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
Top Related