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-17 6)

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 to OPR – Ocean Council – sea level rise information • AB 1404 database – joint water diversion and use reporting

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 Shasta Oroville Folsom New Melones Fed. San Luis Millerton Total CVP 2,448 4,552 3,538 977 2,420 966 520 11,360 1,905 3,139 2,498 617 1,605 265 298 7,530 2,057 3,536 3,122 769 2,201 440 389 9,003 1,813 2,282 1,974 420 1,524 82 204 5,921 85 73 79 68 95 31 68 79

Mid-August 2007 Status ACCUMULATED INFLOW FOR WATER YEAR TO DATE IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE FEET Reservoir Trinity Current WY 2007 715 Driest WY 1977 201 Wettest WY 1983 2,833 15-Yr Ave.

1,525 % of 15-Yr Ave.

47 Shasta Folsom 3,673 1,381 2,301 319 10,376 6,314 6,227 2,948 59 47 New Melones Millerton 535 798 0 302 2,668 4,393 1,173 1,863 46 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 Trinity Capacity 2,448 Sept 1,386 Oct 1,314 Nov 1,260 Dec 1,252 End of Year % of Full 51 Shasta Folsom New Melones San Luis 4,552 977 2,420 966 1,908 261 1,409 48 1,896 229 1,410 158 1,866 202 1,422 354 1,999 192 1,434 566 43 20 59 58

Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt

Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, and Striped Bass 1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 80000 40000 6000 4000 2000 0 16000 8000 Delta smelt Longfin smelt Striped bass 1500 1000 500 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The Bay Institute Bay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta Outflow January 12, 2005

Ecosystem Trends – Winter-Run Chinook Salmon

The Bay Institute Bay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta Outflow January 12, 2005 Ecosystem Trends – X2 Upstream Migration 20 15 10 5 0 -5 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Compared to pre-dam conditions (1930-1943) Compared to estimated unimpaired flow condition

2000

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

the discharge of duties under CKH?

principles in

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]