Presentation given to Carlsbad City Council by San Diego County Water Authority Board Chair Thomas V. Wornham and Assistant General Manger Dennis Cushman on the current and future activities relating to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan

1. Thomas V. Wornham, Chair, Board of Directors
Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager
September 17, 2013
Carlsbad City Council
1

2. State Water Project Facilities
Colorado River Aqueduct
Water Authority Facilities
MWD Water Facilities
2

3.  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

4.  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

5. Banks Pumping Plant
State Water Project Chinook salmon
Central Valley
steelhead
Green sturgeon
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
5

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

11. 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

12.  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. 13

14. MWD
28 Other
State Water
Project
Contractors
MWD50%
Central
Valley
Project
Contractors
50%
State Water
Project
Contractors
14

15. 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

16. 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

17. $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

18. 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

19. 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

20.  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. 21