Transcript CALAFCO 2007 Annual Conference SUSTAINABILITY LAFCO’s …

CALAFCO 2007 Annual Conference
SUSTAINABILITY
LAFCO’s Role in Meeting the Challenge
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Hyatt Regency, Sacramento
2007 California Water
Developments
“Our Challenged Water
Resources – A Serious Look
at Sustainability”
Workshop 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 II
•
•
•
•
CKH guidance
Water determinations
Metrics used
Compatibility with
State/federal laws
• Flexibility and Liability
• Adaptive Management
Re-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 California Hydrology
• Allocation and timing
challenge
• Convergence of
Sacramento – San
Joaquin rivers
• Delta sensitivity
Delta Sensitivity
• Maintain Delta
ecosystem health
• Delta smelt
• Salmon/steelhead
migration
• Water quality
objectives
• Water deliveries
2007 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-176)
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 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 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.)
• 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 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 Status
STORAGE 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
85
Shasta
4,552
3,139
3,536
2,282
73
Oroville
3,538
2,498
3,122
1,974
79
Folsom
977
617
769
420
68
New
Melones
2,420
1,605
2,201
1,524
95
Fed. San
Luis
966
265
440
82
31
Millerton
520
298
389
204
68
Total CVP
11,360
7,530
9,003
5,921
79
Mid-August 2007 Status
ACCUMULATED INFLOW FOR WATER YEAR TO DATE IN THOUSANDS OF ACREFEET
Reservoir
Current
WY 2007
Driest
WY 1977
Wettest
WY 1983
15-Yr Ave.
% of 15-Yr
Ave.
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 Projections
Projected 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
Full
Trinity
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 Smelt
Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt,
Longfin Smelt, and Striped Bass
1800
Delta smelt
1500
Abundance
(abundance index from DFG Fall Midwater Trawl surveys)
1200
900
600
300
0
80000
40000
Longfin smelt
6000
4000
2000
0
16000
8000
Striped bass
1500
1000
500
0
1965
The Bay Institute
Bay-Delt Plan Periodic
Review
Issue: Delta Outflow
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Ecosystem Trends – Winter-Run
Chinook Salmon
(movement upstream, km)
Change in X2
Ecosystem Trends – X2
Upstream Migration
20
15
10
5
0
-5
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Compared to pre-dam conditions (1930-1943)
Compared to estimated unimpaired flow condition
The Bay Institute
Bay-Delt Plan Periodic Review
Issue: Delta Outflow
January 12, 2005
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 Effects
Climate Change Effects
Climate Change Effects - California
What we are
unsure of:
• Magnitude of
change
• Temporal
variability
• Spatial
variability
Water 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?
• 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 Mandates
• LAFCo required to review timely availability
of adequate water supplies for any
organization change
– Gov’t Code §56668k Water Code §65352.5
• LAFCo reviews extension of services outside
of boundaries
– Gov’t Code §56133 (in vs. out of sphere)
– LAFCo reviews services to previously unserved
territory within unincorporated areas
– Gov’t Code §56434
Water Supply Availability
•
•
•
•
•
Surface Water
Groundwater
Recycled Water
Demand Reduction
Desalination
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?
Example
• 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
Example
• 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
Example
• 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
Example
• 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)
Example
• 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
Example
• 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
Example
• 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?
• 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?
• 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
appropriate?
•
•
•
•
Verbal commitment
“Will serve” letter
Development Agreement
Others?
Options for Water Supply and
Infrastructure Verification
• Accept as is…
• Request explanation
and discussion
• Defer to published
information
• Perform internal
assessment
• Seek third party
review
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
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 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.)
– 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 Discussions
Follow-Up Actions?
• Findings?
• Recommendations?
• CALAFCO?
THANK YOU!
2007 California Water Developments
“Our Challenged Water Resources – A
Serious Look at Sustainability”
Robert Shibatani
Consulting Hydrologist and Water Industry Advisor
PBS&J
[email protected]