Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 <br />Saltworks Proposal- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 60 <br /> <br />DWR attached to the notice a table showing its preliminary allocations to specific SWP <br />contractors. The table includes the following information for KCWA: <br /> <br />Table A <br />Initial request <br />Approved allocation <br />Percent initial request approved <br /> <br />982,730 acre-feet <br />982,730 acre-feet <br />49,135 acre-feet <br />50/0 <br /> <br />This initial allocation is, by historic standards, low. By way of comparison, for 2009 (also <br />a drought year), DWR's initial allocation of Table A water was 150/0 (Notice to State <br />Water Project Contractors re: 2009 State Water Project Initial Allocation, Notice No. 08- <br />07 [October 29,2008]). <br /> <br />DWR issues further bulletins as the water year progresses, revising its expectations <br />regarding the percentage of Table A water that DWR will deliver. During the course of <br />2009, for example, DWR revised upward its initial allocation of 15%. As noted above, <br />DWR ultimately increased deliveries to 400/0 of the amount requested by each contractor <br />(Notice to State Water Project Contractors re: 2009 State Water Project Allocation <br />Increase to 40 Percent, Notice No. 09-07 [May 20, 2009]). Such upward revisions are <br />typical. Thus, if past practices are any guide, it is likely that, as 2010 progresses, DWR's <br />initial allocation will be increased. <br /> <br />The water team agrees with SCVWD that the Nickel water appears to be highly reliable. <br />In light of KCWA's contractual obligation to facilitate the transfer of the Nickel water, and <br />the large size of its Table A entitlement, KCWA would likely be able and willing to <br />facilitate the transfer. Even if DWR's initial allocation for 2010 is not revised upward as <br />the year progresses, the initial allocation is sufficient to accommodate KCWA's <br />obligations with respect to the Nickel water. <br /> <br />Necessitv for Storaae. Treatment. or Other Infrastructure <br />The water team does not know whether additional storage, treatment or other <br />infrastructure would be required to effectuate the transfer of Nickel water to the <br />Saltworks site. Because DWR pumping would not necessarily be synchronized with the <br />City's demand, storage available to transfer intermediaries would likely need to be used. <br />The availability of sufficient storage would depend on the other intermediaries involved in <br />the transfer, and the extent to which these intermediaries have treatment and storage <br />facilities to serve the needs of Redwood City. To the water team's knowledge, these <br />details have not been worked out. These details would have to be pinned down and <br />investigated as part of the WSA for the Saltworks project. (Water Code, 9 10910.) <br /> <br />The WSA would also have to consider water quality issues surrounding a transfer of <br />Table A water for Hetch Hetchy water. Table A water and Hetch Hetchy water are both <br />considered appropriate sources of potable water. At the same time, the quality of this <br />water is not identical. As a result, there may arise operational considerations associated <br />with blending this water, or shifting from one source of supply to another. These <br />operational concerns would have to be addressed in the WSA. <br /> <br />Term <br />DMB's acquisition of the Nickel water has a 35-year term. DMB also has an option to <br />renew the acquisition for an additional 35 years, for a total of 70 years. The demand <br /> <br />53 <br />