Presentation by Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager of the San Diego County Water Authority at Water Talks: A Bay-Delta Fix

1. Dennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager
February 20, 2013

2.  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

3.  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, power generation facilities,
pumping plants
 Began delivering water in 1967
 Serves North and South Bay Area, San Joaquin
Valley, Southern California
◦ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
 San Diego County Water Authority
 24 local San Diego County water agencies and cities

4. Bay Delta is
source of State Water Project Facilities
~25% of
San Diego
County’s
Water
Supply
MWD Water Facilities
Colorado River Aqueduct
Water Authority Facilities
4

5.  Listings of salmon, smelt,
and other species under
ESA have led to restrictions
on water exports
Delta smelt
 Loss of 586,000 acre-feet Central Valley
steelhead
of SWP and CVP supply in
an average water year
Longfin smelt
Chinook salmon
Green sturgeon
Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant 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 share of cost of
ecosystem restoration
 Water Authority has not endorsed a specific
conveyance project
◦ Information still needed to do cost-benefit analysis
◦ Unanswered question: what do we get for the
investment?
6

7.  Bay Delta Conservation Program (BDCP) is a joint
effort of state, federal government, water
contractors, and environmental stakeholders
◦ $240 million cost to develop plan
 BDCP is planning process:
◦ Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities
Conservation Plan under the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts
 BDCP is permitting process:
◦ Obtain Endangered Species Act and other permits to
build a new conveyance project and recover listed
species
 Goals:
◦ Provide State Water Project and Central Valley Project
water contractors with improved water supply reliability
◦ Restore Bay-Delta ecosystem
7

8.  Early 2012: California Natural Resources Agency
proposes a double-bore tunnel with a capacity of
15,000 cubic feet per second, and with five intakes
of 3,000 cfs capacity each
◦ Federal fisheries agencies issued “red flag” memos saying
the proposal could not be permitted under ESA
◦ The fisheries agencies proposed a 9,000 cfs tunnel and a
“decision tree” to determine ultimate yield of project after it
has been built, depending on progress toward biological
goals
8

9.  Governor Brown and Interior Secretary Salazar
announced preferred water conveyance project
◦ $14+ billion conveyance project; $3.6 billion ecosystem
◦ Twin tunnels, 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
 35 miles long; 35 feet in diameter
◦ Other facilities
◦ Full capacity only available in very wet years
 SWP and CVP contractors have committed to pay
$240 million to complete BDCP planning process
 Contractors have said they will pay $14+ billion for
tunnel project
 Return on $14+ billion investment: unknown
◦ “Decision Tree” concept will determine if project will produce
more or less water than no project
9

10. 50% 50% MWD
Central State Water
Valley Project
MWD
Project Contractors
Contractors
28 Other
State Water
Project
Contractors
10

11. Water Authority Pays About 25% of
MWD‟s Spending
40%
City of
San Diego
Water Authority
Member Agencies,
by Size of Financial
Payments
Carlsbad M.W.D. City of Del Mar City of Escondido Fallbrook P.U.D. Helix W.D. Lakeside W.D.
City of National City City of Oceanside Olivenhain M.W.D. Otay W.D. Padre Dam M.W.D. Camp Pendleton
City of Poway Rainbow M.W.D. Ramona M. W.D. Rincon Del Diable City of San Diego San Dieguito W.D.
Santa Fe I.D. South Bay I.D. Vallecitos W.D. Valley Center M.W.D. Vista I.D. Yuima M.W.D.
11

12.  Metropolitan Water District depends on water
sales revenues to pay >80% of its bills
◦ Yet, MWD‟s member agencies have no obligation to
buy any water from MWD
◦ MWD sales down 30% since 2007
◦ MWD doubled water rates 2006-2014
◦ MWD‟s member agencies plan to buy even less
water in the future from MWD
12

13. 13

14. Of up to 1.2 MAF of local supply plans,
MWD’s 2010 RUWMP only recognizes
103,000 AF
Example: Carlsbad Desalination Project
not accounted for by MWD

15.  MWD‟s 2013 Bay-Delta water supply: $640 million
 How MWD charges its member agencies to pay for
its Bay Delta water supplies disproportionately
impacts San Diego ratepayers
◦ MWD misallocates 80% of its Bay-Delta supply costs to its
transportation rate, rather than its water supply rate
 Water Authority is only MWD member agency that buys
transportation service from MWD to transport large amounts of
independent water supplies each year
 2013 overcharges to San Diego ratepayers in 2013: $57 million
◦ MWD plans to pay for billions of dollars in new Bay-Delta
supply costs through the same misallocation
 Without commitments from its member agencies, how will MWD
pay 25% or more of the Bay-Delta project?
15

16.  But they are unwilling to do so:
◦ “…to date, most of our board members have said „we‟re
not so sure about that.‟ And, most of our member
agencies have said „No. Thanks, but no thanks, because
we prefer this the way it is.‟”
◦ “Should people make those firm commitments going into
the future? So far, the member agencies have opted not
to. They prefer it the way it is.”
-- Excerpts of remarks by MWD General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger, speaking at an
August 10, 2010 public meeting in San Diego on MWD‟s draft 2010 Integrated
Resources Plan (IRP).
16

17.  Natural Resources Defense Council contacted
a variety of water agencies to seek support
for an alternative solution for the Bay Delta
◦ A conceptual alternative to the current proposed
project for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan called
the “Portfolio Approach”
◦ Portfolio Approach is designed to produce
comparable or better reliability at a lower cost
 Water Authority was a signatory, along with a
group of water agencies, on Jan. 16, 2013
letter asking that the NRDC alternative be
evaluated in the BDCP
17

18. Visit our website: SDCWA.org
sdcwa.org/mobile-news-app
@sdcwa
18