SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY

Transcription

1 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, March 15, 2018 CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 1. PUBLIC COMMENT - Any person may address the Board on matters within its jurisdiction. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1. September 14, 2017, and December 14, 2017, Meetings Minutes Minutes (Page 3) 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1. Enhanced Recharge Project, Phase 1a Construction (Page 13) ACWP SARER PH1A Construction Updates 3.2. Update on the Sites Reservoir WSIP Application Process AC Memo Sites Update Groundwater Sustainability Update (Page 15) 3.4. Update on California WaterFix 3.5. Monthly BTAC Regional Water Management Plan Statement BTAC February 2018 Statement 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Page 16) 5. FUTURE BUSINESS 1

2 5.1. Suggestions by Commissioners on Items for Policy Review 5.2. Local Agency Update on Activities 6. NEXT MEETING DATE 6.1. Confirm next regular meeting date of June 14, ADJOURNMENT PLEASE NOTE: Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the District s office located at 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, during normal business hours. Also, such documents are available on the District s website at subject to staff s ability to post the documents before the meeting. The District recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact Lillian Hernandez at (909) two working days prior to the meeting with any special requests for reasonable accommodation. 2

3 404 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT September 14, 2017 Chairman Corneille called the regular meeting of the Commissioners of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission on Water Policy to order at 6:30 p.m. Commissioners and Alternates Present: Bob Martin, Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Robert M. Stewart, Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Darcy McNaboe, City of Grand Terrace Jo-Lynne Russo-Pereyra, City of Riverside Ronald Coats, East Valley Water District Josh Swift, Fontana Union Water Company Karen McHugh, Riverside-Highland Water Company Denis Kid, Riverside-Highland Water Company Richard Corneille, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District David Raley, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Benjamin Kelly, Western Heights Water Company Bruce Granlund, Yucaipa Valley Water District San Bernardino Valley Directors and Staff Present: Susan Longville, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Douglas Headrick, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Bob Tincher, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Lillian Hernandez, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Agencies and Consultants Present: Sam Fuller, Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Lonnie Granlund, Yucaipa Valley Water District Kathryn Hallberg, Yucaipa Valley Water District Chris Mann, Yucaipa Valley Water District Joe Zoba, Yucaipa Valley Water District George Saunders, Riverside-Highland Water Company Tom Crowley, City of Rialto Dr. Luis S. Gonzalez, City of Colton John Longville, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Linda Shelton, Customer Chairman Corneille led the pledge of allegiance. Chairman Corneille announced that there was a quorum so official business could take place. The meeting proceeded with the following agenda items. Agenda Item 1. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Commission on matters within its jurisdiction. 3

4 Chairman Corneille invited any person who so desired to address the Commission. Hearing none, the meeting proceeded with the published agenda items. 405 Agenda Item 2. Meeting Minutes. Approval of Minutes of the June 8, 2017, Advisory Commission Agenda Item 3. Presentations. It was moved by Ron Coats to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2017, meeting. It was seconded by Bruce Granlund. The motion was adopted with Jo-Lynne Russo-Pereyra and Darcy McNaboe abstaining. A. Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Activities. Sam Fuller gave a presentation on the Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (BVMWC) history and activities. Mr. Fuller stated that he worked for San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) from 1985 to Mr. Fuller has been acting as an interim general manager for BVMWC. A dam was built to create Big Bear Lake in 1884 by Bear Valley Irrigation Company (predecessor to BVMWC), and later Big Bear MWD built a new dam creating a larger lake. The BVMWC headquarters is located on Olive Avenue in the City of Redlands. BVMWC is a private corporation organized under the Corporations Code of the State of California. Eleven farmers came together in June 1903 and by the end of 1903 they had a set of bylaws and articles of incorporation and became a corporation. Corporate Code Sections are the most relevant codes related to a mutual water company. Some of those do not apply to BVMWC because they are an irrigation water company. Organizers of the company were most interested in preserving the water supply for future generations. Part of the goal of the company was to acquire all the water rights and facilities throughout the Santa Ana River area. They developed new facilities to provide additional water. They are holders to the right to the first 88 cubic feet per second coming out of the Santa Ana River through the Edison power systems that are there. BVMWC is a non-profit corporation. The shareholders, the people who receive the water, pay all of the costs per policy set by an 11 member Board of Directors. There is an annual meeting with all shareholders on the third Tuesday in February of each year. The staff includes the new General Manager Bob Martin, Charlotte Van Eck, Secretary, an assistant secretary and two operators. There are several associated companies that are operated through the BVMWC office which includes Bear Valley Extension and Pipeline Company, and Crafton Heights Pipeline Company. Bear Valley Extension and Pipeline Company is a shareholder of Bear Valley Company and they bring water to Montecito Memorial Park from Redlands. Crafton Heights Pipeline Company has a pipeline that runs along the high elevations that they deliver to. Crafton Water Company is operated through the BVMWC office. They divert water from Mill Creek and deliver it to Redlands. Lugonia Water Company is a one of the prior rights companies that they acquired. Redlands Heights Water Company is also a prior rights company. They serve water in an area near the Redlands Country Club. Redlands Water Company owns a tunnel that comes out of the area near Seven Oaks Dam and provides water now for the City of Redlands who is the principal stockholder in that company. They use Bear Valley facilities to move the water there. South Mountain Mutual Water Company is a well company that serves Yucaipa and parts of Redlands. West Redlands serves the area south of the grove at the corner of Cajon 4

5 and Highland Avenues. Rock Mutual Well Company has a small well located near Judson and San Bernardino Avenue. They have considerable acreage they irrigate out of the well and they operate through BVMWC facilities. BVMWC gets water from several places. The original intent of the company was to acquire and develop additional surface water from the Santa Ana River. They get water from Big Bear Lake and they own the water rights to that lake even though in 1977 they agreed with Big Bear Municipal Water District (BBMWD) that they could have the dam and the land under the reservoir, take care of recreational interests, and they would give BVMWC water from the dam or in-lieu sources. They have access to State Water Project water as they can purchase it from SBVMWD. They have wells they can pump to supplement their supplies out of the groundwater basin. According to the Big Bear Watermaster Report, in the last 10 years they averaged 13,061 acre-feet per year out of the Santa Ana River. They have a well near Powerhouse #1 that has not been used in several years but the average for last 10 years was 36 acre-feet. Because of deal with BVMWC, BBMWD is allowed to provide BVMWC with water from another source, either groundwater, a release from lake, or in 1997 SBVMWD made an agreement with BBMWD that SBVMWD would provide all the in-lieu for BVMWC. This in-lieu quantity is State Water Project water being delivered to BVMWC at the expense of BBMWD because they get to keep an equal amount of water in the lake. An assessment is set each year by BVMWC which is the dollar amount for each share that must be paid if someone wants to receive water. BVMWC also charges a delivery charge. Someone must own shares in the company if they want to receive water and must be located near one of their facilities, be willing to pay for cost of connection, and if they need any pipelines to get to their property they would need to build that as well. Last year the assessment was $4.50. Some major expenses were anticipated this year so the assessment is higher than normal. The assessment is normally on the order of $2.00 instead of $4.50. The amount of water someone can get is based on the number of shares an individual owns and so if they have a lot of shares they can get a lot of water. They charge $1.00 per miner s day inch when the water is delivered to someone s turnout. If an individual takes more water than his shares provide for, then they will get charged $7.00 per miner s day inch for the extra water. That is the cost to pay for State Water Project water. He presented how water deliveries are made which showed the North Fork Canal that was built before BVMWC was formed. In 1884 when the original dam was built at Big Bear Lake, the North Fork people said they could not construct the dam because it would interfere with North Fork s water supply so BVMWC have a contract with North Fork that specifics flow rates in each month of the year. 406 B. Update on iefficient Program. Bob Tincher stated that recently the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board of Directors agreed to fund the iefficient public outreach campaign for the upcoming year. The campaign first began in 2014 in response to the governor s requirements to start cutting back on water use. The goals of the campaign are to educate customers about water conservation and important water projects such as the California WaterFix. The District is involved as a way to help the retail agencies achieve their water use reduction requirements. As a wholesale water agency, SBVMWD is not required to meet the reduction requirements, but is required to assist the retail water agencies. This is a partnership and SBVMWD pays half of the cost of the campaign and has done that since the beginning with 10 or 11 other agencies assisting in the campaign. The advantages of iefficient is there is consistent messaging across the valley and when the resources are pooled the 5

6 campaign is able to engage in more impactful advertising than engaging individually. There is also a cost savings. The focus area for this year s campaign is educating the public that they use more water outdoors. Other areas are the Water Saving Garden Friendly database and design ideas for consumers, and the California WaterFix. There has been advertising of the Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper program which helps landscaping professionals learn how to take care of low water use plants. Long-term planning and rebates are part of the campaign as well. They advertise in print and digital along with billboards, social media, events, and website. At the end of each campaign a survey is performed to see if the campaign has been successful. The key results in this year s survey conclude that public concern about water has dropped, brand awareness for the iefficient program went down slightly, Water Saving Garden Friendly awareness was down, awareness of outdoor water usage went down, and California WaterFix stayed about the same. Based on the survey results, the participating agencies in this year s iefficient campaign decided to release a Request for Proposals (RFP). The focus for this year s program is similar to last years supporting the theme of Making Water Conservation a Way of Life in California, continuing to educate the public about where most of their water is used, informing them of rebates, and continuing to establish the iefficient brand. The California WaterFix was originally in the campaign, but the Valley District Board has decided to provide financial support to the Southern California Water Committee who is focusing on advertising for the California WaterFix. After going through a proposal review process, the participating agencies selected ETA Agency at a total professional services budget of $99,425. ETA Agency has experience working with water agencies and has been successful. The general approach will be for them to develop an advertising plan and budget which will go to the water agencies for approval. 407 C. California WaterFix. Douglas Headrick stated that SBVMWD is a State Water Contractor and signed a contract with the State of California in 1960 and received its first delivery in Since the 1990 s the reliability of that system has declined. The California WaterFix is the proposed solution to stop the decline. Mr. Headrick covered the State Water Project history, the liability issues they are trying to solve with this project, and the infrastructure being proposed. The State Water Project (SWP) starts in Northern California in the Feather River Basin and delivers water throughout California including Northern California. Twenty-five million people in California derive either all or a part of their water supply from the SWP along with three million acres of irrigated agriculture. Delivering water around the Delta was part of the original project. The reason it did not get built was because the initial $1.75 billion in bond funds ran out before project completion. In 2010, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan came about. Eighty percent of flow from the Delta comes from the north Sacramento River, fifteen percent from the San Joaquin River, and the remaining amount from side rivers. On average, seventy-six percent of water that flows into the Delta flows to the Pacific Ocean, six percent is used by farming interests primarily in the Delta, and eighteen percent is delivered to Bay Area interests and Central and Southern California. One of the reasons a fix is needed is due to the SWP susceptibility of Delta levee failures, fish entrainment, water quality, and salt water contamination issues. There are earthquake faults on both sides of the Delta. There are also fishery issues in the Delta. The reliability of the SWP has been declining due to various factors and the California WaterFix will stop that decline. The project proposes three intakes along the Sacramento River, 1,200-1,600 feet long which keeps fish from getting impinged. Each 6

7 intake can divert 3,000 cfs. Two tunnels deliver water to a fore bay which has been reduced to 100 acres from 750 acres. Two main tunnels lead to the south Delta which is approximately 30 miles. The bottom of the tunnels will be 150 feet below ground surface. They will be constructing a 45 foot diameter tunnel with a 40 foot internal diameter. Five years ago, a 45 foot diameter tunnel would have been one of the largest in the world but now there are several tunnel projects around the world that are bigger than the California WaterFix and are either under construction or will be within a year. In the south Delta they can separate out water coming from the California WaterFix from water that would be pulled in from the old historic diversion to make sure fish free water doesn t mix with anything else. There will be two new pump stations each one 4,500 cfs. Up to 4,500 cfs or 2,250 cfs in each tunnel can flow by gravity. Above that and they will have to pump water up into the fore bay. The project has changed in last five years to accommodate concerns from environmental groups and the Delta communities including reducing the size of the project and maximizing the use of public lands. It will take sixteen to eighteen years to implement the project. The project received biological opinions from both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the USFWS recently. It will take four years of design and approximately thirteen years for classic design, bid, and build process. If design/build or another accelerated method can be used, it is estimated that construction time can be cut by up to four years. The $16.7 Billion cost will be split 55/45 percent between the State and Federal participants which would be a $9.2 billion allocation to the State Water Project. Valley District s share based on this allocation is $230 million in capital costs. The cost to SBVMWD to operate the California WaterFix facilities will be $900,000 per year in addition to what it already pays for the State Water Project. The $230 million capital cost and the $900,000 per year operational cost over a 50 year project life would be $850 per household for the life of the project which comes out to $1.42 per month assuming cash financing. The per-acre-foot cost is estimated to be $325 delivered to the Banks Pumping Plant plus the delivery cost from that point. Diversion rates will vary based on the Sacramento River flows. It was moved by Paul Barich to recommend to the Valley Board of Directors that they continue to be a partner with other SWP contractors on the California Water Fix. It was seconded by Ron Coats. The motion was adopted unanimously. D. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Council. Douglas Headrick stated that for the last year or so agencies have been trying to come up with a way to fund the Groundwater Sustainability programs within the SBVMWD service area using the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act as the impetus to get started on that although all of SBVMWD s basins, except Yucaipa are exempt because they are adjudicated. The team continues to meet on a monthly basis. They are zeroing in on a plan. The engineers have been meeting trying to come up with the equitable allocation on how these recharge costs should be paid. It is a voluntary process. Some that have not been paying anything will have a difficult time paying their fair share. They continue to work on that. The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (SBVWCD) staff is taking the leadership on this effort. 408 E. BTAC Monthly Statement. Bob Tincher briefly reviewed the statement and pointed out that the District has recharged 54,505 acre-feet of water through August

8 409 Agenda Item 4. Announcements by Commissioners. None. Agenda Item 5. Future Business A. Identify Items for Future Agendas The next meeting date for the Advisory Commission on Water Policy was set for December 14, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. Potential topics will include a presentation from East Valley Water District, annual water management plan, an update on the Groundwater Sustainability Council, and the 2017 Regional Water Management Plan Statement. Agenda Item 6. Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Corneille adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lillian Hernandez Board Secretary 8

9 410 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON WATER POLICY SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT December 14, 2017 Vice-Chair Coats called the regular meeting of the Commissioners of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission on Water Policy to order at 6:34 p.m. Commissioners and Alternates Present: Robert M. Stewart, Bear Valley Mutual Water Company Ronald Coats, East Valley Water District Denis Kid, Riverside-Highland Water Company Richard Corneille, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (arrived at 6:38) David Raley, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District San Bernardino Valley Directors and Staff Present: Susan Longville, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Gil Navarro, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District June Hayes, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Steve Copelan, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Mark Bulot, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Douglas Headrick, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Bob Tincher, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Cindy Saks, S. B. Valley Municipal Water District Agencies and Consultants Present: George Saunders, Riverside-Highland Water Company Daniel Cozad, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Steve Copelan led the pledge of allegiance. Chairman Corneille announced that there was not a quorum so official business could not take place. The meeting proceeded with the following agenda items. Agenda Item 1. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Commission on matters within its jurisdiction. Chairman Corneille invited any person who so desired to address the Commission. Hearing none, the meeting proceeded with the published agenda items. Agenda Item 2. Approval of Minutes of the September 14, 2017, Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes. Minutes were not approved due to lack of a quorum Agenda Item 3. Presentations. 3.1 East Valley Water District Activities. East Valley Water District will give a presentation at the June 2018 meeting. 9

10 3.2 Consider Support for BTAC 2018 Regional Water Management Plan. Bob Tincher presented the Draft 2018 Regional Water Management Plan. The Basin Technical Advisory Committee (BTAC) acquired this responsibility through the Upper Santa Ana Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) that was developed approximately eleven years ago. This is the tenth regional plan that has been developed. The plan will go before the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) Board on December 19th, and will go before the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) Board of Directors in early The purpose of the document is to provide basin management recommendations to the Board of Directors of SBVMWD and WMWD and establish artificial recharge thresholds in the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA) to reduce the possibility of high groundwater and any negative impact on the contamination plumes. The recommended artificial threshold this year is 416,000 acre-feet. The recommendation is to recharge as much water as possible. Staff recommended the Advisory Commission on Water Policy recommend approval of the Basin Technical Advisory Committee 2018 Regional Water Management Plan to the SBVMWD and WMWD Boards. The members in attendance had no objection to the plan and supported approval Groundwater Council Update. Daniel Cozad gave a brief update on the discussions of the group considering the establishment of a Groundwater Council. The BTAC developed an equitable allocation model (EAM) that has been thoroughly reviewed and agreed to by the staff of the participants. The EAM generally proportions the cost of supplemental water amongst the agencies based upon their individual water budget. The more an agency s demand exceeds its supplies, the more it pays. The target amount of supplemental water to make the San Bernardino Basin sustainable is obtained from the San Bernardino Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Allocation of the water cost is a twostep process. First, each agency has to purchase supplemental water to cover its own gap between supplies and demand. Then the amount of supplemental water purchased to fill gaps is compared to the total amount of supplemental water needed for sustainability. Any balance is proportioned amongst all of the agencies based upon total water use. The EAM has the benefit of rewarding conservation and recognizing an agency s investment in local water supplies. The estimate for how much money is needed is approximately $4 million per year in State Water Project water, to meet demands to 2040, and about $1 million a year in Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs to operate and maintain the recharge. The $1 million of O&M is proportioned based on the most recent year of groundwater production similar to the Conservation District s groundwater charge. The BTAC believes the equitable cost share is almost finished. They are receiving final comments. The Groundwater Council agreement which implements the EAM and has undergone legal counsel review by the agencies. WMWD is acting on behalf of the Riverside County interests and has asked that they be represented as ex-officio or non-voting members of the Council, to avoid any type of violation of the Western Judgment. Western will pay for their portion of O&M costs through a separate agreement or through the Conservation District s groundwater charge since the safe yield, which determines their pumping amount, included artificial recharge. West Valley Water District provided changes. Most of their issues were taken care of in the equitable allocation. The City of San Bernardino gave comments on some of the powers. There were two or three powers for the group to independently act and those were decided at the last meeting to put them in a separate section in the agreement and activate by an 80%vote if needed. The working group thinks they have a really good agreement. It will circulate for approval in 2-4 months to the various boards and councils. 10

11 3.4 Update on California WaterFix. Douglas Headrick stated that the project is in an evaluation phase right now. Those throughout the state who had an opportunity to provide their demands or how much capacity to buy have done so. The project includes two tunnels, one for the State Water Project (State Contractors) and one for the Central Valley Project (Federal Contractors). Currently, about half to 2/3 of the capacity, mostly for the State contractors, has been subscribed. If we use numbers from original project 9,000 cfs facility we are at a 6,000 cfs facility now. Based on the reduced interest level from the Federal contractors, the project may need to be downsized. The project could be reduced from three intakes to two and only one, slightly larger, tunnel would be needed. This would reduce the cost of the project. A final decision will be made in days, based upon the participation by the Federal contractors. Some of the Federal Contractors that initially said they were not interested are now reconsidering. The SBVMWD has subscribed to its full entitlement. There are some State Water Contractors who are willing to purchase more capacity. The State Water Project portion will be roughly fully subscribed. The Federal side subscribers are very few right now. The project will be built in stages with one tunnel instead of two and two intakes instead of three. Everything else would stay the same Report on Settlement Agreement with San Bernardino. Douglas Headrick stated that SBVMWD joined with EVWD almost three years ago on a Framework Agreement to facilitate the development of a recycled water project called Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) to be developed in Highland. The City of San Bernardino was unhappy with that project and filed two lawsuits against SBVMWD and EVWD for several things having to do with economic impacts that would be associated with EVWD treating their own wastewater and producing recycled water and also Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) issues. He was pleased to announce that SBVMWD and EVWD has been able to settle with the City of San Bernardino in record time, 75 days from first meeting to a signed agreement. All three agencies agreed that recycled water was a good thing for the basin and should be part of the overall water portfolio because it is sustainable, local, and something that can be controlled locally. There was concern that the Sterling project was going to take water and money away from City of San Bernardino thereby jeopardizing a recycled water project that they were supporting called the Clean Water Factory. However, a solution was found that allows both projects to be built and all three agencies agreed to support each other s projects. The Clean Water Factory is different than the one being promoted previously in that it is much smaller but it does work with the environmental issues, with the Santa Ana Sucker, and the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and will provide the permitting to remove a certain amount of water from the Santa Ana River. Letters have been submitted to all regulatory agencies stating such. SBVMWD helped to close the deal by providing recharge water, 3,000 acre-feet for 10 years to the City of San Bernardino. They also got involved in a cooperative water conservation program where up to $1.5 million will be invested with one-third in each agency. SBVMWD will be using its existing contributions they make to their retail water agencies for water conservation to remove and replace the medians in the City of San Bernardino. All of the litigation against EVWD was dropped so they can move forward with their SNRC project and have a path forward to eliminate the need for a joint powers authority agreement. EVWD ends up with a pipeline called East Trunk Sewer Line which was part of the facilities owned by the joint powers authority, but is only needed for EVWD s treatment collection system to deliver to their new treatment plant. There are two areas with 1,000 to 1,200 sewer customers in each one that it would make more sense if EVWD traded flows with the City of San Bernardino. They are saving several million dollars in facilities that would have needed to be built to take 11

12 and move the flows in the opposite direction. EVWD provided to the City a 22 acre parcel that was surplus to their needs and in return EVWD received $8 million in a reserve account that had been collected through a $2 a month fee that EVWD had been paying to the City for some years. EVWD will continue to provide the solids from the process of treating wastewater to the City of San Bernardino thereby maintaining a revenue stream to the City for the first 10 years. All three agencies will move on an application to LAFCO to make sure EVWD obtains their authority to treat wastewater. The agencies agreed to move forward with the HCP. Elected officials from four agencies and staff participated in the negotiations. There will be an Op-ed in The Sun Newspaper in two to three weeks to further explain the settlement agreement to the public because the original article did not highlight everything that needed to be highlighted. 3.6 Monthly Regional Water Management Plan Statement. Bob Tincher showed a chart that tracks precipitation in the valley for the water year. The balance of State Water Project supplies include 25,000 acre-feet remaining; 10,000 acre-feet for carryover, and 15,000 acre-feet available for purchase. Almost 72,000 acre-feet of water has been recharged as of November and is continuing. Phase 1A of the Enhanced Recharge Project has begun. Phase 1A will ultimately take up to 500 cfs of water that is captured because the Seven Oaks Dam controls the flow. There will be a new diversion structure for a new sedimentation basin. Existing canal water will go through the new sedimentation basin which is currently being excavated. On the downstream side of the sedimentation basin the water can either going back into the San Bernardino Valley Conservation District canal or into the new 8 foot diameter steel pipe for delivery to the Santa Ana River spreading grounds or other spreading grounds. A presentation of construction photos will be provided at the next meeting. Agenda Item 4. Announcements by Commissioners. None. Agenda Item 5. Future Business A. Identify Items for Future Agendas The next meeting date for the Advisory Commission on Water Policy was set for March 15, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. Potential topics will include Enhanced Recharge Project presentation, an update on the Groundwater Sustainability Council, and the 2017 Regional Water Management Plan Statement. Agenda Item 6. Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Corneille adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. 413 Respectfully submitted, Lillian Hernandez Board Secretary 12

13 DATE: March 15, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Advisory Commission on Water Policy Bob Tincher, Deputy General Manager - Resources Wen Huang, Chief Engineer Update on the Construction of Phase 1A of the Enhanced Recharge for the Santa Ana River Basins Project The Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana River Basins Project is the first set of improvements to capture and use Santa Ana River water diverted by Valley District and Western Municipal Water District (Western) under Water Rights Permits and (Permits). One of the conditions of the Permits is that construction work required to put the water to beneficial use must be completed by October 1, When complete, these facilities will enable the diversion of up to 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the recharge up to 80,000 acre-feet in a single year. The Valley District Board of Directors awarded a $13 million construction contract for the Enhanced Recharge in the Santa Ana River Basin Phase 1A Project (Project) on June 20, The facilities are scheduled to be online this fall. At the meeting, Staff will present construction photos. Background: In January 2010, Valley District began the process of preparing (1) the environmental documentation and (2) the construction documents (plans, specifications and cost estimate) for this project. Valley District has also received a $1 million Proposition 84 grant to help offset the construction cost of the project. The Environmental Impact Report for the project divides it into two general phases. Phase 1 generally consists of the intake improvements, sedimentation basin, canal extension, recharge 13

14 basins and the connection of the sedimentation basin to the existing Foothill Pipeline through the new Plunge Pool Pipeline. Phase 2 generally consists of the construction of an additional length of the Plunge Pool Pipeline to connect it to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) in order to facilitate delivery of higher, wet year flows to Valley District s partner, Western Municipal Water District, a MWDSC member agency. In May 2013, the Valley District Board further divided the Enhanced Recharge Project, Phase 1 into two additional sub-phases based upon the environmental permitting (Phase 1a and 1b). Phase 1a generally consists of the Phase 1 facilities outside of the boundary of the Upper Santa Ana Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) and does not require any permits from United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Phase 1a facilities include the sedimentation basin and first phase of the Plunge Pool Pipeline. Phase 1b generally consists of the Phase 1 facilities inside the boundary of the Wash Plan and will be permitted by USFWS through the Wash Plan. Phase 1b facilities generally include the intake improvements, canal and recharge basins. Recommendation: Receive and file. 14

15 DATE: March 15, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Advisory Commission on Water Policy Douglas Headrick, General Manager Sites Reservoir Project Update Background Valley District placed an initial order for water from the Sites Reservoir Project of 30,000 af/yr in Since that time Staff has been participating in a variety of processes to move the project forward. These efforts include environmental permitting, preliminary facility design, and submittal of a grant application to the Proposition 1 Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP). The WSIP grant application for $1.7 billion was submitted in the fall of 2017 along with 11 other proposed projects. Preliminary evaluation of the Cost-Benefit Ratios (CBR) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Water Commission staff for all 12 projects concluded that none of the projects met the required 1.0 ratio for full funding. The Sites Project CBR of 0.4 was in the middle of the pack and resulted primarily from little to no value given for the claimed benefits to fish. This appears to be a result of the reviewers not adequately defining the required level of information for the evaluation. Sites Reservoir Staff, as requested, submitted significant additional information as part of the established appeal process and we are awaiting the results of that submittal. Staff will provide a presentation on this and other updates for the Sites Reservoir Project at the meeting. 15

16 2018 Regional Water Management Plan February SBBA THREE STATION PRECIPITATION INDEX - CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE FROM THE MEAN Below Average Average Annual Precipitation (in.) Water Year Average of Lytle Creek / Big Bear (SAR) / Mill Creek - Precip Data Safe Yield Period Avg ( ) Historic Average (1931-Present) Cumulative Departure from Safe Yield Period Avg Cumulative Departure from Safe Yield Period Avg (in.) SBBA THREE STATION PRECIPITATION INDEX - MONTHLY INCHES (wettest) , inches Current WY ( ), 7.26 inches (driest) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep WATER YEAR (OCTOBER - SEPTEMBER) IMPORTED WATER SUPPLY PORTFOLIO BALANCE 35,204 AC-FT Monthly (acre-feet) Recharge Direct Imported Water Balance (SBVMWD) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC SWP Balance (acre-feet) 16

17 2018 Regional Water Management Plan February LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN THE SBBA (Avg. Backyard Well, D4, D5 and D6) Data Unavailable -10 High High Low Low -110 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 3,091 AC-FT SBBA YUCAIPA SBBA Cumulative Yucaipa Cumulative Total Monthly Recharge (acre-ft) 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 SBBA Artificial Recharge Threshold - 416,000 ac-ft 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Cumulative Recharge (acre-ft)

18 WATER SUPPLY 2018 Regional Water Management Plan February SBVMWD/WMWD Santa Ana River Diversions in 2018: Jan 2018 to Dec 2018 Storage Program Feb Direct delivery Artificial Recharge (17% required by Riverside Agreement unless credits) 100% Exchange (long-term storage/banking, 40 cfs max) Additional San Bernardino Basin Area pumping: Imported Water Portfolio for 2018: Available: Remaining for 2017 Carryover to ,649 Entitlement for 2018 (20%) 20,520 Kern - Delta Water Bank (5,000 af/yr maximum) Multi-year Demo Big Bear Lake (stored) 1,237 Big Bear Lake (Delivered) Yuba Accord Palmdale Exchange 375 Dry year yield program Purchase additional imported water Demands: TOTAL SUPPLIES - 1,237 38,544 Direct Deliveries (1,512) Recommended uses for State Water Project Water in 2018: Short-term (carryover) storage for direct deliveries Artificial Recharge (1,738) Facility Storage (112) Long-term storage/banking Sale to MWDSC Palmdale Exchange (delivery to Palmdale) Sale to Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency (13) Exchange to Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency - Exchange to Santa Clara True up with DWR meters 35 TOTAL USE 0 (3,340) BALANCE - 35,204 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE Artificial Recharge Jan Dec 2018 San Bernardino Basin Area 1 (Suggested Max) Local SWP Total % 1. Waterman Basins & 9. East Twin Creek Spreading Basin 119, % 2. Santa Ana Basins 156, % 3. Mill Creek Basins 93, ,256 1% 4. City of Redlands Spreading Basins Bear Valley Spreading Basin Santa Ana River Bottom Patton Basin EVWD Turnout Badger Basins 18,200-0% 11. Wiggins Basin Devil Canyon & Sweetwater Basins 28,600-0% 13. Gravel Pits Lower Lytle Creek Basins (proposed) - - Sub-total SBBA 416,000 1,353 1,294 2,647 1% 1 Suggested maximum recharge values. See Appendix F. February 2 Due to shallwow groundwater levels in this area, exceeding this value may result in rejected recharge at this location. Rialto-Colton Basin Yucaipa Basin 3, Riverside North Basin SBVMWD Recharge in Riverside North (Watermaster Table No. 17C) 4,645 Other - Sub-Total R-C, Yucaipa, Riverside North TOTAL RECHARGE FEBRUARY ,353 1,738 3,091 18