Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5D 10/02/2009I° ~ CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ~ ^ AGENDA ILL ®ct®be~ 5, 2:009 Agenda 'Title: Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution Responding to 1Vleetin~ Date: October 5, 2009 the Sonoma County Water Agency's Proposed Water Supply Strategies 1Vleetin~ Time: 7:00 PM Category: ^ Presentation ^ Appointments ^ Consent ^ Public Hearing ^ Unfinished Business ®New Business Department: Water Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Resources & Michael Ban Michael Ban 778=4546 Conservation Total Cost of Proposal or Proiect: N/A Name of Fund: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Account Number: N/A Current Fund Balance: N/A Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the. following action: Approve the resolution responding to the Sonoma County Water Agency's water .supply strategies. 1. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous, vote to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has been published/posted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ^ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment Summary Statement: The Sonoma County Water Agency presented. its proposed water supply strategies to the Petaluma City Council on September 14, 2009. City staff has prepared recommended comments on the strategies that focus on the Agency's core mission, the provision of water supply. Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: Resolution Reviewed b Finance Director: .Reviewed by City Attorney: A rove b ~ ana er: ~ ~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Date: Date: ~ ~ , Rev. 3 Date Last Revised: 9/22/09 S:\water resources & conservation\Water\sc a\strategic ~' / plan - 2009\Petaluma City Council October 5 - 2009\agenda l11+ ~,~ bill.draft 4 (revision 3-clean).docx C CITY ®F PFT'AI.UlVIA, CALIF®12NIA ®~~®B~R 5, 20®9 AGENDA REPORT FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO THE SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY STRATEGIES RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution responding to the Sonoma County Water Agency's proposed water supply strategies. 2. )BACI{GROUND: In 2006 the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) embarked on a strategic planning process that culminated with a draft document titled "Sonoma County Water Agency Strategic Priorities (October 2006)." The Petaluma City Council considered the Agency's priorities in March 2007, and adopted a resolution recommending the Agency prioritize their efforts as follows: 1. Fulfill contractual obligations. 2. Protect water quality. 3. Improve the reliability of the water transmission system. 4. Obtain multi-year programmatic permit for stream maintenance. 5. Address impacts on salmonid species. 6. Protect existing ratepayers. The Agency issued a final document in April 2007. On April 13, 2009, the Agency conducted a workshop to discuss issues and challenges facing the Agency and water resources in Sonoma County, and identified possible water supply strategies (Strategies) to address the challenges and shape water policy. Some of the challenges identified by the Agency at the April 13t" workshop include a need to better understand the transmission system's natural treatment process, difficulty meeting peak summer demands given various constraints, improving system reliability against natural hazards such as earthquakes, implementing affordable projects to meet water contractor demands, and a belief that separate. governmental organizations result in inefficient use of water resources. The Agency's twelve Strategies for addressing. these challenges and City staff's comments are provided below. 1. Address Dry Creek summer flow constraints in response to the Biological Opinion (BO) 2 The Agency's suggested alternatives for addressing summer flows include habitat enhancement in Dry Creek and a bypass pipeline, both of which are identified in the BO. The Agency also suggests using recycled water, conservation, local supply and groundwater banking, with much emphasis placed on groundwater banking. Groundwater banking was originally considered in the 1996 Draft Water Supply Transmission System Project EIR as Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). The ASR alternative was dropped from the final EIR by the Agency's Board of Directors. The Board of Directors appears to be more supportive of ASR now. Much analysis will need to be done before the suitability of ASR in this region can be adequately determined. 2. Modify operation of the Russian River water system under Decision 1610 (update D1610) Updating Decision 1610 is required by the BO, and is needed to prevent. the unnecessary release of water from Lake Mendocino. Other items listed under this strategy are general goals and do not appear to be strategies. 3. Evaluate potential impacts of climate change on future water supply This does not appear to be a water supply strategy, but perhaps the objective here is to obtain information that can help define a strategy. The Agency approved an expenditure of $364,150 on August 25, 2009, to evaluate climate change with the United States Geological Service. 4. Pursue opportunities to coordinate water supply and flood control activities ~. Work with county and cities to develop low impact development programs 6. Work with stakeholders to promote sound, fact-based water supply planning The action items under these strategies involve broad outreach efforts to local municipalities, which may be worthwhile, but don't necessarily have identified. performance objectives. 7. Increase the operational reliability of the transmission system 8. Prioritize and fund projects to protect Agency facilities from natural hazards Maintaining the reliability of the transmission system is important to Petaluma and the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) and will help the Agency maintain its contractual water supply obligations. 9. Re-evaluate operational strategy for the transmission.system This strategy proposes to reduce peak demands on the transmission system by having the contractors store winter water for use in the summer. The strategy doesn't discuss where the water would be stored, but it is believed this ties into the Agency's renewed interest in ASR. A significant amount of geological and hydrogeological analysis will be needed before the suitability of ASR for this region can be determined. 10. Take advantage of energy and water synergies 3 This strategy is already being implemented by the Agency and the water contractors through their water conservation programs. 11. Re-negotiate Restructured Agreement (RA) for Water Supply The bullet items supporting this strategy focus on rates and revenue for the Agency as the basis for renegotiating the RA. It's unclear how this strategy addresses the challenges identified by the Agency. 12. Overcome organizational fragmentation to promote efficiency of water system operations and water management planning Any effort to improve communication between the Agency and the contractors is welcome. But this strategy .appears to be more about the Agency having access to the contractor's operating clata than anything else. The Agency hasn't demonstrated how this would help them and the contractors better operate the water system. It would be unfortunate if the Agency were to focus on this strategy at the expense of securing the water supply. 3. DISCUSSION: Between the strategies identified by the .Agency in its Strategic Priorities issued in April 2007 and the water supply strategies issued in April 2009, the Agency has identified 21 water supply strategies. This is a lot of strategies, arid understandably makes it difficult for the Agency to focus on its core function, water supply. City staff believes the Agency could better serve its customers, the Water Contractors, by focusing on the following key strategies. 1. Fulfill contractual water supply obligations to the Water Contractors. 2. Improve the operational. consistency and reliability of the water transmission system. 3. Work in collaboration with the Water Contractors. 4. Prepare a master plan for implementation of the BO. A letter to the Agency detailing these comments is provided in the resolution. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. 4 RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO THE SONOIVIA COUNTX 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 Apri12007. On April: l 3, 2009, the Agency conducted a workshop to discuss :issues acid 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: 1. 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 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 Board of Directors directed the Agency to present its Strategies to the Water Contractors' boards and councils and solicit their input; and WHEREAS, the Agency presented the Strategies to the Petaluma City Council on September 14, 2009, acid requested,input from the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council considered and discussed the Agency's Strategies on October 5, 2009; and NOW, 'T'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COiTNCIL OF TIDE CITY OF PETALUlVIA 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. 5 A'I"I'ACHIVIENT A 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 5th 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. Between the Strategic Plan issued in Apri12007 and the Strategies presented in.Apri12009, 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 the Water Contractors for the provision of water supply, most recently in 2006 with the Restructured Agreement For Water Supply (Agreement). The delivery obligations included in the Agreement are consistent with the Agency's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Project EIR. It is incumbent upon the Agency to fulfill this Agreement. 2. 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 6 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 deliver-ies at 53 mgd to save costs. All of this has occurred at a tune 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. The recent water savirigs could' not have happened without the Water Contractors commitment to achieving sustained water conservation. But continually operating in a crisis mode as we have done for the last three years is counterproductive. It is critical the Agency operate'the water transmission system in a consistent and reliable manner. 3. Work in collaboration with the Water Contractors. At the September 15th Board meeting, the relationship between the Water Contractors and the Agency was accurately characterized by the Agency as being "at an all time low." Actions taken by the Agency in the last six months have contributed to this ebb in tle:relationship. 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 nbt 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 May, 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. In September the Agency also unilaterally decided to make a sea change in water policy without serious discussion with the Water Contractors. 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.Bolo~icalOpnion (BO). 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 and a determination. by the. Agency that they weren't "feasible." Cost and feasibility are important factors when deciding a project's worthiness. But those considerations should happen at the start of a project. We are concerned the Agency may be in danger of repeating. this pattern with the BO. While we support implementation of the BO and recognize .its importance,. there is no .information available to suggest implementation of the BO is feasible or affordable for the Water Contractors. Given the BO's estimated cost of $100 million, we believe it would. be worthwhile for the Agency to prepare. a Master Plan for implementation of the BO. Such a plan would identify the objectives of the BO, the alternatives for achieving the objectives, and the schedule. The plan would also detail the cost of the alternatives and identify how the project is to be funded. At that point the Agency and the Water ' The staff reports from the April 28°i and May 12`h meetings at which this action was taken do not include any estimates of the projected-savings to be achieved by shutting down the transmissionsystem facilities, nor do they include=a discussion of any possible alternatives. 7 Contractors would be able to assess the BO's affordability and. feasibility. If it turns out not to be affordable or feasible, the Agency and the Water Contractors will be able to make informed. decisions before significant funds have been expended. 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 mban(a~c~etaluma.ca.us. Sincerely, Mayor Pamela Torliatt WAC Representative xc: Randy Pooie -General Manager/Chief .Engineer, Sonoma County Water Agency Grant Davis -Assistant General Manager, Sonoma County Water Agency 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 Chris DeGabri ele - TAC Chair Michael Ban - Director Water Resources & Conservation 8