Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 <br />Saltworks Proposal- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 59 <br /> <br />Department of Finance first filed a number of water rights applications for the SWP on <br />July 30, 1927. (DWR, Water Rights, http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/waterrights.cfm.) <br />Because the Nickel water is derived from a pre-1914 water right and the SWP water <br />rights were filed subsequently, Nickel water has a higher priority than the rights of the <br />SWP based on the first-in-time, first-in-right rule. <br /> <br />Put in context of the entire water rights system in California, pre-1914 appropriative <br />rights have lower priority than certain other water rights. California operates under a <br />hybrid system of water rights that recognizes both doctrines of riparian and appropriative <br />rights. As between the holders of riparian and appropriative rights, riparian rights are <br />superior to appropriative rights. (SWRCB, supra, Cal.App.3d at p. 105.) <br /> <br />Nevertheless, the Nickel water does appear to be reliable, as SCVWD observed. As <br />described above, the transfer of Nickel water to Redwood City would likely occur in the <br />same manner as the 2009 transfer involving SCVWD. In that instance, on a one-time <br />basis KCWA reduced its delivery of SWP Table A water by 2,000 acre-feet, and that <br />water was instead delivered to SCVWD via the South Bay Aqueduct. Thus, a premise of <br />the water transfer is that KCWA would be delivered enough Table A water from the <br />California Aqueduct to allow it to relinquish whatever water is instead delivered to <br />Redwood City and the other intermediaries. <br /> <br />This premise appears to be accurate. KCWA's overall entitlement under Table A is <br />approximately one million AFY. In 2009, as a result of drought conditions and Court <br />orders affecting pumping from the Delta, deliveries from the SWP to KCWA were <br />reduced by 60 percent. Thus, actual deliveries from the SWP to KCWA during 2009 <br />totaled roughly 400,000 AFY. <br /> <br />DMB representatives have stated that they regard the risk that SWP deliveries to <br />KCWA would be reduced to zero is extremely low. Under this view, 2009 was a "perfect <br />storm" concerning reduced deliveries of Table A water. Still, KCWA received roughly <br />400,000 acre-feet. KCWA was therefore able to reduce its deliveries by an additional <br />2,000 acre-feet, so that the water was instead delivered to SCVWD. <br /> <br />Each year, DWR issues notices to its contractors regarding the amount of Table A water <br />DWR expects to be able to deliver from the SWP. In developing this allocation, DWR <br />takes into account hydrologic conditions, the amount of water in SWP reservoirs, and <br />operational constraints (e.g., limits imposed as a result of obligations arising under the <br />Endangered Species Act). <br /> <br />On November 30, 2009, DWR issued a notice to SWP contractors regarding DWR's <br />initial allocation of SWP water for 2010 (Notice to State Water Project Contractors re: <br />2010 State Water Project Initial Allocation, Notice No. 09-09 [November 20, 1009]). The <br />notice states: <br /> <br />The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is initially approving 208,579 acre- <br />feet of Table A water for long-term State Water Project (SWP) contractors in <br />2010. SWP supplies are projected to meet 5 percent of SWP contractors' <br />requests for Table A water. <br /> <br />52 <br />