The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

1. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan May 30, 2013

2. 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 • Estimated Retail Demand: • 4 million acre-feet • Provide about ½ of retail demands

3. Sources of Water for Southern California Sierra Mountains LA Aqueduct Bay/Delta Colorado River Aqueduct State Water Project Conservation Local Groundwater and Recycling

4. Importance of Delta

5. Los Angeles Aqueduct State Water Project Colorado River Aqueduct The Bay-Delta Hub of California’s Water Some regions up to 100% dependent Bay Area – 33% Central Valley – 23 to 90% Southern Cal – 30% Local

6. Water Flowing Through the Delta In-Delta Consumptive Use4% MWD4% Delta Exports17% UpstreamConsumptive Use31% Pacific Ocean48% Source: Governor’s Delta Vision Report (Estimated total annual runoff 32.85 maf) 6

7. We Have Diverse Supplies

8. Southern California’s Water Portfolio • 25% Colorado River supplies • 30% State Water Project (flowing through the Delta) • 45% Local Supplies • Los Angeles Aqueduct • Conservation • Recycling • Groundwater • Desalination

9. Water Use Efficiency • 20% Reduction in Per-Capita Water Use Metropolitan's Integrated Resource Plan Local Resources • Develop Incentives and Partnerships • Implement Foundational Actions Blueprint for Adapting to Change SWP • Delta Improvements for Reliability CRA • Develop Dry-Year Supply Programs

10. Water Use Efficiency • 20% Reduction in Per-Capita Water Use Metropolitan's Integrated Resource Plan Local Resources • Develop Incentives and Partnerships • Implement Foundational Actions Blueprint for Adapting to Change • What Does This Mean? • Stabilize Imported Supplies • Increase Efficiency and Local Resources SWP • Delta Improvements for Reliability CRA • Develop Dry-Year Supply Programs

11. Diversification of Water Portfolio Dry Year Supplies Early 1990’s 2010 IRP Strategy Heavy dependence on imported supply and SWP Diversions Emphasis on Conservation, Local Supplies, and Storage & Transfers

12. Metropolitan’s Storage Programs Central Valley/SWP Storage San Luis Carryover Semitropic Arvin-Edison Kern Delta Mojave CRA StorageAdvance Delivery Lake Mead ICS Local StorageDiamond Valley Lake MathewsLake SkinnerConjunctive Use GroundwaterDWR State Project Reservoirs

13. Metropolitan Has IncreasedThe Region's Storage Capacity 14x Increase in Capacity

14. Regional Investments Reducing Reliance on Imports Conservation: 900,000 af/yr Recycling: 335,000 af/yr Groundwater Recovery:111,000 af/yr Seawater: 46,000 af/yr (planned) Conservation represents regional actions both active & passive Recycling & groundwater represents total regional production 2012 (MWD & member agency) Seawater represents 3 planned local projects

15. Cost Comparison (per acre-foot) Metropolitan is committed to meeting future additional water supply needs through local resources and conservation $1,400 -3,500+/AF $1,600 -3,500+/AF $940 -2,500/AF $1,600 -2,300/AF Local Supply Avg. ~ $1,500/AF SWP Existing ($650/AF) + Delta Improvements ($200/AF) = ~ $850/AF Revised: December 18, 2012 15

16. Benefits and Costs OfBay-Delta Conservation Plan

17. Delta Conveyance Improvements SWP & CVP Reliability South Exports Only Metropolitan’s share ~ 25% Exports will be minimal for 1.5 to 3 years following an earthquake 1.0 - 1.5 Includes work completed by the BDCP Steering Committee effort

18. Sylmar Water Quality & Salinity Management Las Posas Verdugo East San Fernando Raymond Six Basins Cucamonga Main San Gabriel Chino • Objectives • Improve export quality to meet Public Health standards & reduce treatment costs • Support actions to minimize salinity imports • Meet 500 mg/l blending goal • Some Basin Plans have low TDS objectives • Could restrict extended recharge of high salinity Colorado River water * San Jacinto Orange County Elsinore Upper San Juan San Mateo & San Onofre Warner Valley 18 * Some of the highlighted basins do not currently receive MWD recharge supplies

19. BDCP: Preliminary Cost Analysis Metropolitan’s share is approximately 25 percent The $14 billion estimate per the Governor’s announcement (July 25, 2012) Other cost information from Dec-2010 BDCP document Users pay – new conveyance & associated mitigation Beneficiaries pay – habitat conservation & other state-wide benefits Average cost for Southern Californians ~ $5 - 6/month per household 19

20. Capital Cost Comparisons BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012 • BDCP Delta Facilities • San Francisco PUC Hetch Hetchy Project • Repairs to protect against future seismic events, and to meet current building codes and drinking water regulations • Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros Project • Improves water quality and provides emergency storage

21. Regional Cost Comparisons BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012 • MWD share of BDCP Cost • MWD Diamond Valley Reservoir/Inland Feeder projects • Primarily an emergency storage facility but also provides drought and water quality benefits • SDCWA Emergency Storage Project • Enhances reliability of the water supply of San Diego in the event of seismic disruption

22. Summary • Delta is critical to California’s water supply • Southern 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