water sales projections – impact of drought on revenues

Water Sales Projections – Impact of Drought on

Revenues Board of Directors February 23, 2016

Overview

•Historical budget and actual water sales

•Current budget water sales

•Projected water sales reflecting impact of drought

•Review possible scenarios

2

Context

• District policy is to encourage water conservation with at least 70% of revenues coming from volume based rates

• FY16 conservation has been higher than assumed for Stage 4 drought

• Based on FY16/17 budget

– 1MGD of conservation ~ $2 million in revenue

3

151151154157160165171176182188

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Mill

ion

Gal

lons

Per

Day

Fiscal Year

Prior Budgets

FY16 Budget Forward

Actual Consumption

Historical Budget and Actual Water Sales

8% 7% 5% 5% 5%

4

248.3 262.2 273.0 283.0 293.6

262.3 271.7 296.9 320.3 334.6 505.2

539.5 576.5

615.4 647.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

FY16 5 YEAR FORECAST

O&M $M Debt Service Plus Coverage $M Total Revenues $M

8% 7% 5% 5% 5%

151 151 154 157 160

100

120

140

160

0

40

80

120

Wat

er S

ales

MG

D

RSF

BALA

NCE

$M

MGD Rate Stabilization Fund Balance $MRate Increase

$6.0M Shortfall

151151154157160165171176182188

133133137140143

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Mill

ion G

allo

ns P

er D

ay

Fiscal Year

Prior Budgets

FY16 Budget Forward

Actual Consumption

FY16 UpdatedAssumption

Water Sales at 1978 Drought Levels with 1/3 Higher Population

8% 7% 5% 5% 5%

6

265.2 249.2 273.0 283.0 293.6

262.3 275.0 305.2

334.4 354.4 527.2 496.4

531.4 562.5

595.8

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0


REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

FY16 5 YEAR FORECAST REVISED


$27.8M Shortfall

$52.2M Shortfall

$54.9M Shortfall $46.8M

Shortfall

RSF Balance $0M

8% 7% 5% 5% 5%

133 133 137 140 143

100

120

140

160

0

40

80

120

Wat

er S

ales

MG

D

RSF

BALA

NCE

$M

MGD Rate Stabilization Fund Balance $M

Debt Coverage Ratio Drops 1.44 1.36

Rate Increase

$0.2M Shortfall

+25% Surcharge

Possible Rate Forecast Scenarios

• FY17 – Control costs where possible

• FY18/19

– FY18/19 rate increase

– Reduce expenses

– Some combination of above

8

265.2 249.2 273.0 283.0 293.6

262.3 275.0 302.7 326.4 340.7

527.2 496.4

554.4

612.7 649.2

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0


REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

REVALUATE FUTURE RATE INCREASES


$27.8M Shortfall

$21.3M Shortfall

8% 7% 10.5% 10.5% 5.0%

133 133 137 140 143

100

120

140

160

0

40

80

120

Wat

er S

ales

MG

D

RSF

BALA

NCE

$M


$0.2M Shortfall

+25% Surcharge

265.19 249.2 258.0 268.0 278.6

262.3 275.0 297.6 317.2 327.5 527.2

496.4 546.0

594.1 629.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

REDUCE EXPENDITURES


$27.8M Shortfall

$9.6M Shortfall $0.2M

Shortfall

8% 7% 8.5% 8.5% 5.0%

133 133 137 140 143

100

120

140

160

0

40

80

120

Wat

er S

ales

MG

D

RSF

BALA

NCE

$M


+25% Surcharge

Staged System of Drought Surcharges Added to Normal Rates

11

Stage 0 1 2 3 4

Demand Reduction

Voluntary 0-15%

Voluntary 0-15%

Mandatory 15%

Mandatory 20%

Supplemental Supplies

Up to 35,000 acre feet

35,000-65,000 acre feet

> 65,000 acre feet

Rates and Charges

Normal rates

Normal rates

Normal rates

+ 8%

Normal rates

+ 20%

Supersaver

recognition*

Excessive use penalty*

Normal rates

+ 25%

Supersaver

recognition*

Excessive use penalty*

*Supersaver recognition and excessive use penalty not subject to Prop 218 requirements.

265.19 249.2 273.0 283.0 293.6

262.3 272.9 300.7 324.7 339.1

527.2 515.4 553.3

610.3 646.7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

OTHER: EXAMPLE FY17 STAGE 2 DROUGHT SURCHARGE WITH 8%


$6.7M Shortfall

$20.4M Shortfall

WITH FY17 STAGE 2

$0.2M Shortfall

8% 7% 10.25% 10.25% 5.0%

133 133 137 140 143

100

120

140

160

0

40

80

120

Wat

er S

ales

MG

D

RSF

BALA

NCE

$M


+8% Surcharge

+25% Surcharge

What About Wastewater?

• Last year’s wastewater 5-year forecast showed 5% annual increases until FY20 where it dropped to 4%

• The updated forecast reflects:

– slight reductions in treatment revenue resulting from water conservation; and

– increases in food waste program capital costs

13

64.39 70.7 73.4 75.9 78.6

46.5 47.8 51.1 52.0 53.6

123.0 124.5 130.4 132.9 138.6

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200


REVE

NU

ES/E

XPEN

SES

$M

WASTEWATER FY16 5 YEAR FORECAST REVISED ASSUMPTION


5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 0

40

80

120

CASH

BAL

ANCE

$M

Reserve BalanceRate Increase

Next Steps

15

•Decision on Drought Management Program - April

• Provide update in FY17 Budget and Rates Workshop - May

• FY18/19 Budget Workshop ~ January 2017

16

Board Discussion

Mokelumne Aqueducts Delta Tunnel Study

Mokelumne Aqueducts Delta Tunnel Study

Board Meeting

February 23, 2016

Agenda

• Background– Existing conditions– Subsidence, isolator issues– Flood hazards– Seismic hazards

• Strategy to Address Various Issues– Near-term– Long-term

• Phase I study proposed for award today

2

3

Existing Conditions

3

[Photo: 2004 Jones Tract levee failure, submerging aqueducts]Below Sea LevelBelow Sea Level-30-30 -20-20 -10-10 -5-5

- 20 ft.

- 5 ft.

- 15 ft.

-25 ft

4

Existing Conditions

4

CRESTEL +10.0

HIGH TIDEWSEL +6.0

EL -10.0

LEVEE FILL

DENSE SAND

LOOSE SAND

PEAT / ORGANICS EL -20.0

EL -50.0

TYPICAL LEVEE CROSS-SECTION

Temperature Anchor Subsidence

Ref Planning Committee August 10, 2010 5

Aqueduct No. 1 Temperature Anchor at Station 2580

Deflected blowoff pipe

Anchor structure settled 8.4”

Cracked concrete

6

Aqueduct No. 1 Temperature Anchor at Station 2480

Retaining wall installed in 1970s

Anchor structuresettled 10.8”

Concrete anchor

7

Temperature Anchor Settlement at Station 2480

Adjacent bent to anchor

Crushed timber saddle

Separation between aqueduct and anchor structure

8

Timber Pile Under Anchor at Station 2480

Cavity in pile Buckled pile top

Pile cap

9

Aqueduct No. 3 Isolator Issues

Isolators were installed in the early 2000’s

In 2009, two isolators, SN231 and SN247, were observed as having deformed and debonded from mounting plates

348 isolators total

10

Aqueduct No. 3

Separation between isolation bearing rubber and mounting plate

11

12

Levee Overtopping

12

100 Year Flood Map [FEMA]

13

Scour (from levee failures)

13

Jones Tract Levee Failure, 2004

Scour Hole 2004

• 2,000 feet long

• 80 feet deep

• 80 feet is below Aqueducts pile tip elevations

Not the first or last levee failure; same levee failed in 1992

14

Flooding (submerged Aqueducts)

• Wave action

• Floating debris

• Buoyancy

• Corrosion

14

[Photo: 2004 Jones Tract levee failure, submerged aqueducts]

1

Ground Shaking₋ Seismic sources

• Blind thrust faults in Delta

₋ Local site conditions• Depth to hard rock• Variations in surficial

geologic units

₋ Basin effects• Increase in amplitude and

duration of long-period motions

Ground Deformation₋ Southern Midland fault

Liquefaction₋ Depth and extent

Seismic Hazards

Overview Map

Debonded isolatorsSettled anchor at

Station 2580Settled anchor at

Station 2480

Supportconnection

failure

16

The Strategy

• Plan completed by EBMUD in 2007: Strategy for Protecting Aqueducts in the Delta (SPAD)

• SPAD was instrumental in garnering $45M in grant funding for near-term work:– Levee enhancements (completed)

– Interconnections (completed)

• Other near-term work completed in the interim:– Major study performed on Mok #3 isolators, 2011-13

– Fixes made to two temp anchors in 2011-12, surveillance established, additional anchor ID’d June 2012

• SPAD also laid out longer-term plan

17

Near-term Mitigation:Levee Enhancement

• EBMUD has assisted the Reclamation Districts to upgrade levees at a cost of approximately $35 million.

• The Reclamation Districts have constructed substantial levee enhancements meeting PL84-99 standards.

18

• Upgrading to PL84-99 standards reduces risk of overtopping failures and is important for qualifying for emergency funds following a levee failure.

• Despite improvements, the levees remain vulnerable to earthquake risk due to the underlying foundation materials.

19

Near-term Mitigation:Interconnections

0 MGDMokelumne 2 - 53 MGD

Lafayette 1Mokelumne 1 - 41 MGD


Campo Seco

0 MGD

0 MGD 0 MGD

Walnut Creek

199 MGD

Bixler

41 MGD

105 MGD

Pardee

567 ft

I-5

41 MGD

105 MGD0 MGD 0 MGD

53 MGD53 MGD

42 MGDMokelumne 2 - 42 MGD



Campo Seco

43 MGD

33 MGD 34 MGD

Walnut Creek

162 MGD

Bixler

34 MGD

85 MGD

Pardee

567 ft

I-5

0 MGD

162 MGD75 MGD 77 MGD

43 MGD0 MGD

Post-Disaster Gravity Flow Capacity

= 105 MGDPost-Disaster Gravity Flow Capacity

= 162 MGD

Existing Aqueducts System

Aqueducts With Delta Interconnections

20

Near-term Mitigation:Temperature Anchor Replacements

Recommended Long-Term Strategy

Tunnel Below Delta

• Mitigates all hazards

• Maintains full supply after hazard events

• High benefit to cost ratio

Presentation SPAD Study Board Meeting October 23, 2007

21

22

EBMUD “Delta Tunnel” Concept (2007)

22

Mokelumne Aqueducts Delta Tunnel Concept• +/- 20 feet diameter bore• +/- 16 miles long• Greater than 80 feet deep

Basic Approach to Tunnel Recommended in SPAD

• Plan for the tunnel as the best long option

• Timing of construction not specified

• In the interim, complete engineering studies to:

– Refine and validate concepts

– Reduce risk to water supply disruption by shaving years off critical-path schedule

23

BDCP Tunnels

• Initial BDCP concepts favored open channel, tunnel alternatives added circa 2008

• 2013 BDCP EIR’s alternative 4A, twin tunnels crossing Mok Aqueduct right of way, was the preferred alternative

• In response, EBMUD analyzed BDCP tunnel impacts in early 2014 to provide comments by July 2014

• July 2015 “WaterFix” EIR refined twin tunnels somewhat

24

2525

WaterFixTwin Tunnels Preliminary Design:• 40 foot diameter gravity flow tunnels• 34.5 miles long across the Delta• Greater than 100 feet deep

BDCP Tunnels

BDCP Tunnels Crossing Location

Mokelumne Aqueducts & Delta Tunnel

BDCP Tunnel Conflict with Mokelumne Aqueducts

Conceptual Design of EBMUD Tunnel

26

Delta Tunnel Timeline

27

2004 Middle River levee fails and submerges the Mokelumne Aqueducts on Jones Tract in the Delta

2007 Staff completes Report “Strategy for Protecting the Mokelumne Aqueducts in the Delta”• Short-term recommendation: construct Interconnections on each side of the Delta,• Long-term recommendation: construct Delta Tunnel across the Delta to mitigate risk

2013 District implements the short-term mitigation measure and completes the MokelumneAqueduct Interconnections on both sides of the Delta.

2014 District completes Delta Tunnel Study which includes:• Detailed review of existing geotechnical data and limited investigations• Conceptual Design of the Delta Tunnel• Response to EIR/EIS for State’s BDCP Twin Tunnels• Scoping and cost estimates of the next steps.

2016 Phase 1 Geotechnical Exploration Program

2018 Analyze seismic vulnerability of existing Mokelumne Aqueducts in the Delta

Future Preliminary Design, CEQA, Final Design, and Construction

28

Phase 1 Geotechnical Exploration Program

Exploration Program (16.5-miles):• Review Existing Data• Deep Soil Borings• Cone Penetration Test

(CPT)• Soil Sampling• Laboratory Testing• Piezometers • In-situ Testing• Geophysical

survey

Deliverables:• Geotechnical Data Report• Geologic Interpretative

Memo• Seismicity Report

29

Existing Mokelumne Aqueducts & Proposed Delta Tunnel

BixlerProposed State BDCP

California WaterFIxTwin Tunnels

N

Proposed EBMUDDelta Tunnel

Zone

Tunnel Face Stability

CPT data Soil Boring logs

Drivers for Moving ForwardWith Geotechnical Work

• Rationale per 2007 SPAD

– Mitigates all of the natural hazards to Aqueducts (flood, scour, subsidence, EQ)

– Long-term less expensive than major levee strengthening & maintenance

• Additional Benefits Relative to Waterfix

– Refine vertical profile of our tunnel to inform discussion of mitigations for WaterFix

30

Water Supply Board Briefing

Water Operations Department

February 23, 2016

Water Supply Briefing

• California Water Supply

• Current Water Supply

• Water Supply Projections

• Water Supply Schedule

2

California Water Supply

4

California Water Supply Automated Survey - Snow Water Equivalents

4

Automated Snow Measurements – Snow Water Equivalents

Year % of Normal on February 22

2015 19%

2016 94%

• Snow station surveys conducted around February 1, 2016

• Manual readings confirm

preliminary automated measurements

California Water Supply Reservoir Storage – February 21

February 21, 2016 Storage Average Storage on February 21

5

Current Water Supply

6

Current Water Supply Mokelumne Precipitation

0.45 0.08

0.06

2.56

Rainfall Year 2016 Average

7

5.83

11.45 10.9

2.06

Current Water Supply East Bay Precipitation

0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01

1.94

Rainfall Year 2016 Average

8

5.02

7.51

0.92

Current Water Supply Precipitation & Snow

As of 2/21/2016 Cumulative Precipitation

% of Average

East Bay

East Bay Watershed 15.48” 83% Mokelumne Basin

4-Station Average 33.39” 105% Caples Lake Snow Depth 72” 99% Caples Lake Snow Water Content 27.84” 110%

9

Add current photos

10

Current Water Supply Caples Lake Snow Depth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

O N D J F M A M J

Sn

ow

Dep

th (

in)

Date

2015-16

2014-15

Historical Average

Current Water Supply Gross Water Production

100

150

200

250

300

1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun

gros

s w

ater

pro

duct

ion

(mgd

)

3-Year Avg of FY 2005-2007FY 2016FY 2013 (184 MGD)FY 2016 Operational Estimate (149 MGD)

Current Water Supply Water Savings

12

12 Month Average

12 Month Running Average Savings Rate (2013 Baseline)

CY 2015 22%

Feb 22, 2015- Feb 21,2016

23%

Current Water Supply Reservoir Storage

As of 2/21/16

Current Storage

Percent of Average

Percent of Capacity

Pardee 178,250 AF 101% 90%

Camanche 98,580 AF 37% 24%

East Bay 121,840 AF 91% 80%

Total System 398,670 AF 69% 52% 13

Water Supply Projections

Water Supply Projections (Runoff Projections as of February 22, 2016)

Forecast Annual Runoff

Total System Storage (on Sept 30, 2016)

No Rain To-Come 380 TAF 385 TAF 95% Exceedance

(9.5 of 10 years are wetter) 540 TAF 455 TAF

90% Exceedance (9 of 10 years are wetter) 570 TAF 485 TAF

50% Exceedance (5 of 10 years are wetter) 710 TAF 625 TAF

10% Exceedance (1 of 10 years is wetter) 1,020 TAF 630 TAF

Average Year 745 TAF 630 TAF 15

16

Adoption of DMP Guidelines

DMP Guidelines • Include four stages of drought • Allow for rationing >15% in extreme situations

Water Supply Projections Mokelumne Precipitation Rainfall Year 2016

Wettest of Record 87.3” (RY83)

Driest of Record 23.0” (RY77)

RY 2016 To-Date 33.39”

Average 48.3”

10% Exceedance

90% Exceedance

Median

17

Current Water Supply Mokelumne Precipitation – February Fail

18

Accuweather.com at Pioneer, CA

February 2016 Mokelumne 4-Station Average

Precipitation (through February 21st)

2.06”

Year Mokelumne 4-Station Average

Precipitation

1953 0.48”

1964 0.53”

1988 0.54”

1967 0.83”

2013 0.85”

Top 5 Driest Februaries How Dry is February 2016?

Water Supply Projections 10-Day NOAA Precipitation Probability Estimate

19

33 to 40% Increased Chance of Below-Normal Precipitation In the Mokelumne Watershed

Water Supply Projections 14-Day NOAA Precipitation Probability Estimate

20

Likely Normal Precipitation In the Mokelumne Watershed

Water Supply Projections 3-Month NOAA Precipitation Probability Estimate

21

33 to 40% Increased Chance of Above-Normal Precipitation In the Mokelumne Watershed

22

Water Year 2016 As of February 22, 2016

• Mokelumne River basin runoff is 146 TAF

• Projected end of water year storage is 485– 630 TAF (90% - 10% exceedance)

• Mokelumne River watershed season to date precipitation is 105% of average

• East Bay watershed season to date precipitation is 83% of average

• Precipitation accumulation season – 67% complete (33% remaining)

Water Year 2016 Water Supply Schedule

Date Activity

Feb 2 • DWR February Snow Survey

Feb 23 • Drought Financial Impacts

Mar 1 • DWR March Snow Survey

Mar 20 • USBR Initial Allocation

February to April

• Water Supply Updates • Continue public outreach

April 1 • DWR April Snow Survey

April 26

• Water Supply Availability and Deficiency Report

• Consider approval of Freeport use 23

Looking Forward

24

January March??? February

Hoping for Normal Precipitation to Add to Our Normal Snowpack

25

Elevation +Gain +Gain Elevation Storage Release SpillMOKELUMNE Feet -Loss Ac-Ft -Loss Feet Ac-Ft Cfs Cfs

Pardee 558.54 0.04 178340 90 567.65 197950 879 0 Camanche 177.63 0.4 99880 1300 235.5 417120 161 0EAST BAY Briones 571.59 0.24 57270 170 576.14 60510 0 0 Chabot 218.02 0.01 7480 0 227.25 10350 0 0 Lafayette 442.5 0 3440 0 449.16 4250 0 0 San Pablo 296.01 -0.11 25450 -70 313.68 38600 0 0 Upper San Leandro 445.67 -0.06 28260 -40 459.98 37960 0 0

121900 60 151670

400120 1450 766740

Storage Operating MGMG Capacity Line 1 19.3

403 720 Line 2 13.4411 Line 3 38.2

-8 TOTAL 70.9

FSCC to MOK AQUEDUCTS (Measured at Brandt), MGMillion Capacity Mok 1 0Gallons MGD Mok 2 0

0 25 0 MG47.2 190 Cfs10.3 30 101723.7 50 1045

16 45 87925.4 90 0

161122.6 430

0.4123 Maximum

-8 Storage Change Capacity2.9 9953 0 26560

128.1 32296 -96 14185726 16880 40 52025

102.1 59129 -56 220442

INPUT

Briones Res. 0 0San Pablo Res. 0 108 This Season Season SeasonU. San Leandro Res. 0 53 Today Month to-Date to-Date Total

0 0.91 17.37 17.75 25.33TOTAL 0 161 0 1.3 17.56 22.26 32.06REMARKS 0 0.92 13.59 19.85 28.18

0 1.61 12.73 16.39 23.020 0.94 16.04 14.12 21.560 1.87 33.47 29.92 45.51

Today70 Inches

27.8 Inches

STATION

Orinda WTP USL WTP

Lafayette Reservoir

WTP capacities are sustainable rates.

Walnut Creek WTP

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

All other data as of midnight. Snow Depth Water Content

CAPLES LAKE (7,830 FT) DATA

73 Inches25.4 Inches

DRAFT

Average

Camp Pardee Salt Springs P.H.

PG&E data as of 4:00 pm previous date.

WID Canal Diversion = 0 cfsMokelumne River below WID = 107 cfs

RAW WATER TRANSMISSION Ac-ft

PG&E CO. STORAGE (Acre-feet)TOTAL SURFACE PRODUCTION Miscellaneous(Estimated)

West-of-Hills Demand

SYSTEM DEMAND East-of-Hills Demand

TOTAL WATER PRODUCTION

Old Reservoirs Change in Distribution System

Lower Bear Res. Salt Springs Res.

Wash Water from Distribution Sys.

WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING DAILY REPORTMonday, February 22, 2016

RESERVOIR STORAGE AND ELEVATION

STORAGE MAXIMUM CAPACITYWATER SURFACE

Total East Bay Res.

AND DEMAND

THROTTLE

110 Cfs

DISTRIBUTION RESERVOIRS AQUEDUCT DELIVERIES

Flow Conditions

TOTAL SYSTEM STORAGE

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Total Previous Day THROTTLE

MOKELUMNE SYSTEM

Today

AVERAGE YEARTHIS YEAR

Orinda WTPSan Pablo WTP

Pardee Release to Camanche Res.Sobrante WTP

Pardee Release to JVIDUpper San Leandro WTP

Camanche Release to Mokel. River

Lafayette WTP

THROTTLE

Total Change

Walnut Creek WTP

Mokelumne River Natural FlowPardee Reservoir Inflow

RIVER FLOWS AND RELEASES

WATER PRODUCTION

PRECIPITATION (Inches)

Total

water sales projections – impact of drought on revenues

Documents