The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-05-16; Municipal Water District; 282; Presentation on Emergency Storage ProjectCARLSBAD rlNlClPAL WATER DISTRICT -9GENDA BILL AB # && TITLE: PRESENTATION ON EMERGENCY STORAGE MTG. s-i-& PROJECT (ESP) BY SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPT. WATER AUTHORITY STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an informational item and there is no staff recommendation. ITEM EXPLANATION: The water that Metropolitan Water District (MWD) delivers to San Diego County comes from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. The water .delivery system crosses three major earthquake faults: San Andres, San Jacinto and Elsinore. A major earthquake could interrupt all imported water deliveries to San Diego County. MWD estimates it would need up to six months to repair earthquake damage to aqueducts. Currently, the county is approximately 40,000 acre feet short of the emergency water capacity needed if the imported water pipelines were severed by an earthquake. Using population forecasts prepared by San Diego Association of Governments, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) estimates the shortfall will grow to approximately 58,800 acre feet by the year 2000 and 90,000 acre feet by the year 2030. The SDCWA has considered several possible water storage projects in San Diego County. They have narrowed these projects to four. Cost estimates range from $400 million to $800 million, depending upon project selection. The four project alternates are: 1. Moosa Canyon/Lake Hodges alternate 2. Olivenhain/Lake Hodges/San Vincente alternate 3. San Vincente alternate (stand alone) 4. San Vincente/San Vincente re-operation 2 u Staff has arranged for a San Diego County Water Authority staff 2 representative to make a presentation on the Emergency Storage ? 9-l Project (ESP) at this meeting. : E This presentation is being made to provide information on this a proposed project and to assist the Carlsbad Municipal Water 2 District board in selecting an alternate to recommend to the San d9 Diego County Water Authority. 2 FISCAL IMPACT: This is an informational item and there is no immediate financial impact. However, there will be future increases in p water costs to member agencies depending upon project selection and method of financing this project. 2 EXHIBITS E 8 1. Emergency Water Storage for San Diego County Attachment m ATTACHMENT # 1 ::y/,,x, ., , 3; , .: . . ,!; .,. : i “. ;. ’ Emergency Water Storage for San Diego County Sun Diego County Wdor Authority 1995 a Contents n w 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Executive Summary San Diego County% water supply The consequences of an imported water outage The solution: increased emergency water storage capacity in San Diego County The Emergency Water Storage Project to date The cost of increased emergency water storage capacity The advantages of jointly used facilities summary What’s next? Appendices l Questions and answers about emergency water storage in San Diego l Proposed principles of understanding for San Vicente Reservoir l Emergency Water Storage for San Diego County brochure 3 Executive Summary q San Diego County’s economy and quality of life depend on an adequate and reliable supply of imported water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The region’s water supply has been among the nation’s most reliable in the halfcentury since imported water first arrived locally. But San Diego’s imported water supply has grown less reliable in recent years. The San Diego County Water Authority is working with its member agencies to maintain the relia- bility of the region’s water through conservation and full development of local water supplies. In addition, the Authority is addressing the possibility that a natural disaster may cause a prolonged interruption of imported water deliveries. The aqueducts that deliver San Diego’s imported water cross three major earthquake faults and a flood-prone river. A major earthquake could cut off imported water deliveries for between two and six months. While repairs are made, the region would depend totally on water stored south of the pipeline breaks. This water could meet about 40 percent of normal demand projected for 2030. Such an enforced cutback would cost the region up to 25 percent of its total sales and 23 percent of its jobs, according to a study conducted for the Authority. More than half of the loss- es would occur in the City of San Diego. The Authority’s Emergency Water Storage Project (ESP) has analyzed several poten- tial solutions to the problem. The Authority found that the most feasible, cost-effective solution is to increase the amount of local reservoir storage set aside for emergency use. The ESP has narrowed the number of potential options to four. Each of these systems represents a combination of storage and delivery options. Each system involves a different cost, environmental impact and location, but all would provide about 90,100 acre-feet of emergency water storage capacity - thus eliminating the projected shortfall through 2030. The Authority is now conducting the required environmental review of the systems. The projects range in estimated cost from between $480 and $600 million. The Authority project offers the City of San Diego and the region several advantages. It represents the most efficient and cost-effective way to provide increased emergency water storage capacity for the region. The Authority would build the project; the City would retain ownership of its facilities that are enhanced at Authority expense. The draft environmental review documents will be available for public review and comment in summer 1995. Following public comment, the final documents will be completed and released before the Authority’s Board of Directors decides which alternative will be cho sen. The Authority then will pursue the pen-nits required for construction. 1 1 I I m P ” 1. D “de -/-- / t MAJOR WATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES J-L ~-WY 2 IN CALIFORNIA LEGEND 3 B STATE AOUEDUCT W LOCAL MUEWCl 1. San Diego County’s water supply n Agencies on the federal, state, regional and local levels are involved with San Diego’s imported water. The federal Bureau of Reclamation administers the Colorado River and the state Department of Water Resources runs the State Water Project. The water is imported to San Diego by the San Diego County Water Authority via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California facilities. The Authority then distributes the water to 23 retail water agencies, which in turn deliver it to individual consumers. The largest of the retail agencies is the City of San Diego, which uses about 38 percent of the Authority’s total deliveries. San Diego also relies on a small supply of “local” water, which results from r.ainfall and snowmelt that flows into local reservoirs and rivers and percolates into groundwater basins. The amount of local water varies widely from year to year. As such, water agencies cannot depend on it to meet demand on a continuing basis. (On average, the City of San Diego’s nine reservoirs produce about 40,000 acre-feet of local water annually. This compares to the City’s average annual water use of about 200,000 acre-feet.) Imported water has served San Diego well. The region’s water supply has been among the nation’s most reliable in the past half- century. StLU’lU AWtWCI RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY ESP RESERVCIR SITE ExIsTIw; LSERVOIR m 4 ESP GROUNDWATER 8ASlN , . ._. WATER lREATMEM PLANT I%! PIPEUNE IPL) NlJ.U.ER 0 - r SANeEGo ,.. 6.; , - , v iL: ;--, ~ I -..a --- .--.. a,.- -EC Q. I - -.j ._ UPPER OTAY I , _ OTAY .’ I S.Sk& __c-- -. MFXICO SAN DIEGO COUNTY ~~MFRCFNCV STORAGE PQn lcrr I _. _._-- ---.“I I I-AI IFORNIA I SYST 1. San Diego’s water supply [ConkI n But San Diego faces new challenges to its imported water sup- ply as the 21St century nears. Demands for water are increasing along with the region’s population, which is projected by SANDAG to grow 60 percent between 1990 and 2030. State Water Project deliveries have grown less reliable because of drought and stiffer environmental regulations (although a recent state-federal agree- ment stabilized the situation for the next three years). Increased demands from Arizona may eventually halve urban Southern California’s share of Colorado River water. The County Water Authority is acting to maintain San Diego’s reliable water supply. Locally, efforts center on fully developing water resources, promoting conservation, improving the regional water- delivery system and educating the public about water-related issues. But since most of the county’s water will continue to be imported, Authority officials also are active in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. 1. San Diego’s water supply [Contd l But San Diego faces new challenges to its imported water sup- ply as the 21St century nears. Demands for water are increasing along with the region’s population, which is projected by SANDAG to grow 60 percent between 1990 and 2030. State Water Project deliveries have grown less reliable because of drought and stiffer environmental regulations (although a recent state-federal agree- ment stabilized the situation for the next three years). Increased demands from Arizona may eventually halve urban Southern California’s share of Colorado River water. The County Water Authority is acting to maintain San Diego’s reliable water supply. Locally, efforts center on fully developing water resources, promoting conservation,’ improving the regional water- delivery system and educating the public about water-related issues. But since most of the county’s water will continue to be imported, Authority officials also are active in Sacramento and Washington, DC. The Authority is aware of another possible threat to the region’s water supply: a sudden, prolonged interruption of imported deliveries. A natural disaster such as an earthquake or flood or a severe, lengthy drought would most likely cause such an interrup- tion. San Diego County Population projec based on SANDAG Series 8 through 2OlA 3 2.5 2 R 1.5 1 0.5 0 i 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 year 1. San Diego’s water supply [ContJ n The Authority is aware of another possible threat to the region’s water supply: a sudden, prolonged interruption of imported deliveries. A natural disaster such as an earthquake or flood or a severe, lengthy drought would most likely cause such an interrup- tion. II 2. The consequences of an imported water outage U Everyone in San Diego would be affected if the facilities carry- ing the region’s imported water were severed by an earthquake or other natural disaster. Some people would be without,water service within 48 hours. In fact, since the earthquake damage to the aqueduct probably would occur in Riverside County or far northern San Diego County, water service could be disrupted while water demand would not be reduced because local delivery systems and infrastructure would remain largely undamaged. The problem primarily is one of geography. The aqueducts that deliver San Diego’s imported water cross three major earthquake faultlines and a flood-prone river. MWD’s planning documents state that a major earthquake on either the San Andreas or San Jacinto fault would break the pipelines in numerous places, cutting urban Southern California off from imported water deliveries for up to six months. A major earthquake on the Elsinore fault would probably cause less damage, but still leave San Diego without imported water for at least two months. In addition, a major flood on the San Luis Rey River could interrupt the region’s imported water deliveries for up to two months. A long, severe drought could cause a similar disruption. - Total annual sales = $99 billion Annual sales for 2015 in 1993 dollars. Impacts assumes 40% retail water delivery for 6 months. 2. The consequences IContJ n While repairs are made, the region would depend totally on water stored south of the pipeline breaks. The Authority estimates this water could meet about 40 percent of normal demand for up to six months. An enforced water-use reduction of this magnitude would cost the region up to 25 percent of its total sales and 23 per- cent of its jobs, according to research conducted by CIC Research for the Authority. About 55 percent of the losses would occur in the City of San Diego. (CIC used employment and production figures for 2015, as projected by SANDAG, and 1994 dollars.) The finance, construction and manufacturing sectors would feel much of the total economic impact. Food processors would lose 80 percent of sales and hotels 75 percent. Agriculture dependent on imported water likely would go out of business. Depending on when it occurred, a six-month outage could landscaping losses of more than $1.3 billion, primarily in residential areas. Countywide 1.8 million total jobs Total employment in2015. Impacts assumes 40% retail water delivery for 6 months. 3. The suution: increased eniergency water storage caDacity in San Diego County 4 The Water Authority has analyzed the vulnerability of the region’s imported water supply since 1992. The Emergency Water Storage Project evaluated the feasibility of several potential solu- tions to the problem. One solution involved development of the region’s local water resources through reclamation, groundwater and seawater desalination, combined with an extensive water conservation pro- gram, rather than increased storage capacity. But research indicat- ed that the cost of developing sufficient additional water in this manner was prohibitive. In fact, the Authority is pursuing the local water development and conservation effort simultaneously with the emergency storage process. Even with these measures in place and mandatory rationing invoked, however, the county still lacks the emergency water supply it needs to endure a six-month inter-r-up tion of its imported water supply without lasting economic and envi- ronmental damage. The project also assessed the feasibility of groundwater as an emergency water supply. A study by NBS Lowry of five major local groundwater basins found that they would be expensive compared to surface storage and would involve major institutional concerns. ,... . . . . . . . . . . . i’ . . :.&::..v ;i.i ...., ~~ -::TY- Supply shortfall - two-month design event 100000 I I I I 80000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 .:. y. . . :: :;. : .;:;... . . . . 1. ..:., j - :. : . . . . i . . . :. ,; :;:..: -- .::.. : <.-- -- / i :t:: : ‘i. :;.:. I 1990 2000 2010 year 2020 2030 3. The solution [Cont.1 n In addition, project staff reviewed surface storage sites throughout the county. They found surface storage to be far less expensive and more reliable in an emergency than groundwater basins. However, most of the capacity in major local reservoirs is des- ignated for day-today use, existing emergency storage and flood control, leaving little room for additional emergency storage capaci- ty. The region’s last major reservoir, Lake Sutherland, was complet- ed in 1953. The county’s population has grown from ‘700,000 to 2.6 million since then. (The Authority does not own or operate any reservoirs.) Moreover, almost all of the reservoirs were built before San Diego began importing water, so most are not connected to the Authority’s imported water pipelines. This would make it diflicult to deliver water around the county, as would prove necessary during an emergency. The Authority aims to correct this situation by increasing the amount of reservoir storage available for use during emergencies. Solutions still under consideration include new reservoirs and exist- ing facilities that would be expanded and/or reoperated to allocate more capacity for emergency storage. 4. The Emergency Water Storage Project to date n Emergency Water Storage Project staff initially reviewed 57 sites where water could be stored, either above or below ground, for emergency use. Criteria such as location, elevation and volume and environmental, operational and financial yardsticks were used to narrow the number of potential sites. After this review, project staff decided to combine the remain- ing sites in various combinations of storage and delivery options that would meet the county’s needs in the most cost-effective, envi- ronmentally sensitive fashion possible. Thirty-two of these systems were reviewed using more detailed biological, archaeological, land use, social, engineering and economic analyses. Project staff used a twostep process employing a computer- based decision analysis model to screen and rank the 32 altema- tives. The top 13 systems resulting from this process were announced in August 1993 and then subjected to further review. In April 1994, Authority staff unveiled a list of four systems for a final, rigorous environmental review. The four systems vary in terms of cost, environmental impacts and location, but each would provide approximately 90,100 acre-feet of emergency water storage capacity in the county. This figure, when combined with storage capacity already dedicated to emergency use, would meet the coun- ty’s projected emergency needs through 2030. Emergency storage systems 90,100 AF 2i,lOd IiF Moosa Canyon (New) 68,000 AF :. \ 18,000 j\F lake Hodges (Reop.1 20,000 AF San vicente (z:z San vKente gyp&) # .--- 22,lOdAF San Vicente 's:' I, l The four alternative emergency water storage systems vary in terms of cost, environmental impacts and location, but each would provide approximately 90,100 acre-feet of additional capacity. This figure, when combined with storage capacity already dedicated for emergency use, would meet the county’s projected emergency needs through 2030. l Reop. = redperation, which involves allocating more reservoir capacity for emergency storage and adding pipelines and pump sta- tions so water can be delivered as required in an emergency. l AF = acre-feet. One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, enough water to meet the household needs of two average families for one year. 4 The Emergency Water Storage Project to date ICont3 n ESP staff and consultants now are preparing the required fed- eral environmental impact statement (EIS) and state environmental impact report (EIR). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is oversee- ing the process. Public participation is crucial to the project’s success. The public outreach program includes presentations to community groups, government officials and media concerning the project, as well as open houses and workshops. At such gatherings, Authority representatives inform people about the project and take input from concerned citizens. The public outreach effort led to establishment of a 27-mem- ber citizen committee representing local environmental, business, recreational and other interests, as well as people living at or near storage sites under consideration. Committee members helped the Authority to eitablish standards used in the screening and ranking of the final 13 emergency storage alternatives. They also reviewed planning for recreation and environmental mitigation at the sites. 5.,The cost of increased emergency storage caltacity n INFORMATION FOR THIS SECTION STILLBEING DEVELOPED 6. The advantages of jointly used facilities n The most efficient and cost-effective way to provide increased emergency water storage capacity for the region is through an Authority-City of San Diego project that jointly uses facilities. The Authority would build the project; the City would retain ownership of its facilities that are enhanced. The advan- tages of the project include: ti The emergency water storage capacity available to the region would increase by 90,100 acre-feet, erasing the projected emergency storage capacity through 2030. ti The region would gain additional protection against economic damage caused by drought-induced water shortages. ti The Authority would build and operate a pipeline linking San Vicente Reservoir and the Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline would allow the Authority to better serve the region. In addition, it would enable the City to make the best use of its water in San Vicente and to better serve the North City area. Presently, the North City is served only by the Authority’s Second Aqueduct, not by any City reservoirs. 6.The advantages of jointly used facilities [Coutl a ti With jointly used facilities, the entire region would bear the cost of water maintained for emergency use. ti Real estate acquisition costs would be lessened because the City would retain ownership of San Vicente and Lake Hodges. ti The yield of inexpensive local water would increase at San Vicente and Lake Hodges. ti Regional water losses due to evaporation, leakage and siltation would be minimized and shared. ti The Authority and the City would share responsibility for flood control. ti Cumulative environmental impacts would be lessened. Environmental mitigation costs would be shared. ti Operations and maintenance costs would decrease because the Authority and the City w,ould share them. ti The 51-year-old San Vicente Dam would be renovated, deferring potentially expensive maintenance projects. ti Regional recreational opportunities would be enhanced. ti Fewer people would be relocated. - 7. Summary H 1. The region’s economic prosperity depends on imported water. 2. The region’s imported water supply is vulnerable to an emergency interruption due to earthquakes, flooding or severe, prolonged drought. Deliveries could be disrupted for up to six months. 3. A lengthy interruption of imported water deliveries would affect everyone in the region. Economic losses with 60 percent water-use reductions over six months could reach 25 percent of total sales and 23 percent of all jobs. 4. This potential problem can be alleviated by increasing the amount of capacity set aside in local reservoirs for emergency use. The increased capacity would be in new reservoirs, expanded or reoperated reservoirs, or a combination of the two. 7. Summary [Cont.1 U 5. Proceeding on these assumptions, the Authority has evaluated many options for providing increased emergency water storage capacity in the county. The Authority settled on four storage systems that now are undergoing an exhaustive environmental review. All of the systems include City of San Diego facilities. 6. Construction of an emergency storage system as envisioned by the Authority would cost approximately $600 million. ‘7. Joint use of facilities provides the best solution to the region’s emergency storage situation. compared to other potential solutions, a project providingjointly used facilities would: 0 Be the most economically feasible because of the shared costs. 0 Have the fewest environmental impacts. 0 Have the fewest social impacts (including residential relocations). , % : Y _-- -.* --i-q E .- Q1) E .- v =G aI3 .W P P, % E 0 zz z E: r? a3 E W 8. What’s next? m The draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement will be available for public review and comment in summer 1995. Public meetings and workshops will be sched- uled. After the public comment period concludes, the final EIR/EIS will be completed and released before the Authority’s Board of Directors decides which alternative will be chosen. The Authority then will pursue the required permits for con- struction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues the key permit, with concurrence of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. AD@endices n - Questions and answers about emergency water storage in San Diego County H Q uestion: Aren’t the region’s existing reservoirs sufficient to meet emergency storage needs? Answ er: Theoretically, the 24 local surface reservoirs have s&i- cient capacity - about 550,000 acre-feet - to meet all regional needs for about one year, given current demand. However, most of the reservoirs were constructed before San Diego began importing water in 1947. They are primarily in the eastern part of the county. As such, most reservoirs are not connected to the County Water Authority’s regional pipelines, making it difficult to move the water to some areas where it would be needed in an emergency. In addition, there is not way to ensure that a reservoir unconnect- ed to the aqueducts will contain sticient water for use when an emergency occurs. Q uestion: Who owns these reservoirs? Asw er: Twelve cities and water agencies - all Authority member agencies - own one or more of the reservoirs. The Authority neither owns nor operates any reservoirs. Q uestion: Do the county% reservoirs provide enough water to meet the region’s emergency storage needs? Asw er: All parts of the Authority’s service area need addi- tional emergency storage to meet needs during a six-month inter- ruption of imported water deliver- ies. Sweetwater, Helix and the city of San Diego’s Otay service area do not need additional storage during a twomonth outage. Escondido, Helix, Poway, vista and the City of San Diego’s Alvarado sex-ice area have almost enough capacity for a two-month interrup- tion. Within the limits of their unique geography and financial resources most member agencies either have met their storage needs or made a great effort to do so over the past halfcentury. These efforts have included: The attempt by the Authority and the City of San Diego to build a reservoir in Pam0 Valley. The City of San Diego’s con struction of San Vicente, Sutherland and Miramar reservoirs, as well as the Miramar treatment plant. Fallbrook’s numerous attempts since 1925 to build a reservoir on the Santa Margarita River. Fallbrook has battled legally to retain its Santa Margarita water rights; the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed these rights in 1966 over Justice Department objections. Fallbrook now is engaged in a groundwater storage project. l Oceanside’s attempt to build a reservoir in Gopher Canyon. It failed, but it did build an associated water treatment plant and a groundwater desalination plant that is scheduled for expansion. l Escondido’s construction of Lake Dixon, Lake Wohlford and a water treatment plant, as well as its aggressive water reclamation program. l Valley Center’s construction of Lake Turner and a large number of steel storage tanks. l Rainbow’s construction of a large number of steel storage tanks. l Poway’s construction of Lake Poway. Poway also has aggressive reclamation plans. l Ramona’s construction of Lake Ramona. In the pas& Ramona also has had a cooperative agreement with the City of San Diego for storage at Lake Sutherland. l Olivenhain has certified its EIR for a reservoir and water treatment plant. l Otay has begun construc- tion of a large concrete reservoir. Despite these efforts, however, the region remains short of the storage capacity it would need dur- ing an emergency. That shortfall will grow in the coming years unless water providers act now to close it Q uestion: How much addition- al emergency storage capacity does the Authority estimate that the San Diego region needs? nnsw er: The Authority esti- mates the region needs 90,100 acre-feet of additional emergency storage capacity in the twomonth scenario and 84,000 acre-feet in the six-month scenario. These amounts would cover the .project- ed shortfall through 2030. (The two-month scenario requires more capacity than the six-month does because in the latter a limited amount of water will be available from the Metropolitan Water District. In the twomonth sce- nario, San Diego is completely cut off from MWD facilities.) Q uestion: If the County Water Authority pays to make the capital improvements necessary to improve emergency water stooge capacity, what would the effect be on the region’s water rates? Asw er: The Authority esti- mates it will cost beteeen $450 and $550 million to construct a system that eliminates the region’s emer- gency storage shortfall through 2030. Such a project would increase the typical residential water bill by about $4 per month by between 2003 and 2008. The rate impact of the Authority project will be lessened if the project can be built in phas- es over several years. Q uestion: Can the count)r)s water agencies solve their own emergency storage problems with- out the Authority’s involvement? nnsw er: The county’s water agencies could solve their storage shortfalls independently of each other. But their ratepayers would pay much more than they would with the Authority’s regional solu- tion. Thanks to economies of scale, benefits of the Authority’s plan include: l Reduced operations and maintenance costs at storage facilities. l The provision of new and enhanced facilities at already existing reservoirs. l Increased local water production. l Reduced water losses. l Shared risks in such areas as flood control. l Reduced costs of purchasing imported water for emergency storage. In addition, the Authority will assume all costs for permitting, design and construction. Q uestion: In the agencies that have built and maintained their own reservoirs, are ratepayers rewarded for making such a long- term investment? Amw er: They are strongly . rewarded by their reservoirs. The average 60,000 acre-feet of annual yield from the reservoirs is worth $30 million per year (when com- pared to the cost of water that oth- erwise would have to be import- ed) . In addition, the county’s agencies received more than $5 million in MWD seasonal storage credits during the last full credits cycle. Residents served by agencies with adequate storage capacity have benefited over the years from the water supply security afforded by the reservoirs. Q uestion: Have staff from the member agencies and Authority negotiated a proposed agreement that would allow the Authority to improve existing reservoirs and use a portion of their capa&y for regional emergency storage? Asw er: Several agreements either have been negotiated or are being negotiated. San Vicente is included in three of the Authority’s final four emergency storage alternatives. City staff and Authority staff have developed a set of “Principles of Understanding” for the joint use of an expanded San Vicente. They still must develop a similar pact for the joint use of Lake Hodges, which is included in two of the final four alternatives. An agree- ment also may be negotiated for environmental mitigation credits in the Pam0 Valley. The Principles of Understanding, if accepted by the San Diego City Council and Authority Board of Directors, will allow refinements of design and cost estimates, a final evaluation of alternatives and the development and signing of a specific detailed agreement for both agencies. The Authority and Olivenhain have agreed upon a similar set of Principles of Understanding. The Authority must negotiate with the Santa Fe Irrigation District concerning Lake Hodges; Santa Fe has a con- tract with San Diego to take water from Hodges. Q uestion: All of the emergency storage systems under considera- tion by the Authority include faci.Ii- ties that would be jointly used with a member agency. What are the advantages of jointly used facili- ties? nnsw er: Joint use of facilities results in: A cost-effective, environmentally superior storage facility for the region. Increased local yield at exist ing reservoirs. New and improved recreationfacili ties. Enhanced flood control capacity. Substantial savings because evaporative losses are shared. Reduced operations and maintenance cost. In addition, the Authority gets: Q uestion: What led the Authority to conclude that its member agencies cannot afford to meet their emergency storage needs independently? Amw er: The reasons include: l Most member agencies need to finance many other pro jects besides increased stor age capacity: l Cities in particular face many fiscal demands and already have very tight bud gets. l The member agencies may need to bond for other improvement projects. l Most of the optimal storage sites have already been con vex-ted into reservoirs. Construction of reservoirs in the remaining sites will be expensive and will require extensive permitting. l The region’s reservoirs are located primarily in the east and south county areas, while most of the increased demand in recent years has been to l The region’s pipelines rely on gravity - water lows downhill from north to south but cannot be pumped in the opposite direction should the need arise. l Most of the county’s reser- voirs are not connected to the Authority’s regional pipeline system. l The most economically fea- sible reservoir sites already contain reservoirs. 37