Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08042009 - SD.5RECOMMENDATION(S): 1)ACCEPT Report on East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040; 2)CONSIDER Authorizing Chair to sign a letter to EBMUD either a) specifically supporting the WSMP 2040 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Preferred alternative and/or b) a general letter thanking EBMUD for its future water supply planning efforts, but declining to support the preferred alternative. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2009 the Transportation Water and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee heard a presentation from EBMUD Director John Coleman on the future Water Supply Management Program 2040. Director Coleman described the process, goals, and the preferred alternative, requesting Board support of the preferred alternative outlined in the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/04/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:see summary VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 4, 2009 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Katherine Sinclair, Deputy cc: Greg Chan, Carla Medina SD. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Transp. Water & Infrast. (TWI) Committee Date:August 4, 2009 Contra Costa County Subject:Report on East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Supply Management Program 2040 WSMP. At the time of the TWI Committee meeting, the County had only recently been informed of the WSMP 2040 draft EIR and there were a number of questions and concerns, therefore no recommendation was made by the TWI Committee regarding support for the preferred alternative. The TWI Committee directed staff to review the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the WSMP, provide comments on the EIR to EBMUD (this was given priority due to time constraint), then forward the item to the Board. Staff provided comments to EBMUD on July 7, 2009 (attached). The attached staff report raises questions and concerns with the WSMP 2040 preferred alternative and its reliance on paper fixes over which EBMUD has little control, such as water transfers. In addition, EBMUD’s reliance on rationing, and increasing conservation as solid baseline components rather than as supplemental activities puts ratepayers at risk of increasingly frequent and severe rationing scenarios. Staff also questions the fact that there is no discussion of the potential for a collaboration with Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) on the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project, which would provide a great deal of flexibility as to how EBMUD can take water during dry periods and would provide much-needed reservoir storage west of the Delta. The option of raising Pardee Reservoir, (located in the Sierra foothills and the primary water supply to EBMUD’s customers) has been opposed by locals and environmental groups. The environmental groups feel strongly that the environmental cost of inundation of a portion of the river and surrounding watershed is too high, and have also recommended consideration of the expanded Los Vaqueros Project for storage west of the Delta with less environmental impacts. Responses to our questions, concerns and information requests will not be forthcoming until a Final EIR is released. EBMUD’s Board of Directors has not acted to adopt the preferred alternative. A general letter supporting EBMUD’s effort to plan for the future in a more general context, to support and promote planning for adequate water supply, and to encourage multi-agency regional collaborative efforts has also been suggested. These suggestions are consistent with the Board’s Delta Water Platform which supports regional self-sufficiency in water supplies, multi-purpose water storage options and adequate freshwater outflows for a healthy Delta. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The WSMP 2040 The WSMP’s identified purpose is to estimate future water needs and to “identify and recommend solutions to meet dry-year water needs through 2040.” Increasing need over time within EBMUD’s service area (and by other water agencies that depend on water supply from the same watershed) create a future scenario by which EBMUD’s future dry-year water needs would not be met. The WSMP Program considers a broad range of options in the February 2009 Draft EIR that uses their earlier 1993 WSMP process as a template. The WSMP developed a number of “portfolios” (a broad array of potential, varied components, or “actions” that could be implemented over time), culminating in a preferred alternative. The Preferred Alternative consists of the following actions, to be taken in order: 1) A maximum rationing policy of 10% (which equates to 15% for residential customers); 2) Increased conservation activities (to 39 MGD) by implementing some 50 conservation measures; 3) Increased water recycling by 11 MGD; and 4) Supplemental water supplies; • water transfers (as available) • potential groundwater storage/conjunctive use projects • desalination • enlarge Pardee Reservoir • enlarge Lower Bear Reservoir • Mokelumne conjunctive use More information is contained in the Executive Summary for the Program (see attachment) CLERK'S ADDENDUM Supervisor Piepho, Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee Chair, presented this report to the Board regarding the request from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) requesting a letter of support for their Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040. She said County staff is being very cautious as the County was not involved or informed from the very beginning of EBMUD’S future water supply planning. Supervisor Gioia said in his 10 years sitting on EBMUD Board he had always found their reports very thorough, adding future water supply planning is a very complicated process and requires partnerships. He said we should reserve the right to partner in or review the planning process before supporting anything right now. Supervisor Uilkema said she is not ready to define what is acceptable to this County. She made it clear she wants to support EBMUD but said she feels we are not ready to specify which project is preferable. Supervisor Piepho requested the proposed letter return to the Board for review August 11, 2009 before authorizing the Chair’s signature. She proposed the letter support the WSMP 2040 effort , thank EBMUD for their future water supply planning efforts, and support their long-term planning processes and objectives but withhold supporting any particular projects. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: Lesa MaIntosh, Director, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); Kary Foulkes, EBMUD Board Member; Alez Coate, EBMUD Director of Water and Natural Resources. The above conveyed to the Board how open EBMUD's portfolio is for review and the consideration of options regarding future decisions of water use and storage. ATTACHMENTS WSMP Exec Summary Comments WSMP EIR Mr. Tom Francis Manager WSMP 2040 Program July 6, 2009 East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Dear Mr. Francis: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Program Environmental Impact Report for EBMUD’s Water Supply Improvement Program 2040. We appreciate EBMUD’s effort to plan for the future and we are pleased to be able to offer our comments on this Program. The environmental document discusses the approach used to estimate future land use patterns and growth, and references city and county General Plans on page 7-2. Does the estimate of population growth anticipated within the District’s Ultimate Service Boundary and/or Sphere of Influence take into account the regional multi-agency smart growth (Shaping the Future) policies and projections? It is our understanding these programs consider greater degrees of infill and greater growth in urban areas than many general plans currently address. Page 2-13 discusses EBMUD’s Mokelumne River water rights, indicating what rights the District has and its diversion capacity. Does the 2040 Program fully utilize EBMUD’s existing, future water rights on the Mokelumne River? Similarly, on page 2-12, EBMUD’s Freeport diversion facility on the Sacramento River is mentioned, although the water right is not specified here. How much water is EBMUD legally able to divert and will the WSMP 2040 fully utilize these resources? Does EBMUD hold any other entitlements to water that should be mentioned here, and would they be fully utilized in the 2040 Plan? Very briefly mentioned on page 2-12 is the assumption that CVP water will be delivered to EBMUD after 2010 through the Freeport facilities. Some additional detail on that project and how it dovetails into this future planning scenario would be relevant here, particularly as water could be potentially taken at Freeport from other projects (such as Water Agency County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553 ContraCosta County Board of Supervisors (Ex-Officio Governing Board) John Gioia District I Gayle B. Uilkema District II Mary N. Piepho District III Susan Bonilla District IV Federal D. Glover District V water transfers, page 3-11 and as part of the Sacramento conjunctive use project on page 3-17). What kind of facilities are or would be in place to take CVP and other water? Will these facilities include treatment facilities of some kind? If so, relevant discussion from the Freeport Project should be presented as part of this document. Prior to and during development of the original WSMP in the early 1990’s, the need for additional reservoir storage west of the Delta was determined to be of utmost importance by EBMUD and its customers, due to the very real threat of water supply disruption due to aqueduct rupture from an earthquake, flood or other catastrophe in the Delta. Because of the extreme controversy over the proposed Buckhorn Reservoir, the project was dropped at that time. There is mention of the defunct Buckhorn Reservoir, (page 3-45) and surprisingly, some re-consideration of this project for the purposes of this report. Even more surprising is the proposed expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project, (a very real and timely option for collaboration) does not appear to have been given any real consideration. Given the import of reservoir storage on the west side of the Delta, was collaboration with the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) considered, and if so, why isn’t it included here? The one-sentence reference to the Los Vaqueros Expansion Project (page 3-50) is incorrect and does not begin to address why this very key potential solution to bridge the water-supply gap is not examined in a much greater level of detail. Page 3-50 states that “These components were eliminated due to lack of definition of partners, benefits and timeline for implementation.” Where this statement may be true for the Sites and Temperance Flat Reservoir alternatives (which were not realistic alternatives in any event), this is clearly not the case for the expanded Los Vaqueros Project. When EBMUD representatives were asked why an expanded Los Vaqueros was not considered, the high cost of treating reservoir water was the response. We are aware of a number of ways in which EBMUD could take high quality water through a collaboration with CCWD, such as at Freeport, or through exchange, etc. These options are discussed elsewhere in your document relative to wheeling arrangements for water transfers (page 3-11) and Sacramento Groundwater Banking (page 3-17). As is, the document is deficient in that it needs to consider the Los Vaqueros Expansion project in detail as a means to achieve its goals of obtaining an additional dry-year supply. By any criteria used, this option should come out very high on the list, and attention should be given to any rationale that dismisses this option. Significantly more discussion over the array of supply solutions initially considered, the criteria developed and the evaluation process would be appropriate here so the reader could gain some perspective as to how the preferred portfolio is structured and why it includes the array of components ultimately selected. For example, page 3-50 states that over 50 individual components were identified and screened, yet there is no background on what these components were, why they fell out of the process as opposed to other components that did not. No detailed discussion is to be found on page 2-4 (Section 2.3) where the reader is referred. The preferred portfolio, as it is called, indicates a heavy reliance on conservation, recycling and even rationing components. Where we strongly endorse and encourage conservation and recycling, they should not be considered instead of other components, but rather in addition to other components. To consider these activities as a baseline constant decreases flexibility when you need it and puts customers at much greater risk of severe shortfall (hardened demand and resultant draconian rationing) during increasing drought year sequences, and is not on par with other M&I users in the state. With the above scenario, a rationing level of 10% (which means 15% for residential users), will become increasingly problematic. In addition, the as-yet unknown impacts of climate change have the potential to skew water supply projections. The environmental document must discuss the portfolio components and take into account supply/demand in this context. The dependence on water transfers as a program component is also somewhat of a gamble, given the changing status of water availability in the state given the recent Wanger decision protecting fish species, drought, the proposed review of existing water rights, SWRCB enforcement and the proposed Peripheral Canal. Again, we would suggest this program component be above and beyond other components over which you have some level of control, rather than as a baseline component upon which you must depend. Does the plan call for obtaining some of these contracts (whenever they should be needed) now? Finally, it would be helpful to be added to your mailing list for projects of this type in the future. Thank you for your attention to our comments. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 335-1226, or email at rgoul@cd.cccounty.us. Sincerely, Roberta Goulart Executive Officer Contra Costa County Water Agency cc: John Coleman Greg Chan Michael Tognolini