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