Imported Water Committee September 24, 2015

Presented by: Glenn Farrel, Government Relations Manager

Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager

Water Authority’s involvement in the Bay-Delta

Water Authority’s review of BDCP

Transition from BDCP to California WaterFix

2

3

LAKE SHASTA

LAKE OROVILLE

19% State Water Project (Bay-Delta via MWD)

64% Colorado River (Long-term transfers

and MWD)

Local Supplies and Conservation

17%

Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta

CalFed formed to resolve issue of transporting SWP water through the Delta Bay-Delta Accord initiated long-term planning process to improve the Delta CalFed published plan to fix Delta and address challenges over next 50 years State created California Bay Delta Authority to oversee implementation of CalFed’s plan

4

1994

1994

2000

2003

2005

2006

2007

2009

2013

Little Hoover Commission found CalFed to be “costly, underperforming, unfocused and unaccountable.”

Legislature dissolves CBDA and California Natural Resources absorbed its functions

Bay Delta Conservation Plan process initiated

Delta Reform Act creates Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Plan) to achieve state mandated co-equal goals

Administrative Drafts of BDCP released

BDCP Public Comments Received

California WaterFix Released

2014

2015

Water Authority and San Diego business community support a Bay-Delta fix ◦ Supported 2009 legislation that established co-equal goals: Water Supply Reliability Ecosystem Restoration

◦ San Diego legislative delegation’s support vital to passage of legislation

Water Authority Board of Directors: ◦ Adopted Bay-Delta Policy Principles to guide review of a Delta

solution ◦ Adopted Resolution supporting timely completion of BDCP ◦ No water agency in California has undertaken a more rigorous,

independent evaluation of BDCP than the Water Authority ◦ Has not endorsed a specific project or solution

5

6

Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)

The BDCP is a joint Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ◦ Provides regulatory stability and assurances for 50-

year term

Purpose is to contribute to co-equal goals (eco-restoration and water supply reliability)

Uses adaptive management and monitoring to adjust to changed conditions and new information

7

BDCP Preferred Project: Twin Tunnels

8

BDCP Estimate: $25 billion

Water Authority’s BDCP Review Process

Years-long Board and staff education process on BDCP proposal and related issues 20 public meetings since January 2013

Intensive, multi-disciplinary staff analysis of BDCP environmental and planning documents Year of extensive Board discussion

Water Authority comment letters submitted May and July 2014

9

BDCP Plan and EIR/EIS

Water Authority’s BDCP Analyses

1. How big does the project need to be?

2. How much water will San Diego get?

3. How much will it ultimately cost?

4. What is San Diego’s cost obligation?

Unanswered Questions

10

5. Who is going to commit to pay for it? 6. How will Water Authority ratepayers be protected

from paying disproportionate share of costs? 7. Will the costs to San Diego ratepayers negatively

impact local supply development?

11

California WaterFix

What is the California WaterFix?

12

Makes physical and operational improvements to water delivery system in Delta ◦ Responds to unprecedented level of public review and comment

PRDEIR/SEIS released July 10, 2015 Lead agencies: ◦ Department of Water Resources (CEQA) ◦ Bureau of Reclamation (NEPA)

Cooperating/Trustee Agencies: ◦ National Marine Fisheries Services and

US Fish and Wildlife Service (FESA) ◦ CA Fish and Wildlife (CESA)

Key Difference Between BDCP and California WaterFix

13

BDCP’s strategy (Alternative 4) is a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP)

o 50-year permit assurances ESA permits through federal Section 10 and

state Section 2835 Large-scale regional habitat restoration and

new Delta water delivery infrastructure ‣ California Water Fix (Alternative 4A)

o No long-term permit assurances (year-to-year) • Proposes FESA Section 7 consultation and CESA Section 2081(b)

permit process • Includes new Delta water delivery infrastructure and required

mitigation, but without the HCP/NCCP components

ESA Permit Options Section 7/Section 2081

(Current) Section 10/Section 2835

(HCP/NCCP) Avoid jeopardy Contribute to recovery Consistent with existing compliance approach (BiOps)

New comprehensive compliance approach (IA)

Shorter term permit (years) Longer term permit (decades) Listed species only Listed, unlisted and CA fully

protected species Limited/No regulatory and water supply assurances

Regulatory and water supply assurances

Less contractor involvement More contractor involvement Faster to obtain (months) Slower to obtain (years) Less mitigation More mitigation

14

What are the risks of addressing Delta Issues without a NCCP/HCP?

Future planning and permitting for state and federal listed species on case-by-case basis

Limited options to issue permits for unlisted species which may become listed in the future Safe Harbors Agreements Candidate Conservation Agreements (with assurances)

Any new species added to endangered list can result in new permit requirements

No comprehensive way to stabilize future water supply or contain mitigation costs

15

Introduction of three new sub-alternatives Design Modification to Alternative 4 (BDCP

Preferred Alternative) Updated environmental analysis Fish and Aquatic Habitat Water Quality Effects Downstream of the Delta Air Quality Health Risk Assessment, Traffic and Noise Geotechnical Investigations Inclusion of Additional NEPA Determinations

Estimated capital cost: $14.9 billion (2014$)

What’s Changed since the 2013 BDCP Draft EIR/EIS?

16

Key questions remain unanswered: 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. Where is a financing plan to pay for the project? 4. Who is going to commit to pay for it? 5. Should MWD contractually commit to pay billions of

dollars without contractual commitments from its 26 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

What Hasn’t Changed?

17

What’s Next?

18

Comment letters on recirculated EIR/EIS due by October 30, 2015

Staff in process of preparing draft comment letter

Draft comment letter will be provided to the Board at October 22 meeting

Lead agencies will consider all comments received – even those made with respect to the originally issued EIR/EIS

Lead agencies will respond to all comments in writing, incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS

Final approvals – Record of Decision/Notice of Determination