HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5FPart1 06/21/2010~ALU~
aw '~
Ig5$
DATE: 21 June 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~l ~<ev~ dcv I tenv # 5.. °~
Honorable: Mayor and Members of the, City Council through City Manager
Pamela Tuft, Interim Director of Water Resources and Conservation.
Review and Comment on the Sonoma County Water Agency -Water Supply
Strategy Action Plan, May~2010 Draft
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to. hear the presentation from the Sonoma County Water~Agency
on the attached Draft Strategy Action Plan, review staff recommended comments, and direct
staffto provide comments and recommended text.amendments to the Draft Plan on the City's
behalf to the Sonoma County Water Agency.
BACKGROUND
At the combined Water Advisory Committee (W,AC) and Technical. Advisory Committee (TAC)
meeting of May 3, 20.10 the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) presented the Draft Water
Supply Strategy Action Plan and. invited comments from the represented water contractors. An
earlier draft `was reviewed, in~ Fall 2:009; by the TAC. SCWA has requested that comments on
the draft. plan be available to be collected at the July 14, 2010 TAC meeting.
As noted on page,2 of the Draft Plan, the County Board of Supervisors, as the Board of Directors
for the SCWA, held a workshop, in Spring 2009, to~discuss water supply challenges and to
review twelve strategies presented by SCWA staff to address specific goals, identified on page 4
of the Draft Plan: The priorities. identified by TAC; during their review, .are stated on page 4 as
well.
DISCUSSION
The Draft Plan is a, culmination of past, and present SCWA strategy and priority documents. It is
primarily focused on laying out the strategies and associated actions. necessary to ensure that
future water supply and infrastructure needs are met. Staffhas :reviewed. the current draft
document and~offers suggested comments for Council consideration. Comments, in general, on
the draft document include:
1. The levels of action have excessive subjective'variables attached and are -not consistent
throughout the planning process. Immediate Action items have a different set. of
Agenda. Review:
Dept. Direct City Attorney Finance Director City Ma
"because" issues than do the: other two action .levels. For the document to be more
relevant- it is suggested that benchmark objectives or constrairits be consistent- across the
three levels. (e:g. Funding is the topic for Immediate Action #4, Near Term Action #2, and
Long-term Action #3). -
2. The action descriptions are sporadic and lack a clear methodology in terms of descriptive
construction. It is difficult to evaluate the action if the description is vague or non
existent. - - - -
3. Status for a number of items does not .reflect the current status of the project. If the
document is intended to be a living publication, it should have current up-to-date
descriptions.
4. "Strategy" items should have a specific Goal associated, which should be identified.
5. "Action" items should be tied to specific: goals, those items should be prioritized for the
whole plan to provide continuity and :guidance throughout the process. This would allow
the Agency to maintain. focus onthe most important core functions and not sidetrack to
ancillary functions. This would also allow.prioritization offending allocations by the
Board of Supervisors. .
6. Water Supply Strategy Five is misidentified in the text; page 13, :as "Water Smart
Development Standards" (WSD) but as "Low ImpaeY Development Standards (LID) in
the Summary of Immediate Actions Chart, page 33.
In addition to the comments on the document. text as set forth above and on the attached matrix,
staff recommends the inclusion of specific projects to be identified within the Plan as priorities
for the Petaluma area:
I. Petaluma Aqueduct -parallel line
2. Pump Station Upgrades to ensure. adequacy of system to meet ongoing needs
3. Water Supply Storage Improvements -increase current reservoir capacity
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Staff time associated with the review of this document is covered within the DWR&C
administrative budget. It is estimated that the hours.needed and the cost for the review effort will
be approximately 20 hours for two WRC employees with a projected cost of $3,500 dollars for
the time. The City's proportionate share of the long-range improvements cannot be quantified at
this time. It is assumed that renegotiation of the water agreement with the various contractors
and the SCWA will address, at .some level, the associated costs of specific improvements to the
water supply system.
ATTACHMENTS
1. SCWA Water Supply Strategy Action Plan, May 2010 Draft
2. Staff recommendations for Council consideration
2
Attachment 1
Sonoma County Water Agency
Water Supply Strategy
Action Plan /
DRAFT
May 2010
S'ONO. 1VIA
C,O U~N, _T,Y~
W~A'T `E R:
.®
A C E N ~G \'.
V
SONOMA
G/ O' U'JN T`~ Y`
WATER
. .
.\ C F. ~.\ C 'Y
Even while we take Mother Water for granted, humans understand in our
bones. that she is the boss. We stake our civilizations on the coasts and
mighty rivers. Our deepest dread is having too little moisture - or too much.
--Barbara Kingsolver, "Fresh Water," National Geographic, April 2010
May 5,.2010
For more. than half a century, the Sonoma County'Water Agency has made sure that its North Bay
.customers have the water they need, when they need it. Our job is to make sure that the Agency can make
the same claim in 2060. Yet the Agency and its contractors face big challenges, including:
• An economic downturn that has impacted residents' ability and willingness to pay higher water rates
• Aging infrastructure, located in a seismically active region, that will require new projects in order to
increase the reliability of water deliveries.
• A federal mandate to change the way we do business in order to help save endangered coho salmon
and threatened steelhead. ~.
• Uncertain watersupply conditions including the effects of climate change on both the amount and
timing of rainfall.
Goals, Priorities, Strategies
In Spring 2009 the Agency Board of Directors held a workshop to discuss these challenges and to review
12 proposed strategies. The strategies were developed by. staff to address the following goals: Improve
reliability of facilities; comply with the Biological Opinion; maintain current water supply and. quality;
ensure projects are.affordable; reduce organizational fragmentation and increase communication with
Water Contractors and other partners; and plan for the future.
These~goals are.further detailed in Page 4 of this document, as.are the priorities recently identified by the
Water Contractors (conpifed by Technical Advisory Committee Chairman Chris beGabriele ,the general
manager of North Mar,in Water.District). As the table. on Page 4 illustrates, the goals of the Water Agency '
and the priorities of the Water Contractors are generally aligned.
Public Input
Following last spring's workshop, the Board of Directors directed Agency staff to seek input from Water
Contractors and the community at 14 public presentations held during the summer and fall of 2009... On
April 5, 2010, Agency staff presented:the revised strategies and a draft action .plan to the TAC. Based on
additional comments from TAC members, strategies were clarified, revised and combined, dropping the
number of strategies from 12 to 10.
2
Action Plan
The following document, the DRAFT Water Supply Strategy Action Plan, lays out the 10 strategies and as-
sociated~actions .Amore detailed °an'alysis with links to source documents and studies will be created and
posted on the Agency's website after the. Board of Directors has reviewed the Action Plan. It's important to
note the following:
The strategies are not ends to themselves. They are mechanisms to accomplish goals and priorities
identified bythe Agency and its customers.
• Partnerships with the Agency's Water Contractors and others are necessary for successful Action Plan
implementation. Ideally, contractors will'add their own projects to provide a regional action plan.
(Note:. Some. contractors have already provided project lists;: these will be incorporated into the plan
after Board review.)
• None of the strategies stand alone. They are interconnected and related to other Agency activities
and to projects conducted' by Water'Contractors orstate. orfederal agencies.
Although the public is not identified in each action as an '`involved party;' public involvement is critical.
• This is a living document. Activities are continually progressing and changing.
We hope that this document will be useful to you. Please email Arin DuBay at ann.dubay@scwa.ca.gov if
you have any questions, concerns or input.
Thank you,
GRANT DAVIS
JAYJASPERSE
Interim General Manager Interim Chief Engineer
3
5
Sonoma County Water Agency Goals
1. Improve reliability of Agency's facilities.
2. Comply wfh Biologica 'Opinion to ensure existing water supply and to enhance opportunities
for steelhead, coho; and Chinook.
3. Maintain current water supply and~high-level of water quality.
4. Acknowledge fundigg limitations.and ensure projects are affordable.
5. Reduce organizational fragmentation and increase transparency and communication.
6.-Identifythe need for and type of~future water supply projects based on fiscal resources and
updated projections of water demand.
Technical Adu~isory Committee (TAC) Priorities
1. Restore reliability of current water supply and current transmission system capacity (75;000
acre-feet per year and 92 °mgd respectively).
2. Address impacts on listed salmonid'speciesthrough compliance with the Biological Opinion.
3. Protect water quality.
4. Prioritize SCWA's and water ratepayers' resource. to achieve current and future water supply
reliability.
5. Provide transparency and collaboration with the water contractors in water supply planning
decisions.
`6'. Fulfill; contractual :requirements to achieve a reliable future water supply "an`d devefop,fufure
transmission system~~capacify pursuant to a .water supply master plan, approved be the, Water.
Contractors. Current SCWA contractual requirements total 101,000'acre-feet.per year and'.
delivery entitlements per the Restructured Agreementtotal-148.9 mgd.
4
Table of Contents
WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY PAGE
~~~ Strategy L Address Dry Creek'Summer Flovys ~ 6
Strategy 2 Modify Operation Of Russian River System 8
Strategy'3 Evaluate Potential Climate Change.; Impacts•On Water Supply & Flood Protection 11
Strategy 4 Pursue Combined Water Supply & Flood Control Projects 12
Strategy 5 Develop Low Impact; D.evelopme:nt.(LID) Standards - 1'3
Strategy 6 Work With Stakeholders To Promote Sound, Information-Based Water Supply
planning Programs
14
Strategy 7 Improve Transnission; System ,Reliability ., 16.
Strategy 8 Take Advantage of Energy and Water Synergies 18
• Strategy 9 `Implement.Integrafed'V1/ater,Management 20
Strate 10
gy Overcome Organizational Fragmentation .to Promote Efficiency Of Water System
Operations & Planning 22
-Attachment A Water Contractors' Projects - ~24;
Attachment B Cost and Benefit Anaylsis 26
Attachment C Memo from Chris DeGabriele, Ch_airrrian, TQC 37
Attachment D Urban Water Management and Financial Planning Process Flow Chart 39
This plan. identifies three levels of action:
Immediate Acfion: Ongoing or to be initiated within the next year because:
1. Required by regulatory or other deadlines;
2. Other strategies or actions are dependent on outcome;
3. Achievable in the near-term;
4. Funding and resources are available.
Near Term Action: To be initiated within one to three years because:
1. Anticipated,~yet not immediate, deadline;
2. Funding is proposed;
3. Necessary for planning and development of long-term actions.
Long-term Action: No defined start date for action, likely longer than three years, because:
1. Not enough information to proceed at this time;
~~ 2. Lower priority;
3. Funding not available. S
Water Supply Strategy One
ADDRESS DRY CREEK SUMMER FLOWS
o ~ s •
Habitat enhancement, as required by the Biological Opinion, to increase. capability of Dry
Creek to accommodate summer flows while protecting Coho and Steelhead.
A. Project:.Feasibility Study .
Conduct detailed geomorphology study to identify possible sites and specific habitat improvement
projects.
STATUS: Phase I'study to be released Spring 2010. Phase 2 to be completed Fall 2010.
B. Project:.Demonstration Project
.Build first mile of Dry Creek habitat enhancement.by 2014.
STATUS: Working with willing landowners to build by 2012.
Involved Parties (A and B):
• Dry Creek property owners, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Water Contractors
•.
Reduce peak demand on transmission system.
A. Project: New Reuse
Potential new reuse projects involving Agency include Windsor (Airport Service Area) and Sonoma
Va I I ey.
STATUS.: Windsor and Agency:working on scope of work to update.feasibility study~for recycled
water project. In Sonoma. Valley, feasibility study and CEQA/NEPA completed.
Involved Parties:
• Windsor (in Airport area.). In Sonoma, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD),
possibly cityof Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District (VMWD); Bureau of
Reclamation (as part of North San Pablo. Recycled Water Project)
B. Project: Storage -Groundwater Banking Feasibility Study
Develop Phase 1 regional study and Phase 2site-specific work plans to implement pilot studies for
each Water Contractor.
STATUS: Consultant team selected. Phases 1 and 2 to be completed Spring 20.11.
Involved' Parties:
Cofati, Rohnert Park; Windsor, Sonoma, and VMWD
C. Project: Retrofit/Conservation
• SVCSD direct. install program
• Implementation of AB715 and 56407 mandate high efficiency toilets and fixture retrofit on resale
• Water management grant fundirig tied to water conservation 13MPs
• Sonoma County developing nevv water conservation development standards
• Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2010 conservation planning, including SB7x-7.(20X2020
WC Plan) .
Involved Parties:
~~ For local retrofit program, SVCSD and possibly city of Sonoma and VMWD. For state-
mandated efforts, all Water Contractors. For new county development standards, Water
Contractors plus county Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD)
6
S
• ~ •
Study feasibility of bypass. pipeline to convey water from Lake Sonoma to Russian River.
A. Project: Feasibility Study
BO requires completion of feasibility study on possible routes and inlet and outlet options.
STATUS: Study to be complete by December 2010.
Involved Parties:
• NMFS, USAGE, CDFG, Water Contractors
' • ~ 0 0
Implement Dry Creek tribiutary restoration projects, as required by 60, with goal of enhancing
Coho and Steelhead habitat.
A. Project: Grape Creek Restoration Project
STATUS: First phase completed. Phase II constructed in 2010.
B. Project: Wine/Grape and Wallace Creek Fish Passage Projects
STATUS: Completed funding agreement with County Public- Works; construction slated to begin in
2010.
C. Project: Mill Creek Restoration Project
STATUS: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (Sotoyome RGD) has started permitting process.
Involved Parties (A, B, and C):
• Private landowners, Sotoyome RGD, CounfyPublic Works, NMFS, CDFG
s
Construct second and third miles of Dry Creek.habitat enhancement, per BO.
A. Project: Habitat Enhancement
STATUS: To be completed by October 2017, and monitored to evaluate performance.
Involved Parties:
• Dry Creek property .owners, NMFS, USAGE, CDFG.
Construct fourth, fifth. and sixth miles of Dry Creek. habitat enhancement, per BO.
A. Project: Habitat Enhancement
STATUS: To be completed by 2021 if first three miles restored and found successful. by NMFS/CDFG
in 2018.
Involved Parties:
Dry Creek property owners, NMFS, USAGE, CDFG
•
In the event that the habitat enhancement efforts are unsuccessful, build Dry Creek bypass
pipeline.
A. Project: Conduct necessary financial and environmental studies and identify timing of
projects
STATUS: To be determined.
B. Project: Construct bypass pipeline
STATUS: To be determined.
Involved Parties (A and B):
• NMFS, USAGE, CDFG, Water Contractors
7
UVater~ Supply Strategy Two
MODIFY ORERATION OF RUSSIAN RIVER SYSTEM
-. ~ •
Modify D161O mininum instream flow requirements as required by BO and make technical
adjustments to existing water righfs.
A. Project: D1610 Changes
Petition for changes to D161Q instream flow requirements, as required by BO,and develop petitions
for water rights technical adjustments.
STATUS: Petition filed October 2009 for BO-required changes.
Involved Parties:
o Sfate Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Water Contractors, USACE
B. Project: Demand Analysis.
Develop new detailed water demand analysis on Russian River for ResSim model.
STATUS: Demand analysis of non-water contractor Russian River water users, completed February
2010. Water Contractors initiated demand forecasts in March 2010 (Strategy 9).
Involved Parties: '
• Water Contractors, Russian River agricultural water users, other Russian River municipal
water users
C. Project: Modeling
Conduct modeling for flow-change EIR using new ResSim model, updated demand profile, proposed
new non-Pillsbury hydrologic-index, and 60-specified summer flows.
STATUS: Depends on completiorrof demand.analysis (project.B above) and other internal work.
Involved Parties:
. fraternal Agency activity
D. Project: Environmental Impact Report
Prepare EIR to modify minimum instream flow requirements, plus technical water rights D1610
adjustments.
STATUS: Certified EIR must be completed by 2013 per BO.
Involved Parties:
'Water Contractors, SWRCB, USACE, NMFS, CDFG
E. Project: Submit Interim Change Petition for Summer 2010 and complete Staie Board
Requirements
STATUS: As per B0, Agency has submitted petition to SWRCB.
Involved Parties:
• SWRCB, V1/ater-Contractocs, NMFS, CDFG, Russian River water users
•.
A. Project: Estuary Adaptive Management
BO requires Agency Russian River estuary program that includes modifying historic methods of
breaching sandbar that closes mouth of river. Program also includes water quality and fisheries
studies.
STATUS:. As required by BO, program is underway. Draft EIR release anticipated Fall 2010.
Involved Parties:
NMFS, DFG
8
`O
•
'Work with grape growers to support development and".implementation of :agricultural water
conservation strategies.
A. Project: Pilot projects
Conduct- pilot studies of water conservation practices related to vineyard irrigation and frost
protection:
STATUS: Frost protection demonstration project underway. Irrigation demonstration project final
report completed December 2010.
Involved Patties:
• Sonoma County Winegrape Commission, grape growers
-.
Develop water management program with grape growers'in Mendocino Russian River
watershed, Alexander Valley and Upper Russian River Valley.
A. Project: Framework
Prepare framework memorandum detailing process, structure, and technical program for non-
regulatory water management based on practical solutions.
STATUS: Meetings held in 2009. Framework memorandum anticipated to be submitted, by
agriculture representativesSpring/Summer 2010. Progress will require additional resources from
Agency, growers and State and Federal
agencies.
Involved Parties:
• Grape growers, SWRCB; NMFS
Support enhanced weather forecasting for frost protection and irrigation by agriculture.
A. Project: Funding
Provide funding to Winegrape Commission for more sophisticated weather forecasting service
based on network.of weather- stations installed by property owners. Improved forecasting will
benefit Agency operations and agriculture water management (linked to Strategy 10, Collaborative
Platform). .
STATUS: Agreement approved March 30, 2010.
Involved Parties:
• Grape,growers arid Sonoma County Winegrape Commission, Water Contractors
-.
Implement water management in Dry Creek per agreement with Dry Creek property owners.
A. Project: Variety of Actions
Imp)ement actions related~to water management programs, studies, and monitoring activities
specified in Dry Creek water management agreement. -
STATUS: Awaiting land owner sign ups from Dry Creek Agricultural Water Users, Inc. Also need
federal approval
Involved Parties:
• Dry Creek Agricultural Water Users, Inc., Secretary of Army
9
Enhance operations at Lake Mendocino to increase water supply.
A. Project: Corps Operations
Enter into Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USACE to evaluate potential options for
modified reservoir operations.
STATUS:.USACE response expected Winter 2010. Working on collaborative program to improve flood
control data collection and predictive modeling.
Involved Parties:
• USACE, plus National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National
Weather Service for data collection and modeling
B. Project: Local Users
Develop comprehensive water use agreement with Mendocino County water districts.
STATUS: Discussion ongoing..
Involved ,Parties:
• Mendocino County Russian River water users, SWRCB
Agency Water Rights Reporting.
A. Project: Reports
Prepare annual water rights reports, detailing total water use including local supplies and recycled
water for offset of Russian River supplies.
STATUS: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
Grape growers, Water Contractors, SWRCB, NOAA, other Russian River water users
s
Implement studies, monitoring, and modeling activities to evaluate surface water and
groundwater conditions in Mendocino, Alexander Valley and Upper Russian River Valley to
ensure reliable river management under new flow conditions, as specified by BO.
A. Project: Work Plan
Implement technical work plan developed as.part of framework document described above.
STATUS: Depends on framework developed in Immediate Action 3 (see above).
Involved Parties:
• Grape growers, Water Contractors, SWRCB; NOAA, other Russian River waterusers
• •
Address :Potter- Valley Diversion Issues
A. Project: Prepare for Potter Valley Project re-licensing proceeding
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), PG&E, NMFS, Round
Valley`tribes, Russian River water users
B. Projects Modify Storage Curve
Modify curve for Lake Pillsbury, currently incorrect, to ensure hydrologically correct storage curve
used for water management operations.
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors, FERC, PG&E, NMFS; Round Valley tribes, Russian River water. users
10
I ~'
Wa-ter Supply Strategy Three
EVALUATE POTENTIAL CLLIVIATE CHANGE
IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLY& FLOOD PROTECTION
e •
Initiate climate: change modeling for Russian River and Sonoma Valley watersheds.
A. Project: Develop Model
Develop predictive model.forSonoma Valley and Russian River watersheds that downscales.large
climate models to local watershed scale. Model will consider effects of fog and provide hydrology
input to Agency's model (ResSim) and to Sonoma Valley and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater models.
STATUS: To be completed in Fall 2010 or Winter 2011.
Involved Parties:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Regional Climate Protection Authority
-.
Support development of Hydrometeorology Test bed (HMT) for the Russian River basin.
A. Project: Support Federal Partners
Support federal agencies in installing additional weather sensors to provide more accurate
forecasting. Could help reservoir operations and result in water supply benefits.
STATUS: NOAA is leading effort to secure pilot project funds in 2011 federal funding- cycle.
Involved Parties:
• NOAA, USACE, USGS, National Weather Service
. e
Develop Adaptation Measures
A. Project: Develop Reliability Actions
Once climate change predictive modeling is complete, develop actions to increase reliability of
water supply, reservoir and river management, conjunctive use, and saline water management.
Involved Parties:
• USACE, Regional Climate Protection Authority, Water Contractors
e ~ s ~
Update'Climate change analysis.
A, Project: To be determined '
Based on advances in scientific understanding of climate processes and predictive modeling.
Involved Parties:
USGS, Regional Climate Protection Authority
11
t3
Water Supply Strategy Four
PURSUE COMBINED WATER SUPPLY & FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
• •
Identify projects within Agency flood Control Zones that reduce flooding and increase
groundwater recharge. .
A. Project: Roadmapping .
Conduct feasibility study for flood control/water-supply projects for Zones 1A, 2A, and 3A.
STATUS: Request For Proposals to be issued Spring 2010.
Involved Parties:
® Flood Zone advisory committees, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space
District (Open Space District), resource conservation districts (RCD), and cities in Zones 1A,
2A, and 3A
B. Project: Promote Small-Scale Sonoma Valley Projects
Continue to work with the Southern Sonoma RCD, Sonoma Valley Basin Advisory Panel, farmers,
environmental groups, and citizens to develop small-scale flood control/water supply guidelines and
projects in Sonoma Valley.
STATUS: Ongoing. Guidebook to be completed Spring 2010.
Involved Parties:
• Sonoma. Valley Basiri Advsory~Panel, Open Space District, Southern Sonoma RCD, Sonoma
Valley farmers/growers, PRMD, Regional Water Quality Control Boards
C. Project: Seek Funding
Apply for green infrastructure grant as part of SF Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
(IRWMP),
STATUS: Project included in IRWMP. Schedule pending State's availability of funds. .
Involved~Pardes:
• North Bay Watershed Association, SF Bay Bay IRVIIMP, Sonoma Ecology Center, Southern .
Sonoma RCD
Initiate,; efforts to obtain property rights for project sites identified during immediatesteps. .
Obtain funding for such projects.
A. Project Implementation
Implemenfi projects identified. in feasibility study described above.
STATUS:. To be initiated once study is completed and funding- identified.
Involved Parties:
~ Property owners, resource conservation districts, cities
e
Design andconstruct multipurpose stormwater deten_ tion facilities.
A..Project: .
Specific projects will be constructed dependent on completion of above steps.
fnvolved Parties:
® Propertyowners, resource conservation districts, cities, Flood Zone committees
12
l
UUater Supply S~trate~gy Five
DEVELOP WATER SMART DEVELOPIVIENT`(WSD) STANDA'R'DS'*
-~ ~ s
Develop countywide guidance manual and. support the development of'individual'WSD
standards by each land use jurisdiction in Sonoma County, with the goal of managing.
stormwater quantity and quality and reducing potable water required by new d;evelopme:nt.
Guidance manual will also partially safisfy requirements of stormwater permit held'by the
Agency, Sonoma County,. and Santa_ Rosa.
A. Project: Countywide :Manual
Complete countywide manual. with a comprehensive water balance approach that includes three
primary WSD components:. conservation, reuse and stormwater management.,
STATUS: Draft countywide guidance manual circulated for. review by stakeholders in Spring/Summer
2010.
B. Project: Local Jurisdiction Plans
Support the development of individual plans by each land. use jurisdiction. that specify goals for
reduced potable water requirements via WSD measures for new development (consistent with local
policies and programs).
STATUS: Outreach with Sonoma County land use planning entities initiated Winter 2010.
Involved Parties (A and B;) -
• PRMD; Regional Climate Protection Authority, Sonoma County cities, building community,
North Coast Regional Water Ciuality Control Board, S1NRC6
* East Bay Municipai Utility District has trademarked the "Water Smart Development Standards." SCWA is discussing
use of the name with East Bay MUD.
13
.. l~
UUa~ter Supply Strategy Six
WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO PR'QMOTE SQUND,
LNFOR'MATION-BASED WATER SU:PPLY'PLANNING PROGR~AIVI!S
~ ~
Non-regulatory AB 3030/561.938 management plans that emphasize local control. Emphasize
development. of diversified' water supply "portfolios" for each contractor. fiontinue with
Sonoma Valley program and initiate program in Santa Rosa Plain.
A. Project: Sonoma Valley
.Implement Sonoma Valley gro"u"ndwater management plan.
STATUS: In progress.
Involved Parties: .
• Basin Advi ory Panel, private well owners; environmental groups, agriculture; busin''ess/
development interests;. City of Sonoma, Valley of the IVloon Water District, other water
purveyors
B. Project: Santa Rosa Plain
Continue planning Santa Rosa Plain,groundwater management.
STATUS: Stakeholder assessment cornplete.'Board approved. staff plan fornext steps including
formation of steering committee scheduled to begin meeting in April 2010.
Involved Parties:
• Private well owners, environmental groups; agr'icult"ure; business/development interests,
cities, Water Contractors, other water purveyors
-.
Pursue funding opportunities enhanced by developed management plans. Ranking for state
funding enhanced if groundwater management plans are. in place.
A. Project: Funding .
STATUS: Ongoing effort. Sonoma Valley has received two grants to date. Santa Rosa Plain
Stakeholder process has received state funding for facilitator services. Santa Rosa Plain groundwater
ma.nagernent process igcluded in North Coast IRWMP:
Involved .Parties:
• State :agencies, legislators, North Coast and San Francisco Bay Integrated Regional Water
Management Plans
-.
Initiate discussions on form of collaborative agreement with Alexander Valley and Upper
Russian River Vall'ey`,growers.
A. Project:
See Strategies2 through 3.
Involved Parties:
• Agriewltural interests in Russian River watershed, (including Farm Bureau and Russian-River
Property Owners Association), SWRCB
14
~~
e ' • •
Seek to form basis of collaboration with Dry Creek,growers. (See strategy 2, Immediate Action 5)
•
Assist Sonoma County in responding to recent legislation requiring groundwater Level
monitoring.ih Bulletin 118 identified basins. Monitoring plans need to be developed by 2012.
A. Project: To Be Determined
DWR must first develop statewide.guid,elines before local implementation strategies can be
developed.
Involved Parties:
® Sonoma County, cities, other stakeholders located in DV1IR Bulletin 11$-specified basins
15
~?
Water Supply Strate~g~y.Seven
IMPROVE TRANSMISSION SYSTE'M` RELIAB'I'LITY
• ~ o e
In consultation with Water Contractors, develop plan to provide consistent funding for natural
hazard reliability projects.
A. Project: LHM :Program Schematic Design/CEQA
B. Project: Rogers Creek Fault Crossing Mitigation
C. Project:. Collector 3 and 5 Liquefaction Mitigation
A. Project: Isolation Valves First Two Years
A. Project: Flow Monitoring-
B. Project: Russian River Crossing .
C. Project: RDS Liquefaction Mitigation
D. Project: Mark West Creek Crossing
E. Project: Collector 6 Liquefaction Mitigation
F.' Project: Emergency Wells
G. Project: Mirabel Dam Response Plan
H. Project: Kawana To SBS Pipeline
I. Project: Upgrade Sonoma Booster Pump Station
J. Project: Upgrade Ely Booster Pump Station
K. Project: Bennett Valley Fault Crossing (Sonoma Aq')
L. Project: Petaluma. River Crossing (Petaluma Aq)
M. Project: Sonoma Creek Crossing (Lawndale/Madrone)
N. Project: Sonoma Creek.Crossing (Verano Ave)
O. Project: Calabasas Creek Crossing
STATUS:
. Green Projects: funded FY 2910/2011 .
• Yellow Projects: received minimal funding in 2010/2011 .
m Blue,Pi-ojecfs Have:not been funded given water rate conce"rns as expr..essed by V1/ater Contractors
-• ~ e
Continue to pursue state°and federal funding for natural hazard reliability projects.
A. Project: Advocacy
.Advocate for funding in,Sacramento:and Washington, D.C. Effort will be enhanced. with .regional .
implementation plan that demonstrates local stakeholder commitment.
Involved Parties:
o Water Contractors, state/federal agencies
Work with Water Contractors to reduce peak demand on transmission system via
conservation, groundwater banking, local supply, andrecycled water.
16
~Q
A. 'Project:
See; Strategies 1, 5,.6,.9 and 10.
Involved Parties:'
• Water Contractors
-~
Continue research on natural filtration capacity of Russian River alluvia"I materials.
A. Project: Research on. Pathogen Removal .
Continue applied research°partnership with USGS to evaluate. pathogen removal mechariismsby
alluvial materials. '
STATUS: Ongoing.
Lnvolved Parties:
® Water Contractors, California Department of Public Health (CDPH), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
B..Project: Research on Surface. V1/afier/Groundwater Interaction
Continue studies and" modeling. of. surface :water/grouridwater interactions in collaboration with
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to better'iandersfand flow mechanics of Agency facilities as they
relate,to production and water quality.
STATUS: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors, CDPH, EPA
~ ~ e
Continue.. planning new transmission system projects to increase reliability of existing system.
A. Project: P{tinning
Develop scope, cost, and schedule of transmission system projects required to meet Agency's
portion of projected demantls through the Urban Water Management Planning horizon. Projects
identified using Agency's transmission system hydraulic model.
STATUS: To be conducted as part of 2010 UWMP. (Strategy 9)
Involved Parties:
® Water Contractors
Develop emergency response :capabilities for collaboration platform (Strategy 10).
p .
Evalutite condition of Agency s~transmission system, especially portions ex :enencing elevated '
velocities. .
A. Project: Study
Evaluate operational condition of southern portiprrof Petaluma Aqueduct potentially employing
emerging technologies. If successful, approach. could be employed on other segments of
transmission systemthatexperience high velocities and pressures.
STATUS: Funding proposed for FY10/11 budget.
Involved Parties:
Water Contractors
Five year update and renewal of the.Loctil Hazard Mitigation Plan (certified in January 2008).
17
~~
Water Supply Strategy Eight
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ENERGY & WATER.SYNERGIES
. •
Promote programs emphasizing water and energy efficiency ofAgency's tiransmission system
operations.
A. Project: I50 9000 and 14.000 -
ISO 9001 and 14001 will assure a program of constant improvement in the Agency's quality of work
and environmenfal' management. Certification is~expected in late 2010.
STATUS.: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
® Internal activity
B: Project; Sonoma County Energy Independence Program .
'Continue providing financial, logistical and staff support for water and energy conservation projects.
STATUS: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
• Internal activity.
C. Project: Reporting
Voluntarily report carbon emissions:
STATUS: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
• Internal Activity
-.
Develop and implement programs to increase. Agency's renewable energy portfolio to achieve
"Carbon Free Water".
A. Project: Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority
Support PWRPA's renewable energy projects, including Fresno solar,: Gallo Dairy fuel. cell and Harris
Ranch fuel cell.
STATUS: In development. Expected completion withintwo years:
1n~olved,Parties:
®P-WRPA,.several power developers, Water Contractors
B. Project: Fuel: cells
Impfement~Agency-fuel cell projects, including chicken mariure project-and fuel cells at major
Agency energy loads. .
STATUS': In developmenf.
Involved Parties:
® PG&E, PWRPA, Water Contractors
Pursue state and federal funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
STATUS: Ongoing.
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors and RCPA
18
~ o ® -.
Pursue revenue opportuntesassociated;with renewable~energy efficiency projects.
A. Project: Register Renewakle'EnergyCredits (RECj with Western Rehewable Energy
Generation Information System (1A/REGIS)
STATUS: Ongoing
Involved Parties:
® SCWA, WREGIS
B. Project: Develop possible revenue strategy for SCEIP and other county/city programs
STATUS:.Ongoing
Involved Parties:
• County, all cities, RCPA, PG&E
C. Project: Solar
Develop Sonoma County Airport project and Agency facility projects.
.STATUS: Airport iri development. Solar: completed at Agency administration 6uifding, Sonoma Valley
CSD and Airport-Larkfield-V1/ikiup Sanitation Zone. Sonoma-Mann site in development.
Involved Parties:
PG&f, PWRPA, Water Contractors
•
Coordinate and size reliability;., iVaturaf Hazard and Expansion Projects to eliminate
pumping wherever possible..
Involved Parties:
® Water contractors and RCPA
19
Waster Supply" Strategy Nine
IMPLEMENT INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT
.~ ~ ~ _
Perform analyses, required by Urban Water Management Planning Act to develop,regional and
local. supply, conservation/demand. management,,and recycled water projects and programs'to
meet reasonable future needs ofAgency customers.
A. Project: Develop Water and Supply Projections
Conduct technical evaluations and. discussions to develop regional water supply portfolio. Once
portion of water supply that Agency will provide through 2035 is established, identify projects,
costs, and financing mechanisms. Results will inform renegotiation of Restructured Agreement for
V1/aterSupply.
STATUS: Agency and Water Contractors commencing UW.IVIP process: (See Flow Chart, Attachment B)
Involved Parties:
® Water Contractors
-.
Conduct long-term financial analysis.to support evaluation and development of water".supply;
conservation; :demand management, and recycled water projects and programs:
A. Project: Financial Planning-
Use rate model to.evaluate cost-benefit and feasibility of alternative Agency and Igcal water supply,
conservation, demand management, and recycled water projects and programs in connection.with
the 2010 UV1/MP. Results will inform the. renegotiation of"Restructured Agreement-for Water Supply.
STATUS: Model is almost~complefe.
Involved Parties:
Water Contractors
• •
Consult with Water Contractors to evaluate feasibility of base demand system instead of
continued peak summer demand system.
A.,Project: Assess Feasibility
Specificpcoject-will depend on outcome of implementation of peak reduction measures.such as
conservation, reuse,,local sup.pliesandgroundwater banking: Financial implications of base demand
sysfem will; be evaluated as part of tong-term financial modeling (.Immediate. Action Two).
STATUS.: Ongoing.discussion with Water Contractors as part of the Urban Water Management anal
financial planriing processes.
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors
20
tea...
.Evaluate alternative revenue models such as seasonal rates°and fixed versus variable costs.
A. Projects Evaluate Seasonal Rates and, rate models "that consider fixed versus variable costs
STATUS: WiII be started when financial model and demand projections are complete. Will require ,
modificatio"n of financial model.
Involved Parties:
® Water Contractors
o
Develop ongoing process with Wafter Contractors to: monitor impacts of land .use d:ecisi'ons on
watersupply. Include assessment of existing water demand and new development for each
respective retail level UWMP.
A. Project: To Be Determined
Should be initiated after development of UWMP's by Agency and Water Contractors
Involved Parties:
Water Contractors, land use planning entities
Negotiate and develop new Restructured Agreement'for water supply to reflect current
conditions and identify future transmission system: improvements.
A. Project: Identify Changes: -
Development of~term sheet for proposed changes to Restructured Agreement for Water Supply to
better reflect current and ariticipated future conditions.
STATUS: To be determined.
Involved Parties:.
Water Contractors
B. Project: Negotiate new agreement
STATUS':'To be determined.
Involved Parties:
• Water Contractors
Conduct,periodc updating:of demand projections by Water Contractors in advance of
UWMP updates.
A. Project;,To Be:Determined
Based on outcome of°Near Term Action 3
Involved' Parties:
® Water Contractors, land use planning entities
21
~~
Water Supply Strategy Ten
OVERCOME ORGANIZATLONAL FRAG'MENTATIO'N TO PROMOl`E
EfFICIENCY OF WATER SYSTEM O'PERAT[ONS & PLANNING
-. ~ e e .
Develop data management system "Collaboration Platform" in .partnership with IB'M'that.
provides operational data of Agency's`watersupplysnd transmission system in addition to'
Water Contractors' systems.
A. Project: Demonstration Project-.Collaboration Platform
Initial. pilot project will integrate monitoring capabilities, of SCADA systems for Cotafi, Santa Rosa;
Rohnert Park. and Agency in order to improve eornrnuncations, increase water and power~efficiency
STATUS: WiJI be operational in April 2010.
B. Project: Metering
Automated meter reading (AMR) capability integrated with .IBM data management system will
reduce costs, improve operations'(especially in summer), and increase water efficiency.
STATUS: Initiated for Santa ".Rosa, Rohnert Park, and Cotati.
C. Project:' Integrated Weather Forecasting .
Integrate weather forecasting. and weather station data ;(Strategy 3) into data management system.
STATUS: Part of pilot project design,
Involved Parties (A, B, and C):
. Water Contractors.
s
Extend demonstration. project including,AMR to other Water Contractors.
A. Project: Extension of demonstration project
STATUS: Design is part of demonstration project; extension of project will depend on Water
Contractors' willingness to participate and availability of funding.
Involved Parties:
. V1/ater Contractors
a
Develop emergency response capa'bilifies for Collaboration Platform (see Immediate Action
One):
A.'Project: Develop real;-time communications support tool to coordinate response~durng~
emergency events • .
STATUS: Initial planning level discussions have. begun with IBM regarding"•scgpe and,cost. Agency and
IBM are pursuing funding opportunities.
Involved Parties: .
• Water Contractors
Study possible Agency governance structures.
A. Project: Survey
Survey elected ,officials. in Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin counties to identify opportunities for
more collaborative and efficient management of limited natural resources.
STATUS: Surveys authorized by SCVUA Board in Fal1,2009..Not yet initiated.
Involved Parties:
Water Contractors, community groups, tate agencies, legislators 22 .
• + • • ,
Develop comprehensive data management. system. that.bulds off demonstration project and
includes data~_firom other non=water supply sources and models.
A. Project: To Be Determined
Involved Parties:
® Water Contractors, cities, water purveyors, regulatory agencies, nonprofits
23
~5
Water Contractors' Actions
Awaiting. Input
o e
Awaiting Input
s
Awaiting Input
Awaiting Input
Attachment A 24
2-6
o • e
A.'Project: Sonoma Developmental Center Conjunctive.Water Use Project
STATUS:
Involved Parties:
. VOMWD, City of Sonoma, SDC, SCWA
•.
Awaiting Input
o .e
A. Project: Sonoma Developmental Center Conjunctive Water Use Project
STATUS:
Involved Parties:
m VOMV1/D, City of Sonoma, SDC,.SCWA
Awaiting Input
o
A. Project; New Novato. Reuse.
N'ew Novato reuse project involving.. NMV1/D, Novato Sanitary District acid Las Gallinas Valley:Sanitary
District
STATUS': Feasibilitysfud,y and CECl.A/NEPA completed.
Involved'Parties:
® NMV1/D, NSD; LGVSD, BOR
A. Project: Novato Local'.Water' Supply Enhancement Study
Evaluate, options to achieve more local water production in Novato.
STATUS: Feasibility study planned FY 2010(11 and FY 2011/12
Involved Parties:
NMWD, County of Marin, SWRCB
Attachment A ~ 25
a-7
a~
rn
W
N
Y ~
. ~~Alater Supply Strategy Act~o~n Plan ~Summa:ry;of 1'mm'e~diate:~Acti'ons
'
~' . ' ~
~ ~
Proposed' ~ ~ Actual/'
`
,Fundingj5ource -
_ '
'
Aeilon ~
gu
et,FY~
d E
stimated' ~ _ r
Strategy' _
` - ; Action
° , .
Project:-
y -
Descnpt~on g
~ costs :,
Wat
r ;Potential Benefits'
.Level ~ 10/11
` ,
FX,09/10 e .Other: '
`
-
(Foo
tnoteYl)
-
(Foot"note 2)
Transmission
"~'
'
Footnoe~4
( _
'
". ,
- ,: ~ (Footnote 3)
, ..
" One<". Immediate - One A Geomorphology $176,000 $908,200 d Comply with Biological Opinion, improve.
Feasibility Study ~ habitat for ESA=listed; salrimonids;
"' <•~ . and securerexisting water supplies.
Compliance with the Biological Opinion
. ,;
is essential if Russian Rversup"plies are
. to be utilized to. help meet future water
_ demands of'the Agency's water customers:
. Immediate One ~ B Habitat $750,000. V ~ Comply-with Biological.Opinion;'improve
T
"
Enhancement
habitat for-ESA-listed salmonids,
_
' ~ Demonstration and secure existing water supplies.
' Project (Mile 1) Compliance with the Biological Opinion
is essential if Russian River supplies are
to ;be utilized to help meet fufure water
_ ~ demands of the Agency's water customers.
- Immediate Two A Windsor Recycled na $50,000 ~ Reduce demand for Russian'River.supplies:
"• Water Project- ~ '
T
- fi
Immediate
Two,
A
So"noma Valley
$825;000
$13.3;650
J
Reduce demand forRussian R, iver`&
Recycled~Water ~ groundwater, reduce potential:for saline
~`- , - .Project= water intrusionof'groundwater basin.
- ~ Immediafe Two B Ground Water $150,000 $265,000' U. Increase reliability of water supplies
-, Banking ~ during drought; natural hazard events,
'Feasibility Study and seasonal constraints of Russian: River
' - supplies. Help reduce groundwater level
" . declines in basins and associated water
quality impacts. from. overpumping (e;g.,
- ~ saline water intrusion).
Immediate Two C Reti`ofit, and $- ~ Direct install. pi°ogranis irr each of-the
' Conservation $2,500,000 Sanitation Distcicts•-and Zones replaces
~~--~ plumbing fixtures and appliances with.
water efficient~unifs,:rediacing potable
water demand.
a~
to
~.
r+
W
'
. , - _.
Proposed Actual/'~:.
-
Funding Source
_
Action
.
~
Bud
et FY
Estimated,
j •
-.
'Strategy .
Action Project;.
- r.
Description g Costs. " . ~
1N
t
- "~ Potential; Benefits'
Level;
=' - 10/11
(Footnote l)' _
~ FY,, 09/10' a
er
Transmission -
". Other" _ .
-
.
• °= (
Footnote 2)
•(Footnote~3); (
Footnote 4
)
- -
- Orie~' ' Immediate Three A Dry Creek $.171,000 d Comply with Biological Opinion,:impeove
- ~ Bypass Pipeline $1;430,600 habitat for ESA-listed salmonds,
a ~ Feasibility, Study antl secure existing water supplies.
- Compliance with the Biological;Qpinion is.
also essential if Russian.River supplies are
- to.be utilized to help meet~future_vyater
demands of the Agency's water customers.
=
_3 Immediate: Three A Dry.Creek $17.1,000 ~
_
- Bypass Ripelihe
Feasibility Study
Immediate Four' A Grape,Creek' $780;000 ~ Comply with. Biological Opinion, improve
' (Habitat). habitat for ESA-listed sal_monids,
• Restoration and secure existing water supplies.
_
- Project Compliance with the Biological Opinion
- is essential' if Russian River supplies are
to be utilized to help rYieet'fufure•water
demands of the Agency's water customers:
`. Immediate Four. B Grape and $77,000 $_162,000 ~ Comply.with.Biological Opiniori,'imprgve
• Wallace Creek habitat for.ESA-listed salmonids,.
~"~ `
~' Fish. Passage. .and seeure•existirig water supplies.
Projects Compliance with the Biglogical;Opinion
is essential if Russian.River suppliesare
to be utilized to help meet future water
demands of the Agency's water customers.
.: Immediate Four C -M ill. Creek $183,000 ~ Comply with Bi.ological;Opinon, improve
_ (Habitat) habitat for ESA-listed sal'monids,
` Restoration and secureexisting water supplies.
• Project Compliance with th'e B.io,logical Opinion
~~. is essential if Russian'Riversupplies~are
~' ' to be utilized''to:help meetfafure water
demands of the Agency's water customers.
N
v
D
n
m
_ _
. ~ i ,.
-
5 ~ .
Proposed- _
Actual/ ° .
~ ~ -
!Funding Source: _
;..
Action Bud
et: FY E timate
s d
_
Strategy - .
Level - Action
~ - Pro_jeet Desc_ripfion -
- ,
g
~ _ •~
10/•11 Costs -
Water Potential Benefits;
.
otn to>) FY;09/10
Transmission ~pther~
(Eootn
• -
- _ • (Footnote~2)~
(Footnote 3)
° •
Two = Immediate One A D,1610 Change $311,025 $160;000 ~ Corriply with Biological Opinion; improve
•Petition habitat for ESA-listed salmonid5, improve
_ regulatory certaintyand.,secure existing
water supplies. Compliance with'the
Biological Opinion is essential if Russian
River supplies are to be utilized to help
meet future water demands, of the
- Agency's water customers.
D1610 Change $14,000 ~ Comply with Biological-Opinion; improve
• Petition habitat for ESA=listed salrnonids,~mprgve
• regulatory certainty.and secure existing
.•~ '~ water supplies. Compliance with the
~ Biologica_I Opinion.is essential if Russian
. . - River supplies are to be utilized to help
• - ~ meet future water demands of the
Ageney's~water customers.
Immediate One B Russian River $110,000 $196;000 ~ lrnprove information regarding.:use of °
Demand Analysis ~ Russian; River water to enhance planning
efforts. _
- Immediate One C Russian River $50,000 $73,200. U Improve•analysis of water supply:
• Flow Modeling -
° ~ Immediate One G Russian •Riv,er $50,000. $71,200 ~
- -Flow Modeling
Immediate One b, D1610 Change $250,000 V Comply.with Biological Opinion, improve
Petition - _ habitat"#or ESA=listed salmonids, improve
- ~ = Environmental regulatory certainty and secure.existing
Documents water supplies. Compliance with the
. •. ~ Biological Opinion is essental'if Russian
° River supplies;;are to'be:utilized to help
meet future water demands'ofthe
Agency`s water customers.
N
DD
_.~
Pro osed
p
Actual/,,
Fundin Source
g -
- -
Actio
-
Budget FY' Es
timated'
;.
:Strategy n, Action . Project. ' . Description Costs r "
1Nat _: _ Rotental, Benefits
,Level
• TO/11,
FYt09/10' e
- ther
~
~
(Footnote,;i`)
(Footnote 2)
Transmission
(Footnote 4) ,
~ ,
-
-Two; •- Immediate. One D D1'6TO Change $620,400 d Comply with Biological Opinion, imprgVe
• ~ _ Petition - habitat:for ESA listed salmonids, improve
• Environmental regulatory certainty and secure existing .
_
' 'Documents water supplies. Compliance with the
Biological Opinion is essential-if Riissian-
• River-supplies are to be utilized to help
meet future water demands of the "
Agency's`°water customers.
Immediate. One E Interim Flow $45,000 $90,000 ~ Comply with Biological Opinign; improve
• Change Petition habitatfor ESA-listed salmonids; im"prove'
regulatory certainty and secure existing
' water supplies. Compliance with the
u Biological Opinion is essenti'al.if Russian
. River supplies are to 6e utilized to help
meet future water demands of°the
Age_ney's water.custome,rs.
- - "~ ' Immediate: One - E Interim Flow $400,000 ~ Water Quality Monitoring of•the Russian
- Change Petition River wih comply with SWRCB Order and
inform the D1610 EIR document:
• =, Immediate Two A Estuary Adaptive $1_ ,064,000 Comply with Biological Opinion;,improve
.. Management $'1,13'4,000 habitat;for ESA-listed salmonids, obtain
• permits for continued breaching program.
Immediate Two: A Vineyard $- $67,200 d Improved agricultural water efficiency
Irrigation/Water could enhance river management under
" Conservation decreased summer flows mandated by
Pilot Studies the Biological Opinion, thus^improving.
conditions for listed salmonid species.
D
a~
n
m
N
e--
D
a~
n
m
_ ° ".• ~~
-
~ P-roposed, Actual/.
•
funding Sou.rce~_ - _
-
-
Actton ~ _ Bud
et FY E
stiinated ~
Strategy ,
-:
" Actiion
~ ~
Project
~ Description. ~
_ g
- - ;Costs
~ W
at Pote_ntal Benefits
,. Level - °10/11
FY 09/10
. er :
..
Other
~ .
.
,. .Y: ~
~
.. - =(Footnote") ,
(Footnote;2);
-_ ansmission
Tr
(Footnote3)
(Foo r , e°4)
;tnot -
4 ..
- :.
- "" Two' `
Immediate
Three
A _
Agriculture Water
$200;000
$25,000
U
Coordinated water use and agricultural
Management vyater management efforts (:e:g;, storage
_ Program ponds,: recycled water use, .conservation,
- and conjunctive use) will help reduce
,. :, ' - impacts of lower summer river flows
• - mandated. by Biological Opinion. Another
possibfe'benefit is that impacts on listed
safmonid species-will be avoided or
- reduced.
Immediate Four A ~ Enhanced $25;000. ~ Better weather information to improve
Weather agricultural.. water use efficiency will:
Forecast/Frost benefit overall water°supply and improve
Protection (2 yr conditions for listed salmonid species. In
• • ~ program) addition, more accurate weather forecasts
will' help the Agency manage river flows
during frosf.events or heat spells. Water
_ contractors will b.e.able to better,planfor
• heat waves:
Immediate Five A Dry Creek Water $25,000- $25,000 V Coordinated water use ahd agricultural
fVlanagement water management efforts,(e.g;, storage ,
. Program ponds, recycled water use, coriservatiori,
and conjunctive usepwill help reduce
- impacts of loweraummer river flows
• mandated by Biological Opinion. Another
possible benefit ofthese agricultural water
management programs is that impacts on
. ". listed salmonid species will be evoided or
..
' x_..
reduced.
_ ~' ~' Immediate- Six A .Enhance. $160,000 U Increase water storage/reliahility of water
-
._.
- :;~ Operation of'I_ake supply;
- ~ Mendocino •
•• Immediate Six B Mendocino Coun- $25,000 $25,000 ~ .Increase. reliability of water supply.
• _ ty. Water Manage-
ment,Agreement
w
0
w.
v
n
rD
-
a - -
' _
~ .
Proposed ;Actual/
- Funding~S'ource~
n
.
c`tion
A
~
~ Bud
FY
et
timate
Es._ d ,
Strategy-
• , ;
Level Action
~ - .Project ' Description.
~ ~ g
.
.
<10/1'1 Costs
Water T -
' ~ , Potential:B'enefits
-` °
_ -
- ,.
,(Footnote,i)
g~l~p
FY ,O
(Footnote 2); ,
Transmission
Fier
C-t
(Footnote~4);
- ~ _ -
_ (Footnote 3).
.. T,vvo ~ Immediate Seven, . A Agency Water $255,000 $85,000 V Comply with State requirements to secure-
Rights Reporting and maintain Agency's water rigfats.
Three- Immediate One A. RR and SV $21,000 $10,000 d Improved analysis leads to more informed
Watershed regional water supply planning and more
Climate Change secure supplies.
Modeling,..
Immediate One A RR and SV $46,000 $10,000 ~
Watershed
Climate"Change '
Modeling .
Immediate Two A Hydrometeoro{ogy n/a n/a n/a Improved analysis leads to more informed
Test Bed - RR Basin regional water supply planning and more.
secure supplies.
,Four Immediate One. A Roadmap $825,000. $121;000 ~ Developing a plan will help:idertify
Flood Control / strategic opportunities for projects to -
Groundwater improve both~flood control and water '
Recharge Projects ~ supply.. Multi-benefit projects reduce
. _ individual participant costs and increase.:
likelihood of outside funding.
Immediate One i3 Sonoma Valley $50,000 $20,000 ~ Support communityinterest in developing
Small Scale small-scale stormwater management
` Projects/Supply project that also enhance groundwater
- - Guidelines recharge. Multi-benefit projects reduce
individual participant eosts.and increase
. 1ik21hood of outside funding.
Immediate One C IRWMP Green D/a n/a n/a Obtain state funding fog small and large-
' . Infrastructure scale project to enhance.flood control and
. ~ :Grant Program improve water supply.
w
N
VJ .
a,
n
S
rD
W
-
Proposed Actual/' ",
_
Funding Source _
~ -
..
-
Y.
timate
Es d -
~
.
Strate
- : - k gY Level Action
- _.
Rro'ect
~
1
Descr.i ~ tton
`:,
_ .
p B 0/.11 : `-Water • "
- enefits.: -
Poteritial' B
.
(Footnoted)
FY 09/10•,
(
Footnote 2)'
Transmission
;..:
--
.
her
' Ot
(Fo a 4)
otnot
-
,
_
Five,:
. immediate One A County Wide $40,000 $294,000 ~ Comply with stormwater•,permit
- Low Impact requirements; and improve water use
_ Development
efficient arid. mans" ement-for new
Y' g
• Manual development projects to::increase
the reliability of"Russiarn:River and
- groundwater supplies. This program will.
reduce impacts.of development and make
-• existing supplies go further. Saccessfuf
local management can avoid:State
• regulation.
Immediate One B Support. Local. $60,000 $- >/ Gomply with stormwaterpermit
Jurisdiction requirements, and improve water use
Low.lmpact efficiency and managementfor new
~
_
. Development. evefopment projects to increase
d
`
Manu
al Russian Riverand
the reliability of
_ groundwater supplies. This program will
reduce impacts of `developmentdnd make
existingsuppliesgofurther. Successful
local management can'avoid'State.
. regulation.
Six -:~ Immediate One A Implement $150,000 $4:10,000 V.. decrease the reliability andsustainability
,,
~_
_ .~ ~ .~ '
'
Sonoma Valley
of water supplies in the Sonoma Valley:
. Groundwater through collaborative management by
'
~~ Management community based stakeholder process.
`' J Plan Successful local management provides
-.~~ ; model for other regions and reduces pos-
er ~ -
a :. Bible future outside regulation. Increase
•. ~.:. opportunities to obtai.n.sfate funding for
{'_ " water projects,in the Sonoma Valley. See
Footnote 5.
w
C`` N
Wr
r
D
a~
ro
.,
_
,. -.
p
_ . ro osed
Actual%~ .
ing Sou
Fun rce
-
Action • Bud
et>Fy Estimated,
:Strategy' .
r Acton
- Project; De"scriptton '
_ g Costs
Wat - Potential Benefits -
- Lever
.. - 10/11:
~(Footnotel`)
FY;09/1U
~ er
Trari mission
ther
- ,
-
_ . - - (Footnote_2) (Eootnote•3) (Footnote 4) ,
_; Six; ~ Immediate One li. Santa'Rosa Plain $370,000 ~ $335,000 ~ - Increase fhe reliability and sustaimability
..:
Groundwater
ofwater supplies in the.Santa Rosa .Plain
"
e. Study & Manage- through collaboratwe.,inanagem'ent by
-
°~ menu Plan community based sfakeholder process.
~: ~-'
_, Successful local management reduces
.., ,,.
~-
possible. fufure outside regulation.
Increase opportunities to-:obtain,stafe
. funding for water projects ib the Santa
- Rosa Plain.
_- ,.
`~ ~_-~
immediate
Two
A
'.Seek State Fund- ,
n/a
n/a
n/a
Obtain state funding for water~supply
- ,~ ing for 6V1/ IVlan- projects:
~` ` ' -' agement•Plans '
Immediate Three A Water IVlanage- same as Strategy Two 3.A d See Strategy 2, Immediate Action 3,
_
~• ~ menu Agreement ~ Project A.
Upper RR and Alx
_ Valley -
,~ ;
Immediate
Four
A
WaterlVla`nage-
same as-Strategy`Two 5.A
~
.See Strategy 2, immediate Action 5;
~:
• - ment'Aj;reement Project A:
•
_- Dry Creek grow-
- `.~- ~ - ers -
Se_ ven ~ Immediate One A LH.M Program- $300;000 d - Improve the resiliency of vyater
• matic'Design/ - transmission system facilities against
CEQA seismic events to improve reliability of
water supply.
Immediate One B Rogers. Creek $2,000;000 ~ Improve the resiliency of water
Fault Crossing transmission system facilities against
•. IVlitigaton seismic events;to improve reliability of
water supply. See Footnote 6'.
• Immediate 'One G Collector 3 and $350;000 U Jmprovethe~resilieney of water
S Liquefaction transmission system facilities; against.
Mitigation. seismic events~to improve reliability of
' water-supply. -
w
w
v
W
Proposed Actual/'
Fund'iig Source.
Action`- ~ ~ ; ~ ~ Bud
FY~
et
Estimated,
~St'rategy.
Level ;Action ,. ..
Project' .,
Description
t g
,
10 11:•
~ Costs ~
s ~ ~
VVatei• ~ ~ _ Potentia(:.Benefits-
- .
•
;
(Footnofel~),
FY:U9/10 ~
~
(Footnote 2)'
Transmission.
- ether
'
Footnote 4
(
)
•
(Footnote~3)~ . .. -
. ,Seven Immediate. Two A Pursue State/ n/a n/a Obtain state and federal fungi"rig for
_ Federal Funding , projects°that will improve the.. reliability of
_ for Local Hazard water transmission~system facilities.
IVl tgati o m
Immediate Three A Reduction of Peak See other'p[ojeets under strategies
Demand (Con- 1;5;6,9,and 10. -
servation, GW
Banking.,.).
• - Immediate Four A Evaluafion of $150,000. $218;006 ~' Improve understanding of the;natural
•Pethogen Re- system utilized by the Agency's facilities to .
moval remove pathogens, resulting inaafe-and'
• relablewater'supply.
Immediate Four B Evaluation of $125,000 $161,600 ~ lmprove understanding of how the Russian
Surface Water/ River and anderlying groundwater interact.
Groundwater to influence water yield and quality
- ~ • Interaction produced by Agency's facilities. '
Immediate Five A Water Transmis- same as Strategy Nine 1.A. See strategy 9. '
Sion System Plan-
ning/Reliability -
_.
,Eigff
Immediate
One
A
15O9000/140Q0 _,
$100Q00
$215,600
~
Improved. business practices required by
Certification the ISO. certification program will lead
- ~ , to continued efficiencies°in busines's
operations;.
- Immediate One B Support for SCEIP :$75,000 ~ The,SGEIP h_as.a significant water
__ conservation component as;part of"the
- ~ retrofit program,,•suppoct of the SCEIP will
continue to promote;water conservation
County wide.
fmmediate One C Volu"ntary'Carbon •$30,000 ~ Thrqugh this program the,Agency.°will,have
_ - , ~ Emissions Re_ port- independent verification of its, carbon
ing _ emission and'documentation:of "Carbon
- ~ - Free Water":
w
CW
D
v
S
W
-
~
.Proposed: Actual/.
'
'Fundirig~Sour".ce ~
x ~ •
'
Acton'
~
a ~
et`FY
Bud Estimated .
Strategy
.
.Level Action, .Project - Description.
~ g
10/1T Costs
UUater P'otentiahBenefits..
~ _
Footnote i^
TCansmissio= Ot ei•
(Footnote,~4)
,
-
~
(Footnote 3)' ,
..
EigF_if lmmediate Two. A PWRPA Projects See Foot- $50,000 U ~ These energy projects focus on the
note 7 reducing GHG emissions and. meet the
"car,bon free'water goal. In,addition these
- projects can reduce eriergy,costs that
affect water°rates: -
.; jmmediate Two B lmplement.Fuel $300,000 ~ These: energy projects focus on tfie
Cell Projects reducing GHG emissions and meet the
"carbon free" water goal. In addition
these projects can reduce energy costs
that affect water rates.-
` Immediate Two ~ Implement Air- $350,000 ~ These:energy projects focus on the
port PV Project reducing GHG emissions and meet the
"carbon free" water goal. In addition
these projects can reduce energy costs
that affect water rates.
Immediate Three. A Pursue State/ $96,000 $381,000 ~ The Agency's success in obtaining'federal
' .Federal Funding and state funding may. affect water rates.
fior Renewable
Energy Projects
p -Nme~. Immediate One A Future Water $825,000 $385,900 ~ Develop portfolio of projects,in
-. Suppty'Plannng conjunction with Water Contractors; to
- Regional Water provide: a reliable'water supply to meet•
'~ - - ° ~ Supply Portfolio reasonable documented fufyre demands
by the water contractors in an affordable
manner. Regional and local projects
..
'_. - . , . ,
must be planned and implemented in a
coordinated and transparent manner.
r~ ... Immediate Two A Long Term Finan- $50,000 $30,000 ~ Incorporatioh of long=term financial
~.-..
:~~
ciaLPlanning/Ei-
planning with wafersupply planning
nancial Modeling (project 1A, above) is essential to en"sure
~ that, projects are affordable to water
`
~' '~ ~" ~ ~ contractors. Also can help°to avoid
~~"~ ~ ~ ~ surprises.
w
C~ v'
Proposed Actual/'
Funding;Souree
Action " - et FY
Bud Estimated
:Strategy. ` ~ -
Action Project: ,
Description g Costs tW
t
r Potential B'enefits'
;Level;. 10/11
' "
FY`09/10; a
e
;Other -
F,ootnotea)
(
- _
(Footnote
T) Transmission
).
Footnote 4
( ~ -
-
. `
. _ _. ..
;'. Ten '~~ I.mm_edafe One A Collaboration $125;000 V May'achieve water, energy, and cost°sav-
Platform (iBM) ings.. Transparent. information sharing to
~;, ~'
.Demonstration im rove re Tonal coordination of water-
P g
_ Project supply operations and increased water,
energy and cost efficiencies. T,hisplatform
_~ _
• z .
can alsq'be-expanded for'.use in emergen-
~= ties a's~a suppgrt tool tofacilitate opera-
s , lions and.aidau•pport (manpower a'nd
equipment) between various systems.
fmmediate One A Collabo"ration -$100;000 $450,000 ~ -
,~~ Platform (IBM)
k
„ ALL'.
Demonstration
°:~ ~`~~ Project
~'~ ~ r"' fmmediate One B Automated. Meter $100,000 $80,000 V May achieve water;-energy; and. cost sav-
_,'' ,a ~;:?a Reading- (AMR) - ings. In combination with Collaboration
`' `~
~ Program Platform; AMR will provide real-time infor-
. ~ ~ - mation regarding actual water demands; .
_~' ~ allowing,for improved system operations,.
regional coordination; and'. planning.
Immediate One C integrated Same as - See Strategy 2, Immediate Action 4,
Weather Fore- Strategy Project A.
- casting Two 4:A
D
c~
m
r+
W
w
rn
-.FOOTNOTES' .. •
~ °' a ". _,
1 Cost information from the Agencys Budget~for FY10/11
2 Actual/Estimated Cost:fi' uses for'Fy09 10,;are a , roxima'te and represent the combination of actual~cost.to,-date. an:d:estimates.
3'
• - _ - -
Water Transmission.Fund includes: Water Transmission, Watershed~Planning/Rest.,`Water Nlanagemerit;,VVaterEonservation, Recycled V1/ater/
Loca.f Supply;.Commgn,.Storage':and:P-ipeline Funds. - ~ -
_ 4., • ='
' ~ Other Funds include:'WarmSprings Dam, Russian; River;Proj'ects, Sanitatton°Districts;, F,Ioo;dControl:Zones; IFS;Power;Fund', °and,.Efficiency.and;.
Sustainability Furid - ~` -
5 Project Costs;are•net;offsetling;revenues
' .6 ' ~ •„ Th.is~budget_estlma€e;includes 0'ES/FEMA F.undirg; Agency is ob~ligatedsto a,25% match of:the project costs:($500000)'. -
7
,, The Agency~has se;~eral energy projects,planned:, However;the costs of these project's are rgt included m the FY10/1'1'budget_: Pro~ec_fs~wilCbe
';paid from a:PV1/RPA.fund th,rough;the purchase of electrical power. - ~.,,
V11AC AGENDA 1`1/2/09
- .ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
To: Water Advisory Committee October 28, 2009
From:: Chris ;DeGabriele, Chair, Technical Advisory Committee.
Subject: Water Contractor .Comments on SC1NA New Water Supply Strategies and: TAC
Recommendations
TaGM\SCWA16F2009.2010\Contractorcomments WAC memo.tloc
Attached~is a summary. of the 1Nater Contractor.Cornments on SCWA New WaferSupply
Strategies. The summary re-states each Water Contractor's comment as taken from their
respective resolution,. rnemo,.emait or letter. Each comment:has been reviewed by the TAC and is
assigned a category to identify common:fhemes denoted Athrough F in the margin of'the attached
summary.
The TAC representatives appreciate the presentations. made by SCWA staff to each of
our respective councils and boards; yet the specificity of each. strategy and its impact on water
demand or water supply has not yet beenfully developed. Therefore, the comments prepared by
the Water. Contractors. have focused on priorities and not the specific 12 strategies proposed by
SCWA. The TAC aaoks fonNard to working with SCWA o commence Arid continue the development
of new water supply projects., plans., and strategies to meet the reasonable expectedfuture water
demands of the Water Contractors pursuant to the priorities below recommended for adoption by
the WAC~.
The belowtable'identifies.comments within each category-for each contractor and sums
the total of comments among all contractors. Commerts from Cotati have not'yetbeen received.,
Contractor
Cafegory SR VOM Sonoma Petaluma RP NMWD MMWD" Windsor Total
.
A, 1 4 1 1 . . 1 1. 1 1 $
B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 `T
G ~ 1 • 1 '1' ~ 1 1 4 ~ 6
D 1 1 1'
~ 1 ~ 5
E 1 1 1 1 1 5
F ~ 1 1 1 1 4
The TAC's recommendation to the VVAC pursuant to the above ranking follows
A. Restore reliability of current water supply and currenttransmissionsystcm capacity
(75,.000 acre-feet per year and 92 mgd respectively).
B. Address impacts on listed•salmonid speeies:through cornpliancewith the Biological
Opinion.
Attachment C 37
G. Fulfill contractual requirementsto achieve a;reliable futurevvatersupplyand develop
future transmission system capacity pursuant to a water~suppfy master plan approved by the Water
Gontracfors. Current SCWA contractual requirements;total 101,000 acre-feet per year and delivery
entitlements per the Restructured Agreement total 148.9 mgd
D. Prioritize SCWA's and water ratepayers' resources to achieve current and future
water supply reliability..
E. Provide transparency and collaboratiori with the water contractors in watersupply
planning decisions.
F. Protect water quality.
RECOMMENDATION
WAC adopt the above ~ priorities #or SCV11A implementation of New Water Supply
Strategies.
Attachment C 38
~~
Urban Water Management
and Financial Planning Process
Upd"ate Demand Gonservaforr Modeling Evaluation of Reuse fo Offset Nef Water• Demand
Projections Through 2035 •Baseline development Wate_.r Demand &.Local Su lies
pP, ~
to be Provided by Agency
Le
d
. W
t
t
ctors'
C Technology /economic analysis _ to Meet Water'Demand' res onse to re uesf
I
q
a
:
er
on
ra
a ~ . rr
p
•
Governing Boards with • Rate. of penetration of measures Ezistin & Future Pro ects ~
9 1 from Water Contractors'
Agency Review Lead:- Water Contractors with
- •
Lead:. Water°Gont~actors with
Governing. Boards
- Agency review Agency review _
Compare-Net Water Demand
• 'to be Met by Agency Supplies
(Russian River 8~ Groundwater)
• Evaluate Urban Water
Management Planhydrologic
scenarios _
'• .Analyze Russian :River supplies.
assuming 6.0. -specified
instrearn ~flows~
• Use newly developed ResSii~n
• • 1Vlodel
Lead: Agency with Water Contractor
review
tv
~.
rh
ldenfify Agency Projects Needed to Meet Net
'Future Water Demand
to be Provided. by Agency
• Projects may be:, Water Rights,: Water.Supply
Facilities,, or Water Transmission Facilities
• Use hydraulic model'to :evaluate transmission
projects:
® Develop schedule and cost for'each project -
Lead: Agency with. Water Contractor review
I erative
Financial Model to Evaluate
Water Ratesand Financing Strategies for
Water Supply Planning Horizon
O Use input'from,Net Demand,Analysis & New
.Project Cost & Schedule
• .Oth.er Components included in Model; O&M'
expenditures; ;60-required programs, .
Natural Hazard Projects, and Water Supply
Strategy Projesfs /.Programs (e,g.; •
Groundwater Management, Groundwater
Banking,. IBNf:Database Management, Peak
Reduction, Source Diversifcation Programs)
Water Contractors' & Agency will;coordinatewith otherappropriate entities as required by the
Urban Water Management Planning statute.
Prepare-Draft Wholesale Urban
Water Management Plan; with
Following Significant,
Components:
® .Description of Agency water
supply,facilities, operations,
agreements, &.,responsibilties
• Projected net water demand to
be met.by.Agency (deference
Water Contractors U.1NMPs)
• Describe reliability of Agency's
supplies (Russian River and`
groundwater assessment) for
prescribed hydrologic
conditions
® Describe- potential. impacts of
climate change & ongoing
study to evaluate such impacts:
• Describe Agency projects &.
schedule
• Wafer'shortage contingency
plan
• Coordinationand outreach
• Assumptions, Assumptions,
Assumptions .
Public &
.Stakeholder
Outreach
Finalize,
Wholesale
Urban Water
Management
Plan
W
.-~