Water Supply Master Plan Update

Transcription

1 Water Supply Master Plan Update January 2018 Page 1

2 Meeting objective Get stakeholder input on water supply projects and strategies Are we including the right mix of projects? Are there factors that we haven t considered? Are there additional strategies we should be considering? Page 2

3 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 3

4 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 4

5 Relationship with other plans Page 5

6 Water Supply Master Plan Purpose Establish level of service goal E.g., meet 85% of demands in drought years Comprehensive evaluation of project and program costs, benefits, and risks Recommended investment strategy Which projects when and at what cost Page 6

7 2012 Master Plan Ensure Sustainability Strategy Level of service goal Meet 90% of demands in droughts Secure existing system Dam retrofits, asset management, pipeline repair, maintain imports Optimize existing system New recharge, new pipelines Expand conservation and reuse Graywater, potable reuse Page 7

8 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 8

9 Assume existing system and operations continue with a few changes Dam retrofits completed by 2025 FAHCE Settlement Agreement reservoir releases and flow requirements implemented early in the planning time frame Delta-conveyed imported water supplies decrease by about 40,000 AFY by 2035 Retailer non-potable recycled water use increases by 10,000 AFY by 2040 Water conservation program savings increase by 25,000 AFY by 2030 Countywide demands increase by about 40,000 AFY by 2040, after accounting for conservation savings Page 9

10 Population increasing more quickly than demands Water Demand, acre-feet Population 450,000 2,600, , , , , , , ,000 50,000 2,400,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200, ,000, Historic Water Use Projected Demand Historic Population Projected Population Attachment 4 Page 10 of 42

11 Delta-conveyed deliveries expected to continue to decline Acre-Feet , , , ,000 50,000 - Year Historic Projected Historic Trend Line Attachment 4 Page 11 of 42

12 Analysis shows declining reliability Average Water Supply Conditions Demands (AF) 360, ,000 Average Annual Supply (AF) 374, ,000 Shortfall (AF) 0 36,000 Drought Water Supply Conditions Demands (AF) 360, ,000 Minimum Drought Supply (AF) 255, ,000 Maximum Shortfall (AF) 105,000 (29%) 152,000 (38%) Page 12

13 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 13

14 Evaluated about 40 projects for filling gaps Conservation and demand management Stormwater capture and reuse Onsite reuse Potable reuse Recycled water Groundwater recharge ponds Raw water pipelines Ag land fallowing Storage, inside and outside county Desalination Dry year options/transfers Water contract purchase California WaterFix Page 14

15 No Regrets package is cost-effective and broadly supported Advanced Metering Infrastructure Gray Water Program Expansion Leak Repair Incentive New Development Model Ordinance Stormwater Capture and Reuse Ag Land Recharge Rain Barrel Rebate Rain Garden Rebate San Jose Recharge Saratoga Recharge Total District Cost Additional Water Conservation Savings Additional Water Supply Yield Unit Cost $100 million 10,000 AF 1,000 AF $400/AF Page 15

16 Several projects analyzed in detail Project Average Annual Yield (AF) California WaterFix 41,000 Dry Year Options/Transfers 2,000 Groundwater Banking 2,000 Groundwater Recharge 1,000 2,000 Lexington Pipeline 3,000 Los Vaqueros 3,000 Pacheco Reservoir 6,000 Potable Reuse - Ford Pond 3,000 Potable Reuse Injection Wells 12,000 Potable Reuse - Los Gatos Ponds 19,000 Sites Reservoir 8,000 Water Contract Purchase 12,000 Page 16

17 Project costs vary Project California WaterFix Dry Year Options/Transfers Groundwater Banking Groundwater Recharge Lexington Pipeline Average Annual Yield (AFY) District Lifecycle Cost (present value, 2017) Unit Cost 41,000 $620 million $600/AF 2,000 $100 million $1,400/AF 2,000 $60 million $1,300/AF 1,000 2,000 $20 million - $50 million $400/AF - $1,300/AF 3,000 $90 million $1,000/AF Los Vaqueros 1 3,000 $40 million $400/AF Pacheco Reservoir 1 6,000 $450 million $2,700/AF Potable Reuse - Ford Pond Potable Reuse Injection Wells Potable Reuse - Los Gatos Ponds 3,000 $300 million $2,800/AF 12,000 $1.18 billion $3,100/AF 19,000 $1.22 billion $2,000/AF Sites Reservoir 1 8,000 $170 million $800/AF Water Contract Purchase 12,000 $360 million $800/AF 1. Assumes Prop 1 Water Storage Investment Program funding. Costs would roughly double without funding. Page 17

18 Different projects meet different objectives Secure Existing Supplies Reduce Reliance on Delta Water Use Efficiency Groundwater Quality Treated Water Quality Minimize Costs District Control Minimize Implementation Complexity Allows for Phasing Adapts to Climate Change Provide ecosystem benefits Reduce GHG Emissions Environmental Justice Recreation Project No Regrets California WaterFix Dry Year Options/Transfers Groundwater Banking Groundwater Recharge Lexington Pipeline Los Vaqueros Reservoir Pacheco Reservoir Potable Reuse-Ford Pond Potable Reuse Injection Wells Potable Reuse Los Gatos Ponds Sites Reservoir Water Contract Purchase Page 18

19 Different projects have different risk levels Risk Severity California WaterFix Los Vaqueros Groundwater Recharge Potable Reuse Los Gatos Water Contract Purchase Sites Reservoir Potable Reuse Ford Potable Reuse Injection Wells Pacheco Reservoir Lexington Pipeline Groundwater Recharge Groundwater Banking Dry Year Option/Transfers Risk Likelihood Page 19

20 Percent of the Maximum Possible Risk Score Different projects have different types of risk Stakeholder Implementation Operations Cost Page 20

21 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 21

22 Recent Board actions 9/19/17 Approved No Regrets Package of water conservation and stormwater capture projects 10/17/17 Conditionally approved California WaterFix participation 12/12/17 Approved Los Gatos Potable Reuse Project Page 22

23 Board approved projects achieve reliability goal Demands (AFY) Average Supplies (AFY) Minimum Drought Supply (AFY) Maximum Drought Shortage (AFY) Base Case 402, , , ,000 (38%) No Regrets 392, , , ,000 (36%) No Regrets & Morgan Hill Recharge & California WaterFix No Regrets & Morgan Hill Recharge & California WaterFix & Potable Reuse-Los Gatos Ponds 392, , , ,000 (26%) 392, , ,000 56,000 (14%) Page 23

24 Alternative Water Supply Strategies Local Flexibility All Potable Reuse, Lexington Pipeline, Saratoga Recharge Local Storage California WaterFix, Pacheco Reservoir, Groundwater Banking Regional Storage California WaterFix, Los Vaqueros Reservoir, Groundwater Banking Statewide Storage California WaterFix, Sites Reservoir Page 24

25 Alternative Water Supply Strategies Board approved projects have unit cost of $1,800/AF Strategy* Unit Cost Average Supplies (AFY) Minimum Drought Supply (AFY) Maximum Drought Shortage (AFY) Local Flexibility $3,600/AF 395, ,000 54,000 (15%) Local Storage** $1,200/AF 400, ,000 56,000 (14%) Regional Storage** Statewide Storage** $900/AF 394, ,000 56,000 (14%) $900/AF 398, ,000 56,000 (14%) *All strategies have annual demands of 392,000 AF and include No Regrets and Morgan Hill Recharge **Assumes Prop 1 funding Page 25

26 Different strategies achieve different objectives Local Flexibility Local Storage Regional Storage Statewide Storage Secure existing supplies Reduce reliance on Delta Protect groundwater quality Maximize District influence Allow for phased implementation Adapt to climate change Secure existing supplies Meet drinking water regulations Maximize District influence Adapt to climate change Provide ecosystem benefits Provide flood protection Secure existing supplies Meet drinking water regulations Minimize costs Allow for phased implementation Adapt to climate change Provide ecosystem benefits Secure existing supplies Minimize costs Adapt to climate change Provide ecosystem benefits Page 26

27 Different strategies have different risks Cost ($M) 3,500 3,000 2,500 Local Flexibility 2,000 1,500 1, Regional Storage* Local Storage* Statewide Storage* Risk Score *Assumes Prop 1 funding Page 27

28 Uncertainty Analysis Approach High Demands, Low Imports High Demands, High Imports Lower Demands, Low Imports Lower Demands, High Imports Page 28

29 Uncertainty Analysis Results All strategies perform well under a variety of supply and demand scenarios Water shortage contingency plan implementation important Banking capacity valuable, up to a certain capacity Potable Reuse needs optimization Page 29

30 Late Century Climate Analysis Local supplies seem fairly secure Reduction in imported supplies is greater than local supplies due to sea level rise Variability a challenge Page 30

31 Multiple topics for discussion Water Supply Master Plan background Water supply reliability outlook Project evaluation Water supply strategies Next steps Page 31

32 Annual Cost of Shortage ($M) Level of Service Goal Considerations Balance costs and level of service Avoid triggering mandatory restrictions by retailers Stakeholder support Short-term responses (e.g., transfers) can help fill gaps Most strategies cost more than associated cost of - 0% 10% 20% 30% Level of Shortage shortage Page 32

33 Multiple decision points, including Prop 1 storage funding June 2018 or sooner California WaterFix permits Winter 2018 Select P3 entity for potable reuse Annual supply and demand review Summer Annual CIP, budget, and water charge process begins - Fall Page 33

34 Example implementation process Existing Boardapproved projects California WaterFix permitted at 6,000 cfs Change Strategy? No Board maintains existing strategy Yes Increase potable reuse capacity? No Evaluate other project alternatives Monitor supplies and demands Page 34

35 Next steps for Water Supply Master Plan Board input on water supply projects and strategies Proposed Water Supply Master Plan implementation approach, including triggers for adding or removing projects January 2018 September 2017 March 2018 External engagement on water supply projects and strategies Page 35

36 Meeting objective Get stakeholder input on water supply projects and strategies Are we including the right mix of projects? Are there factors that we haven t considered? Are there additional strategies we should be considering? Page 36

37 California WaterFix 2.5% SWP/5% CVP Participation Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $620 million 41,000 AFY $600/AF High Positives Secures existing Delta-conveyed supplies Upgrades aging infrastructure Protects the environment through less impactful diversions Improves reliability of other Deltaconveyed supplies and transfers Protects water quality Negatives Implementation complexity Long-term operational uncertainty Climate change impacts Stakeholder opposition Financing uncertainty Page 37

38 Dry Year Options/Transfers Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield $100 million 2,000 AFY Cost/AF $1,400 Relative Risk/Uncertainty Low Positives Provides supply in critical years when needs are greatest Allows for phasing Can implement larger increments Complements all other projects Negatives Subject to Delta-restrictions Increases reliance on Delta Cost volatility Uncertainty with willing sellers Page 38

39 Groundwater Banking Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $60 million 2,000 AFY $1,300/AF Low Positives Significantly reduces drought shortages Complements projects with all-year supply Allows for phasing Negatives Subject to Delta restrictions Uncertainty with Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation Page 39

40 Groundwater Recharge Ponds Morgan Hill and/or Saratoga Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $20 - $50 million 1,000 2,000 AFY $400 - $1,300/AF Low Positives Optimizes use of existing supplies Conjunctive use strategy Helps drought recovery Local project Negatives North County locations limited Minimal impact on drought shortages Potential siting conflicts with existing land uses Page 40

41 Lexington Pipeline Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $90 million 3,000 AFY $1,000/AF Low Positives Optimizes the use of existing local supplies Increases local flexibility Complements potable reuse Negatives Water quality issues will require pretreatment/management Minimal reduction in drought shortages Page 41

42 Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF $400 Relative Risk/Uncertainty $40 million (assuming Prop 1 funding received) 3,000 AFY Medium Positives Provide drought supplies Improved transfer/exchange capacity Allows for phasing (Transfer-Bethany Pipeline provides significant benefit) Complements projects with all year supply Supports regional reliability Public and agency support Negatives Operational complexity Institutional complexity Page 42

43 Pacheco Reservoir Total District Cost (PV) $450 million (assuming Prop 1 funding received) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty 6,000 AFY $2,700/AF High Positives Locally controlled Addresses San Luis Reservoir Low-Point problem Provides flood protection in other counties Provides water for fisheries Increases operational flexibility Provides emergency storage Negatives Impacts to cultural resources Long-term operational uncertainty New long-term environmental commitment May require use of Delta-conveyed supplies to meet environmental commitments Stakeholder opposition Page 43

44 Potable Reuse Los Gatos Ponds, Ford Pond, and/or Injection Wells Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $300 million - $2.7 billion 3,000 AFY 34,000 AFY $2,000/AF - $3,100/AF Medium to High Positives Local supply Not subject to short-term climate variability Not subject to long-term climate variability Allows for phasing Negatives Reverse osmosis concentrate management Uncertainty with agreements with San Jose Injection well operations complex Potential public perception concerns Page 44

45 Sites Reservoir Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $170 million (assuming Prop 1 funding received) 8,000 AFY $800/AF High Positives Off-stream reservoir Improves operational flexibility and reliability of Statewide water system Negatives Increases reliance on the Delta Subject to Delta risks Long-term operational uncertainty Operational complexity Institutional complexity Page 45

46 Water Contract Purchase Total District Cost (PV) Average Annual Yield Cost/AF Relative Risk/Uncertainty $360 million 12,000 AFY $800/AF Medium Positives Provides all year supply Negatives Increases reliance on the Delta Subject to Delta risks Willing sellers availability Page 46