2006 water bond & the wrif flood control, water reliability, and water quality peer swan...

2006 Water Bond & the WRIFFlood Control, Water Reliability, and Water Quality

Peer SwanDirector, Southern California Water Agency

2006 Water Bond & the WRIF

Currently proposed – 2 Bond Issues

2006 - $3.0 Billion

Flood - $1.0 Billion

Water - $2.0 Billion

2010 - $6.0 Billion

Flood - $1.5 Billion

Water - $4.5 Billion


Water Resource Investment Fund (WRIF) - $9.0 Billion raised from charges to water users over 10 years.

Half is distributed to 11 regions in form of grants after a competitive process

Half is kept by State for their use


Zero dollars ($0) per month for each lifeline connection.

Three dollars ($3) per month for each single-family residential water connection.

Five dollars ($5) per month for each commercial water connection.

Ten dollars ($10) per month for each multiple-family residential water connection.

Ten dollars ($10) per month for each industrial site water connection.

Three dollars ($3) per month for each agricultural water connection that services an area not exceeding nine acres.

Six dollars ($6) per month for each agricultural water connection that services an area that exceeds nine acres but does not exceed 180 acres.

Ten dollars ($10) per month for each agricultural water connection that services an area exceeding 180 acres.

The following schedule would be used to determine the total amount of the water resources capacity charge that would be imposed on each retail water supplier:


Single Family charge - $3/mo or $12/yrFamily size AF increase in rates

1 $288.00

2 $144.003 $ 96.004 $ 72.005 $ 57.606 $ 48.007 $ 41.148 $ 36.00

Assumes State average of 1 Acre Foot per year for a family of 8


AG Charge of greater than 180 Acres - $10/mo or $120/yr

Assume one section of land (640 acres) that uses 4 AF per acre (2,560 AF/YR)

$120 YR / 2,560 AF = $0.0469 increase in the cost per AF of water used


When is a fee NOT a fee but is a TAX?

When there is no nexus to the benefit

AG Water use 85% Est. WRIF < 1%

Urban water use 15% Est. WRIF > 99%


What are we really trying to do here?

Relieve State of future Flood claims Improve reliability of the water delivery system Improve water quality Improve aquatic habitat


Flood Control

Recent studies show Delta Islands are not sustainable over the long term and are likely to fail catastrophically in a major earthquake

Growth in flood prone areas is rapid resulting in a growing State liability for flood damage


Flood Control

Suggestions: Legislatively remove the State from liability for flood damage in

areas of new development that can not demonstrate that they have 200 year flood protection in place until such time as the State updates it flood maps

Require new development to establish flood districts to collect the necessary funds to build and maintain flood protection.


Reliability

There are three parts to a water delivery system - supply, conveyance, and storage

The Water Bond proposes to temporarily shore up the Delta to maintain conveyance and site two surface storage facilities with the State funds paying for storage for environmental releases and to encourage very expensive and energy intensive desalting projects


ReliabilitySuggestions Fund Delta improvements with a charge on all water that is used in and

downstream of the Delta. A $30/AF fee on 50% of the highest use in the last 10 years and a $60/AF fee on the next 25% and a $120/AF fee on all remaining take would produce about $180 million a year to pay for water supply and quality improvements and create incentives for greater conservation.

Urban users could contract to pay a portion of the AG fees in exchange for water in DRY years.

Users fund new storage in on-stream facilities for other than environmental uses.

State should ease the rules on water transfers to Urban areas during Dry years.


Water Quality

Improved water quality promotes better health and requires lower treatment costs in urban areas.

Proposal does little to address water quality


Water Quality

The best quality water is high up in the water delivery system, far away from the ocean and separated as much as possible from AG and Urban discharges

Could it be that an inland lake where the Delta is with segregated facilities for urban demands might solve this problem? Could this be the ONLY long term viable solution?


WRIF The State should encourage the formation of regional groups to

promote water development Most projects to promote water supply and water quality during

the last thirty years have been locally or regionally sponsored and funded. The State should stay out of local and regional water development. (no WRIF)

If the State lacks matching funds for Federal grants they should set up a competition and allow the locals to put up the State match to fund their projects.

2006 water bond & the wrif flood control, water reliability, and water quality peer swan...

Documents