the metropolitan water district of southern california
DESCRIPTION
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. May 30, 2013. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Regional Water Wholesaler to 6 counties 5,200 square miles 26 Member Agencies ~18 million residents Regional economy: ~$1 trillion - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
May 30, 2013
Metropolitan Water District of Southern CaliforniaRegional Water Wholesaler to 6 counties
5,200 square miles26 Member Agencies~18 million residentsRegional economy: ~$1 trillionEstimated Retail Demand:
4 million acre-feetProvide about ½ of retail demands
Bay/DeltaLA Aqueduct
Colorado River Aqueduct
State Water Project
Sierra Mountains
Sources of Water for Southern California
Local Groundwater and
Recycling
Conservation
Importance of Delta
Local
Los Angeles Aqueduct
Colorado River Aqueduct
State Water Project
The Bay-DeltaHub of California’s Water
Bay Area – 33%
Central Valley – 23 to 90%
Southern Cal – 30%
Some regions up to 100% dependent
5
Water Flowing Through the Delta
Source: Governor’s Delta Vision Report (Estimated total annual runoff 32.85 maf)
Pacific Ocean48%
UpstreamConsumptive
Use31%
Delta Exports17%
MWD4%
In-Delta Consumptive
Use4%
6
We Have Diverse Supplies
Southern California’s Water Portfolio
25% Colorado River supplies30% State Water Project
(flowing through the Delta)45% Local Supplies
Los Angeles AqueductConservationRecyclingGroundwaterDesalination
8
• 20% Reduction in Per-Capita Water Use
Water Use Efficiency
• Develop Incentives and Partnerships• Implement Foundational Actions
Local Resources
• Delta Improvements for ReliabilitySWP
• Develop Dry-Year Supply ProgramsCRA
Metropolitan's Integrated Resource PlanBlueprint for Adapting to Change
• 20% Reduction in Per-Capita Water Use
Water Use Efficiency
• Develop Incentives and Partnerships• Implement Foundational Actions
Local Resources
• Delta Improvements for ReliabilitySWP
• Develop Dry-Year Supply ProgramsCRA
Metropolitan's Integrated Resource PlanBlueprint for Adapting to Change
What Does This Mean?
• Stabilize Imported Supplies• Increase Efficiency and Local
Resources
Heavy dependence on imported supply
and SWP Diversions
Emphasis on Conservation, Local Supplies, and Storage & Transfers
Early 1990’s 2010 IRP Strategy
Diversification of Water PortfolioDry Year Supplies
CRA
Cons
SWP
Local Supplies
Storage & Transfers
CRA S
WP
Local Supplies
Storage & Transfers
Conservation & WUE
Local StorageDiamond Valley Lake MathewsLake SkinnerConjunctive Use GroundwaterDWR State Project Reservoirs
Central Valley/SWP StorageSan Luis CarryoverSemitropic Arvin-EdisonKern DeltaMojave CRA Storage
Advance DeliveryLake Mead ICS
Metropolitan’s Storage Programs
0.0
1,000,000.0
2,000,000.0
3,000,000.0
4,000,000.0
5,000,000.0
6,000,000.0
Mill
ion
Acre
-Fee
t
14x Increase in Capacity
Metropolitan Has IncreasedThe Region's Storage Capacity
Regional InvestmentsReducing Reliance on Imports
14
Conservation: 900,000 af/yr
Recycling: 335,000 af/yrGroundwater Recovery: 111,000 af/yr
Seawater: 46,000 af/yr (planned)
Conservation represents regional actions both active & passiveRecycling & groundwater represents total regional production 2012 (MWD & member agency)Seawater represents 3 planned local projects
Cost Comparison (per acre-foot)
15
Stormwater Groundwater Recovery
Recycled Desalination$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Supp
ly C
ost
($/A
F)
$1,600 -3,500+/AF $940 -
2,500/AF
$1,400 -3,500+/AF
$1,600 -2,300/AF
Local Supply Avg. ~ $1,500/AF
SWP Existing ($650/AF) + Delta Improvements ($200/AF) = ~ $850/AF
Metropolitan is committed to meeting future additional water supply needs through local resources and conservation
Revised: December 18, 2012
Benefits and Costs OfBay-Delta Conservation Plan
Pre-Court(D-1641)
Existing (Bio Op)
Potential Future
Fish Listings
Earthquake Risk
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
6.04.7
2.0 – 3.0
Avg.
SW
P-CV
P Ex
port
s (m
illio
n AF
)
17
Delta Conveyance ImprovementsSWP & CVP Reliability
South Exports Only
Metropolitan’s share ~ 25%
Includes work completed by the BDCP Steering Committee effort
1.0 - 1.5
Exports will be minimal for 1.5 to 3 years following an earthquake
Water Quality & Salinity Management
ObjectivesImprove export quality to meet Public Health standards & reduce treatment costsSupport actions to minimize salinity imports Meet 500 mg/l blending goal
Some Basin Plans have low TDS objectivesCould restrict extended recharge of high salinity Colorado River water *
OrangeCounty
MainSan Gabriel
Raymond
Chino
San Jacinto
18
Las Posas
Cucamonga
Warner Valley
ElsinoreUpper San Juan
San Mateo & San Onofre
Six Basins
Sylmar
VerdugoEast SanFernando
* Some of the highlighted basins do not currently receive MWD recharge supplies
Users pay – new conveyance & associated mitigation
Beneficiaries pay – habitat conservation & other state-wide benefits
Average cost for Southern Californians ~ $5 - 6/month per household
Improvements Capital Annual O&M Funding Source
Conveyance $14 billion $83 million Water Contractors
Eco-Restoration & Other Stressors $3.6 billion $46 million Fed/State/Water
Contractors/Other
19
Metropolitan’s share is approximately 25 percentThe $14 billion estimate per the Governor’s announcement (July 25, 2012)Other cost information from Dec-2010 BDCP document
BDCP: Preliminary Cost Analysis
Capital Cost Comparisons BDCP Delta Facilities
San Francisco PUC Hetch Hetchy ProjectRepairs to protect against future seismic events, and to meet current building codes and drinking water regulations
Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros ProjectImproves water quality and provides emergency storage
20BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost
$14 billion(Per 7/25 Announcement)
25 million(3 million acres of Ag)
$560
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost
$4.6 billion 2.5 million $1,840
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost
$570 million 550,000 $1,036
Regional Cost Comparisons MWD share of BDCP Cost
MWD Diamond Valley Reservoir/Inland Feeder projectsPrimarily an emergency storage facility but also provides drought and water quality benefits
SDCWA Emergency Storage ProjectEnhances reliability of the water supply of San Diego in the event of seismic disruption
21
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost $3.5 billion 19 million $184
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost $3.1 billion 18 million $172
Cost Population Served Per Capita Cost $1.5 billion 2.8 million $536
BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012
SummaryDelta is critical to California’s water supplySouthern California is committed to conservation and local supplies for future growth and diversification
1.1 MAF of conservation and local resources will be developed to meet future needs
Storage has been developed to manage “big gulp/little sip”Stable imported supplies are needed for reliability