Agenda Item No. 9. B. - From Director Cerda

February 7-9, 2018

Urban Water Institute, Palm Springs

Sweetwater Authority Report, Director Jose F. Cerda

Wednesday 7, 2018

I. & ITS IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLY

The Gloom and Doom Scenario:

Dr. Jerry Schubel, CEO and President of Aquarium of the Pacific, presented a polemic vision giving audience members a bleak water future. Schubel spoke of lack of water, rising tides, increased starvation, and . Climate change will alter the way we grow food and do business in California. He mentioned that 100 million gallons were being exported in the form of alfalfa to China. China buys our alfalfa that is grown by California agriculture using “public” goods in the form of water. It has been estimated that the water could create and feed over 1 million Californians. His solution is to grow less alfalfa, use less , and switch to seafood. The oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface but only provides 2% of food. Aqua-culture seems to be the solution, according to Schubel. He advocates for marine aquaculture to improving the ecology because of the health benefits.

II. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF DAMS IN CALIFORNIA? (Panelists: Alvar-Escriva-Bou, Cindy Tuck, Joe Yun)

If You Build it They Will Come . . . Well, Maybe:

Proposition 1 was passed in 2014 to set aside money for California storage projects. The theme of the panel was to discuss the mechanism on how to determine benefit allocation and where money is being spent. The action plan needs to invest in storage. Decision to be made by end of July in allocating dollars for additional storage. The idea is to determine how funds are going to be allocated. The conflict arises where “public benefits” will be used. The term “public benefits” is essentially a matter of interpretation based on specific direction the Administration seeks to move towards. By far, projects that are environmentally sensitive and protect the Delta. The quantification of “public benefits” seek to identify specific projects that can drive state projects. The state legislature and governor have asked for more storage.

The approach from ACWA is comprehensive solutions including storage, delta solutions, groundwater, stormwater, etc. ACWA’s coequal goals include water bond, action plans, Prop 1, CWC, and ACWA storage integration. Integration studies that seeks to integrate storage and ecosystems, water supply, SGMA, and increased resiliency. Proposition 1 was overwhelmingly passed by voters and seeks benefits for ecological sensitive purposes and the saving of Delta. Having a mix of water sources improves resilience.

Water managers rely on surface water and groundwater to meet water supply needs. Increasingly they look for alternative sources to augment supplies and buffer against drought. On-site water reuse can also reduce demand for existing supplies. Previous droughts have prompted many water managers to supplement their supply portfolios with one or more of these alternative supplies. Many utilities plan to build alternative supply projects over the next decade. Some alternative water sources are particularly drought resistant. Since recycled and desalinated water are not directly linked to weather conditions, they increase reliability when traditional supplies are constrained by drought. However, a number of factors can affect the reliability or limit the use of alternative sources. Stormwater captured by retention basins, permeable pavement, or roof-top collection requires adequate rain and accessible above-or below- ground storage. Geography is also a constraint. Desalination of seawater is extremely reliable but is limited to coastal communities. Brackish water desalination is also very reliable but requires a source of saline groundwater or surface water like we have at Sweetwater Authority.

In general, alternative water supplies are more expensive. Below is a visual that shows how Prop 1 is being used. Graph taken from Public Policy Institute of California because one of the panelist is a researcher and he pointed to it and the variety of projects.

III. AFFORDABLE WATER RATES & THE WATER RATE PAYER (Panelists: Jonathan Young, Debby Cherney, and Dave Pederson)

California: The Twilight of Gods

The last presentation focused on the recent passed legislation that acknowledges that, “water is a human right” and that water should be safe and affordable. Senator Dodd authored AB801 to help low income Californians. There are four alternatives to helping Californians bear the burden of not having enough money to pay for water they use: 1) Twenty-percent across the board discount; 2) or a $20 discount; 3) CARE program similar to reduced electricity; and 4) or bolster additional low-income programs. However, “in-fighting” by particular “consumer advocacy” groups has slowed down one particular “solution.” One other approach was to have retail agencies is to collect and then send it to Sacramento. However, there is no science behind this. How much, how to determine the amount? Should be automatically enrolled in a CARE programs? Are regional and local water districts and companies should not be in the business of determining yearly income. One of the panelist is an accountant that signaled the fact that fraud would be rampant. Some issues would include privacy issues in determining what was being made in income by. Bottled water tax? Other propositions were to get pilot programs like Cal-Fresh to get additional money and vouchers for bottled water. Why buy bottled water? It’s too expensive. Create proper infrastructure in those areas. Eligibility, amount, what funding and how to administer Water affordable? What does it mean? How is that measured? $31/month for some. What are people paying for water? Affordability amount versus what they are paying for it. We won’t shut off people.

In my brutish opinion, it looks like the Golden State seeks to right a global wrong at a local level. Water is scarce in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The United Nations has added that “water is a human right.” Great! Err, not great. Because the solution is not to fix the problem but to address the scarcity. But, this story is not Melville’s, Bartleby, The Scrivener. California has taken it to another level and wants to make sure that all people have access to water, including those that like in faraway reaches of desolate and quiet and obscure agricultural communities. These local “districts” are private, small, and do not have the organized management a modern day water complex enjoys. Many of these water companies are mom-n-pop operations that are essentially retirement annuities. The question becomes, why should the residents of Chula Vista, Bonita, and National City pay for the hardship of others outside the District?

California can’t take over so it must design a way to compensate: these are private hook ups; they can’t just impose state rules; and they are certainly no going to give public money away to those mom-n-pop outfits. Or are they? The State is seeking ways to compensate the less fortunate with the multiplicatory product of those that can pay. What is left in this regulatory over-reach? In the confusion, there is prosperity.

THURSDAY 8, 2018

I. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE MOST EPIC DROUGHT IN RECORDED HISTORY (Panelist: Rich Nagel, Gary Arant, Wendy Broley, Shivaji Deshmukh, Thomas J. Haglund, and Dr. George Tchobanoglous)

How to Not to Solve a Drought:

The scene: a “snow pack” or lack thereof, the lowest in recorded history, low water in reservoirs, and Sacramento “acts,” a regulatory complex of NEPA, CEQA, and Delta Smelt; all within this framework, the tap shuts off. The overarching scene is a large state imposing a state solution on small players. The power of Sacramento to both mitigate and create problems simultaneous is awe inspiring. Not all California had the same issues as bone-dry Tulare, Kern, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties. But, the result was to over-react and castigate the rest of the state because the opportunity was there for political reasons. It’s a classic move found in primary grade classrooms where teachers give all the class a “heads down on desk” when a few kids are talking and goofing off in class. To save the state water complex is prime directive but the move decimated small water districts.

The evidence of tree ring analysis made a good case for the steps Sacramento committed. Hence, from years 800 to 1400 California was uber-dry and then years 1500 to 2000 the super wettest in history. California built its water infrastructure, including regulatory complex, in the wettest historical era. The history of California experience was to be accustomed to the fact it had a lot of water available. When the drought reared its ugly-head, the “sky is falling mentality” took hold. Over-reaction because no one in the Brown Administration wants to be seen as being irresponsible and not being able to solve hard problems like drought. But the environmental lobby to “impose” its views and philosophy on a world in ecological . The lesson is to not use previous years as benchmarks. But what were the results of a top-to-bottom drought order . . . ?

The idea is to leverage utility experience to inform water use efficiency (WUE) policy. CUWA supports a holistic approach to Californian water supply challenges. Drinking water distribution, waste water, waste water treatment, recycled water have an important impact on water conservation. Literature review showed declining water flows and utilities. Seventy-four percent of water utility responders did show a decline in water cycle, more flushing, nitrification, odor, and corrosion found post-drought.

Waste Not, Use Not

One of the case studies and its impacts on waste water in Tuolumne Utilities district that serves parts of Yosemite. The system has 29 sewer lift stations, 140 miles of sewer collection systems, two waste water, 10 miles of recycled water pipeline, 100% of wastewater is recycled. The drought caused or was correlated with the post-drought conditions with more maintenance, difficult flows, increases in solids, root intrusion by trees looking for water; and reduced in-flows. As a result, modifications, trouble meeting WDRs, collection maintenance, patching and lining projects, odor control, aged tanks, water loss, and taste and odor complaints. When water is shut off or slowed down of because of “drought” the system breaks down and deteriorates at a faster rate. Issues that are not designed into system occur. If the system is designed for a particular dynamic and that dynamic is no longer there or is altered or is modified, the predominant use breaks down.

My opinion is based on a crude metaphor: a person who does not regularly exercise has a specific dynamic. When that person is suddenly thrust a weekend jock; and plays several rounds of golf, tennis, football, and soccer, the “dynamic” changes and thus the system will suffer from physical break down, in this case, injuries, pain, and possible future medical issues. Similarly, when a water or wastewater system is not used to capacity, then the dynamic and system suffer.

What other issues arose? The sewer system built in the 1950 and prior were designed for greater water usage and flows. Additional factors include water conservation. Traditional sewer systems are based on extraction and interception systems, but today on average use 55 gallons per household. What used to be a system that was designed and used 140 gallon is now using about 1/3 the flushing power. No flushing velocity. Additionally, PVC pipes leak with a breakdown in clay fittings that do not remain moist, they shrink and crack and additional an unneeded and unintentional waste. Existing design approach needs to be updated. Flushing and flow rates no longer exist. The solids settle with low flush flow create increased. Low flush toilets are no good because in the long run there’s isn’t enough flow for the system it is designed around. Gram per waste per capita and decide what amount of water should be used with the waste. There is enough data on how much people excrete. Also look at intensity of rain. Rethink new design and learn to live with higher environmental amounts

Turbidity, ammonia, and total dissolved solids are the major issues in water. Turbidity is how clear water is, an optic measurement. Ammonia is a big deal in waste water. Breakpoint chlorination. Total dissolved solids. To get salinity down.

Reduced water demand, revenue, increased water rates. There are regulations. How much water needs to be saved? How much water will be saved? At what cost? These questions were not answered Urban Water Management Plans have done better than the 20% conservation goals, upwards to 30%. There are lifestyle values without fore-knowledge of approval; limited financial resources; then water will become less accessible, safe, and reliable. Water revenue will decline, less independence, more costly, and more conflictive.

II. TO LITIGATE OR NOT TO LITIGATE (Panelist: Kurt Berchtold, Steve Elie, Curtis Paxton, and Greg Newmark)

How Litigants (and Lawyers) Solve Problems for the Public Benefit:

Underwater contamination has been an expensive proposal. Litigation should be the last resort but when there are underground plumes that leech into water supplies, who pays for the clean-up? The panels discussed the case of Ontario TCE Plume: The remediation of a (TCE) groundwater plume in Ontario, California.

Some background: Ontario trichloroethylene groundwater plume was cleaned-up and abated after a “relatively easy” settlement negotiation between and among municipal, industrial, commercial, and military entities. The cleanup order was issued to the cities of Ontario and Upland as well as six other entities after working under the Santa Ana Water Board’s oversight. Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc., The Boeing Company, General Electric Company, Lockheed Martin, and the United States Department of Defense worked to reach an agreement to address the TCE plume. The TCE plume is located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 60, Pomona Freeway, in Ontario. TCE is a halocarbon – a volatile — and was widely used as an industrial degreasing and cleaning beginning in the mid-1940s. It is a clear non-flammable liquid with a sweet smell. TCE is nasty stuff if it gets into water supplies.

TCE use declined in the 1970s after environmental and economic concerns surfaced regarding its use. The US Environmental Protection Agency has formally characterized the chemical as a human carcinogen and continues to list trichloroethylene as a known carcinogen.

III. WATER PRICING, CUSTOMER USAGE: IT’S COMPLICATED (SPEAKER, JEFFREY HUGHES)

How to Price a Human Right:

California water agencies have a variety of strategies and tools influencing customer usage during both normal and emergency drought periods. Agencies can adjust irrigation restrictions, launch educational programs increase or target enforcement and or create financial incentives for reducing usage through different pricing approaches. This session presented the following: 1) Pricing rate structure can get you so far; 2) Pricing is not the only tool; 3) Pricing matters; and 4) Pricing must be adapted to local condition.

Hughes showed a series of statistical results in x/y matrices, histograms, and charts to show different models that can be used to maximize dollar amounts.

Hughes also discussed the basics water districts could apply. The Customer Assisted Programs (CAP) include, below is a breakdown of several options found throughout the country:

• Bill Discount. Utilities reduce a customer’s bill, usually long-term. Can be applied to nearly any type of rate structure or aspect of the bill (e.g., variable rate structure, fixed service charge, and volumetric charge). • Flexible Terms. Utilities help customers afford services and pay bills through arrearage forgiveness (e.g., rewarding timely bill payments by partially forgiving old debt and establishing a payment plan for future payments), bill timing adjustment (e.g., moving from quarterly to monthly billing cycles), or leveled billing (e.g., dividing total anticipated annual water and sewer bill by 12 to create a predictable monthly bill amount). Common categories of different program types include payment plans, connection loans, managing arrears, leveled billing, bill timing. • Lifeline Rate. Customers pay a subsidized rate for a fixed amount of water, which is expected to cover that customer’s basic water needs. When water use exceeds the initial fixed amount of water (i.e., the lifeline block), the rates increase. Also known as minimum bill, low-income rate structure, single tariff, water budget. • Temporary Assistance. Utilities help customers on a short-term or one-time basis to prevent disconnection of service or restore service after disconnection for households facing an unexpected hardship (e.g., death, job loss, divorce, domestic violence). Also known as emergency assistance, crisis assistance, grant, one-time reduction. • Water Efficiency. Utilities subsidize water efficiency measures by providing financial assistance for leak repairs and offering rebates for Water-Sense-certified fixtures, toilets, and appliances. Also known as water conservation.

These were some of the options that a water district could adopt and apply.

IV. California WaterFix: Down for the Count 2? 1? Or 0? (Panelist, Steve Arakawa, Larry Dick, and Noah Oppenheim)

Delta WaterFix: A Salmon and a Twin-Tunnel Walk into a Bar:

The Governor and some interest are considering downsizing the proposal Delta water project from two to one tunnels. Agricultural agencies have refused to help pay for the $17B price tag. What would happen if the project goes to one versus two tunnels? The discussion began with the fishing lobby.

The salmon fishing industry doesn’t want the tunnels, period. They are going to sue The Governor. They argue that The Delta tunnels are: “half baked; it’s a shell games that violates the APA; no adequate bypass flow criteria; no adequate impact assessment for commercial fisheries; incidental take permit is flawed; and failure to mitigate impacts to ESA listed fisheries.” In addition, it will make the Delta a lot more susceptible to algae bloom and predation y other types of fish that prey on salon smelt.

Protein Wars: Salmon vs. Almonds

Water deliveries have been restricted not just for smelt, but also to protect salmon and the coastal fishing industry. It's not about farmers vs. fish. It's about almonds vs. salmon.

In 1980, there were 5,700 licensed salmon fishing vessels on the California coast, today there are only around 1,000, and only half are active. Roughly 90% of California's salmon are products of the delta and its tributaries. As are 50% of Oregon's salmon. The biggest producer, by far, is the Sacramento River system. But the fish need large flows of fresh water to push them out to sea, where they grow for three or four years before returning though the Golden Gate to spawn in the river systems.

But according to farmers, that's fresh water wasted out to sea. Never mind that it's necessary for the preservation of fish—including sturgeon and striped bass—and to irrigate a valuable delta agriculture economy (pears, asparagus, corn, tomatoes, and berries). With less water flowing to Pacific, salmon just “sticks around” the Delta, like a child not wanting to leave her parent’s house. What’s a state to do?

The Central Valley stretches 450 miles from Redding to Bakersfield, and includes two valleys: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. The delta drains the two main rivers—the Sacramento and San Joaquin and their many tributaries. The drought aside, most of the Central Valley is in relatively good shape—as is Southern California, which has conserved, recycled and invested for the future.

The Central Valley is in a water civil war, south vs. north. It's the San Joaquin Valley that is desperate and needs hand-holding by the president as it tries to siphon off more delta water. But the dirty secret is Californians have legal rights to more than five times the water that exists in average years, even when nature is producing precipitation normally.

The Dialectic Strikes Back: MET comes to the Rescue

In business the best deals come to fruition when there is conflict. The fog of war shows that where there’s confusion and not knowing what’s going to happen next, is prime and has a silver lining. Or in this case a “silver tunnel.” This is where Metropolitan comes in to propose a solution. Why not bypass all that conflict with the salmon and tunnel water south to Central Valley? Supporters who said the project was a modern-day fix to improve reliability of water supplies that would also support jobs, and critics who said it would inflate water prices for residents and projected it would further harm salmon and endangered fish in the delta.

A vote in favor supported MET in that it supplies water to 19 million people in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The lack, however, by Westlands Water District and Santa Clara Water Authority to vote in favor led to waning support for the project and now it’s being scaled down. Westlands is the largest district among federal water users that were expected to cover about 45 percent of the costs of the project. Ultimately the twin tunnels have become one.

V. Control of Water: The City View (Panelists: Rusty Bailey, Alan Bernstein, Bob Wunderlich, Steve Ritchie, and Dick Ackerman)

Who owns California water? Historically, with over 100 years of precedent that determines who owns ground water, surface water, and river water. Ownership is defined as who has the right to compute and use this commodity. Today there is a challenge to this view by State government. The State claims that they are the “owner” and have control over who uses it and how much they can use. When people talk about "riparian rights," it means land touching a lake, stream, or river. People who own those rights get first dibs on the water. The rights go with the land, but only the land that borders the water. If you have a big piece of property and sell it off in parcels, for example, only the parcel of land bordering the water has those rights. One can’t sell the land and retain the water rights. They stay with the property.

Each of the panelist gave their views about their cities and what they have in common. Evidently, they ownership of water is based on the water contractor that pipes it in. From MET to the county wholesaler, to the local retailer. Some cities, like Beverly Hills, do not have a local water authority but must purchase water from MET. The problem many of these cities is that in a time of drought, they are susceptible to the vagaries of the water world and the owners of water. The State wants to change this by seeking greater control of resources in order to establish greater consistency and expectation and uniformity in water delivery. The State wants to be able to predict water use and to be able to anticipate water usage in order to create efficiencies. Less waste, less drought, and less inefficiency.

VI. How is Conservation Going to be a Way of Life? (Panelist: Steve LaMar, Tracy Quinn, Rem Scherzinger, and Bob Hertzberg

With extreme and or creeping climate change, California is at time a lucky state where it may escape Floridian hurricanes, or Kansan tornadoes. But, our State is not immune to extreme weather events. With climate change comes a fate worse than a hurricane: longer, more frequent and more extreme droughts. The crux of the conversation were panelist in conversation debating the merits of a climate- resilient approach to water management.

The central argument are two bills, AB 1668 and SB 606:

AB 1668 and SB 606 will:

• Establish water use efficiency standards that water suppliers would use to set customized, long- term water use targets based on their local conditions

• Update requirements for urban and agricultural water management plans and urban water shortage contingency plans

• Direct the Department of Water Resources to establish drought planning guidelines for small and rural communities—which were hit hardest in our recent drought

Many of the stakeholders have worked on this legislation through an advisory group process and then through the legislature. As with most legislation, these bills represent compromise between stakeholders—urban and agricultural water suppliers, environmental and social justice groups, and industry. Even with these compromises, the bills represent a strong step forward toward improving urban water efficiency and water shortage planning. The bills focus on eliminating waste, rather than setting an arbitrary percentage reduction. Targets reflect local conditions—including climate, geography and land use—and retain local control, letting water agencies to decide how to reach their target.

These bills build upon lessons learned in the last drought. A more efficient California will be better able to weather a drought, will avoid construction of unnecessary or overlarge water supply and treatment facilities, thereby helping with water affordability, and will help reduce energy use and emissions.

VII. To Sea, Or Not to Sea (Michael Clinton, Kerry Morrison, Bruce Wilcox, and Phil Rosentrater)

A synthesis of this fascinating topic, that I knew nothing about, was how to save the Salton Sea. Some background: the Colorado River has flowed into the Imperial Valley and deposited soil and creating a freshwater lake and a dry desert basin. However, much of the settlements substantially shrank in size, due to the increasing salinity and pollution of the lake over the years from agricultural runoff and other sources. Fish that lived in the sea have been killed off by the combination of pollutants, salt levels, and algae blooms. Dead fish have been known to wash up in mass quantities on the beaches. The smell of the lake, combined with the stench of the decaying fish, also contributed to the decline of the tourist industry around the Salton Sea. What is a State to do? Generate a plan. There is a feasible plan called Salton Sea Management Plan for California’s largest lake. The plan was initiated to help mitigate and “save” the great lake. Since then the lake has been fed primarily with agricultural drain water from the Imperial Valley.

Water levels and the lake will recede even more from the Imperial Valley accelerating and mitigating water deliveries are no longer required. The receding shoreline presents a public health risk due to particulate air pollution from dust blown from the exposed lakebed and surrounding agricultural fields. Lastly, declining water levels will increase the lake’s salinity, threatening food sources for wildlife.

In order to mitigate many of these issues, the state legislated a 10-year plan that calls for construction of 29,800 acres of ponds, wetlands, and dust-suppression projects on portions of exposed lakebed. The plan begins with 500 acres this year up to 4,200 acres by 2028. The agreement further commits the state to creating a long-term plan beyond the initial 10 years. In accepting the multi-party agreement today, the State Water Board also defined its own oversight role. The state of California has committed more than $80 million in voter-approved bond funds to restore habitat and suppress dust at the lake in the near term.