Post on 17-Mar-2022
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion InvestigationUpdate on Draft Feasibility Report and State Funding Application
February 22, 2018
Los Vaqueros Reservoir• Off-stream storage facility currently served by two Delta intakes
• Located in the coastal foothills west of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and east of the San Francisco Bay Area
• Owned and operated by Contract Costa Water District (CCWD) primarily for water quality, emergency storage and dry year supplies
San Francisco
Contra Costa Water District
Los VaquerosReservoir
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
2
Project Milestones• 1998 - 100 TAF Los Vaqueros Project completed• 2000 - CALFED Surface Storage Program established• 2004 - PL 108-361 authorized Federal feasibility study• 2009 - Reclamation & CCWD completed Draft EIS/EIR • 2010 - Reclamation & CCWD completed Final EIS/EIR• 2012 - CCWD completed Phase 1 Expansion to 160 TAF• 2017 (July) - Draft Supplement to the
Final EIS/EIR Phase 2• 2017 (August) - CCWD submitted application
for State funding under Proposition 1• 2018 (February) – Reclamation released
Draft Feasibility Report for Phase 2
3
Planning Objectives•Primary
• Develop water supplies for environmental water management that supports fish protection, habitat management, and other environmental water needs.
• Increase water supply reliability for water providers within the Bay Area to help meet M&I water demands during drought periods and emergencies or to address shortages due to regulatory and environmental restrictions.
•Secondary• Improve the quality of water deliveries to M&I customers in the Bay
Area, without impairing the project’s ability to meet the environmental and water supply reliability objectives stated above.
4
Potential Local Agency Partners• Alameda County Water District• Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency• Byron-Bethany Irrigation District• City of Brentwood• Del Puerto Water District• East Bay Municipal Utility District• East Contra Costa Irrigation District• Grassland Water District• San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission• San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority• San Luis Water District• Santa Clara Valley Water District• Westlands Water District• Zone 7 Water Agency
CCWD
EBMUD
SFPUC
BAWSCA ACWD
SCVWD
Zone 7
ECCIDBrentwood
BBID
SLDMWA
5
WestlandsSLWDDPWDGWD
CVPIA South-of-Delta Wildlife Refuge Beneficiaries
Habitat managed by• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federal)• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(state)• Grassland Water District (local)
South-of-Delta Refuge Water Supplies obligated under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act are managed by Reclamation
Level 2 271,000Incremental Level 4 105,500*Total 376,500 acre-feet*not including conveyance losses
6
Public Draft Feasibility Report Contents•Executive Summary •Main Body•Technical Appendices:
• Appendix A – Plan Formulation• Appendix B – Modeling• Appendix C – Engineering Designs
and Costs• Appendix D – Economic Analysis• Appendix E – Real Estate• Appendix F – Climate Change• Appendix G – Cost Allocation
Existing and Proposed Facilities
1. Los Vaqueros Reservoir Proposed115 TAF additional storage
2. Old River & Middle River Intakes3. Old River Pipeline & Proposed
Delta-Transfer Pipeline4. Transfer Pump Station5. Transfer-LV Pipeline 6. Proposed Transfer-Bethany Pipeline7. Los Vaqueros Pipeline8. CCWD-EBMUD Intertie9. Rock Slough Intake10. Proposed Neroly High-Lift Pump
Station
1
6
2
5
3
8
4
7
910
8
Feasibility Report Alternatives
• No Action• Alternative 1A - Water Supply Reliability • Alternative 1B - Environmental Water Management &
Water Supply Reliability• Alternative 2A - Environmental Water Management• Alternative 4A - Environmental Water Management &
Water Supply Reliability without reservoir expansion
9
Alternatives Comparison –Long-Term Average Annual Benefits
10
Benefit Category ALTERNATIVEUnit 1A 1B 2A 4A
Increase in M&I Water Supply Reliability
TAF/year 15.5 12.9 -5.4 11.2
Emergency Water Supplies Available to M&I Purveyors TAF 168 162 71 79
Increase in Incremental Level 4 Refuge Water Supplies
TAF/year 35.8 45.7 69.0 41.2
Increase in Agricultural Water Supplies
TAF/year 3.4 1.2 1.2 0.8
Increase in Recreation Days to the Los Vaqueros Watershed
visits/year 165,445 165,445 165,445 0
Determining Economic Benefits
•Economic analysis converts physical benefits –such as acre-feet of water supplies, or numbers of recreational visitors – to monetary benefits
•Monetary value is assigned based on different economic methods and approaches specific to each benefit type, consistent with Federal economic principles and guidelines
•Once the monetary value of all benefits is estimated and summed, it can be compared to the total cost of the alternative
11
Example Economic Analysis
12
1 Estimate the physical benefits of a
project
2 Assign an economic
value to the benefits
3 Compare the cost of the project with the value of
the benefits
10 acre-feet
$200 / acre-foot
$2000 benefits
$1000 capital cost$2000
2:1 or 2.0 Benefit-Cost Ratio
Alternatives Comparison –Economic BenefitsBENEFIT CATEGORY
ALTERNATIVE1A 1B 2A 4A
M&I Water Supplies $12.4 $10.3 $(5.0) $9.5
Emergency Water Supplies $24.7 $23.8 $10.4 $11.6
Refuge Water Supplies $17.9 $23.6 $37.4 $21.1
Agricultural Water Supplies $1.9 $0.6 $0.6 $0.4
Recreation $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0
TOTAL BENEFITS ($million/year) $57.2 $58.6 $43.7 $42.6
13
2015 Dollars
Alternatives Comparison –Benefits and Costs
2015 DollarsNED – National Economic Development
Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)
14
$ MillionsALTERNATIVE
1A 1B 2A 4ATotal Annual NED Benefits $57.2 $58.6 $43.7 $42.6
Total Capital Cost $922 $922 $922 $411
Total Annual Cost $46.6 $47.0 $46.9 $25.7
Net NED Benefits $10.6 $11.6 -$3.2 $16.9
Benefit Cost/Ratio 1.23 1.25 0.93 1.66
NED Plan
Allocation of Capital Cost –NED Plan and LPP
$ Millions NED PlanAlternative 4A
LPPAlternative 1B
LPPAlternative 1BConstrained by
NED Plan
Non-Reimbursable Federal Costs $103 $230 $103
Non-Federal Costs $308 $692 $820
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $411 $922 $922
Percentage of Capital Costs that are Non-Reimbursable Federal Costs 25.0% 25.0% 11.1%
2015 Dollars, $million Non-Federal costs would include the $434 million requested in the CWC application for fundingNED – National Economic Development
15
Public Draft FR Findings• There is a need for the project, and Federal interest in the project The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575)
institutes a Federal obligation for refuge water supply There is additional need for M&I and agricultural water supplies,
particularly in dry years
• Multiple cost-effective alternative plans were identified Three alternative plans have positive NED benefits Alternative 4A is the NED Plan, and is basis for Federal participation
• The Locally Preferred Plan, Alternative 1B, is recommended for implementation Expansion of reservoir to 275 TAF and construction of new Transfer-
Bethany Pipeline and Neroly High Lift pump station Operated for both M&I and Refuge water supply reliability $839.3 million construction cost, net economic benefit of $11.6M per year
16
Public Draft FR Findings (cont.)• Authorization can be provided under the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) (Public Law 114-322) Authorizes Federal participation in State-led projects providing a
benefit in meeting any obligation under Federal law $335 million of funding provided in the Act Limits Federal cost-share to no more than 25 percent total costs If a project meets the requirements of the Act, the Secretary of Interior
recommends the project to the appropriate committee(s) within Congress, which then makes appropriations for planning, design, and construction
CCWD or a future Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would take lead role in final design and construction, in coordination with Reclamation
17
Draft FR Recommendations• Secretary authorize Reclamation participation in implementing
Alternative 1B under WIIN Act Federal investment for Alternative 1B is 11% of the total construction cost of
$922 million, which meets WIIN requirements Annual appropriations should support completion of preconstruction activities
within 5 years, and reservoir area construction completion within 10 years• Secretary authorize Reclamation to enter into agreements with
CCWD, as the local facility owner and operator, for Securing water rights and/or changes to existing water rights necessary to
deliver water supplies to Refuges The long-term use of existing facilities and authorized new facilities, including
provisions for operations, maintenance, and replacement Updating the existing integrated operations agreement between CCWD and
Reclamation Utilizing CVP power for delivering water supplies to Refuges
18
Other Considerations• The Recommended Plan is consistent with CALFED,
CVPIA, and other existing projects and programs• The Recommended Plan would continue to provide
benefits under a wide range of future hydrologic conditions
• The Recommended Plan retains its benefits with California WaterFix
19
California Proposition 1 Funding •The Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) is being implemented by the California Water Commission (CWC)
•Provides funding for the public benefits of qualifying storage projects
• Ecosystem• Emergency response• Recreation• Water quality*• Flood Control*
20
* Note: CCWD did not apply for public benefits related to water quality and flood control.
California Proposition 1 Funding •CCWD applied to the California Water Commission for $434M in Prop 1 funding in August 2017
•The CWC is reviewing 11 applications•CCWD is responding to CWC’s technical review comments on their application
•Preliminary funding decisions are expected in July 2018
21
CWC Water Storage Investment Program Schedule
22
Feb 23 Appeal letters due
April 20 CWC staff issue response to appeals
May 1-3 CWC meeting to determine final public benefit ratios
May 25 Preliminary funding application scores released
June 27-29 CWC meeting to determine final scores
July 6 Final scores and application ranks posted
July 24-26 CWC meeting to determine conditional funding awards
Comparison of Draft Feasibility Report and CWC Application
23
Federal Feasibility Report CCWD WSIP Application
Recommended Plan Alternative 1B Alternative 1B
Benefits Evaluated Federal Benefits:- Water supply M&I Emergency Refuge Agricultural
- Recreation
California Public Benefits: - Ecosystem- Emergency response- Recreation
Economic Analysis Methods
Consistent with Federal P&Gs Consistent with CWC Technical Reference Document guidance
Comparison of Benefits and Costs
Federal Ratio of Annual Benefits to Costs (B-C ratio)
Public Benefits Ratio (PBR)
Cost assignment and allocation
Costs assigned to Federal benefits and allocated to beneficiaries according to federallaws & regulations
Costs assigned to Public Benefits and assigned to beneficiaries, consistent with CWC guidance
Implications of CWC Funding Decision on the Project•CWC funding would provide for a substantial portion of the non-federal cost share of the Recommended Plan
•CWC funding was not considered in the cost allocation or financial feasibility analyses presented in the Draft Feasibility Report
• Even without CWC funding, local beneficiaries were found to have the capacity to pay for the project
• The cost to the Federal government for the LPP would not change, with or without CWC funding
24
AppropriationsFunding
Agreements
Next Steps
25
Final Feasibility Report and
Final SEIS/R
Submit your comments by
March 3!
CWC Funding Decision
Respond to Comments
Prop 1 Funding Review by
CWC
Draft Feasibility
Report