CALAFCO University CourseWATER DETERMINATIONS:

Friday, January 18, 200810:00 am to 3:00 pm

CALAFCO Offices, Sacramento

Robert ShibataniConsulting HydrologistWater Industry Advisor

PBS&J

Session Topic: Sources of Information

What are the fundamental waterinformation requirements for LAFCOs?

• Water needs• Water entitlements (supplies)• Water facilities• Water distribution• Water quality

Sources of Information

What are the key issues related to water? • Demands • Availability• Capacity• Quality

Sources of InformationWater Demands

• Urban Water Management Plans• Water Supply Assessments• Contractual Agreements (e.g., CVP water

contracts)• Rate Study Reports• Water Conservation Plans• Drought Contingency Plans• Groundwater Management Plans• General Plans

Sources of InformationDemand Calculations

• What is the timeframe?– Current vs Projected levels of demand

• Basis for demand calculation– Population based – gal. per capita/day– Dwelling units – gal. per DU/day

• When was the analysis done?• Is conservation factored in? • Is the differential between interior and landscape

demand reasonable?• What are the real and apparent losses?

Sources of Information

Water Availability

• Water right permit• Water contract • Transfer/exchange

agreement

• Safe/firm yield• Operational

constraints• Timing constraints• Institutional/regulatory

constraints• Seasonal hydrology

Sources of InformationYou should look at:

• Quantity• Point of Diversion• Diversion restrictions

– Water-year availability– Season of diversion– Flow rate maximum– Requirements for bypass

• Place of Authorized Use• Authorized uses• Term of authorization

Sources of InformationCapacity

• Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plans• Federal/State facility information• Corps of Engineers – operating rules• Water purveyor diversion/delivery records• Water purveyor – Water Master Plans or Water

facilities Master Plans• Water Distribution System Plans• USGS stream gauging data

Sources of InformationWater Quality

• U.S. EPA – Water Quality Reports

• Regional Water Quality Control Boards– Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program reports

• California Department of Public Health– Field Operations Branch – operating permits, Source

Water Assessments– Monitoring and Evaluation Unit – reports on

laboratory results from public water systems

Sources of InformationOn-line Databases

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation– Central Valley Operations

Office (CVO)• California Data Exchange

Center (CDEC)• State Water Resources Control

Board– eWRIMS

• California Department of Water Resources– water quality and groundwater

wells

Session Topic: Plans for Providing Services

• Essential Water Elements– Water Supply– Storage– Raw water

conveyance infrastructure

– Treatment capability and capacity

– Treated water delivery capability and capacity

Water Supply - Allocations• Limitations on water

entitlements?– Shortage provisions

on federal/State contracts

– Regulatory– Institutional– Groundwater– Recycled water

Shortage Provisions

Annual Shortage based on Water-Year

Example: Federal water “cutback”CVP M&I contract: 100,000 AFA• February – 100% of normal• March – 90% of normal • April – 75% of normalDelivered quantity: 75,000 AFA

Shortage Provisions

Annual Shortage based on Water-Year

Example: Federal water “cutback”CVP AG contract: 100,000 AFA• February – 100% of normal• March – 50% of normal • April – 10% of normalDelivered quantity: 10,000 AFA

Regulatory

Water Rights – Terms and conditions

Example: Required “minimum flows”• Water Right – 100 cfs (year round)• Fish Bypass flows – 25 cfs (May-June)• Fish Bypass flows – 35 cfs (July-Aug)

Regulatory

Water Rights – Terms and conditions

Example: Water Right subject to Term 91Water right – 75 cfs (year round)Dry-Year – Delta water quality requires

additional upstream releases – Balanced Conditions

Allowed diversion – 0 cfs

Regulatory

Water Rights – Terms and conditions

Example: Beneficial UseWater Right – 500 cfs (year round)Permit Condition states:• Consumptive Uses – 100 cfs• Hydropower – 300 cfs• Instream fish flows – 100 cfs

InstitutionalThird Party Agreements

Example: Sacramento Suburban Water District (Water Forum Agreement)

Surface water purchase – 29,000 AFAWet-year diversion – 29,000 AFADry-year – 0 AFAReturn to full groundwater pumping

InstitutionalWater Exchange

Example: Is it “Paper” or “Wet” water?• Agency acquires a new federal water

contract• Has no physical means of diverting it• Enters into an exchange agreement with

another purveyor – who can provide that diversion and/or delivery capability

InstitutionalWater Exchange

Example: Exchange is contingent upon:• Agreement for shared facilities (e.g., financing

agreement)• SWRCB approval of an expanded Place of Use

(e.g., protest petitions perhaps still pending)• Federal approval (USBR) to use federal facility

(e.g., NEPA compliance not yet completed)

InstitutionalWater Transfer

Example: Metropolitan Water District• Anticipated WY 2008 shortages – Colorado

River• Seeking one-year transfer – up to 200,000 AF• From YCWA -Lower Yuba Accord• Lower Yuba Accord – pending before SWRCB• California Environmental Water Account (EWA)

Groundwater

What important questions must be answered?

• How much groundwater is available?• What is its quality?• Are there seasonal constraints?• Are institutional agreements in place?• Do we know the sustained yield?

GroundwaterExample: Groundwater Supply• Water agency is wholly on groundwater• Groundwater levels dropping• Centered over a “cone of depression”• Concomitant reduction in historic

groundwater quality• Would this be considered an appropriate

supply?

GroundwaterExample: Groundwater Banking• Water agency stores surface water in

ground in wet-years• Reverts to pumping (in dry-years)• Is the ratio of input to withdrawal 1:1?• How much can the agency rely on banked

water as a “firm yield” supply?• Are there water quality trade-offs?

Recycled Water

What important questions must be answered?

• How much recycled water is available?• How effectively can it offset current

potable uses?• What is the timeline to have recycled

water on-line?

Water Storage

Example: Reservoir Capacity – Joint Flood Control Operations

• Total capacity: 1,000,000 AF• Flood storage (empty space): 500,000 AF• Flood season: November – April• WY 2008 – April EOM storage 490,000 AF• If refill is limited – Summer storage will

start around 500,000 AF

Raw Water ConveyanceTypes of raw water

conveyance• Rivers• Canals (lined and

unlined)• PipelinesMethods of conveyance• Gravity• Pumping

Raw Water ConveyanceEfficiency Factors

• Losses– Evaporation– Seepage– Leakage– Unlawful diversions– Channel/canal failures

Raw Water Conveyance• Example: Losses in Open

Conduits/Canals - Lower Cascade Canal losses (Nevada County)

• Rated Capacity: 45 cfs• Safe Capacity: 40 cfs• Summer losses: 12 cfs (head to terminus)• Delivered to the WTP – 28 cfs

Raw Water Conveyance• Example: Canal Integrity – Linear aged ditch

system

• Frequent failures• Linearity – no redundancy• Delivery obligation at risk

Should a new area be approved for annexation which is to be served by this infrastructure?

Raw Water ConveyanceExample: Method of conveyance – GDPUD

Auburn Pump Station

• New supply potential – 25 cfs• River elevation – 500 ft msl • Proposed WTP elevation – 2,000 ft msl

Can the purveyor “feasibly” pump water up 1,500 vertical feet?

Water TreatmentExample: Existing and planned WTP

capacity important

• Existing WTP capacity – 60 mgd• Currently operated – 40 mgd • Projected demands over the next 20-years

will increase 40 mgd

Should the project be approved based on this current capacity?

Water TreatmentExample: Plant sizing and location

• Existing WTP – surrounded by development• No opportunities for expansion within existing

“footprint”• Increased capacity acquired only through a new

alternative WTP

Should a project relying on treated water from this WTP be approved?

Water TreatmentExample: Water quality issues at WTP due to aging

system

• Existing WTP – treatment train is old – has encountered continual problems

• May even be under a current DHOS cease and desist order

• Increasingly restrictive drinking water regulations make current infrastructure - obsolete

• Financing – proving difficult for improvements

Should a project relying on treated water from this WTP be approved?

Plans for Providing ServicesGeneral Rules – Considerations

• Obtain all information from service provider

• Set-up your checklist –based on sequential activities– Supply/Storage– Conveyance– Treatment– Distribution

• Apply the service principles:– Demands– Availability– Capacity

Key Issues to Keep in Mind

Water entitlements useless –unless they can be implemented

Moving water from point A to point B – one of the most challenging water resource issues in California

All systems have capacity limitations

Session Topic: Terms and Conditions

• Assurances• Information accuracy• Reliance on data

provided• Conditioning of

Approvals• Liability

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 • Who should fund these

verifications?

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?

Possible Liability Concerns• Who bears the burden of liability if:

– Water supply information used in LAFCO determination inadvertently omitted important data?

– New information proves a previous LAFCo determination inaccurate?

– It is shown that an approved delivery (through annexation) could trigger adverse effectsunder 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?

What is the Preferred Strategy?

• How far do you “burrow” into the data?• How extensive should your analysis be?• How robust are your conclusions?

• Constrained by available staff resources/funding

• Constrained by time availability

Consider the “Range” ConceptRisk Assessment• How confident are we

with the data?• Data track record?• Data gaps?• Have we answered the

uncertainties?• Local history?• Environmental baseline?• How volatile is the

project?• Politically supported?

Session Topic:Water Entitlements

• Defined: any recognized water holding– Surface water right– Federal water

contract (Ag or M&I)– State water contract– Groundwater– Recycled/Reclaimed

Case StudyBackground Facts• Rapidly growing city in South Delta - California• Two major purveyors provide water service

relying on:• Delta inflows• Sierra Nevada runoff• CVP contracts/SWP contracts and upstream or

headwater basin water rights• Both service areas – include many “islands”• Groundwater quality is poor

Case StudyReliability of Supply

• Current conditions• Past conditions• Restrictions• Constraints• Future projections• Can we assure

ourselves of a safe-yield, long-term estimate of water availability?

Levee Failures

Groundwater Well Depths

Water Quality in Delta

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Chan

ge in

X2

(mov

emen

t ups

tream

, km)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

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

The Bay InstituteBay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta OutflowJanuary 12, 2005

In-Delta Fisheries Abundance

0300600900

120015001800

Abun

danc

e(ab

unda

nce i

ndex

from

DFG

Fall M

idwate

r Traw

l sur

veys

)

0

2000

4000

6000

4000080000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050

50010001500

800016000

Delta smelt

Longfin smelt

Striped bass

Climate Change Effects

Seasonal Runoff Patterns Changing

Recent Dry Years

Delta/CVP Rules Changing

• Changing Rules for CVP/SWP and Delta Operations– Long-term prescriptions?– Exports– In-Delta standards– COA – Term 91 (balanced

conditions)– Accommodations for

flood control

Open Discussion

• How would you proceed?

• What information would you seek?

• What concerns, if any, would you have?