Sustainability Challenges in California Water: Insights from 2007.LAFCO Conference

1. CALAFCO 2007 Annual ConferenceSUSTAINABILITYLAFCO’s Role in Meeting the ChallengeWednesday, August 29, 2007Hyatt Regency, Sacramento 2007 California Water Developments “Our Challenged Water Resources – A Serious Look at Sustainability”

2. 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

3. Workshop Overview – Part II • CKH guidance • Water determinations • Metrics used • Compatibility with State/federal laws • Flexibility and Liability • Adaptive Management

4. 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

5. Re-Cap of California Hydrology • Allocation and timing challenge • Convergence of Sacramento – San Joaquin rivers • Delta sensitivity

6. Delta Sensitivity • Maintain Delta ecosystem health • Delta smelt • Salmon/steelhead migration • Water quality objectives • Water deliveries

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. Mid-August 2007 Status

14. Mid-August 2007 Status

15. 2007 Reservoir Projections

16. Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt

17. Ecosystem Trends – Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, and Striped Bass The Bay Institute Bay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta Outflow January 12, 2005

18. Ecosystem Trends – Winter-Run Chinook Salmon

19. Ecosystem Trends – X2 Upstream Migration The Bay Institute Bay-Delt Plan Periodic Review Issue: Delta Outflow January 12, 2005

20. Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) Unauthorized “take” at the State pumps CVP-OCAP uncertainty Coldwater pool decline Reduced deliveries to southern California Uncertain future hydrology Where are we today?

21. Climate Change Effects

22. Climate Change Effects

23. Climate Change Effects - California What we are unsure of: • Magnitude of change • Temporal variability • Spatial variability

24. 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

25. 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”

26. 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

27. Surface Water Groundwater Recycled Water Demand Reduction Desalination Water Supply Availability

28. 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?

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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 Example

36. 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?

37. 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? Other Issues?

38. What form of assurance is appropriate? • Verbal commitment • “Will serve” letter • Development Agreement • Others?

39. 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

40. 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?

41. 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?

42. 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)

43. 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?

44. Open Discussions

45. Findings? Recommendations? CALAFCO? Follow-Up Actions?

46. 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 RSShibatani@pbsj.com