California Water Commission

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mojave Water Agency: How we are trying to avoid our own liquidity crisis Kirby Brill General Manager, Mojave Water Agency Business Development Association.
Advertisements

THE EXPANDING ROLE of RECYCLED WATER The Need, Benefits and Cost Effectiveness Make Recycled Water an Increasingly Valued Resource Harry Ehrlich, SDA Principal.
1 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority WEF- Central Valley Tour April 23, 2014 Mission Statement : To effectively protect the Exchange.
Exploring Regional Desalination as a Water Supply Option in the Bay Area The Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of Regional Water Supply Planning May.
California Recycled Water Plan California Recycled Water Plan A comprehensive approach to California’s long-term water supply By Gregory B. Ryan and Meagan.
Water Resource Division San Joaquin County Water Resource Management Planning Update C. Mel Lytle, Ph.D. Water Resource Coordinator San Joaquin County.
2 1)Familiarize State agency staff with Water Plan Update 2013 information, tools and resources 2)Identify opportunities for State agencies to derive.
Drought and the Central Valley Project August 2014.
Part 2 Partners, Benefits & Payments February 27 – March 6, 2003.
Part 1 Operations, Facilities & Costs January February 4, 2003.
1 Regional Report San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.
Page 1 Northern California Salinity Coalition Paul Piraino, General Manager Alameda County Water District.
WaterSMART Basin Study Program. SECURE Water Act Section 9503 Directs the Secretary to establish a climate change adaptation program which includes –Assess.
In-Delta Storage Process OverviewProcess Overview Program BenefitsProgram Benefits Project CostsProject Costs IssuesIssues Proposed Work Plan for FY 2003Proposed.
NRCS Watershed Rehabilitation
WATER BOND Mark Watton General Manager - Otay Water District Speakers: Moderator: Ken Weinberg Director Water Resources - San Diego County Water Authority.
Fresno County Water Crisis and Opportunities. The Delta And Our Water Supply In August 2007 the Federal Court ruled that the Delta Smelt was in danger.
BAWSCA’s Strategy In 2009, BAWSCA embarked on the Long- Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy to: o Determine the Water Supply Problem When, where, and how.
Urban Water Institute Annual Water Conference August 27, 2015 S ITES R ESERVOIR P ROJECT
Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan North Bay Watershed Association Meeting November 3, 2006 Working together to enhance sustainable water.
Regional Grant Funding Coordination for Implementation of Watershed Management Plans Project Clean Water Summit July 15, 2004 David W. Gibson SDRWQCB
Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan Flood Protection and Clean, Safe, Reliable Water Supply Bond and Financing Acts of 2006 and 2010 Southern California Water.
Briefing to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board June 28, 2013 Status of State-Led Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies.
Watershed Council BAIRWMP Update 1/25/2011 Watershed Council BAIRWMP Update 1/25/2011 Prop 84 Planning Grant Proposal IRWMP Implementation Grant Proposal.
A Vision for the Future Presented to the North Bay Watershed Association by the Sonoma County Water Agency and Zone 7 Water Agency.
Watershed Council June 25, DWR Funding and Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Background Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) Regional Projects North.
Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation ACWA Regions 9 and 10 Carlsbad Water Summit U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation State.
1 September 13, 2007 North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage ACWA Regions 9 and 10 Carlsbad Water Summit North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage ACWA Regions.
City of San Diego’s Recycled Water Study Item W15a October 10, 2012 Presentation to the California Coastal Commission.
California Water Plan Update Advisory Committee Meeting January 20, 2005.
California Water Plan Old and New Steve Macaulay, Executive Director.
BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN SEPTEMBER SUISUN BAY SACRAMENTO STOCKTON STATE & FEDERAL PUMPING PLANTS Getting Oriented – The Delta.
Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Management Planning Update Fall 2013.
Draft example: Indicators for water supply reliability and storage projects Presented by Steve Roberts (Department of Water Resources, Storage Investigations)
Alameda Creek Watershed San Francisco Public Utilities Commission October 27, 2009.
Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center And Future of Purified Water Use Tour Guides: Miguel Silva Tour Coordinators: Amy Fry, Michelle Pelayo-Osorio.
Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy Utilities Advisory Commission December 2, 2009.
Top Five Reasons South Bay Needs WaterFix
What is OneWater? “One Water is an integrated planning and implementation approach to managing finite water resources for long-term resiliency and reliability,
Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian
Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program
Water Resource Management Planning Update
2015 Urban Water Management Plan Overview
Bay Area Regional Reliability North Bay Watershed Association
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN)
CWEMF Annual Meeting March 2005
Water Resources Plan 2040 Update
Water Supply and Drought Resilience
Top Five Reasons Orange County Needs WaterFix
Policy Principles for the Allocation of Recycled Water
Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program Update
“Is the Bay Area Ready for Potable Reuse?1”
Zone 7 And WaterFix March 7, 2018
Top Five Reasons South Bay Needs WaterFix
WATER PORTFOLIO. WATER PORTFOLIO WATER RESILIENCY CHALLENGES Fractured Jurisdiction Pollution Climate Change Limited Infrastructure Reliance on Imported.
PROPOSITION November Water Bond Act
2018 November Water Bond Act Initiative Benefits to Kern County
FISCAL YEAR Discussion on Mid-Year Budget Adjustment:
Water Resource Management Planning Update
Brackish Water Desalination Project
Washington State Infrastructure Financing
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
Brackish Water Desalination Project Draft EIR
Orange County Groundwater Basin Compliance with SGMA
Status after Second Year of Work Implementing the Recommendations of the Santa Cruz Water Supply Advisory Committee Joint Meeting Santa Cruz City Council.
CBEWP Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Environmental
Mutually Beneficial Partnerships in Groundwater Banking Paul Weghorst Irvine Ranch Water District August 15, 2019.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Claude “Bud” Lewis Desalination Plant
Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee Meeting:
Presentation transcript:

California Water Commission June 28, 2018

Los Vaqueros Reservoir Off-stream reservoir in Contra Costa County Operated in conjunction with four Delta intakes Capacity of 160 TAF Uses: Water quality Drought storage Emergency storage Flood control Recreation

Los Vaqueros Reservoir 20,000-acre watershed managed by CCWD for protection of: Water quality Sensitive species and habitat CCWD also manages more than 5,000 acres of mitigation properties: Contra Costa Alameda San Joaquin Marina

High Implementation Certainty CCWD financed and implemented 1998 dam, intake, and conveyance construction 2009 new intake 2012 dam raise Completed on schedule and on budget September 27, 2011

Proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project What are the objectives? Environmental Water Water Supply Reliability Improved Water Quality Enhanced Recreation Who will benefit? San Joaquin Wildlife Refuges Bay Area Water Agencies South-of-Delta CVP Contractors Statewide Water System How will benefits be achieved? Construct new pipelines, new pump stations, raise the dam Re-operate existing facilities Integrate regional systems Coordinate with other state-wide water operations San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge

Status of Funding Application Eligible amount: $459 million Public benefit ratio: 1.81 Preliminary total score of 76 points Placed in Rank 2 CCWD concurs with staff recommendations on Commission Determinations 2 through 9 CCWD requests that the Commission determine that the LVE Project is cost effective (Determination 1)

Federal Feasibility Findings Bureau of Reclamation determined: Technically and environmentally feasible Economically feasible Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio = 1.25 Financially feasible M&I and agricultural beneficiaries have financial ability to pay Resilient: maintains its benefits under Wide range of climate change scenarios California WaterFix

Federal Feasibility Recommendations Federal interest in implementing LVE Provide water supplies to wildlife refuges Improve water supply reliability for M&I and agricultural uses Improve flexibility of the statewide water management system Recommends authorization for Federal participation in implementing LVE

Local Agency Partners Alameda County Water District Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Byron-Bethany Irrigation District City of Brentwood East Bay Municipal Utility District East Contra Costa Irrigation District Grassland Water District San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Zone 7 Water Agency Del Puerto Water District San Luis Water District Westlands Water District Additional agencies on a waiting list

(not including emergency storage) Other Options Available to Partners LVE provides a cost-competitive option, close to home, with higher reliability, certainty, and flexibility Local Bay Area Supply Alternatives Cost ($ / AF) SFPUC’s 2017-18 wholesale water rate $1800 (treated), $1600 (untreated) Water Transfers (below normal years, TRD) (2030-2045) $267 - $632 * Local Groundwater (extraction, treatment, replenishment) $400 - $1,600 ** Stormwater Capture and Recharge $570 - $1,600 ** Recycled Water $1,500 - $9,000 ** Advanced Water Purification (Potable Reuse) $1,600 - $2,700 ** Desalination $1,000 - $5,500 Phase 2 LVE Project (capital, O&M) $580 ($300 - $700) (not including emergency storage) * ACWD, SCVWD, and SFPUC (2018) ** Pacific Institute (2016) and SFPUC (2018)

Non-Monetized Benefits Improve operational flexibility of the statewide water system Additional system storage at key location Ability to move water around south of Delta State & Federal pumps Improve regional reliability and coordination Physical interties between multiple agencies Maximizes use of existing regional facilities Local storage to leverage uses of other supply sources Part of Bay Area Regional Reliability Program

Key Facilities of Proposed Project Existing intakes and Transfer- Bethany Pipeline can be used to deliver water directly without use of SWP and CVP export pumps

Economic Feasibility CCWD reviewed calculations updated by staff CCWD updated calculations to reflect May meeting M&I water supply to SCVWD, BAWSCA, and SFPUC valued consistently with Pacheco Reservoir values Used alternative cost of groundwater in north Santa Clara County Public benefits were not revised Staff Estimates (after May Meeting) Total Public Benefits $832.68 Non-Public Benefits $535.86 Total Benefits $1,368.54 Capital Costs $845.24 Total Cost (Capital + Non-Capital) $1,452.32 WSIP Capital Request (Eligible Amount) $459.00 Total B/C ratio 0.94 Total PBR 1.81

CCWD Updated Calculation Economic Feasibility Staff Estimates (after May Meeting) CCWD Updated Calculation Total Public Benefits $832.68 Non-Public Benefits $535.86 $829.64 Total Benefits $1,368.54 $1,662.32 Capital Costs $845.24 Total Cost (Capital + Non-Capital) $1,452.32 WSIP Capital Request (Eligible Amount) $459.00 Total B/C ratio 0.94 1.14 Total PBR 1.81

Determination 1 Independent Federal assessment concluded benefit cost ratio is 1.25 LVE is a cost-competitive option compared to other options available to Local Agency Partners CCWD updated calculation demonstrates benefit/cost ratio of 1.14 CCWD requests that the Commission determine that the LVE Project is cost effective

Thank you Questions? Project Information http://www.ccwater.com/lvstudies Contact Information Marguerite Patil Maureen Martin Contra Costa Water District P.O. Box H20 Concord, CA 94524 (925) 688-8018 (925) 688-8323 mpatil@ccwater.com mmartin@ccwater.com

Staff’s Preliminary Score Preliminary Component Scoring Component Max Score Staff’s Preliminary Score Public Benefit Ratio + Non-Monetized Benefits 33 23 Relative Environmental Value 27 17 Resiliency 25 22 Implementation Risk 15 14 Return for Public Investment 76 LVE is a Rank 2 Project