URBAN WATER INSTITUTE 18 th Annual Water Policy

URBAN WATER INSTITUTE 18 th Annual Water Policy Conference Update on Long-Term Delta Solutions August 25, 2011

Introduction

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Regional Water Wholesaler to 6 counties 5, 200 square miles 26 Member Agencies ~19 million residents Regional economy: $1 trillion Retail demand 2009: 4 million acre-feet Provided about ½ of retail demands

Sources of Water for Southern California Sierra Mtns LA Aqueduct Delta State Water Project Supplies Local Groundwater and Recycling Colorado River Aqueduct Supplies Conservation

Balanced Approach to Planning

Four Generations of Metropolitan Investments Colorado River Aqueduct State Water Project Regional Storage and Transfers Conservation and Local Supplies

MWD’s Balanced Approach Early 1990’s Heavy dependence on imported supply and SWP Diversions Current Strategy Emphasis on Conservation, Local Supplies, and Storage & Transfers

Local Investments Reduce Needs for Imported Supplies 7. 0 Total Local Total Local 5. 0 Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Supply Supply Total Local Supply Supply Supply Supply 4. 0 Supply 3. 0 Imported Imported 2. 0 Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply 1. 0 Need 0. 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Million Acre-Feet 6. 0 Retail Demand Forecast Year

Local Investments Reduce Needs for Imported Supplies 7. 0 Million Acre-Feet 6. 0 Retail Demand Total Local Total Local 5. 0 Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Supply Supply Total Local Supply Supply Supply Supply 4. 0 Supply Conservation Conservation 3. 0 Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation 2. 0 Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported 1. 0 Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 0. 0 Forecast Year

Local Investments Reduce Needs for Imported Supplies 7. 0 Million Acre-Feet 6. 0 Retail Demand Total Local Total Local 5. 0 Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Supply Supply Total Local Supply Supply Supply Supply 4. 0 Supply Conservation Conservation 3. 0 Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation New Local Supply New Local Supply New Local Supply New Local Supply New Local Supply New Local Supply New Local Supply & Conservation 2. 0 Conservation &&Conservation & Conservation & Conservation & Conservation & Conservation & Conservation & Conservation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported Imported 1. 0 Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need Supply Need 0. 0 Forecast Year

Metropolitan’s Storage Capacity 6. 0 Million Acre-Feet 5. 0 4. 0 14 x Increase in Capacity 3. 0 2. 0 1. 0 0. 0 1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Conservation, Recycling, & GW Recovery 2. 0 Actual 1. 8 Projected Million Acre-Feet 1. 6 1. 4 1. 2 1. 0 0. 8 Regional Investments Thru 2010 0. 6 Urban Conservation $ 0. 4 Recycling & GW Recovery $1, 240 Million 0. 2 Total $1, 580 Million 44 Million 0. 0 1995199719992001200320052007200920112013201520172019202120232025

Metropolitan’s Regional Investments Regional Projects Urban Conservation -- Recycling 64 GW Recovery 21 Seawater Desalination 3

Need for Imported Supplies

Imported Water is Essential Colorado River Decade-long drought Growth in the lower basin Environmental

Colorado River 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Colorado River Drought Cut to Basic Apportionment Lower Colorado River MSCP Transfer Programs 1 MAF+

SWP Supplies are at Risk

Key Delta Risks 1, 800 1, 600 1, 400 1, 200 1, 000 800 Fishery Declines Delta smelt Subsidence 600 400 200 0 1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 2009 Sea Level Rise Seismic Risk Bay Area Faults 18

Statewide Risk Bay Area – 33% Some regions up to 100% dependent Central Valley – 23 to 90% Los Angeles Aqueduct State Water Project Colorado River Aqueduct Local Southern Cal – 30%

Seismic Vulnerability Ro dg er s Cr k Sa n An dr ea s Co nc or d 4% n Sa rio go re G 10% M id la nd An tio G ch re e Ha yw ar d 21% Va ca -K irb y nv ill e 27% 11% 3% Ca la ve ra s % Bay-Delta Region Major Faults

Judicial Ruling Total Impacts 2008 670, 000 Acre-feet ~$201 million 2009 619, 000 Acre-feet ~$186 million 2010 1, 043, 000 Acre-feet ~$313 million

Delta Solution

A Balanced Approach for Co-Equal Goals Co-Equal Goal 1 – Ecosystem Restoration Co-Equal Goal 2 – Water Supply Reliability Disaster ESA protection

Co-Equal Goal 1 Ecosystem Restoration

Ecosystem Restoration and Preservation Targets Restoration & Preservation Tidal Marsh Targets 65 - 105, 000 ac Seasonal Floodplain 10, 000 ac Riparian Habitat 5, 000 ac River Channel Margin TOTAL 20 mi 80 - 120, 000 ac Ecosystem Restoration Target = Twice the size of Washington DC

Beyond Habitat Restoration Toxics, Unscreened Diversions, etc. Ammonia Sac River Invasive Species Predator Control Ocean Conditions Corbula amurensis (Overbite clam) Egeria densa (Brazilian Waterweed) 26

Co-Equal Goal 2 Water Supply Reliability

Conveyance Alignment Options Sac River Sacramento Stockton SJ SWP Pumps CVP Pumps Ri ve r Preliminary Subject to Revision

Regulatory Assurances Long-term operations permit Coverage for existing & future listed species Future regulatory obligation defined upfront

What is the Range of Cost? East Canal ~ $8 billion * West Canal ~ $9 billion * Tunnel ~ $12. 7 billion * * URS developed initial cost estimates; Second independent expert cost analysis from 5 RMK Inc completed in Jan. 2010. * Includes 35% construction contingency on tunnel (25% on non-tunnel) and 18% for engineering/project management. Preliminary Subject to Revision

Timeline Process

Timeline for Delta Solution 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Conservation Plan Working Public Final Draft Enviro Docs Permits Draft Public Final Draft Bio Op Restoration Engineering Near-Term Habitat Restoration Implementation Preliminary Final Design Procurement Construction Admin Draft – Apr 2012; Public Draft – May 2012; Final EIR/EIS – Dec 2012 Procure Equipment Operational Land Acquisition & Construction 32 Preliminary Subject to Revision

Frequently Asked Questions

Are you planning to increase pumping? Early 1990’s Current Strategy

Is Southern California taking all the water? In-Delta Consumptive Use 4% Upstream Consumptive Use 31% CVP-SWP Exports 17% Pacific Ocean 48% Source: Governor’s Delta Vision Report (Estimated total annual runoff 32. 85 maf)

Is Southern California taking all the water? Upstream Urban Use 2% In-Delta Consumptive Use 4% Upstream Consumptive Use 31% MWD 4% CVP-SWP Exports 17% Pacific Ocean 48% Source: Governor’s Delta Vision Report (Estimated total annual runoff 32. 85 maf)

Why can’t you replace Delta supplies with seawater desalination? 18 -36 new desalination plants (1 MAF) Every 4 -8 miles from LA to San Diego 600 MW gross power requirement Cost – $1, 300 to $2, 000 per acre-foot

Is the Delta solution too expensive? Affordability based on tunnel option $12. 7 billion MWD share ~$3. 4 billion (25 percent of total) 15, 000 cfs capacity 1, 560, 000 acre-foot average SWP yield for Metropolitan

What is the Cost of Other Supplies? Incremental Supply Cost ($/AF) $3, 000 $2, 500 $960 2, 000/AF $2, 000 $1, 500 $300 1, 300/AF $1, 000 $1, 040 2, 300/AF $1, 600 2, 000/AF $500 800/AF* $500 $0 Stormwater Restored Groundwater Recycled Delta Recovery Desalination • MWD estimates • Restored Delta – Incremental cost of tunnel not melded with overall SWP supply; includes $200/af energy costs

What is the Capital Cost of Other Supply Improvement Projects? Capital Cost Estimates ($/AF) $30, 000 $25, 000 $20, 000 $15, 000 $10, 000 $5, 000 $0 San Francisco PUC * Capital Cost/AF = Total Capital Cost / Annual Deliveries East Bay MUD MWD - Delta Improvements

What is the Per-Capita Cost of Other Supply Improvement Projects? Per Capita Cost Estimates $2, 000 $1, 800 $1, 600 $1, 400 $1, 200 $1, 000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 San Francisco PUC * Per-Capita Cost = Total Capital Cost / Population Served East Bay MUD MWD - Delta Improvements

Major Project Cost vs. Assessed Valuation State Water Project Delta Solution • 1931 • $220 million bond • Assessed Valuation: $2 billion • 1960 • $1. 75 billion bond (MWD share ~50%) • Assessed Valuation: $6 billion • $3. 4 billion (assumed MWD share) • Assessed Valuation: $2 trillion Ratio: 10% Ratio: 6% Ratio: 0. 2% Colorado River Aqueduct

Rate Impact Summary Average Rate ($/ AF) 1, 600 1, 400 1, 200 IRP Planning Approach 3. 5% Inflation 1, 000 800 600 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

How do we get to a solution? Legislative/Congressional Support Regulatory assurances Sound science & adaptive management Effective governance structure Local benefits

Why are you an optimist? “For myself I am an optimist – it does not seem to be much use being anything else. ” - Winston Churchill “If you’re going through hell, keep going. ” - Winston Churchill