Bill Swanson MWH Water Resources Practice Leader

Transcription

1 Co-Authors: Mario Manzo USBR Ibrahim Khadam MWH Kana Matsui MWH American Water Resources Association Annual Conference Tysons Corner, VA November 5, 2014 Bill Swanson MWH Water Resources Practice Leader

2 The Setting

3 Sierra Nevada Mountains Sacramento - San Joaquin Bay Delta is Largest Estuary on West Coast Central Valley

4 San Francisco Friant Division 1 million acres High value crops Small family farms Los Angeles Friant Dam Completed in 1942 San Diego

5 Shasta Dam San Francisco Delta-Mendota Canal Replaces water to San Joaquin River Los Angeles San Diego Friant Dam Completed in 1945 First Contracts 1948 Stopped river flow 1951

6 DEID Declining Friant Division Deliveries Ground and Groundwater Water Elevation Levels Change Avg. Depth to Groundwater Friant Division Delivery Subsidence Average Depth to Groundwater (feet) Friant Division Deliveries (Acre Feet per Acre)

7 Service Area 4 Counties / $5B Ag Economy 1.2 Million Ac / 15,000 Farmers Porterville I.D. Saucelito I.D. Shafter-Wasco I.D. Southern San Joaquin M.U.D. Stone Corral I.D. Tea Pot Dome W.D. Terra Bella I.D. Tri-Valley Tulare I.D. Conjunctive Use Water Deliveries 2-class contract system Class 1 first 800 TAF Class 2 up to next 1,400 TAF Average 1.3 MAF/yr 25 Ag and 5 M&I contractors Fresno Merced Madera Canal Millerton Lake Visalia Friant- Kern Canal Bakersfield

8

9 1948 Initial 40-year water contracts signed for Friant Division 1988 Contract renewal challenged under ESA and State law Plaintiffs: 14 Environmental interest groups Defendants: Federal government and 22 irrigation districts 2006 Settlement reached after 18 years 2009 Congress authorized implementation by Reclamation

10 Restoration Goal To restore and maintain fish populations in good condition, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish Water Management Goal To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division longterm contractors that may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows

11 Varies according to available supply Year-round base flow Peak spring flows mimic snow-melt patterns

12 Restoration Year Type Estimated Average Delivery (TAF/yr) Without SJRRP With SJRRP Estimated Average Delivery Reduction (TAF/yr) Change in Class 1 Change in Class 2 Wet 1,967 1, Normal-Wet 1,627 1, Normal-Dry 1, Dry Critical-High Critical-Low

13 Identify, evaluate, and rank projects that could help achieve the Water Management Goal Support decisions to fund projects Objective Reduce Recovered Water Account balances

14 ~ 500 ~ 140 ~ 60 ~ 20

15 Project Types Groundwater banking Canal capacity restoration Flood water diversion Distribution inter-connections River diversions Regional conveyance Non-Structural projects

16 Performance & Cost Yield (long-term average) RWA balance reduction (long-term average) Total cost Non-federal cost-share Overall cost-effectiveness Federal cost of RWA benefit

17 Implementation Factors (Complexity) Environmental Compliance Requirements Permitting Requirements Water Rights, Institutional Land Acquisition Timeframe for Implementation

18 Completeness of Project Definition Facilities & Costs Yield & RWA Reduction Approach Finance

19 Other Potential Benefits Groundwater Overdraft Reduction Hydropower Flood Damage Reduction Recreation Ecosystem Water Quality

20 Overall Scores Overall Cost Effectiveness Implementation Complexity Project Definition Composite Weighted Score (for all four criteria)

21 More Cost Effective Implementation Complexity Score (Higher Score = Less Complex Project Implementation) $ Evaluations highlight weaknesses or deficiencies Motivated proponents to refine project descriptions Less Cost Effective Highly Complex or Potentially Difficult to Implement Bubble Size Represents Level of Project Definition (Bigger Size = Higher Project Definition Score) 318 $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000 Less Complex or Potentially Easier to Implement Federal Cost of RWA Benefit ($/acre-foot)

22 Lowest cost per acre-foot regardless of implementation complexity or project definition completeness

23 Blends lowest cost per acrefoot with lower complexity Incomplete project definitions highlight uncertainty

24 Blends lowest cost per acrefoot with project definition completeness Disregards implementation complexity

25 10% Other Benefits 15% Completeness 25% Complexity 50% Cost Effective

26

27 Appraisal-level designs and cost estimates Implementation schedule and budgets for major project phases Planning / NEPA / CEQA Design, Permitting Acquisitions, Agreements Construction Rank Priority Projects for funding

28 Project definitions were updated to be more consistent Cost effectiveness became primary differentiator

29 Project yields did not consider effects of multiple projects on available supply Project combination permutations were run to test competition Water Source # of Projects # of Project Combination Permutations San Joaquin River Recapture of SJRRP Flows 3 6 Surplus Kaweah River Flows Recirculation of Recaptured Supplies 7 5,040 Surplus San Joaquin River Flows 9 362,880

30 30 San Joaquin River Recapture 18.0 Recirculation of Recaptured Water Yield (TAF) Yield (TAF) ID_920 ID_921 ID_ ID_232 ID_115 ID_602 ID_709 ID_504 ID_810 ID_ Surplus Kaweah River Flows 9 Surplus San Joaquin River Flows Yield (TAF) Yield (TAF) ID_306 ID_311 ID_314 ID_318 ID_321 0 ID_227 ID_232 ID_306 ID_311 ID_314 ID_321 ID_401 ID_602 ID_716

31

32

33

34

35 The Investment Strategy is a transparent method to rank projects for the SJRRP Water Management Goal Provides clarity on how to improve project rankings The method is transferrable to other funding programs

36 Mario Manzo Reclamation Ibrahim Khadam MWH Bill Swanson MWH Kana Matsui MWH 916,