[0:01] All right. Calling the meeting to order for imported water, August 25, 2026. Before we begin, I'd like to check if there are any directors requesting use of alternative teleconferencing to participate in today's meeting.

[0:17] I'm if I could just state that we're calling to meeting to order at 1010 and we do have

[0:21] one director vice-chair accurement if she can please go ahead and make her statement.

[0:27] Yes, I'm joining the meeting today using just cause I'm recovering from race and surgery.

[0:33] Thank you.

[0:37] And I'm alone in the room and I was there under 18 in the room with me.

[0:42] Thank you.

[0:43] Thank you, director.

[0:44] Dr. Ackerman, hopefully you're feeling okay.

[0:48] Thank you.

[0:48] I'm feeling much better.

[0:50] Thank you.

[0:52] Thank you.

[0:53] Board office, we have any members

[0:55] and non-members participating

[0:56] via traditional teleconference.

[0:59] Yes, we have members and non-members,

[1:02] Director Alvers, Director DeJesus,

[1:04] Director Denham, Director Luit, Director Miller.

[1:09] Wow, full boat.

[1:11] All right, thank you so much for that.

[1:12] Yes.

[1:12] All right, moving along, Ms. Harms, please administer the roll call for committee membership.

[1:24] I will now call on committee members only.

[1:26] Director Ackerman.

[1:28] Here.

[1:29] Alvarez,

[1:32] Camacho.

[1:34] Cordero.

[1:35] Here.

[1:35] Crane.

[1:36] Here.

[1:37] DeJesus.

[1:38] Here.

[1:39] Denham.

[1:40] Here.

[1:41] Garza.

[1:42] Here.

[1:43] Gold.

[1:45] Kurtz.

[1:46] Here.

[1:46] Louis.

[1:47] Here.

[1:48] Miller.

[1:49] Here.

[1:51] And then I do want to state that we do have Chair Ortega for the quorum.

[1:58] Now display the roll call back to you, Chair Gold.

[2:04] All right.

[2:05] Now's an opportunity for members of the public to address the committee and matters within the committee's jurisdiction.

[2:10] Board office, is there anyone in the room that wishes to speak?

[2:13] No request for the room.

[2:15] Thank you.

[2:16] Board office, do we have members of the public on the telephone line that wish to speak?

[2:22] Yes, Chair.

[2:23] We have public commenters.

[2:24] You will have three minutes to speak.

[2:27] I will call on your area code in the last three digits

[2:29] of your telephone number or by your name is provided.

[2:32] When I call on you, please send me yourself

[2:33] and begin your comment.

[2:37] Call our area code 2, 0, 3,

[2:39] last three digits of your number, 5, 8, 4.

[2:43] Please send me yourself and begin your comment.

[2:46] Good morning.

[2:48] Good morning.

[2:49] This is Katie Wagner, Sierra Club, California.

[2:51] We submitted a letter on Friday,

[2:53] along with a number of other Southern California stakeholder organizations,

[2:57] employing you to consider the cost, lengthy time and environmental impacts of

[3:02] sites reservoir compared to a number of local projects that will bolster

[3:05] met supplies while creating more jobs and keeping those jobs local.

[3:10] Water stored inside tests to travel over 400 miles and be pumped through

[3:14] aspects that are heavily impacted by subsidence, making energy cost skyrocket,

[3:19] while also losing water to leak from the operation.

[3:23] Producing more local supply means we can store more water locally

[3:26] while also cleaning up groundwater storage.

[3:29] We list a number of projects by member agencies in the letter

[3:32] and I urge you to consider them thoughtfully.

[3:35] That's that last week that the revenue surplus was due to one-time events

[3:39] and cannot be counted on in the future.

[3:41] If the budget will continue to be unpredictable,

[3:44] then count on reliable projects close to home

[3:46] and don't waste money on future stranded assets.

[3:49] Thank you.

[3:52] Thank you, Ms. Weinman.

[3:53] Thank you, Collar.

[3:54] Next, Collar.

[3:58] Next, Collar.

[3:59] Miguel.

[4:00] Miguel.

[4:01] Please style Star Six to unmute yourself

[4:03] and begin your comments.

[4:11] Thank you, everyone.

[4:12] Good morning.

[4:12] My name is Miguel.

[4:14] Miguel, I'm the Director of Sierra Club, California,

[4:17] and it's my colleague.

[4:17] Thank you for their comment.

[4:19] I'm here today because, as we mentioned,

[4:22] submitted a letter and a comment.

[4:24] And as we received updates on multiple projects today

[4:26] including sites reservoir. I think we wanted to look at them not only as a question of water supply,

[4:33] but as a question of what kind of water future we are choosing for Southern California.

[4:37] In my work, I spend a lot of time working with communities who are constantly thinking about

[4:42] climate resilience, water reliability, and most importantly, day-to-day the affordability.

[4:48] And what I continue to see is that we have enormous needs right here in Southern California that

[4:54] we have not fully invested in, we have communities that need groundwater cleaners, we have opportunities

[5:00] Recapture and washed from water, expanded recycled water, recharging or groundwater basins, and

[5:05] build projects that reduce flooding, low-encleasing our local water supply. Those investments

[5:10] be more than produced water, they create jobs here directly. They make our communities

[5:15] more resilient to drought and climate change, they reduce their dependence from water coming

[5:19] from hundreds of miles away. And more importantly, they give us an opportunity to build the water

[5:24] systems that people can actually afford.

[5:27] That is why I'm here today to continue to urge us to have metropolitan water district seriously

[5:33] consider the effects of continuing to make major long-term investments in sites reservoir

[5:38] without first asking whether those same dollars could accomplish more for the people of

[5:42] certain California.

[5:43] Every major investment creates an opportunity cost and before committing ratepayers to additional

[5:48] costs for sites.

[5:49] I hope this committee will fully evaluate what we could accomplish by accelerating the local

[5:53] solutions already in front of us because resilience should not just mean having water available

[5:58] somewhere and should mean building a system that is reliable, locally sustainable, and affordable

[6:04] for the families who ultimately have to pay credit. Thank you. Thank you, Director.

[6:10] Thank you. Thank you. Chair, there are no other public commenters.

[6:18] Along with remain open for remote public attendance. Thank you. All right, thank you so much.

[6:23] All right, sorry, I was jumping ahead.

[6:25] We will now consider the item listed on the consent calendar under Agenda Item 2A, which

[6:30] is approval of the minutes of the subcommittee on imported water for July 28, 2026 on

[6:36] can someone make a motion in a second to approve the item?

[6:39] A check-out before we proceed if we can just like to state that the public comment is now closed.

[6:44] Oh, I'm sorry.

[6:45] Okay.

[6:45] Thank you.

[6:46] I'm really trying to rush this.

[6:48] Sorry about that.

[6:49] All right.

[6:50] Okay.

[6:50] We have Director Crane on made the motion, is there a second?

[6:56] Okay, and thank you, Director Camacho, for the second.

[7:01] Please administer the vote.

[7:03] Thank you, Chair Gold.

[7:04] I have a motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director Camacho for item 2A.

[7:10] I will be calling on committee members only for the vote.

[7:13] Director Ackerman?

[7:14] Yes.

[7:15] Alvarez?

[7:16] Yes.

[7:17] Dr. Accomend if you could state if you're alone in the room, please. I'm sorry. I'm alone in the room. There's no one under 18 in the room over 18

[7:25] No one under okay. Thank you

[7:36] Alvarez

[7:40] Camacho

[7:43] Cordero. Yes, Crane

[7:46] Jay Jesus. Yes, Denham. Yes, Garza. Hi, Gold. Yes, Kurtz. Yes, Louis. Yes, no

[7:59] The vote passed.

[8:01] We will now...

[8:03] Go ahead, sir.

[8:04] Your vote, please.

[8:06] Yes or no?

[8:06] Yes.

[8:06] Thank you.

[8:07] Yes.

[8:07] And Director Alvers had stated your vote if you could restate, please, before I interrupted.

[8:12] Yes.

[8:13] Thank you.

[8:15] The vote passed.

[8:17] We will now display the vote back to you, Chair Gold.

[8:20] All right.

[8:21] Thank you so much.

[8:22] So as everybody knows, we have a really full agenda today.

[8:27] And that's changed pretty dramatically because of the events of the last few days on the Colorado.

[8:36] But these are pretty important issues up front that we're going to get presentations on.

[8:42] And so the first item is an update on Northern Sierra watershed activities.

[8:48] Mr. Bernarski.

[8:50] Yeah, thank you, Chair Gold. Good morning, everybody. For item 3A, Jennifer Neville is our

[8:55] program manager within the Bay Delta Group and everybody knows Jen. She's done a great

[9:00] job working up in our watersheds and she's going to give us an update today on the work that

[9:04] she's been doing. Also talking about efforts to develop a business case that will lay the

[9:10] ground for future board actions in this area. And then also talk about our continued activities

[9:15] to support collaborative relationship building up in the watershed, so Jen, take it away, thank you.

[9:21] All right. Thank you, Chair Gold, members of the subcommittee. This is item 3A, an update on Northern Sea Watershed activities.

[9:32] Okay. So as John mentioned, my report today will cover Northern Sea Watershed updates since my last presentation at one water and adaptation committee in May.

[9:42] This will include updates on the progress of our three pilot investigations, the associated

[9:49] business case development, and the collaborative and relationship building efforts we've been engaged in.

[10:00] So first, a few quick updates on the progress of our pilot investigations.

[10:05] Just a little bit of background as a reminder. So in September 2024, your board authorized the general manager to enter into agreements for three pilot investigations to evaluate the potential benefits to metropolitan of restoring and protecting watershed health in key Northern Sierra watersheds. These pilot investigations are facilitated

[10:29] targeted by our long-term non-profit partner,

[10:33] through Forest, through what's called a Forest Resilience Bond.

[10:37] And this is really a conservation financing mechanism

[10:41] or then what you would think of as a traditional bond.

[10:45] And then those projects are implemented

[10:47] by local partners and the national forests.

[10:51] And so they do the permitting and the actual work on the ground.

[10:55] And each pilot also includes a number of additional funding

[10:59] partners and funding sources in addition to metropolitan contributions.

[11:07] Okay, so in terms of updates, I'll start with the North Feather One Forest Resilience Fund.

[11:14] So the Sierra Institute, the implementing partner on that project conducted site prep

[11:18] and land owner outreach this spring and summer, in preparation for work to ramp up again

[11:23] this fall. Wildfire risk reduction treatments are set to begin in the next few

[11:30] weeks on key private lands in the Genesee Valley, which is in the Feather River

[11:35] watershed. Whoops, getting ahead of myself. Got that from Director Gold.

[11:45] Alright, so

[11:47] next is the Plumas Community Protection 1, Forest Resilience Bond. Wildfire

[11:52] risk reduction treatments related to this project are ongoing.

[11:57] The National Forest Foundation, who is the implementer on this project, is preparing

[12:02] contracts for additional implementation work to be completed this summer and fall.

[12:08] And finally, I did it again.

[12:12] And the Upper Butte Creek One Forest Resilience Bond, Butte County Resource Conservation

[12:19] District, the implementation agency on this project utilized forest resilience bond funds to conduct

[12:28] California spotted owl surveys and complete site prep and layout work in preparation for

[12:34] implementation to start this fall and that work would not have happened without this mechanism in

[12:40] place. So that's exactly what we're looking for with these investments. All right, so moving on to

[12:48] potential benefits and business case development. This is a key focus of staff's work activities

[12:54] right now.

[12:57] So I presented this table in my May update. Essentially it shows where areas

[13:03] of potential benefit may be evaluated in terms of the camp for water, evaluative criteria.

[13:09] As we discussed in May we anticipate that some of these benefits will be sort of quantifiable

[13:16] and monetizable, so we'll be quantifiable and some will be qualitative.

[13:21] So I wanted to quickly highlight two areas where we are doing additional analysis to

[13:27] quantify benefits that could then be monetized and to support that business casal timely.

[13:32] So those are water supply and reduced sediment and debris flows.

[13:37] Essentially, right now we're working to feed blue forest modeling on the restoration into

[13:44] to look at how full-scale implementation of these projects would affect the upper watershed reservoirs above Warville.

[13:54] So then, calcium is able to translate those changes down to how they impact metropolitan in terms of water supply reliability on the state water projects,

[14:05] which we could then assign that change, some kind of monetary value, too.

[14:08] So that will be sort of the basis of our monetizable business case with obviously a lot of other benefits that come along with that investment.

[14:18] So more to come on this front, but again this is an area of active development on our part.

[14:28] Next up is relationship building and collaboration.

[14:34] So our relationship building and collaboration efforts remain focused on the upper feather watershed.

[14:40] We continue to work closely with Booth Forest and our pilot investigation partners, as I noted earlier.

[14:47] And we continue to cultivate relationships with upper feather regional water management group leaders

[14:53] through the watershed framework process.

[14:56] And support of these efforts, we are planning a communications focus.

[15:00] Local staff trip in mid-September. And in addition, we are now supporting your board's State

[15:07] Water Project inspection trips with a new option for an upper watershed presentation at Lake

[15:12] Orville. So that's a new option for all of you.

[15:20] We are also working to explore other partnerships

[15:22] and develop other strategic connections. These include seeking out ways to collaborate with

[15:28] aqua as well as the State Water Contractors Association and the individual contractor agencies.

[15:36] We are participating in the aqua headwaters working group and looking for ways that metropolitan can

[15:45] engage in the state's wildfire and forest resilience task force process.

[15:52] And then there are some upcoming opportunities to connect more formally with other Western

[15:58] water professionals that are working in this space.

[16:03] So hoping to do that as well.

[16:05] So at this point, staff is really working to balance sort of seeing a prize of current

[16:10] events and developing strategic relationships with not getting out ahead of the business

[16:16] case in any future board decisions.

[16:19] in

[16:23] terms of next steps we're currently working to develop those business

[16:27] case analyses that I talked about. This information would be used to help inform a

[16:34] draft recommendation for your board's consideration and we're hoping to start

[16:38] that process. The process of bringing that forward early next year. We continue to

[16:45] look for opportunities to support the involvement of additional beneficiary

[16:49] partners, and we look to continue work on those relationship building and collaboration

[16:56] efforts.

[17:00] So, that concludes my update, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

[17:05] Thank you so much for that presentation.

[17:08] Any questions?

[17:10] Of course.

[17:10] Terrible to go.

[17:11] Thank you.

[17:13] So, in my time, it metropolitan, this is one of the more, I think, constructive things that

[17:21] It's new that metropolitan has been involved in.

[17:25] It really opens the dialogue to the benefit for both the public and for the regions involved

[17:37] for where our water really comes from.

[17:40] Water doesn't come from the Delta.

[17:42] I think there's a misimpression that it does, primarily promoted by us.

[17:47] You look at the inspection trip program.

[17:52] I'm still dissatisfied. I don't think that having a presentation about the Northern watershed is as effective as what we would do anywhere else.

[18:02] We just got done with the presentation. We do a lower Colorado River tour.

[18:08] And so why the obstacle in being able to expand our trip options so that there's some option where you physically go up there not to steer a lecture is something that I guess I'll leave unsatisfied with.

[18:23] But there's other organizations that we encountered over there that I don't understand the roles of. For example, there's a group called the Water Solutions Network.

[18:31] work. They recently invited me to a tour of our own service area with people from Northern

[18:37] California. And it'd be interesting I know that they did facilitate a couple of discussions

[18:43] we had during the trips that I took there, and they're not on this list. And then the

[18:48] other group I think that's been very active here. They were here last week. They did a forum

[18:55] that I was invited to speak at at the end of Urban Water Institute on fire resiliency

[19:01] and emergency management and that's the Mountain Counties Association and I don't see

[19:06] them on this list either.

[19:08] And is that because they overlap with others or I just don't understand what their role

[19:13] is because you know I found it interesting to be invited by a group that I encountered

[19:19] for two of our own service area after we were supposed to do one in January that included

[19:24] them. They ended up not going forward because we got our wires crossed, I guess, during the holidays.

[19:32] So, you know, thank you.

[19:36] Yeah, so we are working with the Watershed Solutions Network, so they

[19:40] are facilitating the Watershed framework test drive that I talked about. So that's to connect

[19:46] all of Southern California and not just metropolitan with folks, leaders in the upper feather. So that

[19:53] is an ongoing process. In terms of the mountain counties, we've been involved with them.

[20:00] Here and there. I mean, that's a great suggestion. I think, you know, again, sort of trying to balance operating under this general direction in terms of paid off to policies and the board's approval of pilot investigations, but not getting ahead of a future board decision. So navigating that space still, but yeah, things like that. Yeah, so when I hear those kind of comments, it means we haven't provided some clear

[20:29] direction. And I noticed that in our review of the Delta Policies last week, it's called

[20:35] the Delta Policies. And this area of focus gets buried within those policies. And my hope

[20:43] is that this committee might be able to elevate them to a more prominent and how can I say

[20:53] separate set of policies that ultimately will interact with the Delta just like everything

[20:58] being south of the Delta interacts with the Delta.

[21:01] But I think we need to have a more honest conversation about where water comes from, what impacts

[21:07] that water, how it traverses areas that impair it, and the challenges that we have south of

[21:17] the Delta like the subsidence issues.

[21:20] So I hope this committee can move forward with some policy principles that give very clear

[21:26] direction to the staff about both its priority and you know give them license to work broadly

[21:34] with the communities there.

[21:36] Thank you.

[21:37] Yeah, thank you for your comments.

[21:39] I would just remind everybody that the context of this presentation really is that bigger

[21:48] picture of how do you build resilience in our northern water supply, especially at a time

[21:54] when we're seeing the vulnerability on the Colorado River on Cumpi any worse.

[22:01] And so we talk about resiliency, always from the standpoint of these larger projects,

[22:08] from the standpoint of looking at sites, which will be the next item, or talking about

[22:14] the DCP, but from the standpoint of, what do we need to do overall to build resiliency

[22:21] see now, and for the years into the future before those projects get constructed, if

[22:27] they get constructed, is something that we need to do and is really one of the reasons

[22:33] why this committee was created.

[22:36] And so hopefully we'll start doing some of that as early as October, as I think what I was

[22:42] asking for to try to get us moving in the direction of not just getting presentations, but

[22:49] actually having discussions on what those policies can be moving forward a lot of different

[22:54] topics.

[22:55] Obviously fit into that from subsidence to the levees to obviously this is great work on watershed

[23:02] management that's incredibly innovative getting quantification on that would be really,

[23:07] really helpful and sounds like we're going to get some of that early next year which I

[23:11] look forward to.

[23:13] So with that, you know, I think it's a really important presentation leading us, leading us down that to have that discussion.

[23:21] Are there any other comments before we move on to the next item or questions?

[23:27] All right. Thank you so much.

[23:31] All right. So the next item with that segue is the update on the Sites Reservoir Project. Mr. Renarski.

[23:38] Yeah, thank you. So it's been a little while since we've talked to this committee or to the board about sites reservoir

[23:43] But the time is ripe to give an update on on the progress that the project has made itself and some of the permitting issues that

[23:51] They're kind of working through so Randall Newdeck is the manager of Bay Delta programs. He's kind of our lead person on

[23:59] Everything to do with sites reservoir. We last updated

[24:04] You on this project last fall when Jerry Brown, the executive director for the Sites Resort Project, came down and talked to all of you and prior to that, we got a presentation on the most recent cost estimate for the project.

[24:16] So Randall's going to bring us up to date on all things sites today. So Randall, take it away.

[24:20] Okay.

[24:21] Thanks, Sean.

[24:22] Chair Gold.

[24:25] Let's start with today's discussion.

[24:28] We're just going to give a quick overview of the site's reservoir.

[24:31] Give a status to some of the key contracts that were released in 24, 25, and 26.

[24:41] Status update on the draft, state board, water rights permit.

[24:46] And then kind of a schedule of when we are planning to come back to the board or the next tier

[24:51] and early 2027. So many of you have seen this slide before.

[24:58] or science is located-

[25:00] We've got an hour north of Sacramento in the foothills. It is currently planned for a 1.5 million acre-foot project. If implemented, be the largest environmental storage project in California with about 244,000 acre-feet dedicated to that purpose. It does have broad state-wide support. You can see areas of the Bay Area,

[25:25] San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, and the Sacramento Valley here representing participants in the program as well as state and federal agencies.

[25:38] If I break down that 1.5 million acre foot from a planning purpose, metropolitan share would be 311,700 acre feet or about 22% of the reservoir.

[25:52] or north of Delta participants would be about 19%.

[25:57] South of Delta, including metropolitan, would be about 54%

[26:02] and the Bureau of Reclamation and the state of California combined

[26:06] would be about 26%.

[26:10] So over the last two or three years, there's been some key,

[26:16] well one that's already approved and one that's in the process contracts.

[26:22] The first one is a Reservoir and Roads construction manager at RIS, some of you may hear it

[26:29] referred to as CMAR contract.

[26:31] This was awarded in January of 2026 to Barnard Construction.

[26:37] They are going to be performing pre-construction planning and design integration.

[26:43] So their initial contract is limited to $1 million.

[26:46] dollars, they've also negotiated a project labor agreement with a number of the unions out

[26:53] there as well. The second contract, which is targeted for approval by the Sensitivity

[26:59] Board in early 2027, would be another CMAR construction manager at risk contract, but for

[27:07] conveyance and pipelines. Right now, they've released or the applicants have submitted

[27:15] the statements of qualifications and they're looking at those and requests for

[27:22] proposals are scheduled for later on in the fall. Metropolitan staff engineering

[27:28] staff is involved in this as well and then there's two other legal services

[27:33] contracts for civil works and environmental mitigation. Those contracts are under

[27:39] of $500,000.

[27:42] So on the state board permit process, the draft would they call AHO, or administrative

[27:48] hearing officer, draft permit was released in March of 2026.

[27:55] Metropolitan submitted an individual comment letter, as well as working with other member

[28:00] H.C.

[28:01] state contractors in South of Delta participants on joint comments as well.

[28:07] So there's some key issues we added to that letter.

[28:13] The first one was additional operational constraints.

[28:18] The draft permit imposes new constraints such as 55% unimpaired by-plast flow, some

[28:26] new pulse flows, and we believe these lacks some of the scientific backing that we put in

[28:32] we and the size authority put in their application.

[28:37] Note these additional restrictions are an addition to what was already released in the 2024

[28:47] incidental take permit by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

[28:51] life. There are some additional terms in there that say we the site's authority negatively

[29:03] impacts south of Delta water levels. We do not believe that is true and we argue in our

[29:10] comments with regard to that. And there's some additional legal due process issues as well.

[29:18] So the current schedule, again, the March 2026 was, this initial draft was released.

[29:24] The state board had a few, one hearing to look at the modeling impacts of that.

[29:31] In September 3rd, I believe, is there going to revise, or submit,

[29:36] excuse me, release a revised draft.

[29:39] After that, there'll be a 30-day comment period.

[29:42] In addition to, after the comment period, the State Department of Water Resources will

[29:48] be doing additional modeling on the impacts, those impacts will then go to the California

[29:53] Department of Fish and Wildlife to look at how those impacts affect fisheries.

[30:00] And then from there, it'll go into the California Water Commission to revise the Prop 1 funding award based on the fishery benefits and the other public benefits. The current schedule right now by the state is to have a final water rights permit by November, early November of this year. So this is a tentative timeline to bring back to your board updates on the project.

[30:27] obviously today August 2026. In the fall, we're going to bring back operational water supply,

[30:34] and other permitting issues. In the winter of 2027, and probably early, this should say winter of

[30:45] 2026 and early 2027, we'll bring you back funding and authorization, funding information and the

[30:54] funding agreements and an info board letter and then in the spring this would be the current

[31:03] schedules to have the investors, all of the investors either commit to the project or commit

[31:11] to a portion of the project by spring of 2027.

[31:17] Mr. Chair, that's all I have at this point.

[31:19] Thank

[31:29] you for the update on the question on the comments on the water rights,

[31:35] Jeff Water Rights permit to any of these issues have a material impact on how sites would

[31:42] be operated from that perspective and materially affect moving water or the share of volumes

[31:52] or whatever.

[31:53] The way I'm going to answer that two ways, one is each individual participant will move

[31:59] water differently, some will hold water for drought years, some will move it on an

[32:04] annual basis.

[32:06] The permits, the permit terms could have a material impact on those yields of the project,

[32:13] depending on that.

[32:15] From a staff standpoint, we're still analyzing that, but from an overall standpoint, yes,

[32:20] that, especially the 55% unimpaired flow could have a material impact on the yield of the project.

[32:27] Okay, so by the time you would come back for the funding authorization, we'll know what those impacts are.

[32:36] Correct. We will have a way before then. We'll have something in September, October, knowing the impacts, yes.

[32:45] Okay, thank you.

[32:45] Thank you for asking that.

[32:48] That was my question exactly in the reason that Director

[32:53] Vice Chair Ackerman and I put that on the agenda was that question exactly.

[32:58] So thank you for asking that.

[33:00] Now there were estimates that were in the newspaper that were pretty scary on

[33:05] and do you have any comments on that on what the reductions would be?

[33:11] You think those were just people just jumping ahead of it and

[33:14] and being alarmist or that's where this came to my attention to be in one.

[33:19] Now, some of those estimates in the paper were some of the initial modeling that was done on the impacts of the project.

[33:26] Like I said, depending on when you take the water and how you release it into your system, you could have much different impacts.

[33:35] For example, if you keep the water for a dry year, some of those impacts would not happen.

[33:40] And if you took it on every year basis,

[33:43] some of those impacts would happen.

[33:45] So we're still analyzing that.

[33:48] And we expect there'll be changes

[33:50] in the upcoming revised document as well.

[33:54] And we'd like to provide that to you

[33:56] as it comes along in September.

[33:59] After the September 3rd release of that document.

[34:03] All right, thank you.

[34:03] So it means we'll be having probably

[34:07] for the foreseeable future,

[34:08] maybe till the end of the year, maybe monthly updates, even if it's a short item in this

[34:14] committee.

[34:14] So that sounds good.

[34:16] Director, I'm sorry, Chair Ortega.

[34:18] Thank you.

[34:19] Chair.

[34:20] So, first of the affordability question, I think there's a mismatch when we insert affordability

[34:28] into decisions like site's reservoir and infrastructure.

[34:32] structure. I think consumer affordability and the economic feasibility of projects are

[34:38] two different things. And they shouldn't be conflated. I mean, we sell tier one water,

[34:45] those that have tiered great structures for about a penny a gallon at the higher end. And

[34:50] the other tiers are meant to discourage waste. So saying that it's unaffordable is like

[34:59] let's say

[35:00] I mean, that wasting water should be cheap, and I think we all would disagree with that. Economic feasibility is a whole different thing because that test financing it accounts for risk and a lot of other things that need to be incorporated when agencies like ours have to make decisions about building large infrastructure. And one of the things I've been saying, and I was hoping that maybe this committee could agree by consensus,

[35:29] this as direction to the staff, is that we should look into mitigating the risks involved

[35:36] I think by Sir Sutley talks about the uncertainty of what future water boards, state water boards

[35:43] might do with, for example, the transfer window, so that we might be able to improve and mitigate

[35:51] any risks associated with this project by looking at which member agencies might be willing

[35:58] to invest in a portion of the 300,000 plus acre fee that metropolitan has subscribed to.

[36:06] The feasibility of providing freewheeling, it would be free if they bought our water.

[36:13] It's already subscribed or being subscribed.

[36:17] And then in order to manage the risk of the transfer windows changing, providing them the

[36:24] opportunity to sell that water to other member agencies for whom the change transfer window

[36:29] might work.

[36:32] And so that's, you know, something that I hope can at least be explored as we're looking

[36:38] at, you know, the financing portion of this project and how to mitigate the risk.

[36:43] I know the project is very popular with our member agencies and or some member agencies.

[36:49] And I would hope to see them step up and I think some of the submember agencies as well might benefit by working through their member agencies to be able to buy into a portion of this supply.

[37:05] And so I hope that a member of this committee might request whether there's consensus by this committee that staff be directed at looking at that option.

[37:15] This

[37:20] is the part that always confuses me, you have to admit, you know, because I always

[37:25] feel like, okay, we have a discussion, we're pretty clear that, you know, these are common

[37:29] sense things that we want to move forward on in our part of the review, and then sometimes

[37:33] they're not part of the review.

[37:35] And so, I'll do that, I have not really done that much in this committee.

[37:40] Is there general consensus on, in what Chair Ortega saying that is a reasonable ask to be part

[37:47] of that review?

[37:47] or any objection.

[37:49] Or any objection?

[37:51] Anybody?

[37:53] Seeing none.

[37:54] Okay.

[37:54] Thanks.

[37:54] And then I have one more question.

[37:56] There had been an issue with respect to out-of-state contractors being contracted to do this work.

[38:04] Has that been resolved already, Mr. Nuda?

[38:07] Mr. Bidenersky.

[38:09] Yeah, Randall's probably the better person to answer this, but I believe it has.

[38:12] a lot of that discussion came up in regards to the negotiation of the project labor agreement

[38:19] for that. They have successfully negotiated that with the labor unions, the one union

[38:26] that was not interested in participating in the negotiations is not part of that project

[38:30] labor agreement. I think Randall maybe you can confirm that some of that controversy over

[38:37] the contractor has died down now in moving ahead. They do have a $1 million contract

[38:42] back to this point that they're working on to write.

[38:45] They do have a $1 million contract, the Project Labor Agreement was signed by the State Building of Trades Council.

[38:54] That represents 150 unions.

[38:58] And as John said, the one union that did not sign was the Carpenters, nor State Carpenters Union.

[39:05] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Newdack, for your presentation.

[39:08] Please get to see.

[39:08] Director Curse.

[39:13] Shins much more specific to one part of this and that's the water that the state of California is purchasing.

[39:20] And I guess I will state what I was told and then ask if I'm understanding this correctly because it's a new way for the state to operate if I am.

[39:29] So they don't have a lot of water, they want to increase it, they want to buy a little bit

[39:35] more as what I was told, but that this water, that the state owns would be used for the

[39:40] highest priority of environmental and dish purposes, which would mean that they would go

[39:46] there first before they cut water to water agencies when they tell us how much water we will

[39:54] be getting from Auroville. That was awkwardly said, but hopefully it was unequal.

[40:00] Is that what's going on? Is it that new for the state to actually purchase water, then just take it off our allocation at the top? Yeah, Randall, do you want to speak to that? Dr. Kurt, so that's pretty much pretty much true. This would be used. This is not used for to mitigate any impacts caused by the project or requirement water, environmental requirements required. I say projects either side spreads or central valid project or

[40:29] state water project. So it's in addition to that, yes, if in event of a large drought,

[40:35] this water could be used to, we'd be the first taken. Or even during a regular period

[40:41] of the state federal agencies, state agencies that would be state water, excuse me, felt

[40:47] that the water should be put out for whatever reason, cold water, pool for salmon or whatever.

[40:54] They could utilize this water for that period.

[40:56] If there's a new way that the state's looking at their obligation for environmental and

[41:01] fish purposes, or have they done this before?

[41:05] Do they own other water that?

[41:08] I would say this is a new way for California because the California passed Proposition 1 that

[41:16] included funding for this type of effort in there.

[41:20] So the answer is yes.

[41:23] So

[41:27] just a comment on that.

[41:32] So the state is paying to create this water

[41:35] that then they will be using for environmental purposes.

[41:40] So it doesn't affect the allocations.

[41:43] They're creating the water along

[41:46] with the other participants in sites and then using it.

[41:53] All right. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Thank you so much.

[42:00] All right. So the next, yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't see sorry director Daniels.

[42:10] Sorry about that. I'm not a member of the committee. So I just have a quick question and I appreciate the opportunity to do that.

[42:15] My question was about finances and I know that wasn't part of your prepared presentation. So it may not be fair to ask now.

[42:21] but I was curious, Randall, you and I connected on this about 10 years ago when I was in the

[42:27] California water commission and nice to see you again. How was this project doing relative

[42:34] to its projected costs about 10 years ago? And where are we in terms of expenditures and what do

[42:42] you expect is going to happen with the prop one reallocate? Yeah, that's a great question.

[42:47] And the price has moved around significantly over the last few years.

[42:53] About five years ago was $5 billion, excuse me, we went through a value planning phase

[43:01] where we reduced the cost by a million.

[43:05] Currently it is up at a 6.2 to 6.8 construction, what they feel is a construction cost.

[43:12] And they say it's $7.5 billion governance.

[43:15] Now, the governance cost includes both the usual escalation causes, causes depending

[43:25] where you are as far as the cost estimate and then additional on top of that.

[43:31] We did about a year ago, metropolitan's engineering group compared this to Diamond Valley Reservoir.

[43:39] It was fairly consistent when you escalated all the costs and the different sizes of reservoirs.

[43:45] We haven't done that in the last year or so, so I can't guarantee you this is the same as Diamond Valley, which will probably do that again.

[43:56] But, you know, these reservoirs cost a lot of money.

[44:00] It's a fairly simple reservoir. It's not a big design res, you know, from a construction standpoint, but it does cost money.

[44:09] And we will you will start seeing those costs are in twenty twenty four dollars.

[44:14] So if we bring them up to twenty twenty six, you're going to see about a four to percent increase each year.

[44:19] So you could add on another eight percent if you want to bring it up to twenty twenty six.

[44:24] And then depending on when the project gets if and when the project gets eventually discussed at the board level.

[44:36] Thank you.

[44:37] All right. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the next item, which is the report on the Delta

[44:45] Convince Design and Construction Authority meeting on Director Garza. Thank you chair for the

[44:51] opportunity. So this is an update on the Delta Convince Design and Construction Authority Board

[44:56] of Directors Meeting that took place on last week on August 20th.

[45:00] In attending that, we're Director Pauli and myself in person, Sacramento. I have five items to report to you on this morning. They have to do with a services agreement that was agreed to by the board. Community benefits agreements, communications, updates from the Department of Water Resources on their efforts, and that's been at least a board reorganization. On the services agreement, the DCA Board approved a five-year, not to exceed 200

[45:30] and $5.7 million agreement with AECOM for programmatic geotechnical and field services work,

[45:38] field work services.

[45:39] The contract will be managed through task orders and annual appropriations.

[45:45] On community benefits agreements, our staff should have an update on the community benefits

[45:51] plan and current community benefits agreements.

[45:54] So far, seven community benefits agreements have been signed with two more in progress.

[46:01] These agreements support projects such as agricultural education, sandhill-crain conservation,

[46:07] support, environmental literacy, and improvements to our supply and emergency response infrastructure.

[46:14] These agreements are contingent on the project moving forward.

[46:19] Moving on to communications.

[46:20] The communications manager noted that the executive director,

[46:23] Graham Bradner, was recently featured on the California Insider

[46:27] podcast where he highlighted the purpose, approach, and benefits

[46:31] of the Delta Convince Project to a statewide audience.

[46:35] Regarding updates from the Department of Water Resources,

[46:38] the DWR Environmental Program Manager provided an update on the

[46:42] water rights proceedings, the Delta Plan Consistency,

[46:46] and the studies and data collection required under the sequel

[46:49] mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and the CSI incidental take permits. DWR is developing

[46:56] the tracking systems and plans needed to monitor and implement these requirements. The DC Executive

[47:04] Director noted that the additional costs and timing of these requirements will be incorporated

[47:08] into the next overall schedule and budget and that was something that I personally asked regarding

[47:13] the timing. I want to make sure that we're all in lockstep in terms of how these requirements

[47:18] in tip back the timing of the project.

[47:20] And then last but not least on the board reorganization,

[47:26] the Office of Vice President will be nominated

[47:28] and appointed at the next DCA meeting October 15, 2026

[47:34] during the consideration of that office,

[47:37] there's a bill that will rate the duration.

[47:41] And so we'll ensure that we get that squared away

[47:45] for the October 15 meeting.

[47:48] Director Adnan Avanotawi representing the Mojave Water Agency was unanimously appointed

[47:54] as a DCA Secretary for the next year's term.

[47:58] Metropolitan's Katana Kasain was reappointed as DCA Treasurer for the next term, and last

[48:04] but not least, I myself was appointed by a unanimous vote as a DCA Board Chair to serve as a

[48:11] the DCA Board President for the fiscal year's 2627 and 2728.

[48:17] And that concludes my report.

[48:22] That concludes my report, Chair.

[48:23] Thank you.

[48:25] Thank you.

[48:26] And congratulations, or condolences, or whatever.

[48:30] The right.

[48:32] Yeah.

[48:33] I think the best thing to come out of the Delta conveyance project

[48:37] is the Delta conveyance, the Delta Construction Authority

[48:41] and the Finance Authority.

[48:42] Because whatever happens, it's a model

[48:45] that ought to remain representing those that actually pay for the project or that will

[48:51] be paying for the project.

[48:52] So I hope that whatever the fate of the current iteration of the Delta Convince project

[48:57] is at the end of the current governor's administration that this is an entity that would remain for

[49:04] whatever comes next.

[49:05] Thanks.

[49:07] Thank you, Chair.

[49:08] All right. Next up, report on development in post-2026 guidelines. Mr. Hiss again. Oh,

[49:18] John, this one, I'm sorry. I knew it was Colorado River Board meeting. My bad. Doing it again.

[49:23] All right. Director Kamacho, please give us the update on the Colorado River Board meeting.

[49:30] Yeah, I think I was. I was.

[49:32] Oh, it's okay. Thanks. So, Director Cordero.

[49:34] Thank you very much.

[49:37] We had our meeting on August 12th in Claremont.

[49:40] It was not a lengthy meeting.

[49:41] There were two items that were discussed at that meeting.

[49:45] One was the California water plan.

[49:47] And the second was the Glen Canyon Dam and a provision that's been added.

[49:51] It causes a little bit of concern.

[49:54] Nancy Vogel was there from the Department of Water Resources and she was representing DWR.

[50:00] And gave us a presentation explaining that the state of California will now be moving on their process to update the Department of Water Resources California Water Plan. State law requires that this be done every five years, which is the year now. And that last year, the legislature added a new requirement that requires DWR to develop strategies to address anticipated losses in the statewide supplies of 10%.

[50:29] So this is a new provision, which is about up to 9 million acre feet.

[50:33] And this is due obviously to the changing climate conditions in our state.

[50:39] DWR's 2028 update will specifically address conditions in the South Coast region that we represent.

[50:46] She also encouraged the board, the Colorado River Board and its member agencies to become engaged in the water plan process.

[50:54] And I understand that we are already doing that.

[50:56] Correct?

[50:58] The second item was Glen Canyon Dam and our Chair, J.V. Hamby, engaged our board in a discussion of the final EIS for post-2026 guidelines.

[51:10] There was expressed concerns about a provision that was added to avoid using Glen Canyon Dam bypass tunnels by reducing releases from Lake Powell to as low as 5 million acre feet a year.

[51:24] If this goes through, these provisions would keep water stored in Powell, that could otherwise

[51:29] be released for the lower basin and Mexico.

[51:33] Our Executive Director, Jessica Newworth, noted that this appears to be an internal policy.

[51:39] It's not a requirement by the federal legal obligation, but it is a policy that they've adopted.

[51:45] And she's asked that we ask that the Board of the Colorado River Board engage in a discussion

[51:51] to look at adopting a clear position that addresses this issue and directs our staff to prepare appropriate documents for our board's consideration.

[52:01] And that concludes my report. Thank you.

[52:05] Thank you so much, Director Cordero. Any questions for her?

[52:10] I know we'll be talking a lot about Colorado in a minute.

[52:13] Okay. I'm not seeing anybody. All right. Thank you.

[52:15] Thank you.

[52:16] All right.

[52:16] So now, report on development in post-26 guidelines on Mr. Haysingham.

[52:22] Thank you.

[52:23] Before we get to that report, ten years ago, the lead council for Colorado River items

[52:29] at Metropolitan Retired after a storied career.

[52:34] He came back to Metville a few years ago to help us out on the MSCP Colorado River items

[52:41] in general, the legal department, and probably most importantly, director Cordero with her role

[52:49] in the Colorado River Board. But today he decided he's retiring again, and this is his last board

[52:57] meeting, so I'd like to recognize Joe Vanderhorst for thank you for your storied career decades, decades of

[53:07] work and your legacy will be left behind and best of luck in your future endeavors.

[53:16] Over the weekend, the last week we've had some key documents come out on Friday, both

[53:22] the two-year operating guidelines and the record of decision and we have our Colorado River

[53:30] Policy Manager who quickly reviewed those documents and is here to talk about them today.

[53:35] Thank you.

[53:40] Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as Bill noted on Friday, the

[53:44] Interior Department issued

[53:52] the final agency actions and the post-2026 Record of Decision,

[53:58] the operating guidelines for 2027 and 2028.

[54:02] The road does not prescribe an operating regime for the next decade.

[54:08] It creates a framework for shorter term decisions.

[54:12] The two-year guidelines are the first of those decisions and they contain the rules that

[54:17] will actually govern like Pell and Lake Mead operations and I will focus on the interior

[54:22] department, what they've decided and what those decisions mean for the lower basin and

[54:28] for much pollutant supply.

[54:33] The decisions arrive under the worst system conditions in modern operating record.

[54:38] The Basin has experienced 26 years drought, combined storage, and pal in need is at the lowest

[54:45] since pal's initial filling, and this winter produced a record low snowpack.

[54:50] Since 2021, reclamation has already taken extraordinary actions, including reduced releases

[54:58] This is from Glen Canyon Dam.

[55:00] Additional releases from upstream reservoirs to preserve basic operating capability. This is not a planning exercise for the just distant risk. The new rules are beginning with both reservoirs already under substantial stress.

[55:17] The existing framework also reaches the end of the, pardon me, the existing framework also reaches the end of its term this year, the 2007 interim guidelines, the drought contingency plan,

[55:30] and the key by national agreements have supplied much of the operating structure that we have relied on.

[55:37] New reservoir operations in Powell begin October 1 and interior therefore had to act even though the seven states did not reach consensus on a long term alternative.

[55:54] This timeline is familiar.

[55:56] The formal NEPA process began in 2023, followed by the draft EIS and the final EIS in July and Friday the record of decision.

[56:05] The significant point is where the process ended, interior adopted the decision framework

[56:11] after the states were unable to agree on a base and wide operating proposal.

[56:17] The record of decision establishes four principles for each of the operating guidelines that

[56:23] will be adopted within the 10-year framework.

[56:26] Operations are to respond to actual hydrology.

[56:29] Protection of critical infrastructure at the dams comes first.

[56:33] The guidelines are intended to implement the 1970 long-range operating criteria while

[56:40] allowing temporary action and extraordinary circumstances.

[56:44] An interior will give priority to consensus recommendations when they emerge.

[56:49] The last point preserves a path for the states to reach consensus agreement that may be adopted

[56:55] if the recommendation is consistent with applicable law and the framework.

[57:00] In practical terms, the record of decision settles the architecture, but it deliberately

[57:05] leaves many consequential operating choices to each two-year decision.

[57:14] These elevations explain much of the operational design.

[57:17] A Powell, the guidelines seek to maintain elevation 3,510 as the working target with 3,500 feet

[57:26] as the critical reservation threshold.

[57:29] below 3490 releases can only pass through the river outlet works.

[57:35] At Mead 950 is critical infrastructure elevation from metropolitan.

[57:40] The important band is when Mead is between 1025 and 1000 feet.

[57:46] That is where ICS delivery will become possible, but it is subject to consultation

[57:51] and may be reduced or denied if delivery would cause Mead to fall below elevation 1000 feet.

[57:57] No ICS may be delivered in a year when meets January 1 elevation is below 1000 feet.

[58:07] The record of decision sets out the outer limits for future guidelines.

[58:11] The lower base and shortages may be as high as 3 million acre feet.

[58:16] Power releases will range from between 5 and 12 million acre feet.

[58:22] The framework allows storage of up to 3 million acre feet of conserve water in Powell and 8 million

[58:28] acre feet at Lake Mead, as well as limited surplus and voluntary

[58:32] upper basin contributions. These sideboards, not automatic operating rules,

[58:39] and not by themselves entitlement to store or recover water. Each future set of

[58:44] guidelines must select specific operations within them and comply with the

[58:49] applicable law. For metropolitan, that distinction is important.

[58:53] A large-mead storage sideboard creates room for water management programs, but the terms

[58:59] governing creation, accounting and delivery, still haven't yet to be made concrete.

[59:08] The framework then repeats this decision and process roughly every two years.

[59:13] During the first year, interior implements the current guidelines.

[59:17] During the second, it reviews the performance, develops the next set, and provides a May 1

[59:22] deadline for consensus recommendations.

[59:24] If the Basin reaches agreement, interior gives a priority consideration.

[59:30] If not, the secretary selects the next operations within the record of decisions, principles,

[59:36] and sideboards.

[59:39] The first operating period covers 2027 and 2028.

[59:46] Lake Powell operations are divided into three elevation ranges.

[59:50] August study for Water Year 2027 is in the low elevation infrastructure protection range.

[59:56] Reclamation begins with an expected

[1:00:10] The final annual release is then determined April, and the guidelines contemplate coordinator releases from the Upper Initial Units, Blaming Gorge, Astronal and Navajo, under separate Upper Division States agreement that may be answered with the U.S. If that agreement is not reached, the secretary will not be able to answer.

[1:00:29] will operate those reservoirs consistent with existing authority.

[1:00:34] The key change is that power releases are now managed directly around infrastructure

[1:00:39] protection elevation rather than the 8.23 million acre foot release objective alone.

[1:00:46] The ordinary operating ranges can reduce the power release to 6 million acre feet.

[1:00:52] The broader framework contemplates releases as low as 5 million acre fee in extraordinary

[1:00:59] circumstances.

[1:01:00] If a 24-month study projects power below elevation, 3500 feet, through the following spring,

[1:01:07] the secretary must promptly consult with the state's tribes and effective parties on additional

[1:01:13] actions.

[1:01:14] Those measures are temporary, they do not mend the framework or establish a precedent.

[1:01:19] At

[1:01:22] Lake Mead interior has already discerned the shortage condition exists for 27 and 28.

[1:01:30] The amount available for consumptive use in the lower division states is 6.25 million

[1:01:36] acre feet, 1.25 million below the normal 7.5 million acre foot lower basin allocation.

[1:01:43] If the lower basin implementing agreement is executed, Arizona receives 2.04 million acre

[1:01:51] feet, California receives 3.96 million acres, and Nevada 250,000 acre feet.

[1:01:59] Those reductions of 760,000 acre feet, 440,000 acre feet, and 50,000 acre feet, respectively,

[1:02:07] for the three lower deficient states, if agreement is successfully reached.

[1:02:11] The $3.96 million acre foot California apportionment is therefore tied to an implementing agreement.

[1:02:19] If agreement is not fully executed, the total shortage remains, but the Secretary

[1:02:24] determines its apportionment under applicable law.

[1:02:28] The guidelines also trigger consultation if meat is projected to be below 1,010 feet in

[1:02:34] the next 12 months.

[1:02:35] The

[1:02:41] guidelines also require 700,000 acre feet of additional storage additional system

[1:02:50] conservation during 2026 through 2028, beyond the 1.25 million acre feet of annual shortage

[1:02:56] reductions.

[1:02:57] The additional context comes from the lower division states, May 1 proposal, the states

[1:03:02] described 700,000 acre feet as the minimum cumulative contribution and set a target of at least

[1:03:09] one million acre feet if possible. With appropriate funding, they estimated 300,000 acre feet from

[1:03:15] California, Arizona, and 100,000 acre feet from Nevada. Potential sources include contribution

[1:03:22] from existing conservation activities beyond those needed for annual reductions, contributions

[1:03:27] of by-national ICS and other stored water, and the new lower-based and conservation program.

[1:03:33] The commitment was expressly contingent on adequate funding and federal cost share.

[1:03:43] The guidelines continue to distinct protections for ICS water, already stored in Lake Mead

[1:03:50] remains available for delivery, subject to the lower basin agreement, contractors may

[1:03:55] also create new ICS through the end of 2028 with eligible ICS to be delivered through 2028.

[1:04:02] Without the agreement, a lower implementation agreement, the Secretary will deliver ICS created through 2036 under existing rules but no new ICS may be created after December 31, 2026.

[1:04:22] The numerical limits for ICS are listed above. California contractors may create up to 400,000 acre feet of extraordinary conservation ICS annually

[1:04:32] and accumulate up to 2 million acre feet total and receive

[1:04:36] a get delivery of 400,000 acre feet across all three states total ICS

[1:04:42] deliveries from January 2026 through December 2028 may not exceed 800,000 acre feet.

[1:04:50] At one a one time 10% assessment for evaporation generally applies when ICS is

[1:04:57] created that's for new ICS.

[1:05:00] With specified exceptions and remaining balances are reduced by 3% annually for evaporation. Between

[1:05:07] elevations, 1,025 and 1,000 feet, delivery requests may require consultation. The secretary may

[1:05:14] reduce or deny a request if it would cause me to fall below 1,000 feet. And below 1,000 feet,

[1:05:21] on January 1, no ICS may be delivered in that year.

[1:05:28] The guidelines also established a federally

[1:05:30] manage water resources pool of up to 450,000 acre feet of federally controlled ICS in

[1:05:39] Lake Meade for 2027 and 2028. Its uses are ordered. First, it meets federal

[1:05:45] firming or other delivery obligations under congressional authorised in the

[1:05:51] water rights settlements. After those obligations are met, it may offset up to

[1:05:55] 25% of qualifying tribal shortages, it deliveries require federal agreements and counts against

[1:06:03] the applicable state limits in which they occur.

[1:06:10] Mexico remains on a separate legal and diplomatic track.

[1:06:13] Deliveries are governed by the 1944 treaty and implementing minutes.

[1:06:18] Any reductions are determined through the International Boundary and Water Commission and are

[1:06:23] separate from the 6.25 million acre feet of lower basin portion. Interior has said that

[1:06:30] a successor by national process is nearing completion.

[1:06:37] The rod also contemplates the federal

[1:06:39] environmental compliance record and incorporates the new biological opinion continued operation

[1:06:44] of the lower Colorado River Multi-Conservation Program, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program,

[1:06:51] and historic preservation commitments, those requirements continue alongside the new reservoir operations.

[1:07:00] The bottom line is that interior has replaced one long lift set of guidelines with a 10 year decision framework and a sequence of shorter operating decisions.

[1:07:11] For 2027 and 2028, power releases will be managed around infrastructure protection elevations.

[1:07:17] The lower basin will take 1.25 million acre feet of shortage annually and the guidelines add 700 acre feet of system conservation while extending important tools for ICS if necessary agreements are completed.

[1:07:33] that much metropolitan staff will focus

[1:07:36] on the lower basin implementation agreement

[1:07:38] and California arrangements needed

[1:07:40] to implement the 440,000 acre foot reduction

[1:07:43] and the protections required for liable access

[1:07:45] of store water.

[1:07:47] We will also evaluate the August operating determinations

[1:07:50] and the parallel agreements needed for upstream actions.

[1:07:55] The federal decisions are final,

[1:07:56] the work required to implement them is not.

[1:07:59] And I will turn it over to Laura.

[1:08:07] Thank you, Shanti.

[1:08:09] So the new guidelines that Shanty has described have been incorporated into the August 24

[1:08:14] month study forecasts.

[1:08:17] The Lake Powell operating tier, as she mentioned, is decided based on the forecast of October

[1:08:23] 1 elevation in the most probable 24 month study.

[1:08:27] Lake Powell is forecasted to be at elevation 3515.8 feet, putting Powell in that low elevation

[1:08:34] infrastructure protection range tier where the release is set to be between 7 and 6 million

[1:08:39] and acre feet next water year.

[1:08:41] Releases will be adjusted to maintain elevation

[1:08:43] of at least 35, 10 at like Powell.

[1:08:47] So with that, we can see with these new rules,

[1:08:50] we can see what the 24-month study says about the future.

[1:08:55] So here's a figure that USBR released

[1:08:58] that shows the full range of results

[1:09:00] from the August 24-month study.

[1:09:02] It includes a new minimum probable,

[1:09:04] a new maximum probable,

[1:09:05] and new most probable conditions.

[1:09:07] In this case, most probable conditions mean a water-year inflow to Lake Powell, that

[1:09:14] is 75% of the 30-year average, reflective of the dry, antecedent conditions.

[1:09:19] Minimum probable hydrology would be, if next year, is similar to this year in overall

[1:09:26] Lake Powell inflows.

[1:09:29] Now, something that is different about this month's study is that we actually have two most probable

[1:09:33] studies.

[1:09:34] 1 assumes a 6 million acre feet release from Lake Powell, and 1 assumes a 7 million acre feet release from Lake Powell, representing the full range of possible release schedules under that new low elevation infrastructure protection range.

[1:09:48] And what we can see is that even under the most probable conditions, either release schedule, Lake Powell is expected to stay between elevation 35, 10 and 35, 40 over the next.

[1:10:00] Next, water year. While this tier is designed to adjust releases to make power to maintain power, excuse me, above elevation 3510, that provides a 20-foot buffer to the critical elevation of 3490, which is Lake Powell's minimum power pool level. If next year is just as dry as this one, the forecast shows that we would dip below that level around the end of next water year.

[1:10:27] With Lake Powell releases between 6 and 7 million acre feet, Lake need is

[1:10:31] is forecasted to decline significantly.

[1:10:34] Sometime over the fall or winter,

[1:10:36] Lake need is forecasted to decline below elevation 1035,

[1:10:41] and that is the elevation at which power capacity

[1:10:44] at Hoover Dam is expected to be reduced.

[1:10:48] The next water year, Lake need is forecasted

[1:10:51] to fall below elevation 1025 under either a six

[1:10:54] or seven million acre feet.

[1:10:56] This is the elevation at which ICS access

[1:10:59] would be restricted under the current 2007 guidelines, DCP framework. However, under the

[1:11:05] new guidelines, we have access below 1025 down to elevation 1000 as Shanti described. That

[1:11:13] is supposed to be shown with new in that gray area, but it looks like somewhere in formatting

[1:11:18] and thought shifted, so that gray box should just be between 1025 and elevation 1000.

[1:11:24] Now, with a 6 million acre feet lake need is forecast to fall below 10-10 in the summer

[1:11:29] of next year, which would be a trigger for reconsultation for potential additional actions.

[1:11:37] These results, while not unexpected, are very sobering.

[1:11:42] There are some modeling assumptions that I should clarify because the model results are

[1:11:47] only as good as your assumptions.

[1:11:49] And so there are one of USBR's approaches to making those modeling assumptions is to

[1:11:56] only incorporate things that are known, contracted, signed.

[1:12:01] So Sean team mentioned the 700,000 acre feet of additional conservation that is required

[1:12:07] in the new guidelines, not all of those contracts have been executed.

[1:12:11] So this only includes those contracts that have been executed.

[1:12:14] We know that includes IID's new skia, that likely includes metropolitan's new skia at the

[1:12:20] board approved last month, but we don't know exactly how much of that 700 is included in these

[1:12:26] results. Additionally, there aren't any intra-California agreements for sharing that 440 reduction that

[1:12:34] Shonti mentioned, and so this study does not include any new California conservation actions to

[1:12:41] achieve those reductions. To make the modeling work, the assumption is that if

[1:12:51] everybody's demands in that most probable condition don't result in a

[1:12:56] California reduction of 440,000 acre feet, that difference would just be made up

[1:13:01] by generic California ICS with no attribution between party.

[1:13:07] So while we know more

[1:13:08] now than we did, there are still some unknowns moving forward that will have

[1:13:12] impacts on the forecast and where exactly we end up, but this is a new look with the rules.

[1:13:20] So that concludes my presentation. I think we can take any questions if there are any.

[1:13:29] Thank you for that. I assume there will be a bunch of director's cycle.

[1:13:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed you.

[1:13:39] It looks to me like there is a likelihood that we would be able to access maybe 400,000

[1:13:52] acre feet of ICS in 2027 and 2028 is an unknown, did I read that correctly?

[1:14:04] Looking at this and the timeline, it does look like in 2028, like need would be in the elevation where we'd be between 1,000 and 1025.

[1:14:18] And so access to ICS would be potentially available but subject to consultation with Department of the Interior and available as long as it doesn't cause.

[1:14:30] So it's not as certain, but it's still a possibility.

[1:14:34] So 2027 is likely 2028 is kind of shaky.

[1:14:39] I would say 2027, we have access and then 2028 is shaky.

[1:14:45] Okay.

[1:14:46] Thank you, that's all I wanted to confirm, Mr. Chairman.

[1:14:50] Thank you.

[1:14:50] Investors settling.

[1:14:54] Two questions. One, I'm a little sure to understand that the upper initial units is

[1:15:00] Is there under the, um, rod and the operating guidelines can the U.S., you know, literally decide

[1:15:12] to make releases from the initial units and under one conditions?

[1:15:19] Yes, Vice Chair Satellite. The interior secretary retains authority to operate those reservoirs

[1:15:26] consistent with their existing records of decision, so those are the only limitations that

[1:15:33] there are on them. However, the interior department is really trying to reach a agreement

[1:15:41] with the upper division states on the process for making those additional releases, but

[1:15:47] they were very clear to retain authority to operate them under, they weren't giving up

[1:15:54] of any authority in the record of decision

[1:15:57] and they're not giving up any authority

[1:15:59] in the agreement with the unpartificents.

[1:16:01] Okay, so they have the authority,

[1:16:03] but they haven't said how they're gonna use it.

[1:16:04] Exactly.

[1:16:05] Okay, got that.

[1:16:06] Thank you.

[1:16:07] And my second question was really,

[1:16:08] and maybe, or appropriate for the next session

[1:16:11] to the portal, just a logistical question about litigation.

[1:16:16] There are, now that the rod is,

[1:16:18] and there could, somebody could sue on,

[1:16:22] And the FETIS, the Rod, and the operating guidelines are those would all be kind of one set

[1:16:29] or could they be challenged?

[1:16:31] So there are all final agency actions at this point and so they could all be challenged,

[1:16:39] you know, and a entity could challenge one or more of those elements of the final agency

[1:16:48] action.

[1:16:49] Okay.

[1:16:49] Thank you.

[1:16:49] All right, I had a couple of Director Gold we have Director Miller's hand raised on some okay. All right, Dr. Miller.

[1:17:01] Thanks, sure.

[1:17:04] Several questions for Laura and Doddy and Bill.

[1:17:09] How does the ICS water that we have banked?

[1:17:14] How would that work with us having cuts if we went as high as 440 could we use ICS bank water as an offset to those cuts?

[1:17:26] Yes, Director Miller. We can use ICS as to offset the bank water as long as the need is in the tier where we're allowed to access it.

[1:17:37] which as Laura mentioned, it's clear that in 2027 we will, it is then in the next year, it's based on forecast is looking like it would be in that consultation tier.

[1:17:52] But there is a cap on the overall lower basin use of ICS during 2627 and 28 of 800,000 acre feet.

[1:18:02] Okay. Thanks. A while back we talked about met selling or getting reimbursed for 200,000

[1:18:10] acre foot of cut through the IRA money. Is that still in play?

[1:18:16] Yes. That contract has been signed and our diversion schedule indicates that we will

[1:18:22] be leaving water in Lake Mead pursuant to that agreement.

[1:18:26] and then that kept an update offset some of our 700 of the 700,000 that we're all taking that would offset our

[1:18:34] portion of 300,000. Yes, that's our understanding. Okay, and now for Bill, I understand you met with IID.

[1:18:44] Was there any headway made with IID? We're going to be discussing that in closed session. If you could hold that

[1:18:52] question. Okay thank you that's all I have.

[1:18:57] Thank you director Miller um a couple of questions on

[1:19:01] in regards to slides 23 and 24. So we spent most of the time in the presentation talking about

[1:19:11] the most probable values at 6 and 7 and it led me obviously you know you know me a glass is always

[1:19:21] empty. And so I look at the probable minimums because of what's happened in the last few years.

[1:19:30] And so the first question I have is, you know, sort of looking back in the last two years,

[1:19:35] and looking at the traces that have occurred in the 24 month projections,

[1:19:40] how much to the last two years really follow the most probable minimum and what is the considered

[1:19:47] likelihood of that occurring.

[1:19:51] It's an excellent question and to fully answer it

[1:19:54] the way I would like to I'd have to go back and actually look at the data

[1:19:57] specifically related to those years.

[1:20:00] The most probable inflow for next year is showing, is it making an assumption that inflow would be 75% of the 30-year average. So that is including the period of this 26-year drought that we have are experiencing. So it's 75% of that reflective of the dry conditions that we have. And the minimum probable is reflective of hydrology next year.

[1:20:29] that would be similar to this year.

[1:20:32] So that's the worst snow pack

[1:20:33] and second to third worst runoff conditions.

[1:20:38] Right, but the last six years,

[1:20:40] I think the average has been about 10.2 million

[1:20:43] acre feet per year in flow as opposed

[1:20:45] to the 26 year average of about 12.6.

[1:20:48] And so it makes you realize what a big difference

[1:20:51] your assumptions are in this scenario discussion

[1:20:56] and to that in that regard just to share

[1:20:58] with, you know, hopefully everybody's looking at the figures the same way I am, is that

[1:21:04] need, looking at the probable minimum, which is, it's not a crazy thing. We've just

[1:21:11] literally experienced this the last six years. And so, in that regard, it projects February

[1:21:20] or a 28 could be below 1000 feet of like level at Lake Mead, in which case all bets are

[1:21:28] off, right?

[1:21:29] And so I just wanted to make sure people look at that and then may have next year it

[1:21:35] could be below 10-10.

[1:21:38] And so just looking at what's possible, now another factor that we're not talking about

[1:21:44] here is, okay, so we get our ICS out of there, or at least get paid for it, which is obviously

[1:21:49] My preference is, you know, sell a much larger portion than the 200,000 acre fee.

[1:21:54] We still have 1.6 million acre fee.

[1:21:58] And so on, I personally think selling up to a million acre fee in the next few years

[1:22:04] makes sense.

[1:22:05] I bring that up because if there are withdrawals of ICS in a major way, then I hope everybody

[1:22:12] understands that the curves that we're looking at change substantially on, they don't

[1:22:17] stay the same.

[1:22:18] It means the lake levels will drop dramatically and so from the standpoint of what gets triggered

[1:22:23] in decision making, I just want to make sure everybody on our board understands really

[1:22:29] the high-wire act that we now are in and really trying to balance this out and so on.

[1:22:37] Anyways, I hate to be the depressing person all the time but that's kind of, I think, really

[1:22:42] important for us to all understand.

[1:22:44] Do you want to comment on that?

[1:22:45] Yeah, just one quick clarification because you're absolutely right that the lake levels

[1:22:50] are going to be lower if you access ICS in comparison to if you don't.

[1:22:55] But these assumptions actually do include use of stored water to meet California reductions.

[1:23:04] And that's what I was attempting to get out when I was describing the caveats.

[1:23:07] And so since there aren't intra-California agreements for the 440, US Bureau doesn't model

[1:23:17] agreements that don't exist.

[1:23:18] And so to deal with that, I will double check it, but I believe that that ends up assuming

[1:23:25] that in 2027, California's a whole access is about 300,000 acre feet of ICS.

[1:23:31] So, this does include some of those withdrawals that you're referencing.

[1:23:37] Okay, good to know.

[1:23:39] All right.

[1:23:42] Well, I guess with that, anything else on this item?

[1:23:46] All right, we'll go to closed session.

[1:23:50] So, for the next time is the update on the Colorado River Negotiation,

[1:23:55] some protection of metropolitan's Colorado River water rights.

[1:24:00] So, here we go.

[1:24:01] I have been advised by the General Manager and the General Counsel that Item 3F requires

[1:24:05] discussion and closed session.

[1:24:07] Those staff who are not authorized to be in closed session will need to drop off the

[1:24:11] teleconference or leave the room.

[1:24:13] Unauthorized persons still on the teleconference when the meeting is closed will be placed into

[1:24:18] the Zoom virtual waiting room.

[1:24:20] Item 3F is an update on Colorado River Negotiations and Protection of Metropolitan's Colorado River

[1:24:26] Water Rights.

[1:24:26] This is a conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate litigation, an unknown number of potential cases.

[1:24:37] This item will be heard in close session, pursuant to government code section 54956.94.

[2:27:25] Recording in progress.

[2:27:30] Media team, are we back on livestream?

[2:27:35] All right, thank you. That concludes our consideration of item 3F. In closed session, the committee discussed and conferred with its legal counsel regarding item 3F. No action was taken in closed session. So next item, which will be really quick on. We always have to be management announcements and highlights, Bay Delta resources activities.

[2:28:01] Mr. Vennarski.

[2:28:02] Yeah, thank you, Chair Gold.

[2:28:03] So I just wanted to make sure that the subcommittee was aware that last Wednesday on August 19th,

[2:28:08] the State Water Resources Control Board released the revised final draft of the Bay Delta

[2:28:13] Water Quality Control Plan, and it's now out for a 30-day public review period with comments

[2:28:18] due on September 18th.

[2:28:21] It's Metropolitan's expectation that the essence and the intent of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes

[2:28:26] program, formerly known as the voluntary agreements, will be included in the plan, allowing

[2:28:32] in this healthy rivers and landscapes, if it's included, as we expect it to be, will

[2:28:37] allow participating water users to meet the plan objectives through a combination of flow

[2:28:42] and habitat measures, rather than just being required to release a portion of unimpaired

[2:28:48] flows.

[2:28:49] Now, over the next several weeks, you may be hearing comments about the condition of the

[2:28:54] And whether people are happy with it or not happy with it, rest assured that Metropolitan Staff is reviewing the plan and will be coming back to you as quickly as we can to give you our assessment of that.

[2:29:06] And so we'd like you to kind of wait and not cast judgment on the draft until you hear from Metropolitan Staff.

[2:29:14] We already know that there's there's scuttle but out there both pros and cons but just just hold on to that and will give you some updates in the upcoming months as we as we go forward.

[2:29:23] So thank you. That's it. Sorry, quick question on it. So in light of the fact that the comment period is the 18th, yes, that's September and I think we'll have a one water meeting before then.

[2:29:38] Will you be able to at least give us an overview of what those comments may be at that on one water meeting since that's the one that seems to make it awesome.

[2:29:46] Yeah, it's always good to at least hear about it before they're finalized and submitted.

[2:29:51] so we can actually have an influence there. Thank you.

[2:29:54] All right. Anybody else? All right. Thank you.

[2:29:58] So do we have any requests for

[2:30:00] Further follow-up or future items?

[2:30:04] Yes? Messaging. Okay, so a request for a discussion in our next meeting on Colorado that we have some amount of time for messaging. Is there any disagreement with that? Is everyone okay with that? All right, everyone seems cool. Good. So that's all there. Anything else? I'm so used to not doing that. It's just a bizarre.

[2:30:29] Okay, all right, so there being no for their business, we are done.

[2:30:36] Thank you everybody.

Subcommittee on Imported Water

Agenda

Transcript