C. D. D. - San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

all
5.4.:-· SERJ'.".R.DI:-.'.O
Ml,;:--JICIPI T
\\'ATER DIS'TR.JCT
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNJCIPAL WATER DISTIUCT
380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY
NOTICE AND AGENDA
6:30 p.m. Thursday, June 11, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
1.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Any person may address the Commission on matters within its jurisdiction.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.
3.
March 12, 2015, Advisory Conunission Meeting (Page 3)
PRESENTATIONS
A.
City of Redlands
B.
Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program (Page 9)
C.
2015 Drought Update (Page 39)
D.
California WaterFix and State Water Project Allocation (Page 40)
4.
ANNOUNCMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS
5.
FUTURE BUSINESS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Suggestions by Commissioners on Items for Policy Review
Enhanced InfrastructUl'e Financing DistTicts
Hydro-electric Projects
Riverside Highland Water Company Presentation
1/5 3
Meeting of the Advisory Commission on Water Policy
June 11, 2015
Page2
6.
NEXT MEETING DATE
A.
7.
Confirm next regular meeting date of September 10, 2015
ADJOURNMENT
Mission Statement
"It shall be the function of the Commission to study and make recommendations to the Board
on matters of water policy for the District. The Commission shall study such matters of water
policy as are submitted to it by the Board for Consideration and may study such other matters
of water policy as the Commission deems appropriate." SBVMWD Ordinance No. 61, July 6,
1987.
2/53
351
MINUTES
OF
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
March 12, 2015
Chairperson Corneille called the regular meeting of the Commissioners of the
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission on Water Policy to
order at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners and Alternates Present:
Darcy McNaboe, City of Grand Terrace
John James, City of Redlands
Nick Ferguson, City of Riverside
Ronald Coats, East Valley Water District
Frank LoGuidice, Fontana Union Water Company
Karen McHugh, Riverside-Highland Water Company
Denis Kidd, Riverside-Highland Water Company
Richard Corneille, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
David Raley, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
Alan Dyer, West Valley Water District
Benjamin Kelly, Western Heights Water Company
San Bernardino Valley Directors and Staff Present:
Steve Copelan, S.S. Valley Municipal Water District
Ed Killgore, S.S. Valley Municipal Water District
Gil Navarro, S.S. Valley Municipal Water District
Susan Longville, S.S. Valley Municipal Water District
Bob Tincher, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District
Wen Huang, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District
Lillian Hernandez, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District
Agencies and Consultants Present:
George Saunders, Riverside Highland Water Company
Carol James
John Mura, East Valley Water District
Kelly Malloy, East Valley Water District
Jean Cihigoyenetche, East Valley Water District
Daniel Cozad, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
Chris Diggs, City of Redlands
Cecelia Griego, City of Redlands
Chairperson Corneille led the pledge of allegiance. Chairperson Corneille announced that
there was a quorum so official business could take place. The meeting proceeded with the
following agenda items.
Agenda Item 1.
Public Comment.
Members of the public may address the
Commission on matters within its jurisdiction.
3/53
352
Chairperson Corneille invited any person who so desired to address the Commission.
Hearing none, the meeting proceeded with the published agenda items.
Agenda Item 2. Approval of Minutes of the December 11, 2014, meeting.
It was moved by Alan Dyer to approve the minutes of the December 11,
2014, meeting. It was seconded by Karen McHugh. The motion was
unanimously adopted with Benjamin Kelly abstaining.
Agenda Item 3. Presentations.
A. East Valley Water District's Recycled Water Project. John Mura, General Manager
East Valley Water District (EVWD), gave a presentation on their Recycled Water
Project. Two years ago EVWD undertook the effort to update their water and sewer
master plans. Unfortunately, that had not done that for 12 years. They are facing a
development boom and did not know what their infrastructure needs were. They found
out they had over $300 million of infrastructure needs that have been deferred that
need to be taken care of over the next 20 years. About $100 million was on the water
side and $200 million on the sewer side. They are currently a conveyance agency and
through a service agreement with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department (SBMWD), EVWD conveys all their wastewater flows to the City plant and
the City provides treatment on EVWD's behalf. EVWD collects the fees for collection
and treatment from their rate payers and submits the treatment based revenue to the
City on a monthly basis.
The results of that sewer master plan revealed that the capacity in some of their
pipelines was almost completely utilized. Their current capacity usage is 26,530
EDU's and they have only 220 dwelling units left. They serve the entire City of
Highland, a portion of the City of San Bernardino, and unincorporated pockets in the
County of San Bernardino. Those land use entities have already approved over 6,000
new units in their service area that are intended to be built within 3 to 7 years. So they
had a huge conflict in that they have no capacity, and a lot of new development
scheduled. They had to consider how they were going to serve their customers today
and into the future. Staff went to their Board to make policy decisions and they hired
RMC to complete a feasibility analysis of their wastewater treatment needs. The
feasibility study looked at how EVWD wanted to plan for the future and how were they
going to spend their money and developers' money to better serve the community for
the next 50 years. It came down to should they keep doing what they were currently
doing, just being a conveyance agency, improve their conveyance system and upsize
the pipes and continue to use San Bernardino as their sewer treatment provider, or
should EVWD embark on constructing their own recycled water facility. If they embark
on their own recycled water system they would have a new source of water supply,
improved local control, and reduced capital improvement project pipeline costs in the
future. They evaluated three options; (1) make system improvements and all flow
continues to San Bernardino, (2) construct a new facility that could handle all the new
demands and flows in their service area and continue to send some flows to San
Bernardino, or (3) design a program that would capture the entire flows of their District,
treat, and then recharge that water.
4/53
353
When they did the analysis, it became obvious to them they needed to construct a new
facility. They found they could lower the cost for the development community as well.
They considered various locations within their District and decided on the Del Rosa
Avenue location because they would have more gravity flow. They then considered
how much gravity flow they could use and what would they do with the water once it
was treated. The answer was recharging the treated wastewater into the Bunker Hill
Basin. The Del Rosa location put the water closer to the recharge basins in Redlands
just east of Alabama or for a habitat restoration project, which would reduce their
pipeline cost to get it to the basins. The Del Rosa property is just under 19 acres of
land. The concept is to build the treatment facility on the east side of Del Rosa
Avenue and use the west side to construct a learning center, active recharge ponds,
and make it into a community resource for the local schools and colleges. They could
have classrooms for environmental learning.
In considering recycled water, they evaluated having dual pipes, selling it for
commercial industrial use, and groundwater recharge.
Based on the cost for
infrastructure, it made most sense to sell it for commercial industrial use or for
recharge. They are considering constructing a membrane bioreactor (MBR) plant
which is the newest technology in wastewater treatment recycled water development.
If designed correctly it is odorless, you can't hear it, and you can wrap it architecturally
so people would not know what the business inside is. Mr. Mura and his Board toured
a couple MBR plants in the State of Washington and a small one in Anaheim next to
their City Hall.
Mr. Mura pointed out that this project will help the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as
well. The flows initially will go to the City of Redlands recharge basins while the HCP
is continuing to move forward with their approval process and as soon as it is
approved, a portion of the flow out of the plant will then go into that HCP project where
they are going to be constructing new habitat, both aquatic and riparian, and those
flows will be used to support that new habitat as well as also recharged into the basin
once that use is completed, so it provides multiple benefits. Mr. Mura pointed out the
potential economic impact it could have on the local economy by providing jobs among
other benefits. EVWD has been involved in a community outreach campaign. There
have been public meetings, print ads, bill inserts, newspaper articles, website content,
neighborhood meetings, and tours. They have completed their feasibility study and
amended it changing the location from Sterling to Del Rosa. They also will partner in
the HCP project and water will be made available for regional benefit. Their water
recycling implementation team has been established. They have a project manager,
an environmental firm, and legal counsel. They are working toward scoping the project
as it is still at a concept level. The next step is go to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) so they can ask for their latent authority to perform sewer
treatment be activated under the Section 31000 of the Water Code. They have a
special Board meeting on March 18th to submit a recommendation by way of a
resolution from their Board to send to LAFCO which is the first step of the LAFCO
process. LAFCO will take 6 to 8 months to process the application but in the interim
they are moving forward to scope the project. Mr. Mura stated that each day that the
project is delayed, 6 million gallons a day (mgd) of their rate payers flows is going to
5/53
354
waste and not beneficial use. The soonest the plant could be in operation is the 4th
quarter of 2017.
Cactus Basin Recharge Project. Wen Huang, Manager of Engineering, San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) provided a PowerPoint
presentation and brief background regarding SBVMWD's plan to facilitate recharge in
the Cactus Basins There are three off-basin project components required to
accommodate conveying water from the Devil Canyon Azusa Pipeline, in which
SBVMWD owns capacity, to the Cactus Basins.
These components include
modifications to the existing Lytle Creek Turnout, a new hydroelectric power plant at
WVWD's Roemer Water Treatment Plant, and a new pipeline connecting to the City of
Rialto's storm drain, which eventually connects other drainage facilities to the Cactus
Basins. In addition, there are also three major project components required for
improvements in the Cactus Basins, including a dual-purpose pipeline, water
conservation dams in Basins 3 and 3A, and basin berms in Basins 1 & 2. SBVMWD
has been working cooperatively with WVWD, City of Rialto, and San Bernardino
County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to carry out the project components. Upon
completion of the required facilities, up to 7,000 acre-feet of recharge can be
accommodated annually in Basins 1, 2, 3 and 3A initially. There are two
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved models that demonstrated the
proposed recharge would not adversely impact the design remedy for groundwater
contamination. The conclusion is anticipated to be further confirmed by a joint basin
model, once developed, which is led by SBVMWD in partnership with WVWD, the
Cities of Rialto and Colton, and UTC. Environmental documentation tiered off the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) work prepared by the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District (SBCFCD) is under way. It is anticipated that the facilities will be
ready for recharge in 2016.
B. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Daniel Cozad, General
Manager of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District gave an
introduction and overview presentation of the Act, showing why the legislation was
passed, what are its major components, what does it mean for the San Bernardino
Valley, and the concept of a Groundwater Sustainability Council. The legislation was
passed due to various reasons such as the drought and over pumping of unregulated
groundwater basins. The major components of the Act include; local regional control
by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), preparation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP), monitoring and mitigation, and funding authority for the GSA
The Act exempts some requirements for adjudicated basins, and allows for the State
to step in if no entity is managing the groundwater sustainably. Any group can elect to
become a GSA. GSPs cannot determine water rights. The Department of Water
Resources (DWR) will review the Plans to see if they conform to the substantive
requirements, but does not approve the Plans. The legislation allows charging fees to
develop and administer the GSP. The state can intervene if there is no GSA or
alternative plan by June 30, 2017, or no GSP by January 31, 2020 or January 31,
2022, depending on the groundwater basin type. The State can also intervene if the
GSP is inadequate or not being implemented in a way to achieve the sustainability
goal by January 31, 2022, or there is a long-term overdraft and a failure to implement a
Plan in an adequate manner, or after January 31, 2025, if there are significant
depletions of interconnected surface waters and there is a failure to implement a Plan
6/53
355
in an adequate manner. He reviewed the concept of a Groundwater Sustainability
Council as the GSA for the San Bernardino Valley, which would be groundwater
producer focused, it would be integrated with the Basin Technical Advisory Committee
(BTAC) and other groups, it would be Memorandum of Understanding based and
voluntary. It would allow the basin a mechanism to purchase additional entitlement
water that is available in wet years. The discussion is at the beginning stages of the
concept of how it may work and what people may think about the concept. The
concept outline was presented to LAFCO and they appear to be supportive of the idea.
Chairperson Corneille recommended that the Advisory Commission support the
development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Council for the
equitable, sustainable groundwater management in the San Bernardino Valley, which
complies with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014.
It was moved by Alan Dyer to support the development and implementation
of a Groundwater Sustainability Council for the equitable, sustainable
groundwater management in the San Bernardino Valley, which complies with
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. It was seconded by
Ron Coats. The motion was unanimously adopted.
C.
State Water Project Supplies/Water Management Plan. Bob Tincher reported that
the State Water Project Table A allocation was increased to 20 percent. He reviewed
the reservoir conditions and showed nine model runs that the DWR performs to
determine various scenarios and that the Table A allocation would be based on the
different scenarios. Given the best conditions the Table A allocation could go as high
as 66 percent and assuming the worst conditions that allocation could be as low as 21
percent. Mr. Tincher reviewed the 2015 Regional Water Management Plan statement.
The statement showed artificial recharge to date at 1,763 acre-feet and the imported
water supply portfolio balance at 38, 176 acre-feet. The Water Supply Contingency
Workgroup has begun to meet to discuss how to share in the shortage this year. Mr.
Tincher reviewed the 2015 Imported Water Delivery Schedule which showed the water
orders based on various Table A allocation amounts. The group is discussing how to
divide the imported resources for the year based on various allocation levels. They
have begun planning and once the delivery schedule is finalized, it will be brought back
to the Commission.
Agenda Item 4. Announcements by Commissioners. Chairman Corneille announced
there would be a Sustainability Festival at the University of Redlands on March 14 from
11 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. There will be booths and information on sustainability overall and
the admission is free. San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District will have a table
at the event.
Alan Dyer would like ideas on how to encourage more participation in the Commission.
Karen McHugh indicated that Riverside-Highland Water Company would like to make a
presentation. Chairman Corneille indicated they could present at the September meeting.
Agenda Item 5. Future Business
A.
Identify Items for Future Agendas
7/53
356
The next meeting date for the Advisory Commission on Water Policy was set for June 11,
2015, at 6:30 p.m.
Potential topics may include Watershed Conjunctive Use
Project/Habitat Restoration/Water Conservation, Hydro-electric Project, and a presentation
from the City of Redlands.
Agenda Item 6. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chairperson Corneille adjourned the meeting at 7:57
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lillian Hernandez
Board Secretary
8/53
alle
BERNARDINO
MUNIC IPALY
WATER DISTRlCT
DATE:
June 11 , 2015
TO:
Advisory Commission
FROM:
Douglas Headrick
SUBJECT:
Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program
Background
Proposition 84, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, authorized over $1.5 billion for water supply and water
quality projects (Chapter 2) throughout the State of California. The funding was allocated by
region with the Santa Ana [watershed] region being allocated $114 million under Chapter 2. So
far, the State has released funding under Prop 84 three times. The first round provided $13
million and the second round provided $16 million and $12 million (drought round) leaving a
balance of approximately $60 million after taking into account the administrative costs for the
Department of Water Resources.
The five regional water agencies that cover the watershed, Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD), .Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Orange County W ater District (OCWD), San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and Western Municipal Water District
(WMWD) decided to explore the possibility of developing one, or more, watershed-scale
projects that would provide benefits to the entire watershed and might only be fea sible given a
large grant or other funding. Realizing that this type of project could be interpreted to violate
certain terms of the 1969 Orange County Judgment such as,
9/53
"OCWD is enjoined and restrained from pumping, producing and
exporting or directly or indirectly causing water to flow from Upper to
Lower Area, except as to salvage of evapo-transporation losses ... "
the agencies took their desire to the Santa Ana River Watermaster Committee (Watermaster)
which is given the responsibility for administering the terms of the Orange County Judgment.
The Watermaster Committee, composed of representatives from each of the regional water
agencies except EMWD, supported the concept and added EMWD to the group. The collective
group of agencies was then named the "Santa Ana River Watermaster Action Team" (Action
Team). The Action Team solicited proposals from a select group of consulting firms and
chose Dudek after a formal evaluation process. They also asked Valley District to be the
contracting agency and to provide project administration. The costs have been divided equally
amongst the five agencies. This project was presented to the Advisory Commission in July
2013.
Since that time, the Action Team has worked collaboratively to develop a proposed, watershedscale project that generally consists of the following project elements:
1. Arundo removal and habitat creation/restoration projects for Santa Ana Sucker
($7.5 million grant request); savings 2,000 acre-feet per year (AFY): remove the
remaining 500 acres of arundo in the watershed which will save about 2,000 acre-feet
per year and construct about 3.5 miles of habitat for Santa Ana Sucker in order to obtain
permits for various water supply projects such as the Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana
River Basins Project.
2. Water use efficiency ($2 million grant request); savings 7,439 AFY: expansion of
the existing water use efficiency program that received grant funding during Proposition
84, Round 2 to provide 1$/SF to remove 1.5 million square feet of turf and provide funds
to help up to five (5) agencies switch to a water budget based rate structure.
3. Create water banks in the watershed ($49 million grant request); dry year yield
60,000 AFY: create a diversified, upstream water bank that can be used to store wet
year water and then pump that water during droughts, providing dry year yield.
Recommendation
Receive and File
10/53
Attachment
SARCCUP Presentation
11/53
SARCCUP
Santa Ana River Conservation & Conjunctive Use Program
A~~y Co~mission on Water Po~
~
N
'w
en
1
· ~~:..-
J~ne-tl,20 1 5
WATERSHED-SCALE COLLABORATION
-..
hL<.,d E."piqr.WAn.RK.EEPE.~. _
· -~ · ·
_... .-..
..
Inland Empire Urilir.es A9tncy
A. MUNIClr.U WATtll OISftlCf
lAJt Ct
~
w
'w
U'1
C
OU~TY
COASTKEEPER.
-···
* Provides watershed-wide regiOOa-1e-ollabcii:~atie·A
* Creates new water supply
0
0
10,439 AFY from Arundo and Turf remova l
60,000 AFY dry-year yield capacity
* Increases resiliency of water supply
* Improves natural environment
* Implements OWOW IRWMP
3
-::---....:
.
* Habitat Improvement: Arundo ~em-oval
Ana Sucker fish habitat restoration
~~ g.an-ta
* Water Use Efficiency: Turf Replacement, support
for conservation-based rates, outreach
* Groundwater Bank: Put & Take Facilities
4
* Boo acres of Arundo
removal
* 1 acre uses 4+ acre-feet of water
per year more water than native
habitat
* 3,000 afy of water conserved .
* Removal to be completed
within 5 years
5
N
W
L\o;slOll et1d • lOOIK'S<PIO Dump
CJ PAR Pr~
QPARE•=•~ 11coE2$0A1:1~P•oi""
Prado Basin and Upstream
wv ~~ e i--t::J
~_L_""_.s_,~_•_·1Atu
~""~D-u_P_Dn_1'IM
~·~_C:_-~'-o_cv_ro~s_11_w_11_~_n_a_""~~'lll»n
~-1-llll
~~"'-•d_•_a.
~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A-ru
~n-d_o~R-e~rn-o_v~a-l_P_r_o_j_e_c_t_A_r_e_a~s
W
S
---, L,$S1cn~~•1>11o
0
S.000
i!i.000
.........l:::::======fFffi
*
Santa Ana Sucker Habitat Restorati01=1
*
Restore 41 acres and create 18,250 linear feet of habitat
-.
-
___-
--...........
,_
...... ..-....,., ... ... .
·'
~e
Crree
le
-J";",.;
::"
~
11''\.c"i;l.........
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
I
I
11
I
___
Pfflt7L>ndllll
£UnclwlgN)
...,
POSTPROJECT
CONDITIONS
.
bist!n9
V~gttltion
11aw Upbnd
..
Vtgttlllon
__
_,...
Ptdlty t..>ndfill
(UOIN119tdl
*
*
*
Builds on existing programs & Prop
84 drought grant
1,500,000 ft 2 turf removal
Adds $1.oo/ft2 to MWD turf
replacement program
* 7,439 afy estimated water savings
*
Outreach program
10
*
Provide support for five agencies to
implement conservation-based rates
*
Includes experts on rate setting
methodologies
11
*
AF potential storage
capacity in SAR GW Basins
1,000,000
* Phase 1 of SAR CUP Water Bank:
180,000 af
* Build recharge and extraction
infrastructure to take advantage of
wet year extraordinary supply
*
Storage on use-side of major
earthquake faults
* All 5 agencies share equally in dry
year yield
12
.
Wa1cr T.U.lr
~Jt
1.2
1
t
1
I
o.8
o.6
I
Dry Year Yield
I
o Imported Water
D Recycled Wat er
Groundwater
• Surface Water
0.2
0
I
Wet Year
I
Average Year
I
Dry Year
Agency
GWR Basin
SBVMWD
Bunker Hill
60,000
20, 000
Chino
96,000
32,000
EMWD
San Jacinto
19,500
6,500
WMWD
Elsinore
4,500
1,500
OCWD
Orange County
0
0
180,000
60,000
IEUA
Storage (AF)
DYY{AFY)
(larger storage volume than Pyramid Lake)
~
Water Bank Storage Volumes - Phase
F~atut~·
·
-* 96,000 AF Storage ·capacity~
---
*
32,000 AFY New Dry-Year Yield
Production and exchanges
Construct
* 48-in. Baseline Feeder Extension
* Turnout & lnterties at San Sevaine Crk
* Devil Canyon-Azusa PL dual use turnout
near San Antonio Crk
*
Extraction wells - into South Pressure
Zone of RW system (for OCWD take)
16
*
-
Chino Basin exchanges can be paper-SW-E e~h~nges, wet ~
water put and takes, or exchanges through CDA.
* Institutional agreements will be required for puts & takes.
WET WATER EXCHANGE
BASELINE fEEOER EXTENSION IEU,l\·SBVMWO
...
"<z
...u><c:
DEVIL CANYON · Al\JSA Pl"EUNE SGVMIVO
%
RlAITOfEUlER (MWO)
GWR
PUT
...~
GWR
PUT
;.!
CHINO GROUNDWATER BASIN
DIRECT
TAKE
IEUARW
EXCHANGE
TAKE
t;
....=>
~
c..
~
"~
~
CHINO
OESALTER
EXCHANGE PUT OR TAKt
Features
*
*
AF Storage Capacity
20,000 AFY New Dry-Year Yield
60,000
Construct
* 5 Extraction Wells
* Transmission pipeline
* Expand Redlands PS
(add 20 cfs pump)
Features
* 19,500 AF Storage Capacity
* 6,500 AFY New Dry-Year Yield·
Construct
* Mountain Ave.
West Recharge Basin
* 3 Extraction Wells
Mounta.nAve. Nonn
Proposed RKllAr~ F'1C.11ty
.,..,··
'·,.., .
....
M1>1Snt:1 nAve
E~s:
Proposed Recharge Facluy
"
' EJJWD u
·~
.
...
Rl\NHJ:t4 ,,
.
Proposed Storm Water
Relum Pipeline ·Option 2
I
Features
* 4,500 AF Storage
* 1,500 AFY New Dry-Year
Yield
Construct
* 2 Dual Use Wells
(Injection and
Extraction)
Banks are Physically Connected &
Provide Yield to Lower Watershed
Chino Basin
(96,000 af)
I
- --
-
-Ir.
~
·
* SARRCUP Phase 1 Dry-Year Yielct: $~4e>f~
* 2015 Spot Market: $1,500/af
* MWD with allocation surcharge: $2,500/af
24
~- '' ~[:' '_ ;,- / '
-~
D
D
D
I
D
D
D
c...:>
"°'
c.n
c...:>
* Takes regional cooperation to the next
level
* Improves environment
* Reduces water demands
* Creates additional new water supply
* Approved by 5 agencies
Questions
alle
BERNARDINO
MUNI CIPALY
WATER DISTRICT
DATE:
June 11 , 2015
TO:
Advisory Commission
FROM:
Douglas Headrick
SUBJECT:
2015 Drought Update
On June 1, 2015 the first Statewide mandatory water use restrictions were enacted in California.
The Valley District Board conducted a press conference on that day to inform the public about
the drought and what they need to do. The presentation from that event will be provided to the
Advisory Commission.
Recommendation
Receive and File
39/53
c /\ l I i:: 0 R N I A
WATER J=IX
AlTCRtlAllVC 4A
APRIL 2015
nr I lh(\l r Cl (Ml 'NATrU
PROPOSED PROJECT CHAN GES
Reducing environmental impacts and improving operations
I
Ci>
0
'
\
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
'
Eliminate the pumping plants, permanent power lines, and
sediment basins at the northern Intakes to reduce visual and
air quality impacts and energy needs.
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
0
Reduce visual Impacts near the town of Hood.
0
Remove permanent tre1nsmlsslon lines near Stone Lakes
Wildlife Refuge to reduce environmental Impacts.
•
Reduce Impacts on Staten Island wildlife habitat by
removing the proposed tunnel launch facilities, large
reusable tunnel material storage areas, a barge landing
site, and high voltage transmission lines. This change also
reduces the overall construction time on Staten Island.
•
0
\
\
r ,. ,,. ' ,.
\
')
Eliminate large access pads at vent structures to reduce the
need for earth work
0
I
I
\
I
Eliminate environmental impactson ltallan Slough by
removing an underground siphon.
\
•
•
Gravity-fed operation improves tunnel operation and
maintenance, reduces power requirements at the northern
Intakes, and Improves long-term tunnel rellabllity by
reducing Internal pressure.
1
""·~·
Consolldate pumping plants previously proposed at the
three northern intakes to one combined pumping facility
located on existing state-owned property at Clifton Court
to reduce environmental and construction impacts.
o
Intake
Main Construction Shart
"' Vent Structure
-
North Tunnels
Main Tunnels
•
Forebays
•
Reus~ble Tvnnel Material Area
Plan Area
-
CAI lf:ORNIA NATURAL
!~!:SOURCES
AGENCY
I CAI II ORNIAWATERICIXCOM
c AL I F 0
RN I A
All[llllATIVE 4A
WATER
!=IX
- -- -
APRIL '.2015
PlllAMr ctr/\U WAHrl
REFINED TUNNEL O PTION A ND
INTAKE DESIGN
MAPPING A BETTER ROUTE l=ORWARD
In 2013, significant changes to the proposed water facilities and operations reduced the overall project
footprint by one-half of its original size to minimize community impacts. In 2014, the water facilities were
further refined to address engineering improvements and feedback received during the public comment period.
Since then, additional changes have been made to the proposed facilities. Changes to the project:
Reduce construction impacts on Delta
communities and the environment
Reduce power
requirements
Increase use of stateowned property
0
Allow for gravity now at
certain river conditions
These changes, along with others, will be available for formal review and comment in the Partially Recirculated Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) expected for release in June 2015.
ENGINEERING CHANGES TO INTAKE l=ACILITIES
-
-
- - - - 2014 PROPOSED DESIGN
In 2014, the three intakes were modified
to eliminate pumping plants and
permanent power lines from each intake
site, which reduced overall power needs.
2015 PROPOSED DESIGN
The three intakes have been further
refined to convert previously-proposed
concrete sedimentation basins into two
earthen bays. This change eliminates the
need to drive hundreds of piles (concrete
pillars) into the ground, reduces equipment
noise and truck trips, and significantly reduces the
volume of concrete needed to build the Intakes. This
modification isexpected to reduce the number of piles at
each intake site by about 75 percent.
v
CAI IFORNIA NA I UllAL l~FSOUflClS AGENCY
J
CAL 11-0flNIAWATERFIX COM
:. -., c A L I F 0 R N I A
r'' _,I WATER
FIX
----,'
ALTERN~TIVE •IA
APRIL 2015
R[LIAEIL[ CLEAN WATEn
A STATE-O F-THE-ART SOLUTIO N
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION
This prudent. realistic, science-driven, and achievable approach will fix California's aging water delivery system and protect
our economy and public safety. This approach responds to an unprecedented level of public review and comment.
The project covers five main areas:
®
WATER
SECURITY
6Af:.i
\!.:!f)
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION
r:J::::..
\JJ
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
f.:W SEISMIC
~ SAl=ETY
@)
Al=f:ORDABILITY
Upgrading our water delivery system would improve the natural direction of river flows, help native fish species migrate to and
from the ocean, guard against water supply disruptions, and ensure that local water projects like recycling and groundwater
recharge work better.
Protect our state'swater
sL1pplles from climate change
through water system upgrades
-0'
Improve river nows for
threatened lisl1 species
Ecosystem restoration
and protection
I '
, I '
2
t
150'
cvlcv
2 tunnelsup to 150' below ground
designed to protect California's
water supplies
3 new Intakes, each with 3,000 cubic-feet per
second (cfs) capacity. Average annual yield of
4.9 million acre-feet.
Protection against water supply disruptfon
from failure of aging levees due to sea-level
rise, earthquakes and flood events
Reinstate a more natural direction
of river flows in the South Delta by
46-160 percent
New criteria to protect spring
outflow to San Francisco Bay
Crlterici to protect Sacramento
River Oows and fish
v
CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
I
CALlr:ORNIAWATERFIX.COM
California Water Fix will include ~2. 100• acres of habitat restoration to mitigate for the construction and
operation of the new water facilities. These costs will be paid for exclusively by water agencies benefiting from
the project. Over the next 5 years, California will pursue more than 30,000 acres of critical D~lta restoration
under the California EcoRestore program, and pursuant to pre-existing regulatory requirements and various
enhancements to improve the overall health of the Delta. Proposition 1 funds and other state public dollars w ill
be directed exclusively for public benefits unassociated with any regulatory compliance responsibilit ies.
Improve habitat conditions along
live miles of important juvenile
salmon migration roul es
UP TO
Restore Udal and non-tidal
wetland habitat to sustain
habitat functions for native
wildlife, such as the giant
garter snake and salmon
Restore native riparian forest
and scrub to support habitat for
riverside species and improve
linkages for terrestrial and other
native species
1,000 ACRES
Improve connectivity among
existing patches of grassland
and other natural habitats
UP TO
GRASSLANDS
100 ACRES
RIPA RIAN H ABITAT PROTECTION
,..,2,100·
UP TO
TOTA L ACRES 01=
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
& PROTECTION
800 ACRES
OV ER
200 ACRES
RIPARIAN HABITAT RESTORATION
TIDAL & NON-TIDAL WETLA NDS
'Preliminary, subject to cha nae based on
envlt'Onmr:ntal review
For more details on the full scope of environmental enhancements and government agency responsibilities. please visit:
http://resources.ca.gov/caIlfornla_water_actlon_pla n
Thecost to fix California's primary water delivery system ls estimated at $14.9 billion - or about $5 a month for
urban water users - and will be paid for by public water agencies that rely on the supplies.
An Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Programwill guide real-time operations of
the system.
Our communities - farms, businesses. homes and economy depend upon reliable. affordable.
high·quality water supplies.
The time to act is row. Californians cannot
afford a broken and unreliable waler
delivery system.
For more information please visit callfornlawaterfix.com.
-
-
CALlr0RNIA NAI Ul~/\L
RESOUl~CES
AGENCY
I
CALlrORNl/IWATERl-IX COM
(
(· -). c A L I F 0 RN I A
~ WATER FIX
\ ./
AllCONATl'E 4A
APRIL 2015
RC LIABLE Cl f AN WAHR
PROTECTIN G FI SH
\
J _(
r
A new water conveyance system can
\_\
~
improve environmenta l flows over and above
current conditions in four major ways.
No other project fixes the problems caused
by the existing, inefficient system.
;
PROTECT FISH W ITH
STATE-OF-THE-ART
l=ISH SCREENS
tJr:.(
_,\ :Jrl<sbu
r-1
Courtla
.-----©- - - -
G'
L
a di
It.
.~ .
~
.------CD- - -NEw CRITERIA TO PROTECT
SPRING OUTl=LOW TO
SAN l=RANCISCO BAY
SACRAMENTO RIVER
l=LOWS PROTECTED
$1\CllAMENro lllY'R
Fl.OWS (CFS)
l"A~IMUM
DMA510NS
i\l.LOW£D (CFS) •
~~--~~-f.2
~~
IMPROVE FLEXIBILITY TO
AVOID WATER DIVERSIONS AT
LOCATIONS THAT HARM l=ISH
~
~
fu~l!l
~"Ti@
~
~--- ® ---­
MORE NATURAL DIRECTION
OF SOUTH DELTA F=LOWS
.
~
'f•C•U'f-4~\.'i(..] 4
' Depending on woter yco1type and fish presence
. -., CAL I FORNIA
All<At<ATIVE4A
('..:./ WATER l=IX
APRIL 2015
•• /
RELIAl\U CL[AU \'h\TCR
PROTECTING WATER SUPPLIES
Water flows from the Sierra Nevada mountains through the Sacramento·San Joaquin Delta (Delta), a critical link in
California's water supply network. The existine system is outdated, inefficient and in need of repair.
Hundreds of miles of dirt and rock levees are all that protect our state's water supplies from saltwater intrusion and
disruption. Without fixes to our water supply infrastructure, the Delta and the state's economy face threats:
~----- (1)
....---- @ --~ ~-- @ --~
-
Cl Whll CllANG
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLINE
SEISMIC RISI<
<~
KY
<~
• Sea levels continue to rise. putting
pressure on aging levees, some protectins
islands more than 20 feet below sea level.
• With warmer average temperatures
expected, more intense storms
and floods are likely, Increasing
pressure on dirt levees.
• Five active fault lines and many more
inactive faul t lines pose a threat to
our existing water delivery system.
• A major earthquake or stormcould cause
flooding on as many as 20 islands at once
and jeopardize statewide water supplies.
A SMALLER PROJECT COSTS MORE AND
WASTES WATER IN WET YEARS
• Existing operations cause reverse
river flows, trap and kill migrating
salmon, and have contributed to a
severe decline in delta smelt.
A 9,000 cr:s r:ACILITV WOULD PROVIDE AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL YIELD or: 4 .9 MILLION ACRE-r:EET
WET VEAR
The charts on the right depict the effectiveness of a 9,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) facility, which captures maximum water supplies
when all environmental flow improvements are met.
A 9,000 (cfs) fadlity is 40 percent smaller than the existing system
and provides the greatest complement to local water supply
projects by allowing the safe capture of water in wet and above·
normal years so that it can be stored and used in dry years.
A smaller facility would provide much less water. The proposed
9,000 cfs facility is the best option for:
• Reducing reverse flows and minimizing
the trapping of migrating fish
• Enhancing the ability to store surplus oulflows and reduce
diversions during cri tical fish migration periods
• Improving drinking water quality to meet public health standards
• Expanding groundwater recharge and recycling at the local level
• Protecting against water outages due to climate
change, flooding, and earthquakes
The cost of building the tunnels as a result of an emergency outage
would range anywhere from $3.6- $18.2 billion more than it would
cost to build them now.
ABOVE-NORMAL YEAR
The yields depicted account for climatechonse. which Is expected to cause
more intense storms oncl flood events.
C/\LlrnRNI/\ NAT URAL RESOURCES AGENCY
I
C/\LlrORNIAWATERl·IX COM
RESTOR ING THE SACRAMENTOSAN J OAQU IN DELTA ECOSYSTEM
California EcoRestore (EcoRestore) will accelerate and implement a comprehensive suite of habitat restoration actions
to support the long-term health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta's (Delta) nat ive fish and wildlife species.
3,500
ACRES
9,000
MANAGED W ETLANDS CREATED
for subsidence reversal ond
carbon management
ACRES
TIDAL & SUB·TIDAI. HABITAT RESTORATION
MORE THAN
30,000
17,500+
ACRES 01=
DELTA HABITAT
RESTORATION
& PROTECTION
ACRES
l'LOODPLAIN RESTORATION
1000+
Aquatic, riparian and upland
habitat projects: multl·benefit
()ood management projects
500+ ocres restored: planning,
permitting and financing secured
(or on additional 17,000 acres
Implement multiple ~sh
passage Improvement
projects in the Yolo
Bypass and other key
localfons
ACRES
PROPOSITION 1 & l E l=UNOED
RESTORATION PROJECTS
Coordinate witli
existing local Habitat
Conservation Plans and
Natural Community
Conservation Plans
(HCP/ NCCP)
Engagement of the Delta's local governments to determine community
supported restoration practices
•
Solicit and receive support from federal agencies and other partners
•
Support and engage in inter-agency and stakeholder joint venture
effortsaimed to recover Central Valley salmon and steelhead
populations
•
Coordinate with non-governmental organizations. academia, and other
stakeholders throughout California to address various stressors In the
Delta, such as Invasive species and methylmercury
Through the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta
Science Plan, leveragecollaboraLive Delta science
efforts sudi asU1e lnleragency Ecological Program
and InterimScienceAction Agenda, and undertake
Investigationsthat support adaptive management
and long· term understanding of Delta svstems.
•
Floodplain and tidal/sub-tidal habitat restoration required by existing
regulatory frameworks will be funded by state and federal water
contractors
•
Wetlands restored for subsidence reversal and carbon management
will be supported by the A B 32 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and
other sources
•
Various aquatic, riparian, and upland restoration and multi·benetit
flood management projects will be supported by Proposition 1 & lE
•
Additional projects will be supported by various local and federal
partners
v
CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
I
RESOURCES.CA.GOV
2015
Dutch SIOUgh
Krl!lhls Land~'O <Mfol Golo'J
2018
HUlough
Gool l•lond ot Rush Ranth
'?
?
-~,~- r
2017
_,_,_]
l'rolptcl Island
Wclloce Wtlt and 'TV• c~ 119 Crosstngs
LOWOI' Putoh Cfff1( Re<rllgrrnont
-----l
---------
~
(
lnlol<•
0
Tr ocy
'·•• - -
'll>"n<ll
DGllo l«Jbllot Ao>lorollon
O
Roodflldn Raslorallon
0
0
0
SW>ldonc• -
Tidol l~Jlorollon
C<Jtbon Slor<>ol. and 1-tig'olOIY lll'd Hollitol
llan1ors lo Fish Po•soge
For more information please visit: http://resources.ca.gov/callfornla_water_actlon. plan
CALIFORNIA NAl URAL RESOURCES AGENCY
I
l<ESOURCES.CA GOV
Frequently Aslced Questions
1. What is California WaterFix?
Califo rni a WaterFix is a proposal backed by t he administrations of Govern or
Edm und G. Brown Jr. and President Barack Obama to change how we divert
water from t he Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is a source of water for
two-thirds of California's population and one-third of its irrigated farm land. The
plan seeks to accomplish three primary goals that have long bedeviled state and
federal policymakers:
1. Allow for more natural flows in the Delta to benefit sa lmon, smelt, and other
species
2. Increase water supply reliability by giving the water projects that divert from
the Delta more flexibility to move water without harming fish
3. Guard the Delta water diversion point from natural disaster disruption, such
as earthquake or flood.
The proposa l involves construction of three new Intakes, each with a maximum
diversion capacity of 3,000 cubic feet per second, on the east bank of the
Sacrament o River between Clarksburg and Courtland in the north Delta. Each
intake site would employ state-of-the-art on-bank fish screens and, although the
diversions would be located outside of t he main range for delta and longfin
smelt, the fish screens would be designed to meet delta smelt criteria. Two 40foot-wide underground pipelines would carry the diverted water by gravity flow
approximately 30 miles to the expanded Clifton Court forebay where two
pumping plants wou ld be constructed to maintain optimal water levels in the
forebay for the existing State Water Project (SWP) and Centra l Va lley Project
(CVP) pumping facilities. Those existing pumps would lift t he water into the
canals t hat flow hundreds of mfles to supply San Joaquin Valley farms and cities
as far away as San Diego.
The North Delta intakes would be operated with the existing south Delta
pumping facilities as a "dual conveyance system" which would be a significant
upgrade from the existing system. The existing south Delta pumps pull water
from nearby channels in an unnatural direction, called "reverse fl ows," which can
draw fish off t heir migratory path into predator-rich channels.
Besides the environmental imperative to restore more natural flows to the Delta,
there are infrastructure security reasons to modernize the Delta water
conveyance system. The Delta's peat soil, composed of thousands of years'
worth of rotted tules and other wetland plants, oxidizes when dried and t illed.
48/53
Now many of the approximately 60 islands that make up the Delta - most are
farmed - are sunken as much as 20 feet below sea level in their centers. Should
an earthquake, flood, or some other force knock down those levees, the sunken
islands would fill up with water, drawing saltwater from San Francisco Bay
eastward toward the SWP and CVP south Delta water intakes. Water supplies
could be disrupted for weeks, months, or years, depending upon the extent of
the damage.
2. What is California EcoRestore?
The Delta hardly resembles the vibrant estuary of 200 years ago. Starting with
the Gold Rush, people drained the Delta's marshes. They also dredged and
straightened its meandering channels so that they could farm its rich, peat soil.
People built levees -- mounds of earth -- along the channels to hold back water,
and in many places, lined those channels with big rocks to protect the levees
from being scoured by water. In this way, the Delta lost not just its wetlands but
also the riverside forest that shaded and harbored native fish. California
EcoRestore is an initiative by state and federal water and wildlife agencies to
restore 30,000 acres of Delta wildlife habitat over the next four years. The types
of habitat targeted include tidal wetland, floodplain, and channel margin.
3. How do California WaterFix and California EcoRestore relate to the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan?
Federal and state water and wildlife agencies, in cooperation with the public
water districts that depend upon water delivered from the Delta, launched the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP} in 2007. The effort aimed to find a way to
accomplish dual goals:
• Enhance, protect and restore the Delta ecosystem and;
• Improve the reliability of water supplies for California.
After hundreds of public meetings and extensive analysis, a draft BDCP and
corresponding environmental analysis was released in December 2013 for public
review. The plan was a habitat conservation plan under Section 10 of the U.S.
Endangered Species Act and a natural community conservation plan (NCCP)
under the state Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. Regional habitat
conservation plans and NCCPs cover a wide range of species over a large
landscape, and include commitments and assurances for a specific permit term
(the BDCP requested a 50-year term). The draft BDCP included a preferred
alternative with the same basic water conveyance changes that are now
embodied in California WaterFix. The draft plan also included 145,000 acres of
protected or restored habitat related to meeting the requirements of the federal
and state laws for contributions to the recovery of the covered species in
conjunction with the assurances requested for the 50-year permit.
49/53
Review of thousands of public comments received on the draft BDCP and its
draft environmental impact documents raised considerable doubts as to
whether a Section 10/NCCP approach -- with a SO-year term -- is realistic, given
the uncertainty about future ecological conditions under climate change, as well
as a lack of scientific data about how the Delta's estuary might respond to
habitat restoration.
In April 2015, the principal backers of the BDCP -- the California Department of
Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -- announced a pivot in
their approach to accomplishing the dual goals of ecosystem restoration and
water supply reliability. They have chosen to study additional alternatives to
modernize the Delta's water conveyance system and achieve the dual goals
through implementation of the North Delta intakes and associated conveyance
facilities, including the tunnels. These "sub-alternatives" would achieve
compliance with the U.S. Endangered Species Act through the Section 7
consultation process and California Endangered Species Act through obtaining a
2081b incidental take permit and would not include long-term assurances for
water project operators. The California Department of Water Resources has
identified one of these sub-alternatives, Alternative 4A (California WaterFix), as
its proposed project.
At the same time, the state and federal governments, through California
EcoRestore, will pursue a more aggressive short-term schedule for habitat
restoration in the Delta - 30,000 acres launched over the next four years - so
that scientists may learn from the effort and ideally help native species begin to
recover.
The draft BDCP and associated Draft EIR/EIS are still "live" documents; they will
be referenced in several of the sub-alternatives evaluated in the Partially
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Those documents are scheduled for
public review in June 2015. The BDCP website is still available, and all the
documents are available there for continued public reference. There is a new
website [CaliforniaWaterFix.com] for information about specifically Alternative
4A, the new proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
4. What caused federal and state agencies to shift from a habitat conservation
plan?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife face great uncertainty about how
climate change will affect the recovery of native fish in the Delta. (The average
early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada has decreased by about 10 percent
during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage, and
50/53
there has been an observed rise in sea level of seven inches at the Golden Gate
over the past century.)
Through the extensive analysis of the draft BDCP, it became increasingly clear
that it would not be feasible for the state and federal governments and public
water agencies to put in place enough funding and water (in terms of water
available for Delta outflow to San Francisco Bay) to deal with all contingencies
that could affect species recovery over the next 50 years. In other words, the
terms of a SO-year permit would be too high, given uncertainty, for the state and
federal government and Delta water users to bear.
However, California's water supply for 25 million people remains vulnerable, as
do the existing risks to sensitive aquatic species without this upgrade. We cannot
in good conscience set aside these risks, so we are seeking to implement a
proposed project with a reduced long-term objective with more limited
authorizations under the federal and state endangered species acts to get this
project started.
We are also going to immediately move forward with a goal of starting 30,000
acres of fish and wildlife habitat restoration over the next four years. Separating
the habitat conservation from water conveyance allows for the evaluation of the
new intakes and pipelines on their merits, while habitat restoration can
immediately proceed with the objective of restoring the Delta ecosystem.
5. Will the changed permitting process require new environmental analysis?
What is the process and time line going forward?
The Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental EIS that analyzes this change is
expected in late June 2015. A new Notice of Intent will be published by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation in the Federal Register to announce the availability of the
Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. The alternatives in the original
Draft EIR/EIS remain the same, and they are still part of the required range of
alternatives to be considered in the Recirculated draft. Additional alternatives
will also be presented in the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft
EIS, including Alternative 4A, also known as California WaterFix, which is the new
CEQA proposed project. There will be a 45-day comment period associated with
the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS.
6. What habitat restoration efforts will be included as part of the mitigation for
California WaterFix?
California Water Fix will include approximately 2,100 acres of habitat restoration
to mitigate for the potential adverse impacts of the construction and operation
of the new water facilities. These costs will be paid for exclusively by water
agencies benefiting from the project.
51/53
7. How will California EcoRestore be funded?
California EcoRestore aims to break ground on - and in some cases complete - at
least 30,000 acres of habitat restoration in the next four years. Over this time
period, we expect costs to reach at least $300 million. Much of that will be
borne by the public water agencies that buy water from the SWP, operated by
the California Department of Water Resources, and the CVP, operated by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The public agencies that take delivery of water from
those two Delta-based projects are responsible for creation of 25,000 acres of
various kinds of habitat deemed beneficial to threatened and endangered native
fish.
Roughly $130 million from the state and federal water project contractors will be
needed to get moving on restoration in the next three or four years. It's likely
that the completion of all of these projects will add significantly to that
estimated cost. Their total obligation will be based on what's needed to finish
these projects and be in compliance with their regulatory obligations.
California Eco Restore must be realistic to succeed. Habitat restoration is
complicated and difficult. It involves negotiation, acquisition, permitting, design,
construction, engineering, collaboration with landowners and local interests,
mitigation, and financing. The Brown Administration committed to turning back
the clock on 30,000 acres of altered Delta landscape. The state has a big
involvement and firm commitment to making this happen for the sake of our
natural heritage, regardless of who funds individual projects.
Currently, the state plans to administer at least $75 million through Proposition
1 public funding over the next four years, including Delta restoration funds
directed to the Delta Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as
well as multi-benefit flood protection funds through the Department of Water
Resources.
AB 32 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund investments will likely provide between
$20 and $30 million, though the final amount will be determined through the
state budget process.
8. How will this change affect the overall cost of the preferred water conveyance
project?
The estimated $15 billion cost of the new intakes, pipelines, operation,
maintenance and mitigation will not change. All of those costs will be borne by
the public water agencies that depend upon the SWP and CVP.
9. Why can't California just reduce the amount of water it diverts from the Delta?
California must continue its substantial investments in local and regional projects
that involve conservation, recycling, stormwater capture, new connections
52/53
among suppliers, and other ways to improve the efficiency with which we use
water and build drought resilience. All of these actions have gained us at least
two million acre-feet in additional supply in the last 20 years, and that effort will
cont inue under the Governor's comprehensive California Water Action Plan:
http://resou rces. ca.gov/docs/ california water action plan/Final California Wa
ter Action Plan.pdf.
l<eeping pace w ith rising demand and creating a buffer of supply to cope with
the vagaries of climate change will require steady progress on using water more
efficiently, shoring up the reliability of existing supplies, and using new
techniques to expand supplies. To also replace water supply lost as Delta
deliveries decline wou ld significantly increase costs and leave local water
districts vu lnerabl e to shortages. Desalination and water recycling projects, for
exa mple, are more expensive per acre-foot than Ca lifornia WaterFi x and t ake
considerable time for planning, permitting, and implementation.
10. How w as t he capacity of California Water Fix chosen?
A facil ity capable of diverting up to 9,000 cubic feet per second of water from
the Sacramento River provides the greatest complement to local water supply
projects because it is the only project t hat ca n take fu ll advantage of water that
is available in w et and above-normal years. A smaller project costs more and
captures less supply.
A 9,000-cfs facility includes the following benefits:
• Reduce south Delta reverse river flows and minimize entrainment of fish
that spawn In or migrate through the Delta
• Enhance ability to store surplus outflows and redu ce diversions during
periods when fish are vulnerable
• Improve drinking water quality and ability of local water districts to meet
public health standards
• Support efforts to expand groundwater recharge and recycling to help
meet California's new mandate to bring groundwater basins into
sustainable patterns of pumping and recharge
• Enhance seismic protection with ability to provide a base supply while
Delta levees are repaired
Furthermore, operational redundancy t hrough two pipelines is important during
outage scenarios, such as periodic maintenance or a catastrophic event like an
earthqu ake. In addition, a single bore tunnel would require a tunnel size of 60
feet or more. A tunnel this large wou ld set an engineering precedent. It wou ld
also increase overall project risk due to increased equipment needs (more tunnel
boring machines, etc.), potential lea ks, added ground pressu re, and engineering
uncertainties t hat would need t o be t ested.
53/ 53