Water Management Representatives

March 2, 2017

Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency

“A multicounty agency authorized to plan for and acquire supplemental water supplies, encourage water conservation and use of recycled water on a regional basis.”[Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Act, AB2058(Papan-2002)]

There’s a Drought on. Turn the Water Off.

The Last Drought Update(for now)

Steven R. Ritchie

Assistant General Manager, Water

March 2, 2017

Feb. 26, 2017 Reservoir Storage Levels

Reservoir

Current

Storage1,2,3

Maximum

Storage3,4

Available

Capacity

Percent of

Maximum

Storage

Normal

Percent of

Maximum

Storage5

(AF) (AF) (AF)

Tuolumne System

Hetch Hetchy 314,130 360,360 46,230 87.2% 61.5%

Cherry 239,990 273,500 33,510 87.7% -

Eleanor 22,770 27,113 4,343 84.0% -

Water Bank 570,000 570,000 0 100.0% 99.3%

Total Tuolumne Storage 1,146,890 1,230,973 84,083 93.2% -

Local System

Calaveras 57,053 96,670 39,617 59.0% -

San Antonio 51,321 50,637 -684 101.4% -

Crystal Springs 53,882 58,309 4,427 92.4% -

San Andreas 18,534 19,027 493 97.4% -

Pilarcitos 3,010 3,030 20 99.4% -

Total Local Storage 183,800 227,673 43,872 80.7% -

Total System Storage 1,330,690 1,458,646 127,955 91.2% 78.6%

Total without water bank 760,690 888,646 127,955 85.6% -

1 Upcountry storage is average of previous day's storage from USGS website2 Water bank storage reported by HHWP for 2/26/20173 Local data from Daily Water Report4 Upcountry maximum storage is with flashboards, taken from rating curve

San Francisco Water

Current Water Storage

As of midnight on: 26-Feb-2017

5The ratio of median storage for this day over maximum storage capacity. Median storage for this

day is based on historical storage data from years 1982 - 2014

Cumulative Precipitation

Upcountry Snowpack

Upcountry 6-station Precipitation Index as of February 26th

Annual Total: 35.6 inches

YTD Total: 53.7 inches

Bay Area 7-station Precipitation Index as of February 26th

Annual Total: 26.9 inches

YTD Total: 34.2 inches

Total Deliveries

Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan

and the

San Francisco Regional Water System

Steven R. Ritchie

Assistant General Manager, Water

March 2, 2017

Overview

• Outreach summary

• Primary issues:• San Francisco Water Management

• San Joaquin Water Quality Control Plan and Its Potential Impacts

• Ecosystem Benefits of the State’s Proposal and Alternatives

• Discussion

Outreach Activities

• BAWS February 10, 2017 Meeting Agenda• San Francisco Water Management

• Water Supply Agreement (2009)

• Fourth Agreement

• San Joaquin Water Quality Control Plan and Its Potential Impacts

• Alternatives

• Economic Analyses

• 13 people representing 11 groups attended

• Lots of information was shared in advance and presented, and the discussion was very interactive.

• Tuolumne River Trust presented a draft water system management model using different management assumptions than the SFPUC to draw conclusions about our system.

BAWS Meeting Follow-up

• Staff shared additional data requested by the Tuolumne River Trust.

• Staff is reviewing the TRT model. The model is simple and straightforward.

• Models are only tools that provide answers that are useful in a policy context. TRT is proposing policy changes to how we operate our system.

• We will focus on these policy choices, not the models.

San Francisco’s Diversions from the Tuolumne – Storing Water In Wet Periods

San Francisco Water Supply Planning

• Our water supply planning is driven by drought conditions. There is plenty of water in normal years, but extended droughts are a big challenge.

• Our Level of Service objective for water supply (adopted in 2008) is to survive a specific drought planning scenario (1987-92 followed by 1976-77) with no more than 20% rationing from a total system demand of 265 MGD.

• These choices were not made lightly.

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, January, 1991

15

San Francisco Water Supply Planning

• The biggest challenge is not knowing when an extended drought will occur. We need to plan for each year as if it is the beginning (or a continuation) of our drought planning scenario.

• Under existing conditions, we project that shortages would occur once in every 10 years.

• Using this planning approach has served us and our ratepayers well over the last 20+ years.

Potential Impacts of 2016 State Proposal on Our System

• The State’s proposal for 40% unimpaired flows in the Tuolumne February – June every year is significant.

• Because of 52% potential obligation, we would be facing increased rationing in dry years (based on 1921-2011 hydrology):

• 50% rationing at normal or contract level demands.• Rationing in multiple dry years would be as high as 50% at demands from

223 MGD to 265 MGD.

• 20-30% rationing even at current demand.• Even at 175 MGD (FY 2016 deliveries under SWRCB-mandated rationing),

further rationing of 20-32% would be necessary.

• The number of dry year shortages would double or triple.• Occurrences of dry year shortages would double in the 175 and 223

MGD/40% unimpaired scenarios and triple in the 265 MGD scenario.

Total System Storage in Design Drought with 265 MGD Demand

18885,000 AF shortfall = 93 MGD over the 8.5-year sequence

Total System Storage in Design Drought with 223 MGD Demand

19865,000 AF shortfall = 91 MGD over the 8.5-year sequence

Total System Storage in Design Drought with 175 MGD Demand

20475,000 AF shortfall = 50 MGD over the 8.5-year sequence

What Major Investments in Uncertain Water Supply Projects Could Help?

• To achieve the Level of Service objective (265 MGD demand with no more than 20% rationing) requires roughly 900,000 acre-feet of new storage (900,000 = 2.5 x Hetch Hetchy).

• Purified water projects (reusing wastewater for drinking water) may produce some supply, but their outlook is uncertain and only 4 potential projects are actually in the discussion stage.

• Another potential investment would be in a desalination plant with capacity of roughly 100 MGD in dry years, plus transmission to Irvington Portal.

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial January 22, 2017

“[M]ore needs to be done. Nature is as likely as the water board to reduce Sierra flows. Better to plan for a drier future than fight over a diminishing water supply.”

But what about the environment?

Tuolumne River Ecosystem Effects of the State’s Proposal

• The State claims the unimpaired flow proposal has benefits for the Bay-Delta. That was what they assessed in 2010 as directed by the Legislature.

• However:• Unimpaired flows are not a useful mechanism in a heavily modified

environment.

• Specifically, 40% unimpaired flow on the Tuolumne River in February –June is unlikely to achieve significant fishery benefits on the River.

• The Irrigation Districts and San Francisco have performed over 200 studies on the Tuolumne River. The Districts and San Francisco combined have spent about $25 million in the last 5 years on studies to support the Don Pedro Relicensing.

What Are Better Ways to Increase Fish Populations on the Tuolumne River?

• We support a portfolio of measures to improve river

ecosystems and increase natural salmonid populations in the

San Joaquin River tributaries.

• Functional flows

• Restoring habitat

• Reducing predation and managing aquatic weeds

• Better managing hatcheries

Functional Flows

• Functional flows use scientific understanding to target specific

ecological functions throughout the year and among years to

achieve desired outcomes.

• Given the need to balance water use for cities, agriculture, and

the environment, a functional flow approach is a more

efficient, reasonable, and responsible use of environmental

water, and it provides a more reliable basis for adaptive

management in the future.

• The functional flow approach is broadly supported in the

scientific literature in modified rivers.

Restore Habitats

• On the lower Tuolumne River, habitat restoration

improvements may include:

• Gravel augmentation – Gravel has been lost in the 12 miles of river

below La Grange Dam. Periodic augmentation would increase and

maintain spawning habitat quantity and quality for fall-run Chinook

salmon and O. mykiss.

• Increased habitat complexity –The addition of boulders in an 8

mile long reach of river near La Grange Dam would expand and improve

juvenile O. mykiss and fall-run Chinook salmon rearing habitat.

Striped Bass Predation

Striped Bass Predation

Predation Solutions

Manage Aquatic Weeds, Particularly Water Hyacinth

Water Hyancith

Change Hatchery Management Practices

• Hatchery fish interbreed with “natural” fish and don’t just

return to hatcheries confusing the situation.

• To reduce the negative impacts of hatchery practices, Central

Valley hatcheries should fully implement the recommendations

of the California Hatchery Review Project, including the

cessation of off-site releases.

• 100% marking and tagging at all Central Valley hatcheries

should be implemented to allow for accurate accounting of

returning hatchery vs. natural adult Chinook and steelhead.

• Concurrent with 100% marking, mark-selective fall-run Chinook

salmon fishery rules should be established to assist in the

development and protection of natural fall-run Chinook

salmon.

Voluntary Agreements vs. Regulation and Litigation

We are working hard to move forward on State-sponsored, voluntary, statewide settlement discussions.

We need to make progress quickly, but we will all need more time to fully negotiate settlements.

The State Board proposal does not provide a satisfactory framework for settlements. It is neither flexible or robust enough to support settlements.

Settlements will not be easy. They’re going to be painful and costly, but they’re better than the

alternative. There will not be “winners” and “losers”. We are all in this together.

In the absence of settlements, unproductive litigation will prolong the current situation and won’t help the environment or impacted communities.

Conclusions

The State’s proposal has significant impacts on the SFPUC water supply with uncertain benefits for the Tuolumne River.

Benefits can be achieved for the Tuolumne River using smart, functional flows and serious commitment to measures other than flow.

Negotiated settlements are superior to a regulatory solution that will only end in non-productive litigation.

Oroville Dam Spillway

What Are BAWSCA’s Current

SED-Related Efforts? Coordinating with SFPUC on SED matters of mutual

interesto Attended BAWS meeting on Feb. 10

o BAWSCA’s comment letter is being prepared in coordination with SFPUC

Securing comment letters from member agencies and

allieso Member agency letters provide critical information for BAWSCA’s letter

o Working to make sure all member agencies submit comments prior to the

March 17, 2017 deadline (by March 3rd if possible!)

Separate settlement discussionso Coordination with SFPUC

o Separate outreach and request for participation

Mountain Tunnel:

Bulkhead Adit

Doorways

Results of FY 2014-15 Wholesale

Revenue Requirement (WRR) Review Pursuant to Section 7.06A of the 2009 Water Supply

Agreement, BAWSCA conducted

o Review of SFPUC’s calculation of the annual WRR and

o Review of changes in the balancing account for FY14-15

On February 16, 2017, the parties reached an agreement

pertaining to BAWSCA’s concerns related to SFPUC costs

allocated to Wholesale Customers

The adjustments made associated with FY14-15 WRR

review resulted in a total credit of $11,903,057 owed to the

Wholesale Customers

Summary of Adjustments Resulted

From FY14-15 WRR Review

Type of Adjustment

Adjustments before formal WRR review process

Accounting error ($10,367,559)

Interpretation of WRR error ($1,254,697)

Cost allocation error ($85,491)

($11,707,747)

Adjustments during formal WRR review process

Cost allocation error ($177,241)

Accounting error ($18,069)

($195,310)

Total adjustments resulted from BAWSCA's review ($11,903,057)

Due from (to)

Wholesale Customers

Summary of Adjustments During

Formal FY14-15 WRR Review

Type of Adjustment

Adjustments during formal WRR review process ($195,310)

True-up adjustment on BABs subsidy sequestration $858,155

Interest $10,131

Total adjustments during formal WRR review process $672,976

Due from (to)

Wholesale Customers

One of the defects found in the tunnel within first 7200 feet of lined section from Priest Portal

SFPUC, January 2017

Proposed New Water Shortage

Contingency Plan Requirements EO B-37-16 included several long-term conservation objectives

“Making Conservation a California Water of Life” per EO-B-37-16

submitted to Governor’s Office on January 25th

Report provides framework for EO directives to:

o Use Water More Wisely (new water use targets)

o Eliminate Water Waste

o Strengthen Local Drought Resilience (through Water Shortage

Contingency Plans)

Proposed requirements will require expanded statutory authority to

implement

Preliminary FY 2017-18 Work Plan includes activities to support

agencies implementation for FY 2017-18 and beyond

Requirements Include Annual

Water Budget Forecasts Drought resilience directive enhances the requirements of existing

Water Shortage Contingency Plans

Every 5 years, urban water suppliers required to prepare:

o 5-Year Drought Risk Assessment (and evaluation criteria)

o Annual water budget forecast procedures and methodology

o Defined evaluation criteria for Water Budget Forecast

o Standardized shortage levels

Annually, each urban water supplier must:

o Conduct and submit a Water Budget Forecast

o Implement Shortage Response Actions triggered by Water Budget

Forecast results

Requirements anticipated to take effect in 2020

o Reporting with 2020 Urban Water Management Plans

Tier 1 and Tier 2 plans both require modifications

o Current Tier 2 Plan expires in 2018

o Concerns identified with Tier 1 Plan formula

o Neither plan consistent with State approach

Annual Water Budgets will assess shortage risks for

current year and one or more dry year(s)

o Results will trigger Shortage Response Actions

o Current Tier 1 and Tier 2 Plans may pose challenges in

completing calculations

Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 plan should address

inconsistencies with State requirements

New Requirements May Impact

Tier 1 and 2 Plan Modifications

FY 2017-18 Work Plan Considers

Tier 1 and 2 Modifications FY 2017-18 related Work Plan Actions include

o Support agency interests in “Making Conservation a Way of Life”

implementation of all three directives

o Prepare temporary extension of Tier 2 drought allocation plan

o Develop principles for new Tier 1 and Tier 2 drought allocation plans

Multiple year work plan required to inform development as State

requirements are clarified

BAWSCA’s goal is to assist agencies in developing Tier 1 and 2

Plans in line with the principles established and state requirements

Grouting of the rock bolts at Adit 5/6

SFPUC, January 2017

BAWSCA Drought Report

Preparation Update BAWSCA has contracted with EKI to assist in Drought

Report Preparation

Purpose of this report is to document lessons learned for

future drought and planning efforts

EKI has issued a survey of BAWSCA agencies to obtain:

o Information on individual agency drought response

o Agency feedback on BAWSCA drought actions

Survey responses were due on February 17th

Responses are still needed from several agencies

Shotcrete is complete in Adit 5/6

SFPUC, February 2017

BAWSCA Implementing

Strategy Actions Strategy Phase II Final Report (Feb 2015) identified the

following actions for implementation

o Water transfers development and implementation, including storage

o Facilitate desalination partnerships, pursue funding

o Support agency-identified projects (i.e. recycled water, groundwater,

local capture and reuse)

o Participate in regional planning studies in cooperation with others

o Continue monitoring regional water supply investments & policies

These “Strategy Actions” represent the relatively low-cost, low

risk preliminary actions to prepare region for unforeseen water

supply challenges

BAWSCA Implementing

Strategy Actions Strategy Phase II Final Report (Feb 2015) identified the

following actions for implementation

o Water transfers development and implementation, including storage

o Facilitate desalination partnerships, pursue funding

o Support agency-identified projects (i.e. recycled water,

groundwater, local capture and reuse)

o Participate in regional planning studies in cooperation with others

o Continue monitoring regional water supply investments & policies

These “Strategy Actions” represent the relatively low-cost, low

risk preliminary actions to prepare region for unforeseen water

supply challenges

BAWSCA’s Purified Water

Strategy Actions BAWSCA directly participating in feasibility studies with SFPUC and others

o Current = Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW), Cal. Water

SCVWD

o Potential = ACWD

City of San Mateo

Advocacy Group Participation: Participation in WaterReuse

o Attend regular meetings to gain access to industry knowledge

o Will share feedback regarding upcoming regulations, pending legislation,

funding opportunities, etc.

Written report to Board summarizing status of BAWSCA and member agency

activities regarding purified water in Summary 2017

Anticipated activity and expected results included in preliminary FY 2017-18

Work Plan

Partnership Meeting Planned

for March 22 in Foster City BAWSCA is hosting the 4th meeting of the Groundwater

Reliability Partnership for the San Mateo Plain Sub-basin

o March 22, 9:30-11:30, Foster City Community Center, Wind Room

Agenda includes:

o Overview of the use and management of the East Bay Plain Sub-

basin

o Presentation on San Mateo County’s Stormwater Resource Plan

o Updates from stakeholders

BAWSCA requests that member agencies with updated

information provide short updates at the meetings

San Mateo County in Phase 2 of

Groundwater Assessment San Mateo County is working on its Groundwater

Assessment for the San Mateo Plain Sub-basin

Five public meetings hosted by San Mateo County in

2016 and 2017 to discuss the progress and results

o Jan 31, 2017 was final meeting for Phase I

o County posted the Phase 1 summary report at

http://green.smcgov.org/san-mateo-plain

Phase 2 initiated by San Mateo County

o Working to fill data gaps

o Looking to partner with others on data gathering efforts

Moccasin Creek overtopping into Moccasin Reservoir on 2/10/17

SFPUC, February 2017

Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual

Survey FY 2015-16 Draft Annual Survey provided to member

agencies on February 16th

Comments due by Friday March 3rd to ajohnson@bawsca.org

BAWSCA will incorporate edits during the week of March 6th

If BAWSCA has not heard from your agency by March 3rd, we

will assume no edits are required or requested

FY 2015-16 Annual Survey will be published to BAWSCA

website the week of March 6th

Lake Eleanor OvertoppingSFPUC, January 2017

Quick Roundtable: Member

Agency Status of Drought Regs. Are member agencies rescinding their drought regulations

(voluntary or mandatory)?

Adjournment Next Water Management Representatives Meeting:

o Date: April 6, 2017

o Time: 9:30 AM

o Location: Foster City Community Building, 1000 East

Hillsdale Blvd., Foster City

Don Pedro Reservoir:

Recent Flood

Release