Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2009-167 N.C.S. 10/05/2009Resolution No. 2009-167 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESPONDING TO THE SONOIVIA COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY STRATEGIES WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) embarked on a strategic planning process that culminated with the development of a draft document titled "Sonoma County Water Agency Strategic Priorities (October 2006)"; and, WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council considered the Agency's priorities in March 2007; and , WHEREAS, the Agency issued a final document in April 2007. No further action was taken on the Agency's strategic priorities until April 13, 2009, when the Agency conducted a workshop to discuss issues and challenges facing the Agency and water resources in Sonoma County, and identify possible water supply strategies (Strategies) to address the challenges and shape water policy; and, WHEREAS, the Agency's twelve Strategies are: Address Dry Creek summer flow constraints in response to the Biological Opinion. 2. Modify operation of the Russian River water system under Decision 1610 (update D1610). 3. Evaluate potential impacts of climate change on future water supply. 4. Pursue opportunities to coordinate water supply and flood control activities. 5. Work with county and cities to develop low impact development programs. 6. Work with stakeholders to promote sound, fact-based water supply planning. 7. Increase the operational reliability of the transmission system. 8. Prioritize and fund projects to protect Agency facilities from natural hazards. 9. Re-evaluate operational strategy for the transmission system. 10. Take advantage of energy and water synergies. Resolution No. 2009-167 N.C.S. Page I 11. Re-negotiate Restructured Agreement for Water Supply. 12. Overcome organizational fragmentation to promote efficiency of water system operations and water management planning; and, WHEREAS, the Agency presented the Strategies to the Petaluma City Council on September 14, .2009, and requested input from the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council considered and discussed the Agency's Strategies on October 5, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUIVIA that the Mayor, as the City's Water Advisory Committee representative, is directed to send the letter attached as Attachment A to the Sonoma County Water Agency, responding to the Agency's Strategies. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Ap rdv~d as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 5`h day of October, for 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Mayor Barrett, Glass, Harris, Healy, Babbitt, Renee, Mayor'forliatt NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None rl ATTEST: I V City Clerk Resolution No. 2009-167 N.C.S. Page 2 ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION 2009-167 N.C.S. October 5, 2009 Paul L. Kelley, Board Chairman Sonoma County Water Agency County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Dear Supervisor Kelley, We were pleased to have your staff from the Sonoma County Water Agency present the Agency's twelve water supply strategies (Strategies) to the Petaluma City Council on September 14th. We appreciate the time your staff took to illustrate the Agency's water supply challenges and the Agency's proposed Strategies for addressing these. challenges. The Petaluma City Council considered and discussed the Strategies on October 5'h and authorized me as Petaluma's Water Advisory Committee (WAC) representative to send this letter to you. Petaluma and the Agency have been partners in water supply since 1960 when the two agencies (and the North Marin Water District) entered into an agreement for water delivery. This agreement resulted in construction of the Petaluma Aqueduct, which went into service in 1961. The high quality water delivered by the Agency continues to be the primary source of water for Petaluma's residents, businesses and industries, and for most of Sonoma County and north Marin County. Between the Strategic Plan issued in April 2006 and the Strategies, the Agency has identified 21 priorities for itself. In preparing our comments, we believe the Agency's customers would be better served if the Agency were to focus its limited resources on a few key priorities described as follows: Fulfill contractual water supply obligations to the Water Contractors. Since 1961 numerous water supply agreements have been negotiated in good faith by the Agency and fhe Water Contractors for the provision of water supply, most recently in 2006 with the Restructured Agreement For Water Supply (Agreement). Under the Agreement, Petaluma is entitled to 13,400 acre-feet/year and 21.8 million gallons per day. The water demand analyses upon which the delivery entitlements in the Agreement were made were based upon land use planning projections in general plans adopted by land-use planning agencies served by the Water Contractors, including the City of Petaluma. Improve the operational consistency and reliability of the water transmission system. For the last three years the Agency's Water Contractors have operated in a "crisis" mode in response to storage problems with Lake Mendocino, even though Lake Mendocino is not our primary source of water. In 2007, the Water Contractors reduced Russian River water demands by over 15% relative to 2004 in response to the State's mandate. This year the State increased the mandated. Russian River water diversion reductions to 25%, despite the fact that the keys to maintaining storage in Lake Mendocino are further conservation in the upper Russian River and, more importantly, relief from the outdated instream flow requirements contained in Decision 1610. Additionally the Agency capped deliveries at 53 mgd to save costs. All of this has occurred at a time when Lake Sonoma, our primary source of water, remains at 90% capacity. Petaluma and the Water Contractors support the efficient use of water and recognize its value. But continually operating in a crisis mode as we have done for the last three years is counterproductive. It is critical the Agency operate Resolution No. 2009-167 N.C.S. Page 3 the water transmission system in a consistent and reliable manner. 3. Work in collaboration with the Water Contractors. Actions taken by the Agency in the last six months have severely eroded its relationship with the Water Contractors. In April the Agency did not inform the contractors about its on-going negotiations with the State Water Resources Control Board over its temporary urgency change (TUC) petition. In May, the , Agency did not support the Water Contractors when they objected to the State's attempt to impose unreasonable and inappropriate provisions in the Agency's TUC order. In June the Agency capped its production capacity at 53 mgd for financial reasons without any supporting documentation. In September the Agency appropriated $1 million for implementation of the Agency's proposed water supply strategies, without considering input from the Water Contractors. And now the Agency has apparently unilaterally decided to make a sea change in water policy in disregard of relationships that have been in place for over 40 years and work that has gone on for the last 15 years. In its desire to become a world leader in resource management, the Agency appears to have lost sight of its core mission, water supply, and in doing so has tried to relegate the role of the Water Contractors to that of an interested observer. The single most important activity the Agency and its Water Contractors engage in together is the provision of a consistent, safe and reliable water supply. Our mutual ability to successfully make this happen is limited unless the Agency works with its customers in a collaborative and cooperative manner. 4. Prepare a master plan for implementation of the Biolo - iq cal Opinion (BOA The Water Project and the South Transmission System Pipeline Project are two important projects that received significant investment by the Agency and the Water Contractors, only to be abandoned mid-stream due to costs. The cost of a project is an important factor when deciding its worthiness. But those considerations should happen at the very beginning. We are concerned the Agency may be in danger of repeating this pattern wifh the BO. The Agency estimates the cost of the BO's implementation at $100 million. What is the estimate based on? What does it assume? Where is the funding going to come from? What impact will it have on the Agency's rates? Is it affordable? We think it would be worthwhile for the Agency to take the time to prepare a detailed Master Plan (Plan) for implementation of the BO. The Plan should lay out the objectives, and the planned activities to meet those objectives in detail, including cost and schedule. This will give the Agency and the Water Contractors an opportunity to carefully consider these factors before investing a significant amount of limited funds. Again, thank you for making your staff available to us. We greatly appreciate the Agency's attention to our comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Michael Ban at 778- 4546 or urban@ci.petaluma.ca.us. Sincerely, Mayor Pamela Torliatt WAC Representative xc: Teresa Barrett -Vice Mayor Mike Harris -Councilmember Tiffany Renee -Councilmember David Rabbitt -Councilmember David Glass -Councilmember Mike Healy -Councilmember John Brown -City Manager Jake McKenzie -WAC Chair Michael Ban -Director Water Resources 8~ Conservation Resolution No. 2009-167 N.C.S. Page 4