. Therefore, if a future water shortage appears inevitable, there will undoubtedly be a decrease in new plantings. 'Ibis opinion is corroborate,l by the experiences during the 1977 drought when new planting, were less than in previous, and subsequent years. 2. The majority of tartatoes, flowers and other row crops are grown in the coastal areas. ^t1ierefore, the land on which row crops are grown is subject to the greatest pressures for urbanization. On the contrary, many avocado orchards because they are planted on steep hillsides, are I ess likely to not be urbanized even if the orchards are eliminated. The major conclusions to be drawn from Table 8 and the foregoing con- siderations are that: 1. Row cropc such as tonatoes and flown farms should be the least affected by water shortages. ('however, water shortages and higher prices for avail- able water., in combination with other factors, may cause new crops to disappear in many parts of the region anyway.) 2. Avocado and citrus orchards should be the most significantly affected by water shortages. 3. Irrigated field crops would be affected by water shortages; however, only 1% of all field crops in the County are irrigated. 4. if water :shortages became caromonplace in future years there will be even greater pressure to urbanize or "lot split" acreage which has a water system in place that is no longer used for agricultural irri- gation. RICMRD J. HUC•! Executive Director 15 SYSTEM DI-,SCRIPTION O '11 H., %VnTl;It SIlPI'I,Y AQ11I`,D0Cf SYSTI?11 : KAIVINC. THE SAN DINOGO 1t1aClUN I At the present tuna, the ketropolitan Water District has :our pipelines with a total capacity of 885 efs providing service to the San Diego County Water Authority. Pipelines 1 and 2, which are joined by common, tunnels -and, there- fore, act as one pipeline, have a combined capacity of 180 cfs. These two pipelines are connected to the Colorado River Aqueduct at the west portal of San .iacinto 'funnel and carry untreated Colorado River water (see Figure 1). There is no connection between lake Skinner or the Skinner Treatment Plant facilities and Pipelines 1 and 2. Pipeline :3,. which begins at the terminus of the San Diego Canal at T,ake Skinner. has a design --opacity of 250 cfs; however, field test: indicate a capac•i(y of '2130 cfs. Pil)(Aine :3 is also connected to the hake Skinner outlet coi(luit manifold and the Skinner Treatment Plant effluent; Mus, Pipeline 3 is capable of transporting untreated water directly Iron, the San Diego ('anal or from bake Skinner, or of transporting; treated water from the Skinner Treatment Plant. Pipeline d also i)egins at the terminus of the San Diego Canal. The design capacity for service to the Authority is 380 cfs; however,. field tests indicate a capacity of approximately 425 cfs. wletropolitan's reservoir storage available for service to the CWA is provided by Fake Skinner, which has a capacity of 45, 000 acre feet. Of this amount, approximately 36, 500 acre feet is usable storage when service is being pro- vided through the Skinner 'Treatment Plant facilities. The existing Metropolitan treatment plant facility available to provide treated water service to the Authority is Skinner Treatment Plant No. I. located at I,ake Skinner. This plant has a capacity of 150 MGD, and is being; enlarged (1) 'file information provided in this description of the region's water supply aqueduct system was excerpted from Report 92P, "Study of Alternative Methods of Meeting Forecasted Water Demands of San Diego County \4ator Authority," published by the 1\ietropolitan Water District. TTv SAN DIEGO CANAL PIPELINES la 2 y; PROPOSED PIPELINE 5 LAKE SKINNER PIPELINE 4 SKINNER TREATMENT " PIPELINE 3 PLANT fAC/L/T/ES - ANERs10E COUNTY i7sr"bIESb'tS�i+Ti�'' DE LUZ HEIGHTS MW,O awEA5I0E COUNTY �' DEL/VERY POINTS y FALLaaooX \ FALLBROOK PUD k j \ OCEANSIDE BRANCH LINE I h RAINBOW ` 4 YUIMA , V Mwo. DIVERSION PIPELINE 4 `" '4WD , " STRUCTURE ALLEY +u CENTER "� 1i y '0 MWD EXISTING CROSSOVER PIPELINE y WTY OF r OCEANSIOE It BUENO COLORADO ' Mwo 1 PROPOSED i CROSSOVER PIPELINE R A f RINCON DEL DIABLO CARLSOAO M W D f , ✓� MWD. ESCONDIDO FIGURE 1 =RRTED °V n Cis+.. r Y.•1 SAN mwv, EGUITO "r ID P SANTA FE Io CITY, OF 6 DEL MAR POMERA06 P/PEL I NE CITY OF SAN DIEGO PIPELINE 3 AI C` CITYTY SOUTH DAY 10. CITY OF SAN DIEGO 2 _v RAMOI � -MW.O_ MWD P/PE INES I s 2 / RIO SAN DIEGO (.J M W.D. _ _f ti► HELIX - Lo. fr CL.r r-' 4 OTAY L A MESA µwo' SWEETWATER BRANCH LINE at the present tune to a vapaeity of 240 NIGI). It is anticipated that the work will he voiiiplc;ted and the enlarged plant placed in service during 19I10. Pipelinv a is presently carrying treated water; however, when the expansion of the Skinner 'Treatment Plant has been completed, it had been planned to use Pipeline 4 as the treated water line because the capacity of the expanded treatment plant will exceed the capacity of Pipeline 3. Pipeline 3 would then revert to an untreated water line. Metropolitan's Pipelines 1, 2, 3, and 4 extend south from the Lake Skinner area to,a delivery point 5. 9 + miles south of the Riverside -San Diego -County line; at which point Metropolitan's jurisdiction ends and the Authority's begins. San Diego County Water Authority The Authorityy's facilities consist primarily of the extension.of Pipelines 1, 2, 3, and 4 in two separate corridors. - Pipelines 1 and 2 in the east corridor, and Pipelines 3 and 4 in the west corridor. These corridors are joined north of llseondido by the 160 cfs Crossover. Pipeline which permits water from Pipelines 3 and 4 to be transferred to Pipelines 1 and 2. Pipelines 1 and 2, which have a combined capacity of 190 efpy south of the crossover inteveonnection, terminate at San Vicente Reservoir. The La Mesa - Sweetwater Branch Line, which is actually a continuation of Pipeline 2, extends from near the San Vicente Reservoir inlet to Sweetwater Reservoir located in the south portion of the county. The Authority's portions of Pipelines 1 and 2 are also joined by common tunnels and act as one pipeline. (See Figure 1) South of the delivery point where the Authority takes jurisdiction, Pipelines 3 and 4 have the same capacity as above that point; that is, 280 cfs and 425 cfs, respectively. About 12 miles south of the delivery point Pipelines 3 and 4 are joined by a Diversion Structure which provides the capability of transferring water from Pipeline 3 to Pipeline 4 and vice versa, in addition to being the point of beginning for the Crossover line. The Crossover line allows transmission of water from Pipelines 3 and 4 to Pipelines 1 and 2. The Diversion Structure was constructed with facilities on the influent chamber to accommodate a future Pipeline: 5. South of the Diversion Structure,, Pipeline 3 has an initial capacity of 235 cfs; however, the ca- pacity decreases as the pipeline continues south. Pipeline 3 continues to the southern portion of the county and terminates at Lower Otay Reservoir. Pipeline 4 south of the Diversion Structure has an initial capacity of 450 cfs, and this capacity also decreases as the pipeline continues south. Pipeline 4 did terminate at Miramar Reservoir, but fins been extended, as the Pomerado Pipeline, to the 'Tierrasanta section of the City of San Diego. Pipelines 3 and 4, although mostly in a common right-of-way, do not share any lacilities (except t11e Diversion structures and are operated separately. TIT V-111br-nnk-Oceanside Branch Line connects to pipelines 1 and 2 at a point 1. 5 1• miles southof the San Diego County Line on the Districts portion of these lines. While part of the Authority's system, this branch pipeline primarily serves only as a service line for the City of -Oceanside and the Fallbrook Public Utilities District, member agencies of the Authority. These facilities are also shown on Figure 1. No reservoir storage facilities are owned or operated by the Authority. All storage available to the Authority is owned and operated by the Authority's member agencies; however, the Authority has contracts to store water in various member agency reservoirs. There exists a total of 710, 000 acre feet of storage capacity at various reser- voirs within the Authority's service area. However, not all of this storage can be utilized in conjunction with the aqueducts because 365, 500 acre feet of it is in reservoirs that are supplied only by surface runoff. Of the re- maining 344, 500 acre feet of capacity which can be supplied water from pipelines, 245, 000 acre feet are concentrated in the southern half of the county in reservoirs that -can only be served by Pipelines 1 an_d.2. The rotmaining 09,.500 acre feet capacity is in smaller reservoirs which can be served by either Pipelines 3 and 4 or Pipelines 1 and 2; however, 56, 500 acre feet of this storage is in Lower Otay Reservoir located in the south portion of the county and is served only by Pipeline 3. It is -believed that many of these reservoirs are not utilized as fully as they might be. There are nine water treatment plants within the Authority's service area having a combined capacity of 276. 5 MGD. These treatment plants are owned and operated by the Authority's member agencies, but as with the reservoir storage, the Authority has agreements with some agencies for treatment of water for delivery to other agencies. Table 1 lists the existing plants, present design capacity, present peak capacity, and maximum ex- panded capacity, that is, the maximum capacity to which the existing,plant can be enlarged. If capacity greater than the maximum expanded capacity is required, construction of anew plant would be required. In addition to these nine existing plants, new treatment plants are being considered by Oceanside and by Fallbrook Public Utility District. The locations of these treatment plants are shown on Figure 1. It should be noted that several of these local water treatment plants provide a dual service. They treat water provided by Metropolitan and the Authority, and they also treat water obtained from local sources. Since the local supply varies so touch from year to year, the use of the treatment plants to treat such water likewise changes from ,year to year, and the amounts of water delivered to the.piants,from Metropolitan's system also changes, with large deliveries required in -years of reduced local water supply. TABLE 1 Water Treatment Plants Owned by Local Agencies in San Diego County Present Present Maximum Design Peak Expanded Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Plant Agency (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Levy Helix ID 53 7U "a0 Sweetwater National City, South Bay ID 24 30 80 Poway Poway M%VD 12 12 36 Ramona Ramona MWD 4 4 8 Alvarado City of San Diego 66 99 150 Miramar City of San Diego 50 80 136 Otay City of San Diego 12 24 30 San Dieguito San Dieguito MWD 18 27 40 'Escondido City of Escondido 3.1, 5 37,5 75 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN DIEGO PIPELINE NO. 5 The proposed 5th pipeline will convey raw (untreated) water from Lake Skinner in Southern Riverside County to the vicinity of Escondido. The new pipeline will have the same alignment as existing Pipeline No. 4 (see figure) and a new crossover line will parallel the existing crossover connection between Pipeline No. 4 and Pipelines No. 1 and No. 2 just north of Escondido. 2. The estimated cost of the 5th pipeline, including the new crossover line, an on-line hydroelectric plant, right-of-way acquisition, con- struction, and administration costs is: Metropolitan Water mstrict of $47, 550, 000 Southern California San 1)icgo County Water Authority 34, 695, 000 Estimated Total Cost: $82, 245, 000 The Metropolitan Water District will finance the 18-mile segment from Lake Skinner to 6 miles inside the San Diego County line, in- cluding a 3. 7 megawatt hydroelectric plant. The San Diego County Water Authority will finance the remaining 10. 5 miles of the 5th pipe- line and the new crossover line. 3. The table below presents information on the timing of the proposed 5th pipeline as it relates to assumed water use characteristics. ra.. �..... tt..., }1 r•��.mnMinnc .2 Acre Feet .17 Acre feet .2 Acre Feet Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita And Same Loss And Sane Loss Plus All That of Agriculture of Agriculture Is Needed By Because of High Due to High Agriculture Cost of Water Cost of Water 1. Date by Which the Fifth Pipeline Is Needed 1983 1987 1992 2. late ,by-Wnich the Full Capacity of the 5th Pipeline Would be Used 2002 202, —' 3. FGtimated Maximm ttrii>_er of People 2,800,000 3,300,000 3,800,000 Served — 6 DEPARTMEN I OF GEOGRAPHY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND IETTERS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO. CA 92182 July 24, 1979 (714)286.SQ'17 Supervisor Tom Hamilton Supervisor Roger Hedgecock Supervisor Jim Bates Supervisor Lucille Moore Supervisor Paul Eckert Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: As chairman of the county)s Planning Commission, I would like to bring to your attention the following report relating to the question of whether adequate water supplies will be available to San Diego County in the mid-19801s; that is, in the period following the completion of the Central Arizona Project. This report makes available for your reference water supply figures that have not previously been collected and presented in this type of summary format. In brief, there is reason to believe that in certain dry years at least, there could be a significant shortfall. Some of the recent media publicity about the San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) proposed fifth pipeline may have given the impression that, if built, it will "guarantee" adequate water supplies for the county in the 1980's. The five pipelines will, at best, only convey whatever water is available at the north end of the pipeline. Concern about the probable magnitude of future out -of -county water supplies has prompted me to attempt to quantify in more detail than I had previously the probable sources of supply for the county in the post-C.A.P. period. The figures that are generated are presented in Table 1. Table 1 can be summarized as follows. At present there are six possible sources of water for San Diego County in the mid-1980's: 1) storage of local run-off; 2) firm allocations out of the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) entitlement of 550,000 acre-feet (a.f.) of Colorado River water; 3) firm allocations out of IIWD's 2,011,500 a.f. of State Water Project (SWP) water; 4) non -guaranteed allocations out of MWD's 662,000 a.f. of supplemental Colorado River water if surplus water is declared to be available in the Colorado system; 5) water from local reclamation projects; and 6) extra S14P watev in MWD's allocation not needed by other MWD member agencies. The amounts of water from each of these sources that would be available under varying run-off conditions in California and the Colorado River basin are computed in the five columns on the right-hand side of the page. The assumptions behind the figures are given in the footnotes at the bottom. Both the figures and the assumptions have been checked recently with SDCWA and MWD spokesmen. THE CALIFOFNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE$ A -2- In brief, the SDCWA estimates that around 550,000 to 575,000 n.f. of water will be needed by its member agencies in 1985. In a wet year, with all SWP facilities built, there would be no trouble meeting this figure (Case 1 in Table 1). However, since all SWP facilities will undoubtedly not be built by 1985, the figures in Case 2 are more probable for a wet year. There would still be a small surplus. In an averaga year, based on SWP supplies deliverable to southern California at the presen. stage of SWP completeness (estimated by MWD to be about 1,100,000 a.f.), and assuming no surplus Colorado River water and average San piego County capturable run-off, a total entitled water supply of only 366,000 a.f. would be available in 1985 (Case 3). This represents a potential shortfall of about 200,000 a.f., and has been termed the "most likely scenario". Can such a shortfall be made up? The answer at this point appears to be "probably", and that MWD will make every effort to do so. If there is declared to be extra water in the Colorado River, there will be no problem. However, this has only occurred once in the 1970's. As an alternate option, if the M M has extra SWP water available that other member agencies are not using, they will make it available to the country. This is the most likely source of additional water under Case 3. It involves the assumed availability of an additional 200,000 a.f., but at present (1979) MWD believes they can provide this (under average run-off conditions) in 1985. A plan is also being discussed to "bank" water in the large Colorado River reservoirs. The "banking" plan appears to have at least two problems, however. First,there are serious legal complexities, and second, there is the question of where SDCWA will get the extra water it will need to put in the "bank". A related consideration is that adverse court decisions regarding Owens Valley water could cause the city of Los Angeles to need an extra 100,000 a.f. of MWD water. In a dry year in California, the situation becomes one of more concern. If only half the SWP allocation is deliverable under firm entitlements, but if there is extra water in the Colorado, the county will receive 382,400 a.f., leaving about 180,000 a.f. to be met by water not needed by other MWD agencies (Case 4). In a dry year in northern California, this supplemental source might be of questionable reliability. If there is no extra water in the Colorado (Case 5), the shortfall rises to perhaps over 300,000 a.f., or well over half the amount needed. It is even more questionable whether, in a dry year, this larger amount would be available from other districts. This "worst case scenario", then, could leave the county facing a severe water shortfall.* It might be noted that the expected need in 1990 is projected at over 600,000 a.f. The increase in possible shortfalls (if all SWP facilities are not available by that date) can easily be calculated. It is also * Ironically, in a very dry (drought) year, the supply available to SDCWA urban areas might increase somewhat, for in that case, domestic customers would receive preference over agricultural customers. However, this would occur only if northern California rivers were running at less than 50% of normal. -1 -3- noteworthy that the SDCWA does not anticipate any significant help from locally reclaimed water supplies, feeling that total amounts of reclaimed water are apt to be small and will be used mainly to create "live streams" and thus not be available to meet current needs. The implications of future dry years in northern California for the economy of the county, particularly for the agricultural and construction industry sectors, are clear. Since agricultzre and sub -divisions require about the same amount of water per acre, they need not be pitted against one anotner, but the effects on both should be studied, and possible mitigating measures planned out. Given the situation as described above, I would make the following recommendations to ,your Board: 1) Call on the SDCWA to indicate where the county has a reasonable assurance (given that no supply is absolutely "guaranteed") of getting the 550,000 - 600,000 a.f. of water needed in the post-1985 period, with special attention to the situation of dry years in northern California. 2) Call on the SDCWA and other appropriate agencies to devel,op,emergency conservation measures, perhaps patterned after Marin County, to cope with any possible shortages in water supplies. 3) Request county staff to report on what future rates of population growth and carrying capacity in the unincorporated portions of the county are reasonable and advisable, given the possibility of inadequate water supplies in the 1980's and 19901s. 4) Call on all appropriate officials to greatly intensify the development of wastewater reclamation facilities in the county, as a means of increasing local independence in water supplies. It is my hope, as I know it is yours, that SDCWA can keep these projected shortfalls in dry years from materializing, but if they should occur, then it is not too early,to begin making preparations for them. We'live in a semi -arid area, and the time may now be at hand when all county residents will have to begin treating this fact of life with more deference. Yours truly, 1-o"4. et< Philip R. Pryde, Ph.D. Chairman, San Diego County Planning Commission —T_ 4 TABLE 1 1985 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER SUPPLIES, UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS (all figures in acre-feet) CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 DCWA Wet year in Wet year in Normal year Wet in Colo. b Normal Colo. ' b as a whole West: whole West; in Colo. R.; dry in Cal.; dry in Cal.; Possible Used Need .% of all SWP present SWP present SWP present SWP present SWP ,. 1985 sources: 1978-79 1985 MWD; units built a units.only units only units only units only Local supply 145,000 140,000 140,000 30,000c 30,000 {O;OOb Firm MWD/Colo. ca. 110,000 110,000 110,000 1.10;000 110,000 110,000 Firm MWD/SWP ca. 120,000 402,300e 220,000E 220,000E 110,000 110,006' Extfa•M M/Colo. ca. 60,000 132,4009 132,400 0 132,400 0 Reclamation negligible negl.h negl.h negl.h negl.h begl.h Total firm supply: 435,000 550,000 200 784,700 602,400 360,000 382,000 �25 000 16%R (655,700 509;900 -� •- 294,000 + 311,900' 206;000)� 515,t000i Other MWD agencies' SWP eded: 0 0 ca. 200,000 ca. 160,000 -i- ca.316,000 A water available to SDCWA: 1 vailable: te (-) (-) r~� 2.00,000(?) 180,0000) (O�n Notes:, THIS ISM THIS ISL% a -That is,,excluding Sacramento Valley and Peripheral Canal projects "MOST "WORST b PROBABLE POSSIBLE - Assumes that one half the normal amount of firm SWP water is available CASE CASE e,SDCWA assumes that 30,000 a.f. is the average year local water yield SCENARIO" SCENARIO d MWD',s firm 550,000 a.f. times SDCWA's .20 share (see footnote "j") e MWD's firm 2,011,500 a.f. times SDC!dA's .20 share (see footnote f .20 times the presentlt deliverable 1,100,000 a.f. annually (MWD figure) g .20 times the 662,000 a.f. supplemental MWD allocation if available h SDCWA assumes that reclaimed water available to meet local existing needs will be negligible i Reflects recent updates of 1974 data in MWD Rpt #933 (which gives 525,000 a.f. as a 1985 estimate) j Assumes that in 1985, SDCWA will be entitled to 20% of MWD's supply, based on assessed valuations k These figures are based on SDCWA's present entitlement of 16% of 14WD's supply, and are given for comparison l Available to SDC14A if other MWD agencies do not need it. This amount, though large at present, will decrease in the future, and in dry years could be rather small, or even non-eaistant. I A - ' DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1979 TO: CITY COUNCIL 4 FROM: City Manager I 3 � t SUBJECT: CPO POSITION ON PIPELINE S Letter from San Diego County Water Authority dated November 30, 1979 In light of discussion scheduled on tonight's agenda relative to the subject item, the attached material is being forwarded for your review. J J. WAY NE DERNETZ City Manager JWD:ldg Att. •, .* . San Diego County Water Authority 2750 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, California 92103 (714) 297-3218 Honorable Dr. Ronald Packard Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carslbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Packard: November 30, 1979 John M Cranston, Chairman Paul K Algeri, VICe Chairman Roy W Lessard, Secretary Linden R Burzeli, General Manager and Chief Engineer Paul D Engstrand, General Counsel RE: CPO Position on Pipeline 5 Enclosed with this letter is a copy of Resolution- No. 79-✓;8 of the San Diego County Water Authority which was adopted on November 8, 1979. It determines the necessity for design and construction. of Pipeline 5 by the spring of 1983 and provides for a financing program. The need for the pipeline ilas been studied and reviewed at length and has been clearly established. Your staff report R-36, dated November 19, 1979, furnishes a good summary. Any further delay in making firm financial commitments to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California may prevent completion not only of the San Diego County portion of this pipeline but also of the Metropolitan portion of the line by the spring of 1983. The financial program contemplates the use of a combination of debt ($9,000,000) reserves and current revenue over a period of 15 years to fund the project. A copy of our financial projections is enclosed for your information. Financing this construction by longer term debt would substantially increase the total cost by reason of the increased interest charges. It would also require an election which would dangerously delay completion of construction. It is believed that this is one project, the cost of which need not be passed on to future generations. As you know, about 33% of the land area of San Diego County lies within the boundaries of the Authority, but 93.8% of the population resides there- in. Our Board unanimously approved Resolution No. 79-48. As elected offi- cials (11 of our Board members are elected officials of our member public agencies) and appointees of elected officials (23 of our Board members are appointed by the elected officials of our member public agencies), the Auth- ority attempts to represent the people within its boundaries in a sound and responsible manner. We fully understand your interest. Your staff has provided a good review. We would greatly appreciate your support of our Pipeline 5 project. MEMBER AGENCIES CITIES IRRIGATION DISTRICTS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS •Sueno Colorado •Poway •Oe1Mar •NahonarG+ty •Escono,do •O^eans�de •HPLx •sano(eouao 'Santa FP -South Bay •Faybrook -Car;bad •Rambow •Sa�Drcyo MILITARY RESERVATION -De Luz Heights •OL.Yrham -Ramona •R,ncondelD+ablo -Camp Perd'oton •Otay -valley Conte( -Padre Dam -Yu-ma I November 30, 1979 Page 2 We enclose another letter in which we set forth in more detail matters which were considered by the Board of the Authority in adopting the pro- cedure now contemplated. We are furnishing copies of this other letter to various public agencies because of certain statements which have appeared in the press. We hope that it will also assist you in your deliberations. If you desire any additional information, please contact me or Mr. Burzell. JMC:jmr Enclosures yo /� 61b' `in V Cranston //// Chairman Board of Directors • San Diego County Water Authority John M tgranston, Chairman Paul K AerlVice C a✓man Roy Lessard, Secretary 2750 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, California 92103 (714) 297-J218 Linden R Burzell, General Manager and Chief Engineer Paul D Engstrand, General Counsel November 30, 1979 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION On November S, 1979, the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Water Authority approved Pipeline 5 and a form of financing for its con- struction. This facility has been planned and studiad for five years and is needed now. it will take over three years to complete design and con- struction. A single member of the Board of Supervisors has publicly raised questions and made erroneous statements about this pipeline which deserve a reply. Three wholly separate questions arise in connection with the construction of this pipeline. I. The first question is: Is the pipeline needed? The answer is an uneq+tivocal yes. Your own staff report, R-36, dated November 19, 1979, pro- vides a good summary. The staff recommends supporting construction of the pipeline. This recommendation is fully supported by factual data. To the best of our knowledge, everyone who is experienced in operating water supply systems and who has studied Pipeline 5 recognizes the need for that facility with or without construction of additional facilities by the State of California. We need Pipeline 5 even if the state-wide system is not expanded (as it most definitely should be) at the same time. No responsible engineer has disputed this statement to our knowledge. Yet a very vocal member of the Board of Supervisors has publicly denied that the pipeline is needed. 14ost significantly, however, he has (A) never presented any factual engineering studies or analyses contrary to the conclu- sions reached by the Metropolitan rater District and the Water Authority, and (B) left the Comprehensive Planning Organization board of directors ueeting on October 15 when the need for the fifth pipeline was openly presented. The first question must therefore be answered: Yes, the pipeline is needed now without regard to whether additional water is obtained. We come therefore to the second question, II. Since the pipeline is needed, how shall it be financed? --MEMBER AGENCIES - MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS CITIES IRRIGATION DISTRICTS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT •Bueno Colorado -Poway -Del Mal 'National City -He',, -San D,Pqugo •Fanbrook •CaWbad -Rainbow •Escond-do •Oceana'dv -Santa fa -South Bdy •De Luz Heights -Ramona •SanD+eCo MILITARY RESERVATION •0 vennain •R,ncondPlD,ablo •Camp Pend vton •Olay -Valley Center Pads Dam •Yuima Two possible alternatives have been considered by the Authority: (1) a revenue bond issue, or (2) a bank loan on a short-term basis, coupled with current revenues including water charges. The first method would involve payment of interest for a long period of time; the second would significantly reduce interest payments because the debt would be repaid ir. a much shorter period. Originally, the Authority considered that a bond issue was the only available method. Further study by the Authority and financial consultants has indicated (A) that the second method is feasible, (B) that the cost to the average homeowner to repay the loan and pay the full cost of building the pipeline would be less than 50 cents per month, and (C) that this method will result in a great saving of interest and hence a lower cost to the residents of the Authority. In addi- tion, time will be saved and completion should be accomplished in the spring of 1983 in time for the pipeline to be available for use during the high summer demands that year. III. The third question is: Should the Authority call an election to determine which of the two methods of financing should be adopted? The supervisor to whom we have previously referred has stated in numerous newspaper articles and elsewhere that the Authority is "undemocratic" and has "shown contempt" for its residents by voting to follow the course which results in the cheaper cost. Such charges are completely unjustified. (1) Although this supervisor has alleged that the Authority Board "is not elected by the people," its members are selected by public officials who are themselves elected by the people of the agencies which they represent. The Councilof the City of San Diego, each of whose members is an elected offi- cial, by unanimous vote expressly approved the method of financing chosen and requested the City's representatives (who have approximately 50 percent of the voting power on the Authority Board) to approve this method of financing. In addition, 11 other directors of the Authority from water districts were elected by the people. The remaining directors were all selected aad appointed by elected officials of the cities and water districts which are member agen- cies of the Authority. Thus, the Authority's action is in accordance with the, expressed desires of officials, each of whom has been elected by the people of the agency which those officials represent. (2) Moreover, the voters have already approved construction of a portion of the pipeline. The dissenting supervisor either ignores this fact or does not realize that the Authority builds and pays for only approximately one- third of the fifth pipeline; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia (Metropolitan) builds and pays for the remaining two-thirds of the pipeline. (Metropolitan builds the pipeline from it.i reservoirs in Riverside County to a point six miles inside the Authority boundaries in San Diego County --approximately 22 miles; the Authority will build only the remaining portion of the line within its boundaries --approximately 11 miles --at a cost of about one-half of the cost which Metropolitan will pay.) On ,Tune 4, 1974, the voters of Metropolitan, including those residing within the boundaries of the Auth- ority, approved a revenue bond issue of Metropolitan to build new pipelines, including Metropolitan's portion of Pipeline 5. The voters of San Diego County expressly gave an affirmative vote on this bond issue. Metropolitan is now progressing towards the construction of its portion of the pipeline. (3) We have already noted that a revenue bond issue would cost the resi- dents of San Diego County additional sums in financing and interest charges. An additional expense will also be required if an election is called for. It is commor knowledge that all costs are escalating and costs of building pipe- lines are no exception. An election could not be held until June of 1980-- six months from now. If plans for the pipeline and the call for bids for its constructon are delayed six months, the cost of the line will of necessity be greater. At the current rate of escalation, the additional cost arising solely from the delay in holding the election would be at least G percent --and very likely more. To summarize this point, the pipeline is urgently needed as soon as pos-- sible to provide service to the Authority's existing agencies and existing customers; there is no excuse for delaying the constructon of the pipeline for an additional six months by calling for an election. In conclusion: Beginning over a year ago in 1978, the Authority and the Metropolitan [dater District finalized studies and prepared an Environmental Impact Report which set forth in detail why the pipeline was needed and what its effect upon this area would be. The Authority sent copies to many inter- ested agencies, and at the request of the Board of Supervisors extended the period for public discussion and reply for an additional two -month period. No significant problems were encountered in the environmental review which were not mitigated or otherwise resolved in the final plans. The only opposition came from those who appear to believe that limiting the water supply available to the people may aid their growth control plans. Despite this opposition, the Board of Supervisory approved the project. Nevertheless, one supervisor continues to oppose Pipeline 5 and as an appointed official of the Comprehen- sive Planning Organization makes specious arguments against it. The Authority is anxious to supply the directors of the Comprehensive Planning Organization and any other interested persons with nny additional in- formation which may be requested. We sincerely hope that the Comprehensive Planning Organization will take affirmative action to support the unanimous action of the San Diego County [dater Authority in its program for its early completion of Pipeline 5. Sincerely yours, SAN/.EGO COIN' MATER AUT ORITY JohnIT: Cranston Chairman, Board of Directors JMC: j:ur -A RESOLUTION NO. 79-48 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE NO. 5 AND FIXING THE MEANS FOR ITS FINANCING WHEREAS, it has been the policy of the SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY to acquire or construct the physical works needed to import the amount of water estimated to be reasonably required by each of its member agencies to meet their respective water demands; and 'WHEREAS, the METROPOLITM WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA has adopted a policy whereby it "is prepared, with its existing governmental powers, to provide its service area with adequate supplies of water to meet expanding and increasing needs in the years ahead"; and WHEREAS, the basic water delivery system of the Authority consists of the "First Aqueduct", comprised of Pipeline 1, constructed in 1947, and Pipe- line 2, constructed in 1952; the "Second Aqueduct", comprised of Pipeline 3, constructed in 1961, and Pipeline 4, constructed in 1971; and the "Crossover Aqueduct" near Escondido, constructed in 1964; and WHEREAS, between 1948 and 1978 the Authority delivered 6,316,800 acre feet of water to its member agencies which represented 81.4% of the total water produced by its member agencies for use by customers in their respective service areas; and WHEREAS, prior to 1976 all water delivered by the Authority through its transmission system was untreated, except for continuous chlorination; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Filtered Water Distribution Study, dated April 1974, the Authority adopted a policy whereby it planned to make treated 4 water available to its member agencies by coordinating the total available treatment capacity of member agencies, the purchase of treated water from MWD, and construction of additional physical works, as needed; and 1_� WHEREAS, Report Number 933 by MWD, Facilities Required to Meet Forecasted Water Demands of San Diego County Water Authority, dated December 1978, con- firmed previous studies by the Authority and verified the need for additional pipeline facilities (designated as Pipeline 5 therein) by 1983 in order to meet the projected demands for delivery of both treated and untreated water by MWD to the Authority and by the Authority to its member agencies; and WHEREAS, Report Number 934 by MtiD, Final Environmental Impact Report San t Diego Pipeline 5, dated January 1979, was certified and construction of MD's i portion of Pipeline 5 approved by MWD Board action on July 10, 1979; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 79-31, adopted July 12, 1979, the Authority Board certified and adopted said Final EIR for Pipeline 5, approved Pipeline 5 as t a project, and instructed the General Manager to present a plan to finance con- struction of the project; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the cost for the portion of Pipeline 5 to be constructed by the Authority should not exceed $23 million; and WHEREAS, after reviewing various alternative means for financing the! estimated cost, it is deemed to be in the best interests of the Authority and the customers of its member agencies that debt be incurred by contract pursuant l!�, to Section 8 of the County Water Authority Act; and + WHEREAS, it is deemed proper and feasible that such financing can be it 1ti a reasonably arranged; �x 1t NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Water Auth- ority hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1. Recitation Clauses. The statements contained in the preceding recitation clauses are hereby ' found and determined to be true and correct. Section 2. Ad Floc Committee. The Chairman is authorized and instructed to appoint three members of the I Board of Directors to serve with him as an ad hoc comm-.ttee to negotiate on behalf of the Board a form of contract pursuant to Section 8 of the County Water Authority Act which, after taking into account other available funds, will be adequate to finance the cost of constructing the Authority's portion of Pipeline 5. The Committee is authorized to utilize and direct members of the staff, the Financial Consultant, and Bond Counsel to assist them in any desired and reasonable manner. The Committee shall report its progress through the Finance and Insurance Committee and shall present to the Board for its consideration as soon as practical a recommended final form of contract acceptable to the selected lender. Section 3. Notification to Metropolitan Water. District. Thi Executive Secretary shall notify The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California of this action by mailing it a certified copy of this resolution. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California shall con - Sider this resolution to be a firm commitment by the Authority to construct its portion of Pipeline 5 in an expeditious and timely manner for completion during the spring of 1983 and a determination that it is now financially capable to fulfill said commitment. In addition, M14D shall consider this resolution as a firm request that MWD proceed with due and timely diligence to construct its portion of Pipeline 5 in order that Pipeline 5 may be completed and ready to provide service during the spring of 1983. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of November 1979. % P//v �14 irman, Board of Directors an Diego County Water Authority I i ATTEST: Acting Secreta Board cl-- i ry, f Directors r San Diego County Water Authority ' i t I, JANET RAVIART, F.xecative Secretary of the Board of Directors of SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, do h^reby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of said Resolution No. 79-48 of said Board and that the same has not been amended or repealed. I Da:.ad: November 30, 1979 Executive Secretary Board of Directors San Diego County Water Authority