BARR Public Meeting June 20, 2017

Transcription

1 BARR Public Meeting June 20, 2017 Attendees Spreck Rosekrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy* Michael Germeraad, ABAG* Sonia Diermayer, Sierra Club, SF Bay * Bob Whitley, East Bay Leadership Council* Nahal Ghoghaie, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water* Chris Shutes, California Sportfishing Alliance* Mike Price, MWH/Stantec Billy Wong, MWH/Stantec Bert Michalczyk, MWH/Stantec Polly Boissevain, West Yost Associates Stan Kolodzie, Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) *BARR Drought Task Force member Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD Alice Towey, EBMUD (BARR PM) Mike Tognolini, EBMUD Doug Wallace, EBMUD Hasan Abdullah, EBMUD Thomas Niesar, ACWD Tom Francis, BAWSCA Marguerite Patil, CCWD Manisha Kothari, SFPUC Wes Mercado, Zone 7 Jenny Gain, Brown and Caldwell (BC), Consultant Team PM Cindy Paulson, BC Rosey Jencks, BC Katie Ruby, BC Summary The BARR DCP public meeting began with introductions, including Drought Task Force (TF) members, members of the public, and representatives from the BARR agencies and consultant team. Alice Towey (BARR PM) presented an overview of BARR and the DCP, and Doug Wallace facilitated the meeting. As discussed during the meeting, the BARR team prepared the following summary of the public/tf comments shared at the meeting to attach to the Draft DCP submittal. Comments from the Public/Drought Task Force Drought mitigation measures Some measures could have positive impacts for the environment, save money for customers, and/or reduce the perceived need to build new projects. While some specific measures are not favored by individual TF members/organizations, many BARR drought mitigation measures seem very promising. Bay Area Water Market (Exchanges/Transfers) Program This program should be renamed (e.g., Bay Area Water Exchange ) and clearly defined. Since water markets, transfers, and exchanges may raise concern with stakeholders, using and defining one term may help garner more support for the program. BARR agencies applied for Reclamation funding for the program. If funded, BARR agencies should invite the TF members to participate again. Another grant and TF effort would help to keep the BARR effort visible and active. A public 1

2 process and pilot exchanges/transfers could also help to address stakeholders concerns and move toward solutions. Next steps The DCP is an important step in improving the Bay Area s supply reliability and resilience. BARR agencies came together by necessity and to leverage joint opportunities. Though the partnership did not start because of the drought, the drought further motivated action. The process of developing the BARR DCP has been helpful and transformational in creating a cultural shift in the approach to Bay Area water management. Stakeholders want to maintain the momentum and see progress beyond the submittal of the DCP to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (i.e., the DCP should not just sit on a shelf ). BARR agencies discussions are currently ongoing regarding the next phase of the partnership. From a TF member s perspective, the BARR DCP process has been positive, and the agencies should develop mechanisms for continuing the dialogue with stakeholders. Engaging the public in a similar way as the TF could lead to breakthroughs that enable exchanges and transfers to happen. BARR should post annual status reports on the BARR website, with push notifications and/or press releases to inform TF members and other interested stakeholders of the progress in implementing the drought mitigation measures and response actions included in the DCP. Implementation of some drought mitigation measures is contingent on the advancement of other projects. Annual status reports should clearly identify the interconnectedness between measures. Additional forums for public outreach CCWD has scheduled six public meetings throughout the Bay Area in July to follow the release of the Draft Supplement to the Los Vaqueros Expansion Final Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report. During the meetings, CCWD staff plan to also present BARR information and context. 2

3 BC QC Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan Public comments on the Draft Drought Contingency Plan (released June 12, 2017) Comment ID Reviewer's Affiliation Reviewer's Name Review Date Page No. or Comment / Question Section 1 EJ Coalition for Water Colin Bailey 6/23/2017 Section 3.6 Agencies Drought Response Actions It would be helpful if BARR Agencies began to work towards standardizing their various drought response mechanisms. It is currently difficult to compare strategies and metrics. Some agencies describe rationing in gallons/capita/day, while others use percentages. Agencies would help public understanding of this regional approach if they are able to usefully compare drought response strategies and streamline descriptions of various programs. We also encourage a Multi Agency Water Conservation Advisory Group to provide public engagement and input, if the BARR DC Task Force does not already intend to provide that opportunity. 2 EJ Coalition for Water Colin Bailey 6/23/2017 Table ES 1 BARR Drought Mitigation Measures The desalination project listed on the Drought Mitigation Measure Table is of concern to us and our constituents, not only regarding affordability issues, but also environmental degradation and conservation. The true costs of desalination are much higher than what rate payers are led to believe. Case studies from Carlsbad and Santa Barbara show that rates can increase as much as three times in one year to cover the capital costs of desalination. Additionally, fish species and stream and coastal habitats are severely degraded as a result of desalination. Residents must be informed of the true cost of such projects before they are implemented. EJCW recommends that BARR agencies develop a matrix of priorities that conveys the true cost of each drought mitigation strategy. As we have seen through a similar effort in San Francisco, when conservation is promoted as the top priority, recycled water and conservation education and outreach made their way to the top of the list, while desalination projects fell to the bottom. 3 EJ Coalition for Water Colin Bailey 6/23/2017 Section Grants and Loans Justification for this section mentions that, securing external funding can help to minimize ratepayer impacts and the rising costs of water services Are there plans to include activities that directly address this issue in any upcoming grants or loans. EJCW would hope to see this kind of work included in future grant budgets. 4 EJ Coalition for Water Colin Bailey 6/23/2017 General Regarding the legal question around rates and equal cost of service, we encourage BARR agencies to consider the potential strategy of reflecting infrastructure degradation rate in the water rates charged to customers. Higher rates of use lead to higher rates of degradation, and should lead to higher fees for service. We believe Bay Area water agencies can build off strategies used by other water providers throughout the state (LADWP) and determine a way to charge based on rate of use, without violating the restrictions enforced by Proposition EJ Coalition for Water Colin Bailey 6/23/2017 General Outcomes and Next Steps BARR could improve the efficacy of its process by reviewing and learning lessons from other California water management stakeholder processes. For example, the LA One Water Plan is already experiencing a successful process and may be able to inform next steps for the BARR stakeholder process. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. While it is an important effort, there are many improvements that could be made to the report going forward that would make huge strides towards strengthening the region s water supply reliability in an inclusive and equitable fashion. 6 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 General Sierra Club San Francisco Bay (SC SF Bay) has appreciated being included in the Stakeholder Taskforce formed to solicit input in the preparation of the Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) by the eight BARR partner agencies and Brown and Caldwell consultants. The East Bay Municipal Utility District's lead role and the Brown and Caldwell team's skillful and constructive coordination are especially acknowledged. The final draft DCP is clear and informative in stating its premises, compiling agency data, and in presenting its conclusions. In general terms, the BARR collaboration offers benefits for the public welfare in the better sharing of water infrastructure, expertise, and in the facilitation of mutual aid among the eight BARR partners. Drought and emergency planning and drought supply reliability achieved at a lower cost will definitely be beneficial to customers and the agencies. There could be environmental benefits as well. The optimization of storage, transfers and wheeling strategies to meet the basic drought needs of the entire BARR service area could help to reduce pressures on the Sacramento and San Joaquin River tributary watersheds and the Delta. That optimization also strengthens the case for south Bay agencies to forgo investing in the state's costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging WaterFix tunnels project or new dams. Comment Log 6/29/2017

4 BC QC Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan Public comments on the Draft Drought Contingency Plan (released June 12, 2017) Comment ID Reviewer's Affiliation Reviewer's Name Review Date Page No. or Comment / Question Section 7 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 General On the DCP's list of 15 projects for potential further development some would bolster groundwater sustainability and further the goals of greater regional and local self sufficiency. Top among these are several potable reuse and treatment projects and some interties. However, Sierra Club does not necessarily agree with or support all the assumptions or specifics of the DCP document. Demand projections drawn from the 2015 UWMP's may be considerably overstating the future need for water and not be reflecting permanent reductions in use and changes in behavior due to the recent drought. Modification of water rights and streamlining transfers, exchanges and sales for the purpose of drought mitigation may appear to increase the overall supply of water. This could fuel growth, raise baseline demand, ultimately resulting in greater net diversions from rivers and aquifers and additional stresses on the SF Bay Delta. These concerns will be the continuing focus of our attention. Certain projects would have damaging impacts that outweigh their advantages in our view. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant is one Sierra Club continues to oppose. There are concerns about the MMWD EBMUD intertie over the Richmond Bay Bridge creating the potential for directing North Coast River water to the East Bay. We look forward to examining the Supplemental EIR for Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion to be released shortly. We're also interested in following the development of the Water Transfers/Exchanges Market pilot project. 8 Sierra Club SF Bay Sierra Club SF Bay would like to request that Stakeholder Taskforce comments on draft Tech Memos 1 and 2 be included in the final document, perhaps as an appendix (subject to commenting entities' agreement) or at a minimum that the comments be posted on the BARR website. We would expect this final round of comments from stakeholders and the public to be attached to the DCP. Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 2.1 Water Supply Sources By 2035 we would hope to see a significant increase in potable reuse across the region, which would be a relatively drought proof source of supply. 9 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Sections 2.3 and 4.2 and Appendix B Demands We find it highly unlikely that the collective demand across BARR agencies would rise to over 1.1 MAF/Y by 2020 (Table 7), given that this would represent a large increase over current actual consumption levels within 3 years. Even by 2035 the cumulative projected demand of over 1.3 MAF/Y flies in the face of past decades' long term per capita usage reductions counterbalancing population increases. State policy instruments cited as creating future uncertainty, including the Bay Delta WQCP update, framework for implementation of EO B 37 16, etc., all will tend to further limit water supply and provide strong incentives for continuing to manage demand and promote efficiency. It appears to us that even in a third year of drought the 2035 shortfall in cumulative supply would not cause undue hardship. However we acknowledge the importance of considering potentially longer, more severe droughts. 10 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Sections 3.5, 3.6, Table 3, Table 4, Appendix A Drought monitoring We feel it would be very instructive to the BARR effort and to wholesale and retail customers to have drought supply reductions and response actions expressed across the board in terms of gallons per capita per day for residential customers. State reporting requirements and implementation of the Governor's EO seem to trend increasingly in that direction. Communication of supply and demand reductions in terms of percentages is unhelpful to understanding significant differences that may be occurring in per capita water use between agencies. The agencies should strive to gradually standardize their drought stages and rationing targets in per capita terms. This will aid customers in understanding and acknowledging the fairness of cutbacks. 11 Sierra Club SF Bay 12 Sierra Club SF Bay 13 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 3.7 It appears to have been a very valuable exercise to evaluate the lessons learned jointly. Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 4.3 Risks to Critical Resources: Cost Constraints We are concerned that the cost of water be made and kept affordable for all. The constraints or perceived constraints of Proposition 218 on the fair distribution of costs need to be addressed at the state level by all agencies. Low income and low water using households must be shielded from carrying the expense of new drought mitigation measures suggested by this Plan. Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section Analysis of the climate change risks is useful and important. Comment Log 6/29/2017

5 BC QC Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan Public comments on the Draft Drought Contingency Plan (released June 12, 2017) Comment ID Reviewer's Affiliation Reviewer's Name Review Date Page No. or Comment / Question Section 14 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 5 Regional Drought Response Actions Both the consistent regional drought messaging and the mobile water treatment facilities ideas appear to be useful applications of pooled BARR agency resources. 15 Sierra Club SF Bay Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 6 Drought Mitigation Measures Many of the Mitigation Measures (MM) are quite conceptual at this point. We look forward to learning more if and when more details are developed and made public. Some projects would appear to improve flexibility and reliability, such as the interties. However, MM 6 (the MMWD EBMUD intertie over the Richmond Bay Bridge) creates the potential for directing North Coast River water to the East Bay, a development we would not welcome. MM 7 We look forward to examining the Supplemental DEIR for Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion to be released shortly for a more complete understanding of this project. MM 9 The Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant will continue to be opposed by Sierra Club for reasons of high cost, high energy use, impacts on Suisun Bay aquatic ecosystems, and others. Walnut Creek Treatment Plant (MM 8) and Reuse Projects MM 10, 11, 12 would appear to improve water sharing conditions and provide more local, drought proof supplies, though we would want to look at the specifics. Del Valle Reservoir reoperation (MM 14) seems like a useful investment to fully utilize current storage capacity. 16 Sierra Club SF Bay 17 Sierra Club SF Bay 18 Sierra Club SF Bay We look forward to seeing whether the Water Transfers/Exchanges Market (MM 15) pilot/study is funded and watching how it evolves. It would be important to us that the creation of a "template" or road map not completely preempt the need for later transfers to be evaluated in terms of their specific impacts on timing and volume of flows through the Bay Delta. Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 7 Operational and Administrative Framework Important considerations are analyzed and discussed here. The information is very useful to understanding the challenges of implementing joint projects. We would like the BARR Partnership Principles to include an additional clause stating: "BARR agencies agree to prioritize local projects, those that lessen dependence on the Delta, and that benefit watershed ecosystems and human communities dependent on them." Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section Sierra Club would be one of the entities generally concerned about the prospect of public private partnerships where water supply or infrastructure is concerned. Privatization and insertion of the profit motive is not appropriate to such an essential resource in our view and has historically led to poor management, poor customer service and affordability issues. Sonia Diermayer 6/27/2017 Section 8.2 Next Steps Exactly how BARR activities will evolve moving forward is subject to numerous factors. We have received assurances that the public will remain informed about the partnership's workings at a minimum through a regularly updated website. The communication between agencies and outside stakeholders on the DCP was constructive and successful. Building on this success, we request that the agencies provide notification of and mechanisms for incorporating stakeholder input into any joint projects from the BARR list of 15 Mitigation Measures or others that advance, whether or not there is an external funding requirement for public outreach. Comment Log 6/29/2017

6 BC QC Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan Public comments on the Draft Drought Contingency Plan (released June 12, 2017) Comment ID Reviewer's Affiliation Reviewer's Name Review Date Page No. or Comment / Question Section 19 DSRSD Daniel McIntyre 6/27/2017 General The DCP is well thought out in reviewing existing water facilities and leveraging each of the BARR agencies assets to maximize drought resiliency. As presented in the DCP, approximately 75% of the BARR partners water supply is imported and all partners with the exception of MMWD are significantly reliant on imported supplies. DSRSD is pleased that the DCP recognizes the importance of recycled water in providing a local water supply that can increase reliability during droughts. In the future, we hope that the BARR partners will work closely with wastewater agencies to maximize the expansion and use of this resource. DSRSD strongly supports the development of the Regional Water Marl et Transfer Program (Program). This program and the proposed interties provide opportunities for exchanges of surface water and advance treated recycled water. Recycled water supplies can be maximized through exchanges and help Bay Area communities augment potable water demands to be more drought resilient. We congratulate the BARR partners in collaborating to develop the DCP. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment. 20 SPUR Laura Tam 6/27/2017 Executive Summary 21 SPUR Laura Tam 6/27/2017 Executive Summary 22 SPUR Laura Tam 6/27/2017 Executive Summary 23 SPUR Laura Tam 6/27/2017 Executive Summary Might be worth distinguishing (the DCP) from IRWMP which is also a collective planning effort. (Regarding the second paragraph under "Regional Water Demand and Water Use Efficiency") Is there actual evidence for this that is presented in a later chapter that you could cite here? The magnitude of lasting efficiencies would be really important to know vs. shorter term reductions. (Regarding the statement "California water management is managed is amid ") Typo/unclear (Regarding the Plan Bay Area 2040 population projections that are significantly higher than populations included in BARR agencies' 2015 UWMPs) Is this because of newly available data or because the UWMPs are using the wrong data? This seems like a big problem: what is the delta between water use predictions between the two? Which should we hew closer toward believing 24 SPUR Laura Tam 6/27/2017 Figure ES 2 (Regarding caption) Wait, what? Is this a prediction? This does not seem like the right caption for this chart Comment Log 6/29/2017

7 San Francisco Bay Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties BARR Agency Partnership c/o Alice Towey, Senior Civil Engineer East Bay Municipal Utility District th Street Oakland, CA June 26, 2017 RE: Comments on Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Partnership Drought Contingency Plan Dear Ms. Towey, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay (SC SF Bay) has appreciated being included in the Stakeholder Taskforce formed to solicit input in the preparation of the Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) by the eight BARR partner agencies and Brown and Caldwell consultants. The East Bay Municipal Utility District's lead role and the Brown and Caldwell team's skillful and constructive coordination are especially acknowledged. The final draft DCP is clear and informative in stating its premises, compiling agency data, and in presenting its conclusions. In general terms, the BARR collaboration offers benefits for the public welfare in the better sharing of water infrastructure, expertise, and in the facilitation of mutual aid among the eight BARR partners. Drought and emergency planning and drought supply reliability achieved at a lower cost will definitely be beneficial to customers and the agencies. There could be environmental benefits as well. The optimization of storage, transfers and wheeling strategies to meet the basic drought needs of the entire BARR service area could help to reduce pressures on the Sacramento and San Joaquin River tributary watersheds and the Delta. That optimization also strengthens the case for south Bay agencies to forgo investing in the state's costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging WaterFix tunnels project or new dams. On the DCP's list of 15 projects for potential further development some would bolster groundwater sustainability and further the goals of greater regional and local self- sufficiency. Top among these are several potable reuse and treatment projects and some interties San Pablo Ave., Suite I, Berkeley, CA Tel. (510) info@sfbaysc.org

8 However, Sierra Club does not necessarily agree with or support all the assumptions or specifics of the DCP document. Demand projections drawn from the 2015 UWMP's may be considerably overstating the future need for water and not be reflecting permanent reductions in use and changes in behavior due to the recent drought. Modification of water rights and streamlining transfers, exchanges and sales for the purpose of drought mitigation may appear to increase the overall supply of water. This could fuel growth, raise baseline demand, ultimately resulting in greater net diversions from rivers and aquifers and additional stresses on the SF Bay- Delta. These concerns will be the continuing focus of our attention. Certain projects would have damaging impacts that outweigh their advantages in our view. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant is one Sierra Club continues to oppose. There are concerns about the MMWD- EBMUD intertie over the Richmond Bay Bridge creating the potential for directing North Coast River water to the East Bay. We look forward to examining the Supplemental EIR for Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion to be released shortly. We're also interested in following the development of the Water Transfers/Exchanges Market pilot project. Sierra Club SF Bay would like to request that Stakeholder Taskforce comments on draft Tech Memos 1 and 2 be included in the final document, perhaps as an appendix (subject to commenting entities' agreement) or at a minimum that the comments be posted on the BARR website. We would expect this final round of comments from stakeholders and the public to be attached to the DCP. Specific Comments Section Water Supply Sources By 2035 we would hope to see a significant increase in potable reuse across the region, which would be a relatively drought- proof source of supply. Section Regional Water Demand and Water Use Efficiency Section 4.2 Potential for Future Supply Shortfalls Appendix B: Supply and Demand Projections We find it highly unlikely that the collective demand across BARR agencies would rise to over 1.1 MAF/Y by 2020 (Table 7), given that this would represent a large increase over current actual consumption levels within 3 years. Even by 2035 the cumulative projected demand of over 1.3 MAF/Y flies in the face of past decades' long- term per capita usage reductions counterbalancing population increases. State policy instruments cited as creating future uncertainty, including the Bay- Delta WQCP update, framework for implementation of EO B , etc., all will tend to further limit water supply and provide strong incentives for continuing to manage demand and promote efficiency. It appears to us that even in a third year of drought the 2035 shortfall in cumulative supply would not cause undue hardship. However we acknowledge the importance of considering potentially longer, more severe droughts.

9 Section 3 - Drought Monitoring Sections 3.5, 3.6, Table 3, Table 4, Appendix A We feel it would be very instructive to the BARR effort and to wholesale and retail customers to have drought supply reductions and response actions expressed across the board in terms of gallons per capita per day for residential customers. State reporting requirements and implementation of the Governor's EO seem to trend increasingly in that direction. Communication of supply and demand reductions in terms of percentages is unhelpful to understanding significant differences that may be occurring in per capita water use between agencies. The agencies should strive to gradually standardize their drought stages and rationing targets in per capita terms. This will aid customers in understanding and acknowledging the fairness of cutbacks Lessons Learned It appears to have been a very valuable exercise to evaluate the lessons learned jointly. Section Risks to Critical Resources - Cost Constraints We are concerned that the cost of water be made and kept affordable for all. The constraints or perceived constraints of Proposition 218 on the fair distribution of costs need to be addressed at the state level by all agencies. Low- income and low water- using households must be shielded from carrying the expense of new drought mitigation measures suggested by this Plan Analysis of the climate change risks is useful and important. Section 5 - Regional Drought Response Actions Both the consistent regional drought messaging and the mobile water treatment facilities ideas appear to be useful applications of pooled BARR agency resources. Section 6 - Drought Mitigation Measures Many of the Mitigation Measures (MM) are quite conceptual at this point. We look forward to learning more if and when more details are developed and made public. Some projects would appear to improve flexibility and reliability, such as the interties. However, MM 6- - the MMWD- EBMUD intertie over the Richmond Bay Bridge- - creates the potential for directing North Coast River water to the East Bay, a development we would not welcome. MM 7 - We look forward to examining the Supplemental DEIR for Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion to be released shortly for a more complete understanding of this project. MM 9 - The Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant will continue to be opposed by Sierra Club for reasons of high cost, high energy use, impacts on Suisun Bay aquatic ecosystems, and others.

10 Walnut Creek Treatment Plant (MM 8) and Reuse Projects MM 10, 11, 12 would appear to improve water- sharing conditions and provide more local, drought- proof supplies, though we would want to look at the specifics. Del Valle Reservoir reoperation (MM 14) seems like a useful investment to fully utilize current storage capacity. We look forward to seeing whether the Water Transfers/Exchanges Market (MM 15) pilot/study is funded and watching how it evolves. It would be important to us that the creation of a "template" or road map not completely preempt the need for later transfers to be evaluated in terms of their specific impacts on timing and volume of flows through the Bay- Delta. Section 7 - Operational and Administrative Framework Important considerations are analyzed and discussed here. The information is very useful to understanding the challenges of implementing joint projects. We would like the BARR Partnership Principles to include an additional clause stating: "BARR agencies agree to prioritize local projects, those that lessen dependence on the Delta, and that benefit watershed ecosystems and human communities dependent on them. " Section Sierra Club would be one of the entities generally concerned about the prospect of public- private partnerships where water supply or infrastructure is concerned. Privatization and insertion of the profit motive is not appropriate to such an essential resource in our view and has historically led to poor management, poor customer service and affordability issues. Section Next Steps Exactly how BARR activities will evolve moving forward is subject to numerous factors. We have received assurances that the public will remain informed about the partnership's workings at a minimum through a regularly updated website. The communication between agencies and outside stakeholders on the DCP was constructive and successful. Building on this success, we request that the agencies provide notification of and mechanisms for incorporating stakeholder input into any joint projects from the BARR list of 15 Mitigation Measures or others that advance, whether or not there is an external funding requirement for public outreach. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Drought Contingency Plan. Respectfully submitted, Sonia Diermayer, Sierra Club SF Bay

11 June 23, 2017 Alice Towey Senior Civil Engineer East Bay Municipal Utility District th St. Oakland, CA Re: Comments on BARR Drought Contingency Plan (June 12 th, 2017 Draft) Dear Ms. Towey, On behalf of The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the recent revised version of Bay Area Regional Reliability Drought Contingency Plan. EJCW serves the interests of our constituents who primarily reside in low-income communities of color, and we have provided a list of comments that reflect our mission to coordinate with local and state agencies on carrying forward AB 685, the Human Right to Water. Section 3.6 BARR Agencies Drought Response Actions It would be helpful if BARR Agencies began to work towards standardizing their various drought response mechanisms. It is currently difficult to compare strategies and metrics. Some agencies describe rationing in gallons/capita/day, while others use percentages. Agencies would help public understanding of this regional approach if they are able to usefully compare drought response strategies and streamline descriptions of various programs. We also encourage a Multi-Agency Water Conservation Advisory Group to provide public engagement and input, if the BARR DC Task Force does not already intend to provide that opportunity. Table ES-1. BARR Drought Mitigation Measures The desalination project listed on the Drought Mitigation Measure Table is of concern to us and our constituents, not only regarding affordability issues, but also environmental degradation and conservation. The true costs of desalination are much higher than what rate-payers are led to believe. Case studies from Carlsbad and Santa Barbara show that rates can increase as much as three times in one year to cover the capital costs of desalination. Additionally, fish species and stream and coastal habitats are severely degraded as a result of desalination. Residents must be informed of the true cost of such projects before they are implemented. The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water 1611 Telegraph Ave. #1200, Oakland, CA Phone: (510)

12 EJCW recommends that BARR agencies develop a matrix of priorities that conveys the true cost of each drought mitigation strategy. As we have seen through a similar effort in San Francisco, when conservation is promoted as the top priority, recycled water and conservation education and outreach made their way to the top of the list, while desalination projects fell to the bottom. Section Grants and Loans Justification for this section mentions that, securing external funding can help to minimize ratepayer impacts and the rising costs of water services Are there plans to include activities that directly address this issue in any upcoming grants or loans. EJCW would hope to see this kind of work included in future grant budgets. General Comments Regarding the legal question around rates and equal cost of service, we encourage BARR agencies to consider the potential strategy of reflecting infrastructure degradation rate in the water rates charged to customers. Higher rates of use lead to higher rates of degradation, and should lead to higher fees for service. We believe Bay Area water agencies can build off strategies used by other water providers throughout the state (LADWP) and determine a way to charge based on rate of use, without violating the restrictions enforced by Proposition 218. Outcomes and Next Steps: BARR could improve the efficacy of its process by reviewing and learning lessons from other California water management stakeholder processes. For example, the LA One Water Plan is already experiencing a successful process and may be able to inform next steps for the BARR stakeholder process. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. While it is an important effort, there are many improvements that could be made to the report going forward that would make huge strides towards strengthening the region s water supply reliability in an inclusive and equitable fashion. Sincerely, Colin Bailey Executive Director The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water 1611 Telegraph Ave. #1200, Oakland, CA Phone: (510)

13