[env-trinity] San Diego UT: Delta tunnels ignore local market changes

[Tom Stokely]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/16/delta-tunnels-ignore-local-water-markets/ 
Delta tunnels ignore local market changes
San Diego and other agencies might not need so much future Delta water
By Steven Greenhut4:14 p.m.Jan. 16, 2015In this 2006 file photo, houses located in the Pocket Area of Sacramento, Calif., are seen along the Sacramento River. 
On July 25, 2012, the state announced plans to build two tunnels that would carry part of the Sacramento River's flow underneath the Delta and to the California Aqueduct. — AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
Since his inauguration this month, Gov. Jerry Brown has widely touted his proposed high-speed rail system and even attended a groundbreaking ceremony in Fresno, but has been less talkative about the other massive infrastructure project on his agenda: The $25-billion-plus plan to build twin tunnels underneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The 30-mile tunnels would bypass the aging levees in the Delta estuary and route Sacramento River water southward to San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California metropolises. The goal is to increase water reliability and restore the area’s fragile habitat, but it has met with controversy and a sea of problems.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regional office in August argued the proposal “would contribute to increased and persistent violations of water quality standards in the Delta, set under the Clean Water Act … .” State water officials in December announced their plan to scratch pumping stations from the north part of the Delta — to placate concerns by local residents(who remain unimpressed by the changes, according to news reports), and protect some of the fish species the EPA said might be harmed.
A new analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office pointed to a more pressing problem: “some sources of funding — such as state bond funds for ecosystem restoration activities — may not materialize. In addition, the costs to implement the Delta Plan are unknown but potentially significant.”
But the biggest threat to its construction may not be federal regulators and financial uncertainties and has gone widely unaddressed. It may be a simple market matter: the declining reliance by major water agencies on flows from the Delta. Who pays for these long-term, fixed infrastructure costs if these agencies don’t really need the water in the future?
One of the project’s champions is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a consortium of agencies that provide water throughout Southern California, including the San Diego County Water Authority. “Met” says the project, known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, “shows the most promise for maintaining a reliable water system for the next generation” and that it “stabilizes water supplies at roughly the last 20-year average for as long as 50 years.”
But Metropolitan’s biggest member agency, the San Diego County Water Authority, says it isn’t planning on needing the same amount of future water supplies from Met that it had been receiving in the past decades. SDCWA is on track to reduce its water purchases from Metropolitan by 66 percent over a 30-year period. Metropolitan’s second-biggest customer, the city of Los Angeles, is predicting a 50-percent cut in in purchases from Met by 2035.
“They are the twin pillars, the two largest agencies of Met, saying we’re buying less Met water, which means less Bay Delta water … and that’s permanently shutting the demand on Met,” explained Dennis Cushman, assistant general manager of the San Diego County agency, which has not taken a formal position on the Delta project. Those local water projects include conservation, saltwater desalination, recycled water, a canal-lining project that reduces seepage and a deal for additional Colorado River water.
“Met is going to invest somewhere between four, six, eight billion dollars in BDCP and they said their only plan on how to pay for it is to raise their rates on the sale of a commodity that’s declining,” Cushman added, noting that “the worst-kept secret” in the water world is that Metropolitan’s member agencies are voting with their pocketbook.
As Metropolitan water rates go up, member agencies develop even more local sources, which then forces Met to again raise rates to pay for all its infrastructure investments.
“While development of local supplies is important, you will never be able to replace the supplies from the Colorado River and the Delta,” said Brett Barbre, a Met director representing Orange County. He said the Delta will always be an important part of the overall water-supply picture.
Still, this declining demand is an issue. The state can probably get enough cash to plod ahead — and it no doubt can assuage the fears of federal officials (and force the project on locals). But what if the state’s water-agency customers don’t really need as much Delta water? That’s a question no one seems to be answering.
Greenhut is the California columnist for U-T San Diego.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20150117/a1b7228e/attachment.html>