Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 <br />Saltworks Proposal- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 57 <br /> <br />these laws to facilitate increased efficiency of water use and allocation, and to support <br />the acquisition of additional long-term supplies to meet growing demands. (Gray, supra, <br />45 Hastings L.J. at pp. 277-278.) <br /> <br />In light of legal protections available to transferors, KCWA's contractual obligations, and <br />KCWA's history of facilitating transfers of the Nickel water, the water team is not aware <br />of reasons that would preclude KCWA from approving the transfer of Nickel water to the <br />City. <br /> <br />Intermediary Aaencv <br />The intermediary agency (agencies) would need to enter into an agreement facilitating <br />the transfer. The role of this agency would be akin to SCVWD's role in approving the <br />2009 purchase-and-sale agreement. Unlike the 2009 agreement, however, the <br />agreement would be for a term of years. The terms and structure of the agreement <br />would be a matter of negotiation between DMS, the intermediary agency, and other <br />parties to the agreement. <br /> <br />The intermediary agency's decision to enter into the agreement would be discretionary. <br />The decision would therefore be subject to CEQA. The Saltworks EIR would likely serve <br />as the CEQA document analyzing the impacts of the water transfer, including the <br />agreement between DMS and the intermediary agency. For this reason, the <br />intermediary agency could not consider whether to approve the agreement until after the <br />City certifies the Saltworks EIR. <br /> <br />Infrastructure improvements may be required to facilitate the transfer of water to the <br />Saltworks site. These improvements cannot be identified until the intermediary agency <br />is identified, and an engineering analysis is performed in light of that agency's existing <br />infrastructure. This information would have to be provided, and an analysis of the <br />impacts associated with constructing the infrastructure would have to be performed as <br />part of the CEQA process for the Saltworks project. <br /> <br />Redwood City <br />As the water provider for the project, Redwood City would have to prepare and approve <br />a WSA as part of the CEQA process. Under SS 610, the City would have to include the <br />information in the WSA in any EIR prepared for the Saltworks project. (Water Code, 9 <br />10911, subd. (b).) Because the City's existing 2005 UWMP does not include the <br />Saltworks project, the WSA would have to identify, at a minimum, a 20-year supply for <br />the project, including the approvals and infrastructure necessary to provide such water. <br />(Water Code, 9 10910.) Thus, the publication of the Draft EIR for the Saltworks project <br />would necessarily provide a complete description and analysis of DMS's proposal. <br /> <br />3.8.4 Uncertainties Regarding the Proposed Water Transfer <br />Following is a description of some of the uncertainties the water team has identified with <br />the proposed water transfer. <br /> <br />SFPUC Aooroval of Transfer or Sale <br />As noted above, because the water transfer would be effectuated by augmenting the <br />City's existing surface water deliveries from SFPUC, the Commission would have to <br />approve the transfer or sale of Nickel water to the City. <br /> <br />50 <br />