2007 California Water Developments
description
Transcript of 2007 California Water Developments
CALAFCO 2007 Annual ConferenceCALAFCO 2007 Annual Conference
SUSTAINABILITYSUSTAINABILITYLAFCO’s Role in Meeting the ChallengeLAFCO’s Role in Meeting the Challenge
Wednesday, August 29, 2007Wednesday, August 29, 2007Hyatt Regency, SacramentoHyatt Regency, Sacramento
2007 California Water 2007 California Water DevelopmentsDevelopments
““Our Challenged Water Our Challenged Water Resources – A Serious Look Resources – A Serious Look
at Sustainability”at Sustainability”
Workshop Overview – Part IWorkshop Overview – Part I• Landmark decisions –
affecting water resources• Implications to Southern
California, Bay-Delta, source areas (Sierra Nevada)
• Potential Challenges and Strategies
• Climate change
Workshop Overview – Part IIWorkshop Overview – Part II• CKH guidance• Water determinations• Metrics used• Compatibility with
State/federal laws• Flexibility and Liability• Adaptive Management
Re-Cap of California HydrologyRe-Cap of California Hydrology• Two-thirds of
precipitation in the Sierra and north
• Two-thirds of demand in south
• Majority precipitation in November-March
• Majority of demand in March-November
Re-Cap of Re-Cap of CaliforniaCalifornia Hydrology Hydrology
• Allocation and timing challenge
• Convergence of Sacramento – San Joaquin rivers
• Delta sensitivity
Delta Delta SensitivitySensitivity
• Maintain Delta ecosystem health
• Delta smelt• Salmon/steelhead
migration• Water quality
objectives• Water deliveries
2007 Federal/State Events2007 Federal/State Events
• State Pumps shut down for 9 days in June• Federal Pumps shut down this summer• CVP-OCAP challenged
– USFWS Biological Opinion for Delta Smelt– NOAA Biological Opinion for Salmon/Steelhead
• DMC Intertie/SDIP challenged • Governor’s Delta Vision Committee (E.O. S-17-
6)
2007 Federal/State Events (cont.)2007 Federal/State Events (cont.)
• Bay-Delta Conservation Program/Plan• Revisit – Peripheral Canal• DWR – Drought Preparedness Workshops• California Water Plan Update 2009• CVRWQCB – understaffed by one-third
Other DevelopmentsOther Developments• Westlands Water District – 1 MAF entitlement
transfer
• Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) - Imperial Irrigation District/Coachella Valley Water District – Colorado River
• Ninth Circuit Court – Columbia River – take “recovery” into account on jeopardy determinations under the federal ESA
Legislative DevelopmentsLegislative Developments
• AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act
• SB 59 - Reliable Water Supply Bond Act– Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs
• AB 224 – Climate Change and Water Resource Protection Act– DWR to include climate change in all reports required
under the Water Code
Legislative Developments (cont.)Legislative Developments (cont.)
• SB 27 – Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, Clean Drinking Water, Water Supply Security and Environmental Improvement Act of 2008
• SB 732 – Prop 84 Bonds – fund projects related to water quality, flood control, waterway protection and climate change
• AB 1066 – Ocean Council – sea level rise information to OPR
• AB 1404 – joint water diversion and use reporting database
Current ConditionsCurrent Conditions
• “Critically Dry-Year” in the San Joaquin R. watershed• “Dry-Year” in the Sacramento R. watershed• Reservoir inflows low• Reservoir storages low – potential for low carryover• Depleted reservoir coldwater pools• Potential hydropower bypasses• Emergency purchases/transfers• Moratoriums on new services
Mid-August 2007 StatusMid-August 2007 StatusSTORAGE IN MAJOR RESERVOIRS IN THOUSAND OF ACRE-FEET
Reservoir Capacity 15 Yr Ave. WY 2006 WY 2007 % of 15-Yr Ave.
Trinity 2,448 1,905 2,057 1,813 85Shasta 4,552 3,139 3,536 2,282 73Oroville 3,538 2,498 3,122 1,974 79Folsom 977 617 769 420 68New Melones
2,420 1,605 2,201 1,524 95
Fed. San Luis
966 265 440 82 31
Millerton 520 298 389 204 68Total CVP 11,360 7,530 9,003 5,921 79
Mid-August 2007 StatusMid-August 2007 StatusACCUMULATED INFLOW FOR WATER YEAR TO DATE IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-
FEET
Reservoir Current WY 2007
DriestWY 1977
WettestWY 1983
15-Yr Ave. % of 15-YrAve.
Trinity 715 201 2,833 1,525 47
Shasta 3,673 2,301 10,376 6,227 59
Folsom 1,381 319 6,314 2,948 47
New Melones
535 0 2,668 1,173 46
Millerton 798 302 4,393 1,863 43
2007 Reservoir Projections2007 Reservoir ProjectionsProjected Reservoir Storage through September 2007 in Thousands of Acre-Feet
(Based on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 90% EWA Water Operations Forecast)
Reservoir Capacity Sept Oct Nov Dec End of Year % of
FullTrinity 2,448 1,386 1,314 1,260 1,252 51
Shasta 4,552 1,908 1,896 1,866 1,999 43
Folsom 977 261 229 202 192 20
New Melones
2,420 1,409 1,410 1,422 1,434 59
San Luis 966 48 158 354 566 58
Ecosystem Trends – Delta SmeltEcosystem Trends – Delta Smelt
Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt, Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, and Striped BassLongfin Smelt, and Striped Bass
0300600900
120015001800
Abun
danc
e(a
bund
ance
inde
x fr
om D
FG F
all M
idw
ater
Tra
wl s
urve
ys)
0
2000
4000
6000
4000080000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
50010001500
800016000
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Striped bass
The Bay InstituteBay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta OutflowJanuary 12, 2005
Ecosystem Trends – Winter-Run Ecosystem Trends – Winter-Run Chinook SalmonChinook Salmon
Ecosystem Trends – X2 Ecosystem Trends – X2 Upstream MigrationUpstream Migration
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Cha
nge
in X
2 (m
ovem
ent u
pstr
eam
, km
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Compared to pre-dam conditions (1930-1943)Compared to estimated unimpaired flow condition
The Bay InstituteBay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta OutflowJanuary 12, 2005
Where are we today?Where are we today?• Pelagic Organism
Decline (POD)• Unauthorized “take” at
the State pumps• CVP-OCAP uncertainty• Coldwater pool decline• Reduced deliveries to
southern California• Uncertain future
hydrology
Climate Change EffectsClimate Change Effects
Climate Change EffectsClimate Change Effects
Climate Change Effects - CaliforniaClimate Change Effects - California
What we are unsure of:
• Magnitude of change
• Temporal variability
• Spatial variability
Water Resource ImplicationsWater Resource Implications• Source area hydrology will likely change
(snowpack, rainfall, runoff, ET, GW recharge)• Water availability – total, spatial, seasonal• Increased water transfers/wheeling• New supplies• Supply capture balanced with flood control• Delta – will remain an important conveyance and
ecosystem component • Demands will continue to grow
What does this mean for LAFCo?What does this mean for LAFCo?
• Should acknowledge that: Should acknowledge that: – Water Supplies being Firmed Up– New Supplies being Explored– Difference between “paper” and “wet”
water– Transfers occurring between Agencies– Delivery Constraints– North-South “equation”
LAFCo MandatesLAFCo Mandates• LAFCo required to review timely availability LAFCo required to review timely availability
of adequate water supplies for any of adequate water supplies for any organization changeorganization change– Gov’t Code §56668k Water Code §65352.5Gov’t Code §56668k Water Code §65352.5
• LAFCo reviews extension of services outside LAFCo reviews extension of services outside of boundariesof boundaries– Gov’t Code §56133 (in vs. out of sphere) Gov’t Code §56133 (in vs. out of sphere)
– LAFCo reviews services to previously unserved LAFCo reviews services to previously unserved territory within unincorporated areasterritory within unincorporated areas
– Gov’t Code §56434Gov’t Code §56434
Water Supply AvailabilityWater Supply Availability• Surface Water• Groundwater• Recycled Water• Demand Reduction• Desalination
How real is the water supply?How real is the water supply?• “Safe Yield”
– Entitlement restrictions (contract, water right, third party agreement)
– Has it been “perfected”? Long-term or temporary– Shortage provisions– Constrained by storage capability– Constrained by reservoir operational rules– Shared beneficial uses (hydropower, recreation, etc.)– Seasonal use restrictions– Would it offset or delay other customers already
within the service area?
ExampleExample• Federal Water
“Shortage Policy”– 100,000 AFA M&I
Contract– Ave. Historical Use –
50,000 AFA– Maximum current
cutback – to 37,500 AFA (Dry Year)
– Maximum ultimate cutback – to 75,000 AFA
ExampleExample• Water Rights –
Terms and Conditions– Minimum bypass
flow requirement– Water right – 100 cfs– Fish bypass flows –
25 cfs (May-June)– Fish bypass flows –
35 cfs (May-June) in Dry Years
ExampleExample• Water Rights -
Recreational Flows– Water right of 500 cfs– Recreational flows –
no diversions upstream of Point (May-September)
– Requirement for increased releases during specific periods
ExampleExample• Water Rights – Need for
Implementation Approval
– 50,000 AFA water right
– Federal facilities required to take water
– Have yet to secure a federal Warren Act contract (wheeling agreement)
ExampleExample• Third Party
Agreements– e.g., Sacramento
Water Forum– 62,000 AFA total
entitlement– 54,900 AFA wet-year
diversion – 39,000 AFA voluntary
cutback in dry-years
ExampleExample• New Infrastructure
Improvement– Folsom Dam and
Reservoir – Joint Federal Project– FDS/FDR– New Flood
Encroachment Curve– Effects on long-term
carryover for Folsom water supply
ExampleExample• Changing Rules for
CVP/SWP and Delta Operations– Long-term prescriptions?– Exports– In-Delta standards– COA – Term 91 (balanced
conditions)– Accommodations for
flood control– Climate change effects
Can the supply be accessed?Can the supply be accessed?
• Is it in a readily accessible reservoir?• Are diversion/conveyance improvements
necessary?• Does adequate treatment capacity exist?• What is the status of the purveyor’s
distribution infrastructure?• Are there water quality concerns?
Other Issues?Other Issues?• Cross-county
coordination?• “First-come/First
Served” edict still appropriate?
• Prior rights?• By approving a certain
annexation; are we acceding to a water supply alternative with greater environmental effects?
What form of assurance is What form of assurance is appropriate?appropriate?
• Verbal commitment• “Will serve” letter• Development Agreement• Others?
Options for Water Supply and Options for Water Supply and Infrastructure VerificationInfrastructure Verification
• Accept as is…• Request explanation
and discussion• Defer to published
information• Perform internal
assessment• Seek third party
review
Are determinations perpetual?Are determinations perpetual?
• Are LAFCo determinations unchangeable?• What happens if:
– Water supply availability was over-estimated?– Water delivery proves unreliable?– Changes in federal/State regulations?– Current project shown to adversely affect
historic customers (e.g., WQ, reduced reliability)?
– Financing for required CIPs are delayed?
Can LAFCos Condition Can LAFCos Condition Approvals?Approvals?
• Could a LAFCo:– Require periodic monitoring and reporting?– Review established milestones – to re-verify facts?– Include Re-Opener clauses in agreements?– Amend certain Terms and Conditions of
Determinations?– Seek mitigative remedies?– Thereby: adopt Adaptive Management principles in
the discharge of duties under CKH?
Liability ConcernsLiability Concerns
• Who bears the burden of liability if:– Water supply information inadvertently
omitted important data?– New information proves a previous LAFCo
determination inaccurate?– It is shown that an approved delivery (through
annexation) could trigger adverse effects under federal law (e.g., Endangered Species Act)
Liability Concerns (cont.)Liability Concerns (cont.)– It is shown that an approved delivery (through
annexation) could trigger adverse effects to other existing residents?
– Project timing is delayed because certain approvals have not been secured by the water purveyor?
– Conveyance failure occurs?– Development project has to de-mobilize?
Open DiscussionsOpen Discussions
Follow-Up Actions?Follow-Up Actions?• Findings?• Recommendations?• CALAFCO?
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!
2007 California Water Developments
“Our Challenged Water Resources – A Serious Look at Sustainability”
Robert ShibataniConsulting Hydrologist and Water Industry Advisor