Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a February 27, 2018
Recap of Water Planning & Stewardship Committee February meeting Stage 1 Economic Analysis Modeling analyses Alternative financing considerations for the 9,000 cfs facility Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 2 February 27, 2018
Recap of February meeting Recap Discussed State’s proposed Cal WaterFix staged construction Provided analysis of Stage 1 facilities Water supply Costs (capital, O&M, MWD rate impacts, household costs) Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 3 February 27, 2018
Stage 1 Economic Analysis Special Committee on Bay-Delta Special Committee on Bay Item 3a Slide 4 February 27, 2018
Stage 1 California WaterFix Report prepared by Dr. David Sunding, Professor, UC Berkeley Cost-benefit analysis to SWP & Federal Contractors under various cost-sharing and financing scenarios Monetized benefits include water supply reliability, water quality, seismic safety reliability Climate change resiliency benefits discussed but not included Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 5 February 27, 2018
Stage 1 California WaterFix Key Findings and Conclusions CA WaterFix Stage 1 provides positive cost-benefit for State Water Contractors in both urban & agricultural sectors, and for Federal Contractors when using a portion of project capacity Trading of project costs and benefits among State Water Contractors is beneficial to agricultural contractors Potential reduced financing costs (i.e. WIFIA) reduces cost impacts and improves cost benefit for all participants Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 6 February 27, 2018
Additional Modeling Analyses Special Committee on Bay-Delta Special Committee on Bay Item 3a Slide 7 Item 3a Slide February 27, 2018
Both Stage 1 & full implementation improve water quality, help protect human health & enhance local water management Stage 1 alone provides less water quality benefits for project water 6,000 cfs 1 9,000 cfs Water Quality Constituent Improvement Improvement (Dry Year; Combined SWP/CVP) Electrical Conductivity 16% 20% Total Dissolved Solids 15% 19% Bromide 24% 31% 1. Preliminary analysis - subject to revision Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 8 February 27, 2018
Reoperation Analysis (Winter 2013) Delta Flows 100,000 Historic SWP/CVP Exports 6,000 cfs CA WaterFix 80,000 Flows (cfs) 9,000 cfs CA WaterFix 60,000 40,000 20,000 Historic Exports 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Increased export: 9,000 cfs facility ~ 781,000 AF; 6,000 cfs Stage 1 facility ~ 590,000 AF (preliminary analysis) SWP/CVP export losses due to BioOp ~ 800,000 AF (larger amount of SWP loss) Analysis by State Water Contractors Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 9 February 27, 2018
State & Federal Projects 2.5 Scenario Transfer Capability (@50% exceedance ) 2.0 Million Acre-Feet Existing 0.2 million AF 9,000 cfs CA WaterFix 6,000 cfs 0.8 million AF 1.5 9,000 cfs 1.1 million AF 1.0 6,000 cfs CA WaterFix 0.5 Existing 0.0 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 70% 80% 80% 90% 90% 100% Drier Period Exceedance Wetter Period • Data represents modeled transfer capability; Seller willingness & actual deliveries not represented • Preliminary State Water Contractor analysis - subject to revision Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 10 February 27, 2018
Elimination of Reserve Flow Enhances Fish Flow Conditions January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average January thru June average Existing Avg. - 2,172 cfs 6,000 cfs WaterFix -405 cfs 9,000 cfs WaterFix +53 cfs +53 cfs +53 cfs Reverse Flows Downstream Flows SWP Pumps CVP Pumps 11 Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 11 Item 3a Slide Item 3a Slide Item 3a Slide Item 3a Slide Item 3a Slide 11 Item 3a Slide 11 February 27, 2018 February 27, 2018 February 27, 2018 Preliminary analysis - subject to revision
Special Committee on Bay-Delta Special Committee on Bay Item 3a Slide 12 Item 3a Slide February 27, 2018
Approach Securing Metropolitan’s investment Structure of debt and relationship to SWP Contract Option contracts/commitments from other contractors Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 13 February 27, 2018
Considerations Keep fish near desirable habitat, not near pumps Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Existing facility operations limit restoration benefits Natural flow direction enhances habitat and water quality Enhance flexibility to pump where fish presence Enhance flexibility to pump where fish presence Enhance flexibility to pump where fish presence Enhance flexibility to pump where fish presence is less One pump location limits operational flexibility Capturing excess storm flow is more eco sensitive Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 14 February 27, 2018 February 27, 2018
http://mwdh2o.com/PDFWWACurrentBoardAgendas/02272018%20BayDelta%203a%20Presentation.pdf Considerations Summary Stage 1 (2 Stage 1 (2 Stage 1 (2 Stage 1 (2- Stage 1 (2 Stage 1 (2 Stage 1 (2 intakes, 1 Stage 1 (2 intakes, 1 Stage 1 (2 intakes, 1 intakes, 1 intakes, 1 intakes, 1 tunnel) would cost about a intakes, 1 tunnel) would cost about a intakes, 1- tunnel) would cost about a tunnel) would cost about a third less, but the water supply benefits also would be impacted by one-third While some Stage 1 benefits are nearly the same, , the project’s lessened capacity would impact the system’s flexibility to handle: earthquakes climate change climate change climate change climate change climate change climate change climate change fish take reverse flow risks Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a Slide 15 February 27, 2018 February 27, 2018
Recommend
More recommend
