Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill PresentationLate1 09/14/2009;A , ~1"'e ~'V~T (ti(l~ SF~,~ ~~~~~ - N®RTW MARIN - WATER D15TRICT 999 Rush Creek Place P:O. Box 146 Novato, CA 94948 September 10, 2009 PHONE 415.897.4133 Paul Kelley,. Chair Fax Sonoma County Water Agency a15.B92.so43 - 575 Administration Drive 1=Mai~ Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887 info@nmwd.com WE8 www.nmwd.com Re: Water Project Redirection and New WaterSupply8trategies Dear Chairman Kelley: I am writing on behalf of the .North Marine Water District (NMWD) to express - our serious concerns about the proposal placed before the Sonoma County Water Agency's (Agency) Board of Directors concerning the Water Project Redirection and New Water Supply Strategies. The NMWD Board has met with its General Manager and counsel, and has given. careful consideration to the.agenda item you will be considering on September 15. In short, we. believe that the subject proposal should be rejected by the Agency's Board, because it would constitute a dangerous unilateral act that would abruptly .and unexpectedly abandon at least two decades of good faith efforts and difficult negotiations which E;ven4ually arrived at a mutually acceptable approach that the Agency and the Water Contractors agreed was in the best interests of the 600,000 people who are dependent. on the Agency for a reliable high-quality water supply. For one of the parties to walk away from such an agreement, without.even extending the courtesy of consultation with the other parties, would be an exercise of bad faith, a breach of important promises, and the worst kind of approach to resolve vital public policy problems. NMWD has been a partnerwith the Agency and receiving delivery of Russian River water supply since 1961. NMWD and the Agency are limited purpose enterprises, restricted to exercise of specifically enumerated powers and purposes pursuant to their respective enabling act or legislation. From time to time, and consistent with its legislative authority, the Agency has entered into contracts with NMWD (and other-Water Contractors)..,. expressly binding the Agency to provide a firm water supply. The most recent of these contracts is the Restructured Agreement for Water Supply (RA), executed June 23, 2006. The RA and its predecessor water supply-agreements were negotiated in good faith between willing parties. We believe that the action now proposed by the Agency staff would result in abandonment and repudiation of this bilateral agreement, and of the long-standing bilateral approach to regional water supply that has been consistently followed by the Water Contractors and the Agency. The RA provides for NMWD to receive delivery entitlements of 19.9 million gallons of water per day (MGD), and 14,100 acre-feet per year (AFA). NMWD's total DIRECTORS: ~ACK BAKER RICK FRAITES • STEPHEN PETTERIE • DENNIS RQDONI • ~OHN C. SCHOONOVER OFFICERS; CHRIS DEGABRIELE, General Manager RENEE ROBERTS, Secretary • DAVID ~. BENTLEY, Audilor-Controller DREW MC~NTYRE, Chief Engineer Paul Kelley, Chair - September 10, 2009 Page 2 water production exceeded 10,000 AFA beginning in 1.99:1 and reached a maximum of 1:1; 505 AFA in 2004. NMWD has agreed that future Russian River deliveries can be limited to 13,000: AFA, as shown on Table 4-A of the 1Nater Agency Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),-and as reflected in the SC.V1%A 2005 Urban Water Management• Plan (UWMP). This adjustment reflects decisions made by all V1/ater Contractors working with Maddaus Water Management and with the Agency,., and using;the.waterindustry's generally_aceepted DSS (Decision Support System) model to consistently calculate projected water demands and conservation savingsfor all 1NaterContractors. The water demand data upon which those:delivery commitments were made are based upon develoPmentprojections in current general plans adopted by the cognizant land-use planning agencies: in the areas served by the Water Contractors (the City of Novato .;and'. the Marin Countywide. Plan in NMV11D`s case). The ,resulting water demands and'~vvater,supply projections are now. reflected in both the>SCWA~2005 UWMP and NMWD-2005 UWMP': V1/e are.nofavvare of any new demand analysis upon which the Agency staff'could have based, its recommendation. Any proposed change to the current projected vVatel supply requirements and the Water Projectshould only be made afterthe Agency and the`Water Conflaetorsagree on the relevant data, and develop a mutual understanding of demand and supply`options. That understanding needsto be consistent. and coincident with the completion :of an adequate and fully updated 2Q10 UWMP. Should it be necessary; it is recommended that an identical analysis and negotiation process to that used in support.of the 2005 UWMP be repeated. We. believe,.tlnat an Agency decision abandoning the current'Water Project prior to that time would constitute.. bleach of the Agency's obligation to provide a firm watersupply, and unilateral repudiation of the RA. Abandoning the current Water Project would mean that the Agency iswvalking: away from solving. a well'-known serious physical deficiency in its existing transmission system. The 2001 Agency report entitled `'Operational Risks Associated with the Petaluma Aqueduct" identified That the existing Petaluma Aqueduct is unable to meet peak-day demands of~the system and recommended expedited eonstruction,of the parallel aqueduct: The current Water Project DEIR.,addresses this parallel,aqueduct,(theSguth Transmission System Project) on aproject-specific basis. Reliability of water deliveries. to NMWD .,and other :existing customers receiving deliveries from the Petaluma Aqueduct,(includingthe Cities of°Rohnert Park, Cotat and Petaluma, Penngrove Water Company and Marin: Municipal Water District) will continue to be• impacted until this project;is constructed. Finally, and most importantly, we believe that withdrawing the curlent`watel~right application to increase Russian, River redivecsions wjlJ result in loss of priority to perfect additional future rediversions, We believe that abandoning the water right application may result in the amount of water the Agency a.nd the Water Contractors have agreed is necessary, will instead ..become available for rediversion by some other.appropriatol for another purpose of use. If the. Water Agency backs away from~its eommitrnent to implementahe°Water Project, we:also believe thafthere is a danger that some portions ofithe Agency's•ezisting waterrights may be e"roded, which would be a disastrous unintended consequence of what is being recommended by the Agency staff.. A particular concern for NMWD is that we believe that limiting mailable Russian River rediversions to 75',OOq AFA will- preclude NMWD from backfeeding of Stafford Lake in future .droughts., The allocation model now used by'the,Agency does not reflect such. a scenario, and this operational. change would be extremely detrimental to the community of Novato:and to the health, safety,. acid file protection of its citizen"s. iVM1ND acknowledges the. complexity the Agency faces in. navigating she permitting requirements to perfect water supply projects, including compliance with the Endangered Species Aet, and' implementation of the' 2008 Biological Opinion. The Biological Opinion was the principal reason. that'. the Agency cited for the delay in issuance of the Water Project DEIR, because the Agency wanted toassure.thatthe DELR' was consistent with the Opinion. Rather-than•constrain,the ability ofthe Agency~to deliver water supply fo its retail water contractors; we believe that the Opinion 1• ~ [. Paul Kelley, Chair September 10, .2009 Page 3 explicitly notes that delivery of water supplies is a critical need that must be accommodated, and measures must be taken to assure the ongoing reliability of deliveries of water from Lake Sonoma for municipal use. Just because compliance is difficult is not a reason for the Agency to make a unilateral decision to abandon its efforts to implement its commitments to the Water Contractors to carry out its contractual obligations, but the Agency staff's recommendation appears to reflect just such a loss of fortitude. This is the second time the Agency has faced the question of whether to continue to perfect the Water Project environmental revievu. The first occurred in 2004, when the Agency chose not to proceed with a supplemental EIR to correct deficiencies on the then existing Water Supply and Transmission System Project EIR. Instead of going forvvard then, the Agency opted to start over on the Water Project, and convinced the Water .Contractors to go along with the plan. As we come to this fork in the road again five years later, the Agency is now considering abandoning the .path it chose. NMWD urges the Agency to stay the course and to not abandon the Water Project or withdraw its water rights application and petitions. NMWD urges the Agency to refocus its priorities to: 1. Fulfill its contractual water supply obligations to the Water Contractors; 2. Protect water quality and improve the reliability of'the water transmission system; and 3. Address impacts on listed salmonid species through compliance with the Biological Opinion. Finally, NMWD urges the Agency to reject its staff's proposal as totally inappropriate, because it calls for unilateral action to turn away from critical portions of a vitally important, bilaterally negotiated regional approach to providing reliable safe water supplies for over 600,000 people in portions of two Counties. The Agency has not taken such unilateral. actions in the past, perhaps because it has understood the importance of carrying out its contractual commitments, and perhaps because it has understood that good public policy decisions on resources management matters cannot be made in a manner that arbitrarily ignores the parties to whom those commitments were made. Sincer y, Dennis Rod I, President North Marin Water District cc: Senator Mark Leno Assemblyman Jared Huffman Sonoma County Water Agency Board Randy Poole, Sonoma County Water Agency General Manager/Chief Engineer Marin County Supervisors Novato City Council Members Michael Frank, Novato City Manager WAC Members TAC Members Santa Rosa Press Democrat Marin Independent Journal Novato Advance CD(rr