HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-03; City Council; 21452; San Diego Water Authority WaterSupply PresentationCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 13
AB# 21.452 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY PRESENTATION
DEPT.DIRECTOR
MTG. 12-3-13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY PRESENTATION CITY ATTY. — —
DEPT. PW-UTIL
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY PRESENTATION CITY MGR. CP-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To receive a presentation from representatives ofthe San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
regarding "San Diego County Water Supply: Improving Reliability and Long-Term Cost Certainty."
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Representatives from the San Diego County Water Authority will give an update on desalination, the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) rate case, and local water supplies.
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: Wendy Chambers 760-438-2722; wendy.chambers@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WITHDRAWN • OTHER - SEE MINUTES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 •
Council received the presentation.
Thomas V. Wornham, Chair, Board of Directors
Maureen Stapleton, General Manager
December 3, 2013
City of Carlsbad
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%
3
Water purchases & treatment
CIP Expenditures
Debt service
Operating departments
Hodges operations
Equipment replacement
Other expenditures
$700,474 49%
$321,129 23%
$280,394 20%
$87,715 6%
$6,052 <1%
$1,220 <1%
$20,449 1%
$1,417,434 100%
Water Purchases
and Treatment CIP Debt Service
23% 49% 20%
Three categories account for 92% of the total budget:
4
Canal Water
Purchases*
<1%
IID Water
Purchases*
20%
MWD Exchange
Agreement Costs
28%
Total Cost = $294M
MWD Represents
80% of the
Cost of Water
6
Excludes MWD’s fixed RTS and CRC charges *Excludes the debt service for capital projects and recovery of settlement expenditures
MWD Supply
Costs
52%
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2004 LRFP High Rate Forecast
2004 LRFP Low Rate Forecast
MWD "Average" Rate
7
Charged for Transportation
Charged for Purchase of MWD Water 8
< 2003 2003>
System
Access
Rate
Power
Rate
Water
Stewardship
Rate
Water
Supply
Rate
Uniform
Water
Rate
MWD
System
Costs
Water
Supply
Costs
Water Supply Costs
MWD System Costs
MWD Must
Disaggregate
Its Costs
New Rate Structure Misallocates Water Supply
Costs to Transportation Charge
Water Authority effort to cut MWD’s 2013 average rate increase from recommended 7.5% to 5%
◦Saved San Diego ratepayers $5 million
Water Authority filed lawsuits challenging MWD’s 2011-2014 rates
◦Stakes in the litigation:
$57million in 2013
$1.3 billion to $2.1 billion (45 yrs)
◦Escrow account holds disputed payments
$135 million by end of 2013, plus interest
◦Trial scheduled for December 17th through 23rd
Appeals expected
9
10
$1.3
$0.5
$0.7
$4.6
$2.3
$0.1
$4.0
$0.4
$0.5
$0.8
$3.5
$1.0
$1.6
$9.4
$11.4
$0.8
-$57
$0.0
$0.0
$0.8 $0.3
$2.8
$0.7
$1.1
$5.1
$3.4
City of Anaheim
City of Beverly Hills
City of Burbank
Calleguas MWD
Central Basin MWD
City of Compton
Eastern MWD
Foothill MWD
City of Fullerton
City of Glendale
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Las Virgenes MWD
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
MWD of Orange County
City of Pasadena
San Diego County Water Authority
City of San Fernando
City of San Marino
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Monica
Three Valleys MWD
City of Torrance
Upper San Gabriel MWD
West Basin MWD
Western MWD
Undercharge Overcharge
Water Authority and San Diego business community support a Bay Delta fix
a San Diego coalition that supported 2009 legislation establishing co-equal goals
Water Supply Reliability
Ecosystem Restoration
Water Authority Board
◦Adopted Bay Delta Policy Principles to guide review of a Delta solution
◦Has not endorsed a specific project or solution
12
No water agency in California has undertaken a more rigorous independent evaluation of BDCP than the Water Authority
26 written board reports on BDCP and Delta issues since June 2011
Actively sought out diverse stakeholder perspectives on the BDCP
◦2011-2013 stakeholder panel presentations to the Board
California Natural Resources Agency, DWR, MWD, State and
Federal water contractors, Delta Protection Commission, Delta
Stewardship Council, State Water Resources Control Board, in-
Delta counties and interests, environmental, agricultural,
economists
13
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
14
1990: 672,800 acre-feet
2013: 297,000 acre-feet
2020: 231,000 acre-feet: 66% less than 1990
15
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1990 2013 2020
MWD purchases
Total Water Use
16
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
17
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.”
18
Source: BDCP Web site fact sheet Estimated
Funding to Implement the BDCP
MWD
28 Other
State Water
Project
Contractors
MWD
19
50%
Central
Valley
Project
Contractors
50%
State Water
Project
Contractors
20
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
Meeting Imported Water Committee/Board Activity
7/25/2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of BDCP alternatives; provide input on policy questions to be addressed √
8/8/2013 Special Meeting Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including description of alternatives √
8/22/2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative project yield assumptions; projected costs √
9/12/2013 Special Meeting BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative √
9/26/2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including yield review √
10/24/2013 Information: Review of technical analysis (cont.), including baselines; BDCP timeline and processes impacting implementation
11/14/2013 Special Meeting Preliminary review of conveyance facilities; demand and gap analysis
1/9/2014 Special Meeting Assessment of BDCP cost estimates; comparing public draft of EIR/EIS and administrative draft, including preliminary issue identification
1/23/2014 Economic and risk assessment of BDCP and alternatives to the Water Authority; evaluation of alternatives against Board Bay-Delta Policy and reliability objectives
2/13/2014 Special Meeting Information: identification of issues to be addressed in EIR/EIS comment letter; policy issue identification and discussion
2/27/2014 Action: approve EIR/EIS comment letter
3/27/2014 Discussion: Identify outstanding policy issues, including financial analysis, cost allocation, schedule for further policy recommendation
1.After accounting for local supply development, what is the real supply demand 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?
5.Should MWD contractually commit to pay $6+ billion without contractual commitments from its member agencies to pay it?
If not, how will San Diego County businesses & ratepayers be protected from shouldering a disproportionate cost burden in the future?
578 574 2.5
3.1
208
160
1.08 1.3 $112*
$188
$555*
$1259
1991 2013
San Diego County: 1991 vs. 2013
* 2013 dollars
Water use (thousand acre-feet)
Cost of water per acre-foot (full service
treated water rate)
Population (millions) Gross Domestic Product (billions)
Jobs (millions)
Gallons per capita daily use
23
24