At the October meeting of Metropolitan’s One Water and Stewardship Committee meeting, staff began the first of a series of presentations on the Delta Conveyance Project to prepare for the upcoming vote in December, when the Metropolitan Board will be asked to consider approving more funds to support the continued planning of the project.
DWR has indicated that approximately $300 million of additional investment is needed from potential project participants to fund pre-construction efforts, such as the water rights hearing, Delta Plan consistency certification, geotechnical investigations, and advancement of preliminary design through 2027. By securing the last tranche of planning funding, DWR aims to complete the necessary permitting, preliminary design, and engineering work before potential participants make final decisions.
Assuming a 47.2% share for Metropolitan, the funding ask would be $141.6 million for 2026 and 2027. If the Delta Conveyance Project moves forward and bonds are issued to finance implementation, the planning costs paid by each participant will be reimbursed. Staff notes that funding the continuation of planning and design does not commit Metropolitan to participating in the Delta Conveyance Project; that vote is anticipated to occur in 2027.
The first presentation, given at last week’s meeting, focused on risks to water supply, and potential risk management actions, such as the Delta Conveyance Project, that would improve the water supply reliability of the State Water Project and Metropolitan.
BUT FIRST … PUBLIC COMMENT
As is usually the case, folks typically show up to give their comments when the Delta Conveyance Project is on the agenda. At this meeting, three commenters spoke about the Delta Conveyance Project.
Emily Pappalardo, an engineer who works in the Delta, said the levee systems have been maintained through the $12 million Delta Levee Subventions Program that’s been in place since 1973. Since then, there have been no levee breaks that have disrupted water quality. If the money spent on planning the Delta Conveyance Project were spent on levees, many Delta levees could have been strengthened, further protecting them from sea level rise and seismic risk. She also noted the Delta experienced an earthquake near Isleton last October, with no significant damage to the levees. She questions the seismic risk the Delta faces.
Barbara Barrigan-Parilla with Restore the Delta pointed out that DWR released a report this summer indicating that the State Water Project supply will decrease as much as 20% in the next 10 to 20 years. The Operations Plan is incomplete and only a ‘concept’ of a plan. If DWR will continue to use the existing pumps in addition to the new intakes, what is the water quality benefit? The laws do not allow for the sacrifice of Delta water quality for Met’s water quality. Restore the Delta and other stakeholders would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation to the Committee on alternative solutions.
Justin Breck, climate resilience fellow at LA Waterkeeper, said it’s important to consider how the Delta Conveyance Project fits into the adaptive management framework of the Camp 4 Water planning process. The large-scale and 20-year implementation timeline of the DCP makes it a much riskier proposition than other water supply alternatives. Metropolitan should invest in resilient, multi-benefit local water projects, including water recycling projects like Pure Water Southern California.
THE STATE WATER PROJECT
Nina Hawk, Chief of Bay-Delta Resources/Group Manager, Bay-Delta Initiatives, began the presentation with background on the State Water Project.
The State Water Project (SWP) is a core component of Metropolitan’s water supply portfolio, providing about 30% of the water supply but can be 80% of imported water supplies in years when deliveries from the Colorado River are constrained.
Besides the quantity of water, other aspects of the SWP supply are critical to the Metropolitan service area. SWP supplies are lower in salinity, which is needed to blend with saltier sources such as recycled water and Colorado River supplies and to recharge groundwater basins. The SWP provides flexible storage and access to San Joaquin and Antelope Valley groundwater banks.
“The big takeaway here is that the State Water Project is vital to Metropolitan’s wholesale system,” said Ms. Hawk. “It has been built in order to move, convey, store, and deliver water to the state of California and specifically to 19 million people in our service area.”
RISKS TO BAY DELTA WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Seismic
The USGS has predicted a 6.7 magnitude earthquake will occur in the Delta by 2043. Levee failures could also flood several islands, and saltwater could intrude into the Delta, making it too salty for human or agricultural use. The pump station in the south Delta would likely be impaired, constraining the amount of water that could be exported and disrupting service.
To address this risk, Metropolitan and the state and federal governments are looking at modernizing levees and creating standards that account for sea level rise and climate change. They use dogs, drones, and satellites to monitor for voids in the levees or burrowing animals such as nutria. Emergency stockpiles of materials for levee repairs are strategically located along the freshwater pathway.
Increasing regulation
A healthy Bay Delta cannot be had without healthy populations of native species. The slide shows some of the species in the Delta listed as endangered, as well as the white sturgeon currently under consideration for listing.
Ms. Hawk noted that one of the major factors in reductions in exports from the Delta is to protect listed species. “Over the last couple of decades, we have seen a decline in our ability to move water by about 20% due to the protection of these species,” said Ms. Hawk. “But it is critical to have a healthy Delta in order to move water around, both naturally and for purposes of water supply reliability.”
To address species declines, Metropolitan has a science program with experts who have done extensive work in understanding Delta stressors, from predation to fish migration to habitat restoration.
“These innovations, these new technologies, and these investments in studies and pilots, including us being the first water agency to receive Delta smelt in hand to study them in a natural environment, are the key things that are necessary for us to move forward and to make the right decisions for the species and the ecosystem in the Bay Delta,” said Ms. Hawk.
Climate change
The slide illustrates the shift in historical hydrology projected to occur under climate change. The blue line on the hydrograph shows the current regime where the snow falls in the mountains in the winter and melts off in the spring and early summer. Ms. Hawk reminded that two-thirds of the water in California comes from north of the Delta in the form of snowpack.
“Snowpack for us is our biggest reservoir in California,” she said. “Then later in the year, as it gets warm, that water then melts off, runs down, traverses through the Delta, and finds its way to us.”
However, looking into the future, temperatures will increase, causing more precipitation to come earlier in the year as rain rather than snowmelt.
“When that happens, we now have a lot of water coming through the system. We have less of that snowpack to then run off later in the year. And most importantly, it’s coming during the sensitive period when the fish are migrating and moving through the Delta. That puts two things layered on top of each other: restrictions on how we can move water because we need to protect the species, coupled with the impacts of climate change, higher temperatures, and more rain coming to us earlier in the year.
Addressing the risks
To address the risks overall, Metropolitan is evaluating storage and conveyance. They are looking at conjunctive use with the region’s groundwater basins, and water banking programs in the Central Valley. They are looking at surface storage, including north of Delta. Metropolitan’s Camp 4 Water process will also address risk reduction to water supplies. They are considering conveyance improvements, not just Delta conveyance but conveyance within Metropolitan’s wholesale system, and drought mitigation projects are underway that will give more flexibility to move water around the system.
THE DELTA CONVEYANCE PROJECT
Next, Dr. Maureen Martin, Manager of Bay-Delta Science and Regulatory Strategy, discussed how the Delta ConveyanceProject could alleviate or minimize some of the risks.
The slide shows how water moves through the Delta as it is today. The dark blue arrows show the Sacramento River flowing into the Delta from the north and the San Joaquin River flowing in from the south; the light blue arrows show how water moves to the export facilities in the south Delta.
“The way we get our water now is through Delta conveyance, and so this would still continue,” said Dr. Martin. “Even with the Delta conveyance project, about 80% of the water is currently planned to go through the Delta on a long-term average. At certain times, the percentage would be different and much more.”
In the event of an earthquake, salinity could intrude and affect the ability for water to be exported from the Delta, but Dr. Martin noted that other events could cause an outage in the Delta, such as a chemical spill or a levee breach. The Delta Conveyance Project, with its intakes in the North Delta, would be able to export water in the event of a Delta outage condition, either due to seismic activity or a chemical spill in the Delta.
With climate change, more water will be coming earlier in the system, said Dr. Martin. Higher flows earlier in the system are coincident when fisheries are present, which constrains the ability of the State Water Project to capture those flows. “So the Delta Conveyance Project would allow the State Water Project to take available of those high flows when they’re available, while still protecting Delta fisheries.”
EXAMPLES OF STATE WATER PROJECT PERFORMANCE WITH THE DELTA CONVEYANCE PROJECT
Water Year 2024
Water Year 2024 was an above-normal water year, meaning water supply was relatively abundant. However, the State Water Project’s portion of storage in San Luis really never rose above half of the capacity. Dr. Martin explained that an anomalous amount of steelhead was present at the pump, which constrained exports.
“Despite the abundant water supply, there were significant export constraints during the spring due to the presence of steelhead,” said Dr. Martin. “If the Delta Conveyance project had been available, DWR could have opted to turn on the tunnels in the north and export water when it was abundant and available. And this represents only a portion of the water that was available. So, in addition to being able to fill the State Water Project’s portion of the San Luis reservoir by March this past year, DWR has indicated that there would have been up to 300,000 acre-feet available for direct delivery. So if any member agency had storage available in our local supplies or in groundwater, that would have been available for use as well.”
2012-2015
The project has the ability to provide benefits even during dry times. The time series on the slide shows the hydrology from 2012 to 2015, which was among the driest times; the State Water Project had a 5% allocation in 2014.
“Even in really, really dry times, there are these flashy flows storms that come through,” said Dr. Martin. “If Delta conveyance had been online, there could have been up to almost 800,000 acre feet diverted. And certainly, we all remember that there was plenty of place to store and need for the water in our service area.”
Across all water year types
The chart shows how much extra water the project would provide across all water year types; the blue bar is the potential deliveries to Metropolitan specifically from the project.
“The project does perform better in incrementally better in above normal and below normal years, but even during wet and dry and critical years, we would expect to see an incremental improvement in deliveries made to Metropolitan,” said Dr. Martin.
DELTA CONVEYANCE PROJECT PLANNING EFFORTS
In December 2020, the Metropolitan Board was given two options: fund up to 60% of the planning costs to fill in the participation gap or fund 47.2%, an amount proportional share of the project relative to Metropolitan’s Table A amount. Metropolitan chose to participate at 47.2% of the total cost, funding $160.8 million for planning costs in 2020.
Since that point, DWR has completed the final EIR and chosen the Bethany alignment as the final project. DWR has completed multiple permit application submissions, including an Incidental Take Permit. They’ve done significant work on the biological opinions, and recently initiated the water rights change proceedings.
After 2025, DWR will need more money to complete critical pre-construction activities, so they are requesting $300 million from all potential participants. If Metropolitan participates at 47.2%, the share would be $141.6 million and fund work through 2027.
Regarding how the money would be spent, almost half of the funding requested goes to supporting engineering and geotechnical investigations. This is important, as the Bethany alignment differs from alignments that have been studied in the past. The Bethany alignment was chosen partly because it minimized impacts on Delta communities, minimized environmental impacts, and improved community benefits. So significant work is needed to refine the feasibility of the project, as well as get crucial information that will be used to update costs.
The slide below shows a map of participating State Water Project contractors. Those shown in gray on the map are non-participants. In Southern California, the green checkmarks are the agencies that have already secured approval to authorize funding for DWR to advance the planning work.
Dr. Martin acknowledged ongoing issues that must be resolved before asking for a final decision, including closing the funding gap and ongoing litigations, such as the bond validation. DWR recently submitted the Certificate of Consistency with the Delta Stewardship Council for the geotechnical work that needs to be done; they will submit a Certificate of Consistency for the entire project once all the permits have been completed. The water rights hearing for the project is set to start in January.
“All of this information that will be funded for the next coming years through the year 2027 serves as a foundation to better understand the benefits and the risks of the project,” said Dr. Martin. “It will be used to update the costs ahead of the final implementation decision in 2027.”
KEY TAKEAWAYS/NEXT STEPS
Recently, the Department of Water Resources released a report that determined through climate change modeling that within about 50 years, there could be a 22% reduction in State Water Project supplies, which is about 600,000 acre-feet.
“This is just one portion of our portfolio,” said Ms. Hawk. “We have other supplies, including the Colorado River, which is also undergoing potential declines in supplies as well. This is really valuable policy information we, Metropolitan, need to acknowledge and understand how we will plan for the future. If Delta Conveyance Project is advanced and eventually built, it could fill two-thirds of that gap, but there would still be another 200,000 acre-feet or thereabouts.”
“This is within a 50-year time period. So local investments in additional storage, conservation, demand side management, and other types of supply development will have to be looked at, not only by the state of California but even by member agencies or State Water Project contractors within their service areas to equate for the water supply reliability loss that would be had.”
Ms. Hawk concluded by noting there is additional information in the board packet, which includes:
- A technical analysis related to the Delta Conveyance Project, focusing on CalSim 3 results for 2070 climate change and sea level projections.
- Responses to director requests, details on the Final Environmental Impact Report, project objectives, and benefits.
- A summary of the total project cost, including construction costs, other program costs, and potential cost savings.
- Detailed responses to specific information requests made by directors, providing further insights and clarifications on various aspects of the project.
DISCUSSION PERIOD
Vice Chair Nancy Sutley (Los Angeles) asked when the full suite of regulatory requirements for the project will be known. When will there be a sense of certainty about what the project will deliver? It would be helpful to get a report on the status of the permits, what the effects of proposed and future regulations are, and to what extent that will impact the operations of the facility because the current system has a complicated set of requirements and actions that the agencies have to operate by depending on the conditions.
Nina Hawk, Chief of Bay-Delta Resources/Group Manager, Bay-Delta Initiatives, agreed, noting that the State Water Board permit, in particular, will have operations criteria that will affect how much can be exported from the Delta. “That is one of the more substantive permits that we would want to better understand, and that is part of the additional funding ask that will be before the board is to answer those questions and complete that information.”
Director Tim Smith (San Diego) asked about the agencies that aren’t participating. Who makes up the difference?
Ms. Hawk said the project is using a ‘beneficiary pays‘ approach, so it is predicated on the participation of the State Water Project contractors. Previous iterations of the project did include federal contractor participation; this current iteration does not.
“However, there is definitely an eye to look towards the future if others would be interested in participating outside of the current state water contractor family that do participate today in the planning so it is front and center on the administration’s to ensure the beneficiary pays approaches is adhered to. It is actually required. So we as staff will continue to reinforce that as well.”
Director Smith asked about money owed to Metropolitan from the Department of Water Resources. How does that fit into this discussion?
Ms. Hawk noted that Metropolitan is working through a protest process related to their State Water Contract. There is a process by which the State Water Contractors work with DWR to resolve those claims. Metropolitan has protested for close to $200 million. “However, it’s important to note that resolution of those typically do find their way into a middle ground where they can validate on the DWR side how much money they can actually resolve on financial matters as well, and they have to ensure they can demonstrate that to their other contractors too.”
Director Lois Fong Sakai said she appreciated the graphic (left) but would like to see this dovetail with the Camp 4 Water process. “What’s our need? I don’t know yet what our demand will be, what our gap will be, and the need for this water. I’d like to see how we will take advantage of these deliveries if we have all of the other local projects and Pure Water Southern California is implemented. So, I need to see a few more analyses of our options and the likelihood that we would actually need this water. Also, I want to know whether it would actually be available if we were to need it because 80% of the time, we would still get water under the conventional waterways as we have it now. … We have a lot of decisions to make, and the longer we delay doing these analyses, the more we risk spending our ratepayer’s money on projects that we may not have a need for or may not come to fruition.”
“I know we’re not voting on this today, but you put the chart up there, and this just kind of flags to me that that difference in that dry and dry and critical 100,000 acre-feet of water has a ten billion bill attached to it,“ said Director Martin Miller (San Diego). “And as we shell this money out to do this, when does that decision come that we’re going to pursue this? After we spend $1 billion dollars? After we spent $500 million? That’s a decision we’ve got to come to, that we’re going to back the project because we’re throwing hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Director Miller said he’s a proponent of fixing Delta levees and rebuilding the freshwater pathway. “If we rebuilt those levees, we would be assured of 80% of our water and not be at risk of a cataclysmic event.”
“Big numbers scare people, but big numbers can also indicate that projects are very beneficial,“ said Director Karl Seckel (Municipal Water District of Orange County). “Big numbers and big supplies can result in very cost-effective water supplies. So many people are nervous, and I understand it’s not a great budget situation now, but when we’re talking about the type of dollars being discussed here, think about the quantity of water that will be amortized over. So, I’m just asking for a little patience to allow the full analysis to be presented.
“The reality is the Delta is going to be problematic,“ Director Seckel continued. “It is going to have an earthquake at some point. I found the comments during the public comment period today for somebody who lives in the Delta and works on the levees to be absolutely ludicrous. I’m sorry for that, but I think they are. If you talk to any other seismologist or somebody with a geology background, they will certainly tell you a different story. So I think they did a disservice by the information they provided today.”
Regarding the freshwater pathway, Director Seckel noted that it helps during an emergency situation, but it doesn’t restore the full delivery capabilities—only a portion of them.
Director Jay LeWitt (Las Virgenes Municipal Water District) said the presentation left agriculture out. “I think a lot of people in Southern California think the only reason we have water problems is because the farmers waste water. They flood irrigate, and they’re the ones are using all the water; we can conserve, we can do if we want, but it’s really ag, so I think when we have a presentation like this, I think it’s important to tell us what ag has done, and how they’re also working to make water efficient, because it’s in their best interest to be efficient with water. They’re business people, ultimately. So I think a really important piece of this whole messaging is what the agricultural community is doing in California.”
Director Desi Alvarez (West Basin Municipal Water District) said the Delta Conveyance Project may be one solution to the water loss from climate change, but there are other solutions. “I would like to revisit what alternative ways we have to mitigate that and at what cost because the Delta Conveyance Project may be one solution, but we have other solutions. What other projects should we invest in that may make us a more self-reliant region regarding our water supply and water costs?“
Board Chair Adan Ortega pointed out that the no DCP alternative is much like what Met is getting right now, except for this year when there were pumping restrictions. “This year, I understand it was because a record number of fish were [salvaged] at Banks Pumping Plant. Then somebody thought, well, if you’re saving that many fish, you must be killing many more. So, let’s not move any water until we know for sure because we have to do this math calculation. And that’s interesting because I would say that the no-DCP alternative is probably less given the trends that we have right now and given the regulatory quagmires that we’re in. That would also translate to the with-DCP alternative, and is there any strategy that runs parallel to this that would also mitigate the regulatory quagmires?”
“When we have stakeholders here, especially those that are anti-Delta conveyance, my request is that they spare us the lectures on local projects,“ continued Chair Ortega. “I think we’ve got the message and been building local projects. We have a record amount of storage because of our dedication to local projects. I hope they don’t take up our time lecturing us about something that we do very well in Southern California. What I would like to hear from them is their math. Can they provide us with an analysis? They can suspend their beliefs and say, if we do the levee strategy they’re proposing, how much will it cost to have equal benefits to what’s being articulated with DCP? Then give us an analysis of how much they actually think we need, given that they’re saying that climate change isn’t really a factor and that seismic threats aren’t as big as we’re making them out to be. And then it gives us the basis to do a risk analysis right of what’s the risk of not doing DCP, of doing the all levee solution, and then how do we cover that risk? And then what liability would the Delta people be willing to take on to help us mitigate that risk? So I’d like to see that kind of an analysis and presentation.”
Director Martin Miller (San Diego)agreed with Chair Ortega. “If we build the DCP, how much water and percentage is coming through the tunnel, as opposed to how much water comes through the Delta?”
Ms. Hawk responded, “We did have our modeler look back in the modeling, and as it stands today, about 80% would still be going through Delta.”
“We did have a report that said that we could fix the freshwater levees for $400-700 million and that the whole project would be into the $3-5 billion range,“ said Director Miller. “This is something we can do now, not 40 years from now. The Delta Tunnels will be a long slog, and over the next 30 years, we can’t predict what the climate will do. We can’t predict what earthquakes will do, but we can do something about the levees. It’s not sending a rocket to Mars. The technology is out there to do some repairs. The reason I bring that up is something we can do over the next five to 10 years while we’re planning, designing, and getting ready to build the DCP, provided we decide we’re all going to build it. I’m not for or against the DCP, but I would sure like to protect that waterway that we have now from a catastrophic event. So I agree with the Chair. I think we should have an analysis on that and see which way we go, because we are going to spend a lot of money. If these asks keep coming, and they will, we’re going to be shelling out money every three to five years, and so we just need to be psychologically prepared for all that.“
Interim General Manager Deven Upadhyay acknowledged the importance of the Delta Conveyance Project and the planning costs Metropolitan has spent so far. He pointed out that the new schedule would have permits in hand and additional engineering and geotechnical work that would allow the administration to put together a new complete cost estimate that would then allow Metropolitan and other state water contractors to make an informed decision about what is the yield from the project and what is the cost look like compared to other alternatives.
“We’re not going to get that by December. The question before you in December is going to be, are you willing to fund the additional work to get there or not? That decision is not a go/no-go decision on the project, but if you and other contractors choose not to fund it, it will mean that the project won’t go forward. Voting yes means ‘I’d like to see the additional information,“ and I believe the administration can pull that off for us to then produce that info for you to decide on a couple of years later.”
However, Mr. Upadhyay pointed out that Metropolitan does have some leverage. “We might demand a few things as we are building up to any thought about whether we should provide this funding in that December timeframe,“ he said. “When do you know what this project would really yield? What do the permits look like? We don’t have that information now. I think we need to understand from the administration what the process is that they’d be committing to with these dollars to get with some certainty a permitted project through the Stewardship Council and through the State Board.“
Another question is how DWR will fill the funding gap. “Part of what I’m hearing from you all is there isn’t an appetite to close the gap. We need to ask the administration where they will find the additional dollars. That isn’t just for the planning, but if you do have a permitted project, at the end of this, we will have a big problem if there’s still a hole. By then, the hole is no longer tens of millions of dollars; it will be billions. So what can the administration do in these next two years to shore up a financing plan that makes sure that gap is filled to ensure that that isn’t an issue? That’s something that’s legitimate for us to require of the administration.”
The funds that could be returning to Metropolitan because of the State Water Project contract could also be leverage, said Mr. Upadhyay. “We think that we’re owed some money back. The state will ask us for a significant chunk of change for these additional planning dollars. I think you’ve got the leverage to demand that we get some of those credits back. … That might be the way that you ensure that there isn’t a near-term budget impact associated with this.”
He closed by pointing out that even if the Delta Conveyance Project goes forward, the benefits won’t be realized for ten to fifteen years. “What is the administration willing to commit to to shore up the benefits in the Delta, the reliability of the Delta in the interim? After hearing the dialog today and, quite frankly, a lot of feedback from you all building up to this, those are some things that I think represent some leverage that we have as we’re building up to the December decision … This is an iterative process that’s playing out over months, and as we hear that as staff, then we can take that and say, Listen, this isn’t an easy thing you’re asking of us.”