San Diego County's water supply faces ongoing challenges due to its semi-arid climate, reliance on imported water sources like the Colorado River and Bay-Delta, and potential impacts of climate change. While the recent drought has ended, maintaining water use efficiency remains important. The San Diego County Water Authority is in ongoing rate disputes with the Metropolitan Water District, arguing that MWD's rate structure overcharges water agencies like itself. A court decision on the lawsuit is expected in early 2012.

1. May 31, 2011
Dennis Cushman
Assistant General Manager
San Diego County Water Authority

2. Latest Drought Over, But Challenges Remain
 San Diego County is semi-arid region
◦ Dry years more common than wet years
 Supply reliability
◦ Bay-Delta
◦ Colorado River
◦ Climate change
◦ Maintaining water use efficiency
 Protecting ratepayers
◦ MWD rate challenge
2

3. Average Water Year Statewide Runoff
175%
173%
150%
145%
125%
100%
91%
75%
60% 65%
50% 53%
25%
0%
2006 2008 2010
*Forecast as of May 1, 2011
3

4. Bay-Delta
San Francisco Bay
4

5. Bay-Delta Issues Need Resolution
 Pumping restrictions to protect
threatened species have cut deliveries
 Restrictions mitigated this year
◦ Extremely high river flows
Delta smelt
◦ Temporary judicial actions
 No long-term plan in place for water
reliability, ecosystem recovery
Central Valley
steelhead
Green sturgeon
Chinook salmon
Longfin smelt
5

6. Colorado River Supplies
 Drought 9 of last 11
years
 Lake Mead elevation
earlier this year: 1,082‟
◦ Lowest level since 1930s
 Storage levels now rising
Lake Mead – 2010  Several more wet years
needed for recovery
 Growing demand in
Southwest on river‟s
limited supply
6

7. Potential Impacts from Climate Change
 More rain, less
snow
◦ Decreases storage
held as snowpack
 Earlier snowmelt
◦ Runoff comes earlier
than needed
 Less weather
Lake Oroville – April 2010 predictability
 Water Authority
working with other
utilities to study
effects and impacts
7

8. Maintaining Water Use Efficiency
 State mandate for 20
percent reduction in water
use by 2020
 Maintain recent gains in
conservation
◦ Regional water use down about
20% since 2007
 Efficiency needs to be social
norm Water efficient planting and rotating nozzle
 Emphasis on outdoor
efficiency
◦ Market transformation
8

9.  The amount of money the Water Authority sent to
the Metropolitan Water District last year:
$241,000,000
 The amount of money at dispute in the Water
Authority‟s rate lawsuit vs. MWD (over 45 years):
$1,300,000,000 -
$2,100,000,000
9

10.  Supply challenges key driver of MWD rates
 MWD sales declining while rates are
increasing
 MWD‟s flawed rate structure overcharges the
Water Authority for wheeling transfer
supplies
10

11. 11
2,500,000 $2,500
-32%
2,000,000 $2,000
1,500,000 $1,500
$/AF
Acre-feet
1,000,000 +55% MWD‟s Projected Sales in
$1,000
2020 are 24% Lower than
2000-2009 Average
Actual Sales
Projected - Expected
500,000 $500
MWD rates (actual/projected)
FS Tier 1-LRFP Forecast 2010-2020
LRFP Forecast with annual 6% rate increases
- $0
11

12.  MWD misallocates supply costs to
transportation rate categories in violation of
state law
MWD Overcharge Forecast
(in millions) $2,105
$1,637
$1,311
$1,033
$330 $330
Low High
Next 10 Years 35 Year Term 45 Year Term
12

13. State Water Project Facilities
MWD Water Facilities
Colorado River Aqueduct
Water Authority Facilities
13

14.  But they are unwilling to do so:
◦ “…to date, most of our board members have said „we‟re
not so sure about that.‟ And, most of our member
agencies have said „No. Thanks, but no thanks, because
we prefer this the way it is.‟”
◦ “Should people make those firm commitments going into
the future? So far, the member agencies have opted not
to. They prefer it the way it is.”
-- Excerpts of remarks by MWD General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger, speaking at an
August 10, 2010 public meeting in San Diego on MWD‟s draft 2010 Integrated
Resources Plan (IRP).
14

15. Undercharge Overcharge
-$0.6 City of Anaheim
-$0.3 City of Beverly Hills
-$0.2 City of Burbank
-$2.5 Calleguas MWD
-$1.5 Central Basin MWD
-$0.1 City of Compton
-$2.1 Eastern MWD
-$0.2 Foothill MWD
-$0.3 City of Fullerton
-$0.4 City of Glendale
-$1.6 Inland Empire Utilities Agency
-$0.5 Las Virgenes MWD
-$0.8 City of Long Beach
-$6.3 City of Los Angeles
-$5.3 MWD of Orange County
-$0.5 City of Pasadena
San Diego County Water Authority $31.0
$0.0 City of San Fernando
$0.0 City of San Marino
-$0.4 City of Santa Ana
-$0.3 City of Santa Monica
-$1.4 Three Valleys MWD
-$0.4 City of Torrance
-$0.5 Upper San Gabriel MWD
-$2.9 West Basin MWD
-$2.0 Western MWD
15

16. 15 member agencies buy less than
2% of MWD‟s water and pay less
than 2% of MWD‟s bills
Average MWD Water Purchases
by Member Agency (2000-09)
16

17. 20 member agencies buy less than
5% of MWD‟s water and pay less
than 5% of MWD‟s bills
Average MWD Water Purchases
by Member Agency (2000-09)
17

18. One member agency buys more
than 25% of MWD‟s water and pays
more than 25% of MWD‟s bills
Average MWD Water Purchases
by Member Agency (2000-09)
18

19.  Case assigned to San Francisco Superior
Court Judge Kramer
 Estimate trial court decision in early 2012
 MWD has proposed terminating funding
agreements with Water Authority in
response to lawsuit
◦ Local supply agreements
◦ Local access to MWD conservation incentives
◦ Water Authority ratepayers contribute $22 million
annually; MWD would return $0 to county
19

20.  Water Authority striving to provide reliable
water supply for region‟s $186 billion
economy, 1.3 million full-time jobs, and the
quality of life for 3.1 million people
 Water Authority needs a reliable supply from
MWD, at an affordable and equitable cost
 Water Authority needs a fiscally sustainable
MWD
◦ With sound fiscal policies, stable revenues and that
respects ratepayers
20

21. 21