Bay Delta Conservation Plan Update

1. Bay Delta Conservation Plan Update • Margie J. Wheeler • Orange County Business Council • May 14, 2013

2. Overview • Metropolitan Water District • Bay Delta Conservation Plan • Overview and purpose • Costs • Administrative Draft • Conveyance Facility • Conservation Measures • Benefits/Costs/Economic Impacts of BDCP Proposed Project and Alternatives • State Water Project • Critical supply for Southern California • Schedule

3. The Metropolitan Water Districtof Southern California • Six-County Service Area: 5,200 square miles • Population: 19 million • Gross Domestic Product: $1 Trillion • Projected growth: ~170,000 people/year • 50%+ of region’s supply MWD Service Area

4. 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

5. Bay Delta Conservation PlanOverview Video

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. BDCP: Organizations Involved • Public Water Agencies • State Water Contractors • Central Valley Project Contractors Federal Agencies • Council on Environmental Quality • Department of Interior • Department of Commerce • Department of Agriculture • US Environmental Protection Agency • Department of the Army State Agencies • Natural Resources Agency • Department of Water Resources • Department of Fish/Game • Environmental Organizations • American Rivers • Defenders of Wildlife • Environmental Defense • Natural Heritage Institute • The Bay Institute • The Nature Conservancy

8. BDCP: Purpose • Increased reliability • Comprehensive restoration for the Delta • Basis for permits • Federal and state endangered species laws • Sources of funding and new methods of decision-making • Adaptive management and monitoring to adjust as conditions change and new information is available • Streamline permitting for projects covered by the plan

9. BDCP: Preliminary Cost Analysis • Users pay – new conveyance & associated mitigation • Beneficiaries pay – habitat conservation & other state-wide benefits • Average cost for Southern Californians ~ $5 - 6/month per household 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 9

10. Bay Delta Conservation Plan Administrative Draft

11. BDCP Administrative Draft • Joint document • Habitat Conservation Plan • Natural Community Conservation Plan • 57 species • 11 fish species • 46 terrestrial species • 214 Biological goals and objectives • 22 Conservation measures • Adaptive management • Research and monitoring

12. Bay Delta Conservation Plan Administrative Draft – Schedule • March 14 – Released Chapters 1-4 • Introduction, Existing Conditions, Conservation Strategyand Covered Actions • March 20 – Public Workshop • March 27 – Released Chapters 5-7 • Effects Analysis, Plan Implementation, Implementation Structure • April 4 – Public Workshop • Late May– Scheduled release of Chapters 8-12 • Implementation Costs & Funding Sources, Alternatives to Take, Integration of Independent Science, List of Preparers, Glossary • TBD– Public Workshop

13. CM1: Water Facilities and Operation • Dual Conveyance • South Delta (existing) • North Delta (new) • Three intakes/pumping plants • State-of-the-art fish screens • Forebay temporarily stores water pumped from river • Two gravity flow tunnels (35 miles long; 9,000 cfs) Sacramento Sac River North Diversion Tunnels Stockton SJ River SWP Pumps South Diversion CVP Pumps 13 Preliminary Subject to Revision

14. BDCP Conservation Measures • 5 • 10 • 15 • 20 • 25 • 30 • 35 • 40 • 45 • 50 YEARS Conveyance Construction 20 projects Yolo Bypass 62,455 acres Natural Communities 65,000 acres Tidal Marsh 10,000 acres Floodplain Restoration 20 linear miles Channel Margin Some activities ongoing/others on as needed basis Other Stressors

15. Benefits/Costs/Economic Impacts of BDCP Proposed Project and Alternatives • Prepared by ICF International and The Brattle Group • Costs and funding sources May • BDCP Chapter 8 • Alternatives to “take” May • Analysis of alternative that may avoid harm to various speciescovered in the BDCP • BDCP Chapter 9 • Economic benefits to participating water agencies July • Statewide economic impact May • Employment impacts (published February 2013) • Socioeconomic impacts May • EIR/EIS Chapter 16 Administrative Draft

16. State Water Project Critical supply for Southern California

17. Challenges Replacing SWP Supplies • SWP supplies are essential to alternative supply options • SWP provides baseline supplies that we conserve and recycle • SWP provides valuable water quality benefits • Colorado River & groundwater blending • Recycling • Feasibility of alternative supplies 17

18. Diversification of Water Portfolio(Dry-Year Supplies) Conservation Storage & Transfers Storage & Transfers Conservation Local Supplies Colorado River Aqueduct Local Supplies State Water Project State Water Project 2010 IRP Strategy Early 1990’s Heavy dependence on imported supply and SWP Diversions Emphasis on Conservation, Local Supplies, and Storage & Transfers 18

19. 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

20. 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 20

21. Risks of Doing Nothing • Status Quo • Ecosystem decline • Pumping restrictions (supply reduced 30%) • Major Levee Failure • Up to three-year disruption of water deliveries • $40 billion estimated impact to California’s economy 21

22. Schedule 2013 BDCP DSC Delta Plan

23. The Delta Sacramento Suisun Bay Stockton State & Federal Pumping Plants

24. Margie Wheeler 213-217-5585 mwheeler@mwdh2o.com www.mwdh2o.com

25. Capital Cost Comparisons • 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 BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012

26. Regional Cost Comparisons • 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 BDCP Economic Benefits and Financial Strategies, SCWC/The PFM Group, February 2012

27. Key Delta Risks Seismic RiskBay Area Faults Fishery DeclinesDelta smelt Sea Level Rise Subsidence

28. BDCP Administrative Draft

29. 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

30. The Bay-Delta: The State Water “Hub” Drinking Water for 25 Million Californians Northern California Southern California Central Valley Irrigation for half of the Nation’s Fruits and Vegetables 30

31. Metropolitan Board Actions • Board Approved • Delta Action Plan June 2007 • Delta Conveyance Criteria Sept 2007 • Delta Governance Principles Aug 2008 • Delta Vision Implementation Jan 2009 • Delta-Related Legislation Apr 2009 • Board Authorized • Execution of Planning Agreement for BDCP Oct 2006 • Execution of BDCP Cost-Sharing Agreement Nov 2006 • Execution of amendments to Planning Agreement Dec 2009 • Execution of amendment (additional funds) July 2010 • Execution of amendment to MOA Aug 2011 • Planning costs: $170 million • Metropolitan share: 25% 31

32. BDCP: Reducing Environmental Stressors • Toxic pollutants • Invasive species • Predator control • Illegal poaching • Hatchery practices

33. Sylmar Las Posas Water Quality & Salinity Management 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 33 * Some of the highlighted basins do not currently receive MWD recharge supplies

34. Peripheral Canal & BDCP: Comparison * A final decision on the proposed conveyance facility awaits the completion of regulatory and environmental review and public input consideration. Source: BDCP : A 21st century Strategy. http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Home.aspx

35. Peripheral Canal & BDCP: Comparison * A final decision on the proposed conveyance facility awaits the completion of regulatory and environmental review and public input consideration. ** Additional acres of agricultural land would be impacted due to disposal of dirt and material during construction. The Peripheral Canal proposal did not quantify such materials in detail. Source: BDCP : A 21st century Strategy. http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Home.aspx