1 / 21

A Water Manager’s Perspective: A View from the Field

A Water Manager’s Perspective: A View from the Field. Jeffrey Kightlinger The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California June 2003. Report On Metropolitan’s Water Supplies. Premise

jadyn
Download Presentation

A Water Manager’s Perspective: A View from the Field

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Water Manager’s Perspective: A View from the Field Jeffrey Kightlinger The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California June 2003

  2. Report On Metropolitan’s Water Supplies • Premise • Retail water supply reliability is dependent on the development of both local and supplemental imported water supplies • Law (SB221 / SB610) • Require new, large-scale developments to provide substantial evidence of available supplies in the event of drought • Objective • Demonstrate a comprehensive plan to provide sufficient supplemental supplies • Assist member agencies and local agencies in complyingwith SB 221 and SB 610

  3. Where Southern CaliforniaGets its Water Transfers & Storage Local Supplies LA Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct SWP Entitlement Local Supplies Groundwater & Recycling Conservation 3

  4. Changed Conditions for Southern California Resources • Challenges • Reduced Colorado River deliveries

  5. 4.9 4.5 3.1 2.5 Total Surplus Available to MWD(with QSA 2004 through 2016) 6 5 4 3 Million Acre-feet 2 1 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 (Apr.) Year of Estimate

  6. Changed Conditions for Southern California Resources • Challenges • Reduced Colorado River deliveries • Reduced Colorado River deliveries • Water quality constraints • Opportunities • Full Diamond Valley Lake • Re-operation of storage and transfers

  7. Kern Delta San BernardinoValley 3.0 Water in Storage(End of 2003) 2.45 DiamondValley Lake SemitropicCastaicPerrisNo. Las Posas ArvinEdison 2.0 Greater than 10X Increase by 2.45 MAF Desert /Coachella 1.0 Lake MatthewsLake Skinner Metropolitan’s Storage Capacity Millions Acre-Feet ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 Year

  8. Changed Conditions for Southern California Resources • Challenges • Reduced Colorado River deliveries • Water quality constraints • Opportunities • Full Diamond Valley Lake • Re-operation of storage and transfers • Challenges • Reduced Colorado River deliveries • Water quality constraints • Opportunities • Full Diamond Valley Lake • Re-operation of storage and transfers • Enhanced conservation measures • Additional local resources

  9. Conservation & Recycling 1.6 Actual Projected 1.4 1.2 1.0 Million Acre-Feet Per Year 0.8 0.6 2020 Resources Conservation: ~1.0 MAF Recycling: 0.5 MAF 0.4 0.2 0.0 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 Cumulative Investments: As of 2000 By 2020Conservation $220 mil $1,300 milRecycling$1,200 mil $4,100 milTotal $1,420 mil $5,400 mil

  10. Metropolitan’s Supply Inventory • Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries • California Aqueduct Deliveries • In-Basin Storage Deliveries

  11. Demands on MWD 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2025 2005 2010 2015 2020 Multiple Dry-Year Supply Capability & Projected Demands Supplies Under Development Supplies (million acre-feet) Current Supplies

  12. Demands on MWD 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2025 2005 2010 2015 2020 Single Dry-Year Supply Capability & Projected Demands Supplies Under Development Supplies (million acre-feet) Current Supplies

  13. Priorities 4 & 5 IID / MWD Transfer (50%) Hayfield Canal Linings Colorado River Aqueduct DeliveriesCurrent Program Capabilities LAKE SHASTA LAKE OROVILLE • Terms: 2033 to perpetuity • Storage Capacity = 800 TAF • Max Dry-Year deliveries: • 721 TAF/Yr in 2005 • 837 TAF/Yr in 2025

  14. Interim Surplus Guidelines Palo Verde ID Chuckwalla Storage IID / MWD (Coachella Opt) Lower Coachella Storage Colorado River Aqueduct DeliveriesAdditional Programs Under Development LAKE SHASTA LAKE OROVILLE • Storage Capacity = 1.0 MAF • Max Dry-Year deliveries: • 167 TAF/Yr in 2005 • 412 TAF/Yr in 2025 IID / SDCWA Transfer

  15. San Luis Reservoir California Aqueduct DeliveriesSWP Entitlement Deliveries LAKE SHASTA LAKE OROVILLE • Contract term: 2035 • Based on historical record • Deliveries = .418 – 1.741 MAF/Yr SWP Entitlement Deliveries

  16. Semitropic Kern Delta Arvin-Edison San Bernardino Coachella California Aqueduct DeliveriesCurrent Banking / Transfer Programs LAKE SHASTA LAKE OROVILLE • Contract terms: 2028 – 2035 • Storage Capacity = 1.1 MAF • Max Dry-Year deliveries = 330 TAF/Yr (10 months)

  17. California Aqueduct DeliveriesCurrent Transfer Options LAKE SHASTA Sacramento Valley Transfers LAKE OROVILLE • Single & multiple - year options • Market available every year • Up to 250 TAF in 2003 DWR Drought Water bank San JoaquinValley Transfers San Bernardino

  18. California Aqueduct DeliveriesPrograms Under Development LAKE SHASTA LAKE OROVILLE • Max Dry-Year deliveries: • 195 TAF/Yr in 2010 • 390 TAF/Yr in 2025 DeltaImprovements AdditionalTransfers / Storage

  19. Pyramid Lake Elderberry Forebay Castaic Lake Silverwood Lake Lake Mathews Lake Perris Diamond Valley Lake Lake Skinner In-Basin Storage DeliveriesCurrent Reservoir Capabilities With a Full DVL: • Integrate Metropolitan & DWR reservoirs • Total storage capacity = 1.67 MAF • Emergency = 30% • Dry-year = 70% • Max Dry-year return = 600 TAF/Yr

  20. In-Basin Groundwater Storage Programs 1 7 5 6 3 2 4 • Current Supply Capability • Storage capacity = 543,000 AF • Dry-Year supply = 120,000 AF/Yr ExistingGroundwater Storage 1. Calleguas 2. Inland Empire 3. Long Beach 4. Orange County 5. Pasadena/Foothill 6. Three Valleys 7. Upper San Gabriel 8. Long-Term Seasonal

  21. In-Basin Groundwater Storage Programs 1 10 7 5 14 6 Additional Prop. 13 GroundwaterStorage 9. Inland Empire 10. Foothill 11. Three Valleys 12. San Diego -- Mission 13. Orange County 14. Pasadena/Foothill 15. San Dieguito 3 2 11 9 4 13 • Additional Programs • Storage capacity = 272,000 AF • Dry-Year supply = 90,000 AF/Yr 15 12 ExistingGroundwater Storage 1. Calleguas 2. Inland Empire 3. Long Beach 4. Orange County 5. Pasadena/Foothill 6. Three Valleys 7. Upper San Gabriel 8. Long-Term Seasonal

More Related