Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 <br />Saltworks Proposa/- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 51 <br /> <br />SWP water." (SCVWD Board Agenda Memorandum, Status Report: <br />2009 Imported Water Transfers and Exchanges, February 10, 2009) <br /> <br />The Board memorandum indicates that the various agreements were within District <br />staff's existing budget authorization. For this reason, the DMB/SCVWD agreement was <br />presented to the Board as an information item not requiring Board action. <br /> <br />On or about April 7, 2009, SCVWD posted a CEQA Class 1 Notice of Exemption with <br />respect to its approval of this agreement.6 The notice stated that the delivery of 2,000 <br />acre-feet to SCVWD was intended to augment SCVWD's existing supplies, rather than <br />to secure new supplies. No new conveyance capacity would have to be constructed to <br />deliver the water. According to the notice, the water to be delivered to SCVWD was <br />already scheduled to be pumped from the Delta for delivery to KCWA. Thus, the <br />premise of the notice is that the agreement would not result in a net change in pumping <br />from the Delta. The sole consequence, therefore, is that the water would be delivered to <br />the South Bay Aqueduct, rather than to KCWA. The notice states: <br /> <br />"Nickel is entitled to delivery of the water at Tupman Turnout irrespective <br />of other water management projects or annual variations in [State Water <br />Project] Table A deliveries to KCWA. KCWA manages water rights from <br />multiple sources in Kern County and may utilize its SWP supplies to <br />deliver by exchange the 10,000 AFY of Lower Kern River Water at <br />Tupman Turnout." <br /> <br />The notice identifies KCWA and DWR as "responsible agencies" under CEQA. To the <br />water team's knowledge, no one challenged the approval of the agreement within the <br />35-day statute of limitations to file a CEQA lawsuit. <br /> <br />The purchase-and-sale agreement between DMB and SCVWD is dated April 8, 2009. <br />The DMB/SCVWD agreement states that SCVWD has a long-term water supply contract <br />with DWR entitling SCVWD to 100,000 AFY of Table A water from the SWP. As noted <br />above, "Table A water" refers to the allocation of SWP water among water wholesalers <br />under DWR's long-term water supply contract. DWR delivers this water to SCVWD via <br />the South Bay Aqueduct. SCVWD purchased the 2,000 acre-feet of Nickel water, with <br />payment due within seven days of approval of a "point of delivery agreement" by KCWA <br />and DWR. (,-} 2.3.) SCVWD agreed to pay $275 per acre-foot. (,-} 2.1.) <br /> <br />Under the agreement, the water sale occurred by means of the delivery of KCWA's SWP <br />Table A contract water supply. The sale was accomplished by means of the point-of- <br />delivery agreement. The 2,000 acre-feet would be delivered to SCVWD, rather than to <br />KCWA. (1l3.0.) <br /> <br />SCVWD subsequently wrote to DWR requesting a transfer of 2,000 acre-feet of KCWA's <br />SWP Table A water to SCVWD. On August 27,2009, DWR issued a letter agreement <br />approving a one-time transfer of 2,000 acre-feet from KCWA to SCVWD. SCVWD and <br />KCWA signed the letter agreement on, respectively, October 13 and 30, 2009. <br /> <br />6 SCVWD staff signed the notice on March 27, 2009. It is unclear why SCVWD delayed in posting the <br />notice. The delay in posting does not appear to be material. <br /> <br />44 <br />