Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02122013 - D.4RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER supporting the request from a coalition of environmental groups, water districts and business groups to include a new alternative for analysis in the State's Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and AUTHORIZE chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the State expressing this support, as recommended by the Director of Conservation and Development. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE. The recommendation is to request that the State of California study a proposal for Bay-Delta water supply solutions. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2012 adopted a policy asking the State of California to analyze a wider range of alternatives in its Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP is an effort of the state and federal governments, and large water districts from the Central Valley, Southern California and Bay Area, to plan and build a pair of large tunnels that will divert fresh water from the Sacramento River before it reaches the Delta. The proposed tunnels will send the water to the export pumps near Tracy for delivery to other parts of the state. The California APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/12/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: John Greitzer, 674-7824 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: February 12, 2013 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Date:February 12, 2013 Contra Costa County Subject:Support a new alternative for study in the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Natural Resources Agency is the lead agency for the planning effort. Many agencies and non-governmental groups have taken similar positions to the County's, urging the State to analyze a meaningful range of alternatives. The State to date has not done so. At last count the State was analyzing a set of 14 project alternatives, but all 14 were just different versions of the tunnels. Recently a coalition of environmental groups, business groups and water districts unveiled a new alternative which they propose for inclusion in the BDCP alternatives analysis. The sponsors of this new alternative include the two largest water districts serving the County -- the Contra Costa Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District -- as well as the Contra Costa Council, a business group actively involved with the public sector on policy issues. (County staff regularly attend the Contra Costa Council's Water Task Force meetings and provide input to the Council on water issues.) The Natural Resources Defense Council is the lead organization for distributing the new proposed alternative, which the group refers to as a "portfolio" approach that includes a variety of strategies that could be used separately or together to create a less costly and less environmentally harmful alternative than the tunnels. The new alternative proposal very closely matches the Board's policy from July 2012. Both call for analysis of a much smaller tunnel than the State is currently considering, and for analysis of non-tunnel approaches to water supply reliability, such as strengthening Delta levees, water conservation programs, and additional reservoir construction to store more water in wet periods so less would need to be pumped from the Delta during dry periods. The proposed tunnel project being pursued by the state does not include any new storage and therefore will rely on increased water exports from the Delta during dry periods to meet southern California water demands. As a result, fishery agencies determined the tunnel project will further harm endangered and threatened fish species. This warning came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The warnings led the State to reduce the size of its proposed tunnels, but the State still is not considering non-tunnel alternatives. Attached is the Board's policy from July 2012 calling on the State to study other alternatives. Also attached is a letter to the BDCP lead agencies from the environmental groups requesting this portfolio-based conceptual alternative be evaluated in the BDCP. A similar letter from the supporting water agencies is also included in this attachment. Representatives of both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Contra Costa Water District will speak on the new proposed alternative at the Board meeting on February 12. The County's water resources consultant, Dr. Richard Denton, also will speak on the issue. The Delta Counties Coalition, in which Contra Costa County participates, is asking the State to include the new proposal in the BDCP alternatives analysis, as are a number of non-profit advocacy groups and water agencies. The Director of Conservation and Development recommends the Board support this new proposal for inclusion in the BDCP alternatives analysis, and to authorize the Chair to express this support in a letter to the California Natural Resources Agency. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The proposed study alternative may not have as much strength behind it without support from Delta counties such as Contra Costa County. Lacking such support, it may be easier for the California Natural Resources Agency to refuse to include it in their analysis. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker Bob Whitley, Contra Costa Council supports new alternative for analysis in the State's Bay-Delta Speaker Bob Whitley, Contra Costa Council supports new alternative for analysis in the State's Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. ATTACHMENTS Board policy Bay Delta Portfolio Based BDCP Alternative                                     Secretary Ken Salazar Department of the Interior 1849 C St, N.W. Washington DC 20240 Commissioner Michael Connor Bureau of Reclamation 1849 C Street NW Washington DC 20240 Secretary John Laird California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Deputy Secretary Jerry Meral California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 January 16, 2013 Re: A Portfolio-Based Conceptual Alternative for BDCP Dear Secretary Salazar, Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Meral and Commissioner Connor, We represent a coalition of business and environmental organizations. We are writing to request that the attached conceptual alternative be considered in the BDCP process, including as a stand- alone alternative in the required CEQA/NEPA analyses and Clean Water Act Section 404 alternatives analysis. Our constituents believe strongly in the need for a science-based, cost- effective BDCP plan to help achieve the co-equal goals of restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem and salmon fishery, and improving water supply reliability for California. None of us believes that the status quo in the Delta is acceptable. Although many stakeholders have recommended that BDCP consider certain elements that are included in the attached document, we thought it would be most helpful at this point in the BDCP process to offer a package of actions and investments that, taken together, represent an alternative that could attract support from a diverse coalition of interests. This is a conceptual alternative, not a proposed BDCP preferred project. We believe that analysis of this alternative will assist BDCP in developing the most cost-effective, environmentally beneficial final BDCP project with the best chance of implementation. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 2    At the heart of the conceptual alternative are two simple principles. First, BDCP must be grounded in the best available science regarding ecosystem management. This approach is essential to designing a successful, long-term plan for a water supply system and ecosystem as complex and dynamic as the Bay-Delta. This approach is also essential to ensure that the BDCP plan can meet legal requirements and receive permits. We applaud Governor Brown and Secretary Salazar for emphasizing their commitment to a science-based approach to BDCP in their July 25, 2012 announcement. The second core principle is that the BDCP make fiscal sense. The final BDCP plan must be both affordable and financeable or it will ultimately fail. We believe it is imperative at this point in the BDCP process to avoid the economics and financing issues that plagued CALFED and contributed to its eventual failure. This conceptual alternative was also developed with two practical realities in mind. First, the conceptual alternative has been developed based on the reality that many California water suppliers are looking closer to home to meet their long-term water supply needs and are planning to reduce their demand for water imported from the Bay-Delta. The second reality is that cities and water agencies, as well as federal, state and local budgets are facing significant financial constraints. We believe that it is critically important to balance the timing and need for investments in the Delta with a strategy that also advances continued water agency investments in local water supply development. This “portfolio-based’ approach reflects the real world desire of water suppliers and the public to evaluate the relative benefits of investments both within and outside of the Delta, and is consistent with the increased discussion in BDCP, over the past six months, of South of Delta water supply alternatives. One of the cornerstones of the conceptual alternative is a proposal to evaluate a 3,000 cfs, single- bore North Delta diversion facility. This facility would produce significant financial savings, in comparison with a larger conveyance facility, while still providing water reliability benefits. In fact, we believe it could produce greater overall benefits at a lower cost, with some of the savings invested in local water supply sources, new South of Delta storage, levee improvements and habitat restoration. For example, investments in proven, cost-effective local water supply strategies can both increase export area water supplies and reduce the risk of disruption from earthquakes and other disasters. Southern California 2010 Urban Water Management Plans have already identified 1.2 MAF of potential additional local supply projects, only a small fraction of which have been factored into Delta planning. Many of these local investments could provide significant, broad and long-term benefits. For example, a relatively small investment (in comparison with the cost of a new Delta facility) in Delta levees would provide significant water supply benefits beyond those achievable by the BDCP as currently conceived. The BDCP currently anticipates that, even with a large facility, on average, approximately half of the water exported from the Delta would still be pumped by the South Delta facilities (with more than three quarters of exported water pumped from the Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 3    South Delta in critically dry years). Therefore, reducing the vulnerability of Delta levees would provide significant water supply reliability benefits for South of Delta water users, particularly in dry years. Such an investment, in combination with local and public funds, would provide additional local benefits in the Delta. We believe that BDCP should include such “win-win” opportunities to collaborate with in-Delta interests. It is essential not to delay an evaluation of the likely yield of a new Delta facility. The conceptual alternative also calls for the careful analysis of the best science available today regarding water project operations with a new facility. In particular, this approach calls for the analysis of an operations proposal developed by state and federal biologists to conserve and manage a full range of covered Delta fish species, including consideration of the need to protect upstream fisheries resources. We understand that state and federal biologists have undertaken an extensive effort to prepare such an operational scenario. The signatories to this letter have not endorsed these proposed operations. Rather, given that this operational scenario represents an important effort by state and federal biologists, it should be analyzed in the BDCP EIR/EIS, the Effects Analysis and the 404 analysis. This conceptual alternative includes initial cost estimates that suggest that this approach could provide superior environmental results, increased water supply and greater reliability at a reduced cost. By expanding benefits and lowering costs, this portfolio approach could assist with project financing. We encourage BDCP to include this approach in its analysis of economics and financing issues, and to refine the cost estimates included in this conceptual alternative. We sincerely believe that this conceptual alternative has the potential to produce superior benefits at a similar or lower cost to water users and the public. Because it is based on the best available science, we believe it would be more readily permittable. It also promises to deliver benefits more rapidly. And, finally, we believe that this approach will be helpful in attracting broader support for BDCP, both within and outside of the Delta. We request that this conceptual alternative be analyzed as a stand-alone alternative in BDCP’s environmental documents. In addition, we recommend that BDCP use this portfolio approach to compare the potential benefits and impacts of multiple alternatives, including a full range of different conveyance facility capacities. Such comparisons are needed so decision-makers can fully understand the choices they face and can select the optimum portfolio of actions that will best serve the state. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 4    Thank you for your hard work to design an effective plan to meet the challenges we face in the Delta. We hope that this conceptual alternative will continue to advance the discussion. We look forward to an opportunity to discuss the conceptual alternative with you, including how it may best be incorporated into BDCP’s analysis. Sincerely, Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst Tony Bernhardt Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental Entrepreneurs Linda Best, President and CEO Gary Bobker, Program Director Contra Costa Council The Bay Institute Kim Delfino, California Program Director Jonas Minton, Water Policy Advisor Defenders of Wildlife Planning and Conservation League   January 16, 2013 The Honorable Ken Salazar Secretary U. S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20240 The Honorable John Laird Secretary California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dr. Jerry Meral Deputy Secretary California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Michael L. Connor Commissioner U. S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20240 Dear Secretary Salazar, Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Meral, and Commissioner Connor: We are writing to you in advance of the planned release of the public review draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), out of a deep concern over the status of this effort. We are united in a desire for a successful project that can be supported by project proponents, Delta stakeholders, and the public. That chance for success is substantially diminished as a result of the alternatives analysis that we have seen thus far. Up to now, the BDCP process has been strongly focused on advancing a large capacity conveyance which, along with the suite of associated conservation measures, will be burdened with large uncertainties and for which a solid business case has not yet been made. These unquantified risks include impacts on listed species, impacts on the Delta landform, hydrology and water quality, open-ended costs to direct water users and to the public, political controversy, and potentially lengthy litigation. Secretary Salazar, Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Meral, and Commissioner Connor January 16, 2013 Page 2 Absent so far has been a portfolio-based alternative that features a smaller conveyance facility with additional, complementary investments in local water supply sources, regional coordination, south of Delta storage, levee improvements, and habitat restoration (see attachment) as advanced in the coalition letter sent by other organizations today. We believe that it is critical to evaluate in detail a conveyance as small as 3,000 cfs, as it would provide considerable water supply benefits to the export community while better protecting broader interests in the Delta. Such a facility would also realize significant financial savings in comparison with a larger conveyance facility, face fewer legal and political challenges, and potentially be completed sooner. With accompanying investments in proven, cost-effective regional water strategies, this approach could increase export area water supplies and reduce the vulnerability of water supplies and Delta infrastructure to disruption from earthquakes and other disasters. We urge that this conceptual alternative be seriously considered in the BDCP process, including the required CEQA/NEPA analyses and the Clean Water Act Section 404 alternatives analysis. A portfolio approach could produce superior benefits at a similar or lower cost to water users and the public, and at reduced levels of environmental impacts. It has the potential to be consistent with the best available science and, as a result, may be more readily permittable and capable of delivering benefits more rapidly. It would appear that a solid business case can be made for such an alternative; in any event, the business case must be made before any project proceeds. We fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenges facing the Delta, and urge a comprehensive solution that is both affordable and science-based. We recognize the enormous effort you have undertaken toward this end, and hope that this conceptual alternative will continue to advance the discussion. Sincerely, Jerry Brown General Manager Contra Costa Water District Maureen A. Stapleton General Manager San Diego County Water Authority Secretary Salazar, Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Meral, and Commissioner Connor January 16, 2013 Page 3 Michael P. Carlin Deputy General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Walter L. Wadlow General Manager Alameda County Water District Alexander R. Coate General Manager East Bay Municipal Utility District Mark Watton General Manager Otay Water District Bob Filner Mayor City of San Diego Attachment A Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative The eight components described below represent a conceptual alternative, not a proposed BDCP project. The analysis of this alternative is intended to assist BDCP in developing the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial final BDCP project that can be implemented and produce benefits rapidly. Variations on the approaches below should be analyzed as well, including a full range of conveyance capacities. Guiding Principles Science-Based Ecosystem Management: Credible, proven science will determine ecosystem improvements and water management, using on-the-ground results as the central driver of decision-making. Water Supply Reliability: The BDCP can contribute to improved water supply reliability by reducing the physical vulnerability of Delta water supplies and embracing a portfolio approach that recognizes that water suppliers and the public have a broad range of options both in and outside of the Delta to meet their water needs and improve reliability. A Strong Business Case: A strong business case is central to the success and financial viability of the BDCP. Sound economic principles and cost-benefit analysis must inform water supply improvements so that water ratepayers understand that the benefits they will receive from the project are reasonably proportional to what they are being asked to pay. Water Quality: Delta water quality will be strongly influenced by the final BDCP plan, with potential impacts and benefits to export water users, local municipalities, Delta residents, Delta farmers and the ecosystem. Conceptual Elements of a Diversified Portfolio Approach New Conveyance Facility: Focus BDCP analysis on one 3,000 cfs North Delta intake facility and a single tunnel sized for 3,000 cfs gravity flow. This smaller facility would lower BDCP costs, improve reliability and reduce opposition. If implementation proves successful in meeting biological goals and objectives, a second phase could be constructed subsequently, but would not be permitted at this time. Project Operations: Analyze, as a starting point for analysis of future SWP and CVP operations, the best science available today. In particular, analyze the operations proposal developed by state and federal biologists to conserve and manage a full range of covered Delta fish species, including consideration of the need to protect upstream fisheries resources.1 Project operations should utilize a “big gulp, little sip” approach that increases exports in wet years – when water is available in excess of environmental needs 1 The work of state and federal agency biologists to produce a science-based operational scenario is summarized on pages 1-16 of this BDCP presentation - http://www.essexpartnership.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/BDCP_CS5_Update_NGO-Meeting_11_14_12v3.pdf Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 2 – and reduces diversions in average and drier years, particularly during key periods such as the spring and fall. Such an operations proposal has been developed over the past year by state and federal fish agency biologists. This is an important agency analysis that should be subjected to additional refinement in an open, transparent process, utilizing independent external peer reviewers. It is essential not to delay a detailed analysis of the likely yield of a new facility based on the best available science. Estimated Water Exports: ~ 4 - 4.3 MAF/ year (2025). This is an initial estimate of average exports. BDCP has not yet modeled a 3,000 cfs facility with additional South of Delta storage and the agency-developed operational scenario included in this proposal. Reduced Reliance on the Delta through Investments in South of Delta Water Supplies: DWR, many Urban Water Management Plans and other analyses have concluded that local water supply tools including conservation, water recycling, and other approaches, can provide reliable, sustainable and plentiful new sources of supply that will also be cost-effective over the long run. These sources can also be provided rapidly through additional investments. There is approximately as much new water available from these new water supply sources as is currently exported from the Delta. This conceptual alternative proposes a smaller capital investment in a Delta facility, in comparison with the current BDCP preliminary project, and investment of savings in local water supply projects. For analytical purposes, this alternative includes a $2 billion investment in water recycling (at a capital cost of approximately $6,430 - 6,470 per AF of permanent water recycling capacity) and a $3 billion investment in urban conservation (at an initial/capital cost of $3,230-4,860 per AF).2 Urban stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and conjunctive use should be included as cost-effective methods for generating future new sources of water, and would also be important elements of a large-scale effort to invest in new local water sources. Additional cost-effective savings can also be obtained from investments in agricultural conservation.3 Estimated Yield: 926,000 - 1,245,000 acre-feet of permanent water supply. (309,000 – 311,000 acre-feet from water recycling and 617,000 - 934,000 acre-feet from urban efficiency.) Improved Water Agency Integration: The principles of integrated regional water management planning should form the foundation for improving cooperation and integration among Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California water agencies to provide improved water supply reliability and quality benefits. Increasing integration and 2 See attachment for additional detail regarding cost and yield estimates. Note that these are initial/capital costs, not annual per-acre-foot unit costs. A comprehensive BDCP analysis should also address operations and maintenance costs of a full range of alternative investments. 3 The Department of Water Resources Bulletin 160-2009 http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm (Volume 2,Chapter 2, page 2-13) states that agricultural water conservation costs range from $35-$900 per AF. Because of the width of this cost range, agricultural conservation is not included in the conceptual cost and yield numbers above. A final BDCP portfolio proposal should, however, include agricultural water use efficiency investments. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 3 cooperation among these agencies could produce substantial potential benefits and cost- savings. For example, more than a dozen significant water agencies serve the Bay Area. Improved physical connections and increased cooperation among these agencies could reduce risks related to earthquakes and localized drought conditions, facilitate wastewater recycling, and utilize existing infrastructure more efficiently. In Southern California, additional benefits could be obtained, for example, by facilitating water management agreements and programs among agencies with the potential to construct water recycling facilities and agencies that have groundwater storage resources. The Metropolitan Water District could operate its system to facilitate innovative and cost- effective water management programs between agencies in Southern California and elsewhere in the state. Southern California groundwater agencies could allow water from Southern California surface storage facilities to be managed conjunctively with regional groundwater storage facilities. This could, in essence, create new surface storage capacity at the far lower cost associated with groundwater storage. This approach could help take advantage of the supplies available during “big gulp” opportunities in the Delta. Similar potential benefits may exist through increased integration and cooperation in the agricultural sector. In all of these opportunities it is imperative that program costs be clearly identified and allocated to the water suppliers that benefit. In this way, each public water supplier is able to account to the public it serves that their water ratepayer dollars are being spent wisely, according to law and in a manner that provides clear benefits. New South of Delta Surface and/or Groundwater Storage: Include up to 1 MAF4 of new South of Delta storage, with funding allocated through competitive bidding to evaluate proposed surface, groundwater and conjunctive use projects. Investments should be focused on projects that can be completed quickly and that are most cost- effective. Additional South of Delta storage5 can allow for greater water exports in wetter years. As discussed above, surface storage south of the Delta could be used conjunctively with groundwater facilities to store wet-year exports for future dry years. This increase in storage capacity must be accompanied by new Delta operations that ensure that the new storage will be operated to implement “big gulp, little sip” operations. Levee Improvements: Improve existing levees and build setback levees as part of habitat restoration. A $1 billion additional investment could improve Delta levees to protect life, property, and important infrastructure, and also upgrade key levees including the eight western Delta islands to a higher standard with improved stability and resilience 4 This 1 MAF storage target is based on limited BDCP modeling and may be revised based on further analysis. 5 As used in this proposal, South of Delta storage is defined as storage integrated into the existing SWP and CVP Delta export system, including surface and groundwater storage in the Bay Area, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, Kern County and Southern California. It includes storage controlled by the CVP, the SWP, MWD, Kern County Water Agency and other regional and local agencies. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 4 in the face of seismic risk. Upgrading these key levees would provide significant water reliability benefits and would be an appropriate use of exporter funds. Regardless of the size of a Delta facility, maintaining and improving Delta levees is critical to ensuring the physical reliability of Delta exports. Even with new conveyance, the CVP and SWP will continue to rely on water exports from the South Delta, particularly in drier years. With a 9,000 cfs facility, exports from the South Delta would constitute approximately 50 percent of total exports. In critically dry years, BDCP currently anticipates that 75 percent of total exports would be diverted from the South Delta. 6 Therefore, the benefits of this proposed investment in levee improvements would be particularly significant in dry years. BDCP does not currently include a strategy to reduce the physical vulnerability of the portion of Delta exports that would continue to rely on the Delta levee system. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water District and Delta landowners currently contribute to the maintenance of the levees upon which they rely. An analogous investment by export agencies would produce significant reliability benefits. For example, with average exports of 4 MAF/y, a contribution of $8/AF would produce $480 million to help improve Delta levees over the coming 15 years. Public funds for levee improvements are appropriate to protect Delta residents and infrastructure of regional and state importance (e.g. highways). Additional local contributions may be required. Delta Floodplain and Tidal Marsh Habitat Restoration: Implement a large scale, approximately 40,000 acre habitat restoration program to benefit Delta fish and wildlife species, to provide a broad range of ecosystem functions and to be integrated with Delta flood management improvements. There is strong scientific evidence that floodplain habitat restoration, combined with adequate flows, can benefit salmon and other species. However, agency “red flag” memos and the National Research Council review of the existing biological opinions concluded that floodplain restoration cannot substitute for required ecosystem flows. Restoration of tidal marsh habitat, also a desirable activity, nonetheless, has far greater uncertainty associated with it, regarding benefits for many covered species, in comparison with the likely benefits of floodplain restoration. Tidal marsh restoration should be included in the BDCP plan as a complement to flow augmentation and floodplain restoration, as it is more likely to benefit some covered fish species in combination with these elements. Habitat restoration, particularly tidal marsh restoration, should in any case be implemented within an adaptive management framework. Existing CVP and SWP mitigation responsibilities, as well as new mitigation responsibilities associated with a new Delta facility, will be paid for by water exporters, while public funding should be focused on conservation benefits that go beyond 6 BDCP Draft Effects Analysis, April 13,2012. Tables C.A-24 and C.A-27 from Appendix 5.C - Attachment C-A, which can be found on p. C.A. 83 and C.A. 92 at this link: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/BDCP_Effects_Analysis_- _Appendix_5_C_Attachment_C_A_-_CALSIM_and_DSM2_Results_4-13-12.sflb.ashx Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 5 mitigation. This proposal is focused on the coming 15-20 years. Long-term restoration efforts are likely to require additional funding. Integrating Science into Delta Management: Increase the integration of the best available science into all aspects of Delta and related resource management. The Delta is a complex and highly dynamic system. During the past decade, an expanded investment in science has improved our understanding of this ecosystem. With ongoing investments, that understanding will continue to improve. A long-term investment in science and a program to integrate new scientific results into ongoing management are essential to long-term success. Therefore, BDCP should include the following:  External independent scientific review at critical points, with clear mechanisms to incorporate peer review results.  Quantified performance objectives, such as SMART7 biological objectives and criteria for ecosystem restoration and water operations.  Governance and adaptive management processes designed to ensure that goals and objectives are achieved, to obtain the best available science over time, and to ensure that scientific results are fully integrated into on-the-ground management.  Carefully designed roles for the state and federal projects, as well as other stakeholders, to ensure a reliance on objective science. This science-based approach is not anticipated to result in large increases in project costs. In fact, this approach would increase the cost-effectiveness of BDCP efforts, and should result in savings. Affording, and Paying for the Portfolio-Based Conceptual Alternative Our organizations strongly support an analytically-based beneficiary pays approach to BDCP financing. We believe that the analysis of this portfolio approach will assist BDCP in developing detailed cost allocations and in attracting additional funding partners. It will also help reduce pressure for public funds and ensure that such funds are spent effectively and appropriately. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that this conceptual alternative is less expensive than the current preliminary preferred BDCP project. In addition, some of the investments in this portfolio alternative, such as levee and local water supply investments, are likely to be necessary even with a large Delta facility. Therefore, the actual cost difference between these two different approaches may be larger than indicated here. This conceptual alternative is more financially viable than the preliminary preferred 9,000 cfs Delta facility project. That project, pegged at $14 billion or more, is proposed to be paid for by water exporters. Proposed habitat restoration could cost up to an 7 SMART objectives are those that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant to the goal and timebound. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 6 additional $4 billion, raising the total capital cost of the current approach to approximately $18 billion. By reducing the size of the project to a 3,000 cfs, single-bore facility, many billions of dollars can be freed up to invest in more local supply development and the water exporter shares of the other conceptual alternative components. The water code requires water users to pay for a new Delta facility.8 The public share of this conceptual alternative could be funded in part by a reduced water bond. The increased benefits and reduced cost of this approach can assist BDCP in attracting increased funding from beneficiaries, reducing the pressure on the water bond. We believe that the diversified portfolio approach in this conceptual alternative could assist in the effort to develop a broadly supported and effective new water bond. Estimated Cost Summary Conceptual Portfolio Component Estimated Cost Source of Funding New 3,000 cfs North Delta Facility ~ $5-$7 billion9 Export water agencies Local Supply Development $5 billion Local water agencies and cost share per state Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) Improved Water Agency Integration TBD (may be funded through local supply funds described above) Water agencies and cost share per state IRWMP New South of Delta Surface and/or Groundwater Storage ~$1.2 billion10 Exporters or local water agencies, and public cost share per IRWMP Levee Improvements $1 billion Public, water exporters and other beneficiaries and Delta community Delta Floodplain and Tidal Marsh Habitat Restoration $1.7 billion Export agencies and public Integrating Science into Delta Management TBD Public and water agencies Total Conceptual Alternative Cost ~$14 to $16 billion 8 California Water Code Section 85089. 9 A BDCP July 1, 2010 presentation estimated the capital cost of a 3,000 cfs facility with 2 18-foot diameter tunnels at $7.2 billion. Using a single tunnel would reduce costs significantly. 10 See attachment for details regarding cost estimates. Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative January 16, 2013 P. 7 Total Conceptual Alternative Water Supply Benefits ~ 4.9-5.5 MAF/YR. Delta exports: ~ 4-4.3 MAF/Y. New South of Delta sources: ~ .93-1.2 MAF/Y Contra Costa County’s Request for Changes to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2012 The proposed 9,000-cubic-feet-per-second tunnel project Contra Costa County does not support any particular project because not enough information has been developed to support any specific project. Enough information has been developed to reject the proposed tunnel project as described in the current Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) . The preliminary environmental analysis has shown the tunnel will have significant negative impacts on protected fish species and water quality. Economic analysis also must be performed to determine the negative impacts that a tunnel project will have on Contra Costa County’s Delta economy. Changes needed for the BDCP effort to gain support from Contra Costa County • The BDCP should discard all of the alternatives studied to date, including the new 9,000-cubic- feet-per-second (cfs) tunnel proposal. • The BDCP should analyze a full range of lower-impact alternatives, including smaller tunnel projects of 3,000-cfs tunnel and 6,000-cfs tunnel, and several alternatives that do not divert Sacramento River under or around the Delta at all. These new alternatives would include a western intake alternative that would draw water from the western Delta rather than the Sacramento River, with constraints on the amount of water that can be taken and the timing for when the water can be taken; and other alternatives based on strategies such as water conservation, increased water storage facilities in the Central Valley and Southern California, and desalination. These latter alternatives would address the state policy of reducing reliance on Delta water (something the current BDCP does not address). • The BDCP should adopt both of the state’s “co-equal goals” as objectives to be achieved by the project, with neither goal being accomplished at the expense of the other. • The chosen BDCP conveyance project should be operated by an independent entity not affiliated with the water contractors who will receive water from it. The independent entity should report monthly to the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure transparency in the operations of the new water facility. • The BDCP should provide funds for Contra Costa County to: (1) conduct peer review studies to determine the adequacy of the BDCP environmental impact analysis; and (2) to determine water- quality standards in the western Delta to ensure a healthy water supply for Contra Costa County (approximately $500,000). • BDCP should provide funds for Contra Costa County to conduct an economic analysis to determine the impacts of BDCP alternatives on the County’s Delta economy (approximately $150,000). - 1 - -Contra Costa County BDCP changes- -July 10, 2012- -page 2 of 2 • Contra Costa County must be given a “seat at the table” so we can work collaboratively with the water contractors and state and federal agencies to develop comprehensive solutions that work for everyone. • BDCP must be consistent with locally developed Habitat Conservation Plans/National Communities Conservation Plans (HCP/NCCPs). If conflicts exist between locally developed HCP/NCCPs and the BDCP, the BDCP staff must work collaboratively with local HCP staffs to resolve the conflicts. BDCP must not interfere with local HCP/NCCPs’ ability to attain their habitat target goals. • BDCP must be subject to the full extent of state and federal environmental review. Contra Costa County cannot support any streamlining or exemptions from either the California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental Protection Act. • The BDCP must recognize the linkage between the Delta and the Bay, and recognize that any project that emerges from the BDCP could impact the entire Bay-Delta estuary, not just the immediate Delta area in which the project is located. The environmental analysis of the project(s) must examine for potential impacts throughout the entire estuary, including, but not limited to, impacts on flow from the Delta to the Bay, and water quality, species, and habitat impacts throughout the estuary. - 2 -