HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-17; City Council; 21371; Bay Delta Conservation Plan UpdateCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
DEPT.DIRECrOR C .
CITYATTY. 'HfC
CITY MGR. ^^jtL^
AB# 21.371
MTG. 9-17-13
DEPT. PW-TRAN
BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To receive a presentation from a representative of the San Diego County Water Authority regarding the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
A representative from the San Diego County Water Authority will give an update on current and future
activities relating to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project" within the
meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment,
or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require
environmental review.
EXHIBITS:
None.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Skip Hammann 760-602-2730 skip.hammann@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CLERK USE.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
DENIED • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF •
WITHDRAWN • OTHER - SEE MINUTES
AMENDED • REPORT RECEIVED
Thomas V. Wornham, Chair, Board of Directors
Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager
September 17, 2013
Carlsbad City Council
1
State Water Project Facilities
Colorado River Aqueduct
Water Authority Facilities
MWD Water Facilities
2
State Water Project:
◦Feather River Project enacted in 1951
◦Ratified by voters in November 1960 -Burns-Porter Act; $1.5 billion bond
◦Key facilities: Oroville Dam, California Aqueduct
◦Began delivering water in 1967
◦Serves North and South Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Southern California
◦Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Is the largest contractor (50%)
San Diego is MWD’s largest customer (25%)
3
Federal Central Valley
Project
◦Built by federal government beginning in 1937
◦Flood control, navigation, water supply for agriculture and urban purposes, hydroelectric power
◦Key facilities: Shasta Dam, Friant Dam, Delta-Mendota Canal, Contra Costa Canal, Delta Cross Channel
◦Westlands Water District is the largest contractor
4
Banks Pumping Plant
State Water Project Chinook salmon
Central Valley
steelhead
Green sturgeon
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
5
Water Authority and San Diego business community support a Bay-Delta fix
◦Water Authority and San Diego business leaders worked together to pass 2009 legislation that established coequal goals:
Water Supply Reliability
Ecosystem Restoration
2014 water bond would provide public funding for ecosystem restoration
Water Authority board
◦Adopted Bay-Delta Policy Principles to guide review of a Delta fix
◦Has not endorsed a specific conveyance project
Water Authority has review and process for Board consideration later this year
6
Water Supply Reliability
◦Recognize, encourage and integrate local supplies and factor those into demands for Delta water
Ecosystem Restoration
◦Restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem (NCCP and HCP)
Finance and Funding
◦Encourage and support project that is cost-effective when compared with other water supply development options
◦Require firm commitments to pay by all parties through take-or-pay contracts or legal equivalent
Facilities
◦“Right-sized” facilities to match firm commitments to pay
Governance
◦Support continued state ownership and operation of the State Water Project as a public resource
7
Preferred Alternative
9,000 cfs, twin-tunnel project advocated by Natural Resources Agency and water contractors (e.g. MWD)
No Action Alternative
Status quo conveyance facilities and capacity
Delta Vision Foundation’s BDCP-Plus Strategy
5,000-6,000 cfs project, additional storage and integration with local supplies
Natural Resources Defense Council’s Portfolio
Alternative
Single tunnel of at least 3,000 cfs, additional south of Delta storage, levee improvements, 1 million acre-feet of additional local supplies and conservation
8
Return on $25 billion investment: unknown
◦Under “Decision Tree” process: spend the money, build project, operate it, then determine water yield
MWD depends on water sales revenues to pay
>80% of its bills:
◦Member agencies have no obligation to buy any
water from MWD
◦MWD sales down 30% since 2007 and agencies plan
to buy even less water in the future
◦What is the certainty all MWD member agencies will
pay their fair share of the Delta fix costs?
9
Based on BDCP’s Financing Chapter 8, who will bear the capital costs and debt obligations?
Answer: Unknown. BDCP (page 8-80) says:
◦“Details of the financing… are still being determined through on-going discussion between the state and federal governments and between the government, the state and federal water contractors and other interests.”
Source: BDCP Web site fact sheet Estimated
Funding to Implement the BDCP
10
Metropolitan Water District
Imperial Irrigation District Transfer
All American & Coachella Canal Lining
Local Surface Water
Groundwater
Conservation (existing and additional)
2013
1991
Total = 645 TAF
Recycled Water
297 TAF
46%
46
TAF
7%
21
TAF
3%
27 TAF
4%
80
TAF
13% 103 TAF
16%
550
TAF
95%
28 TAF
5%
2020
Total = 779 TAF
231 TAF
30% 48
TAF
6%
27 TAF
4%
44 TAF
6%
103 TAF
13% 80
TAF
10% 190 TAF
24%
56 TAF
7%
Seawater Desalination
Total = 578 TAF
TAF=Thousand Acre-
71 TAF
11%
11
1990: 672,800 acre-feet
2013: 297,000 acre-feet
2020: 231,000 acre-feet: 66% less than 1990
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1990 2013 2020
MWD purchases
Total Water Use
12
13
MWD
28 Other
State Water
Project
Contractors
MWD 50%
Central
Valley
Project
Contractors
50%
State Water
Project
Contractors
14
Water Authority Pays About 25% of MWD’s Spending
MWD Member Agencies
(FY 2012)
Anaheim Beverly Hills Burbank Calleguas Central Basin Compton
Eastern Foothill Fullerton Glendale Inland Empire Las Virgenes
Long Beach Los Angeles MWDOC*Pasadena San Diego San Fernando
San Marino Santa Ana Santa Monica Three Valleys Torrance Upper San Gabriel
West Basin Western
San Diego County Water Authority
15
Canal Water
Purchases*
<1%
IID Water
Purchases*
20%
MWD Exchange
Agreement Costs
28%
Total Cost = $294M
MWD Represents
80% of the
Cost of Water
Excludes MWD’s fixed RTS and CRC charges *Excludes the debt service for capital projects and recovery of settlement expenditures
MWD Supply
Costs
52%
16
$443
$890
22%
45%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2005 2014 $200 $400$/AF Untreated Tier 1 Rate
$331
$593
34%
67%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2005 2014 $200 $400$/AF MWD rate increase since 2005: 79%
Treated Tier 1 Rate
Range of Impacts $/AF Range of Impacts $/AF
MWD rate increase since 2005: 101%
Percentage Increase on 2014 MWD Rate Percentage Increase on 2014 MWD Rate
17
1.After accounting for local supply development, what is the real demand for water from the Delta?
2.What is the right-sized project to meet the demand?
3.How much water will we get for $25 billion?
“Decision Tree” process says build the project, operate it, then determine yield
4.Who is going to commit to pay for the project?
What happens if some water contractors are unable to pay their share? “Step-up” provisions? Property taxes?
5.Should MWD contractually commit to pay $6+ billion without contractual commitments from its member agencies to pay it?
Without such commitments, how will San Diego County businesses and ratepayers be protected from shouldering a disproportionate cost burden in the future?
18
Meeting Imported Water Committee/Board Activity
July 25, 2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of BDCP alternatives; provide input on policy questions to be addressed
Aug. 8, 2013 Special Meeting Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including description of alternatives
Aug. 22, 2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative project yield assumptions; projected costs
Sept. 12 , 2013 Special Meeting BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative
Sept. 26, 2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including responses to policy questions
Oct. 10, 2013 Special Meeting Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta Policy Principles
Oct. 24 2013 Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA comment letter
Nov. 21, 2013 Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; earliest opportunity to consider adopting position on BDCP alternative(s)
19
Support the Water Authority’s review and analysis of alternatives
Review results of Water Authority’s analysis before taking a formal position on any
proposal
20
21