Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 <br />Saltworks Proposal- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 61 <br /> <br />associated with the Saltworks would, of course, be permanent. Thus, the term of the <br />supply is inconsistent with that of the demand. <br /> <br />Applicable water supply statutes require the identification of a 20-year supply. (Water <br />Code, 9 10910.) Thus, the supply exceeds the time horizon required by State law. <br />Nonetheless, the supply beyond the 70-year term of OMS's agreement is uncertain. <br />Some possible strategies to mitigate the impact of the discrepancy between the term of <br />the supply and demand include: <br />. Obtain a right of first refusal from the Nickel family for extension of the 70- <br />year agreement on any portion of the 8,393 AFY that may be allocated to <br />Redwood City. <br /> <br />. Develop some of the other supply sources such as local and regional offsets <br />at such time that extension of the 70-year agreement is determined to be <br />infeasible. <br /> <br />. Take advantage of supplies made feasible by regulatory changes expected <br />within in the 70-year planning horizon, such as those expected in the area of <br />potable water recycling. <br /> <br />The water team regards the 70-year term as a potential concern. If the CEQA process <br />moves forward, the water team recommends investigating the potential to revise the <br />agreement so that the source of supply is permanent. The water team notes that other <br />agreements for water supply often have a fixed term; for example, the Water Supply <br />Agreement with SFPUC has a term of 25 years with two five-year extensions, plus <br />provisions providing a framework for renewal. Thus, although the term of the existing <br />OMS/Nickel agreement is a potential concern, the water team nevertheless regards <br />Nickel water as an asset that could potentially diversify the City's water supply portfolio. <br /> <br />Scope of CEQA Review of Water Transfer <br />OMS's proposal would earmark a portion of the Nickel water for transfer outside KCWA <br />for a period as long as 70 years. KCWA's CEQA analysis of the KCWAlNickel <br />agreement, and the related transfer of 10,000 AFY, was relatively perfunctory. If the <br />Saltworks project goes forward, the City should consider including in the Saltworks EIR <br />an examination of the impacts of this transfer within the KCWA's service area. If such <br />transfers have been occurring wince 2000-2001, then such transfers may be a part of <br />the existing environmental setting within KCWA; in that instance, earmarking a portion of <br />the Nickel water for the Saltworks project would not result in an impact within KCWA. If <br />an EIR is prepared for the Saltworks project, this issue should be analyzed further. <br /> <br />A water transfer agreement might affect the timing of water deliveries from the SWP, <br />since the intermediary water retailer might have different needs than other potential <br />transferees. Secause any such deliveries would be offset by a reduction in deliveries to <br />KCWA under Table A, however, the total volume of water pumped from the Delta ought <br />not to be affected. The water transfer's effect on the timing of deliveries likely would fall <br />within the range of historic and anticipated future fluctuations on deliveries, such that <br />significant impacts would not occur as the result of such shifts in timing. (See Planning <br />and Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (December 18, 2009) - <br />Cal.App.4th - [slip op. at p. 49].) <br /> <br />54 <br />