by Wayne Lusvardi
A recent purchase of imported water by San Diego from Placer County raises the question whether it would be better for Pasadena to just buy imported water in lieu of
enacting a tough water enforcement ordinance and unpopular water rate hike.
The San Diego County Water Authority is about to purchase enough
water for 40,000 households for one year from Folsom Dam in Placer
County, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at a price of $5.5
million, or $275 per acre foot (or $137.50 per household per year). The
water will be shipped from Folsom Dam through the Sacramento Delta and
the California Aqueduct to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California which will, in turn, deliver an equal amount of water to San
Diego. The water will be shipped during summer months from from July
to September.
The City of Pasadena is about to mandate a 10%
cutback in water usage and hike base water rates as much as 100% in
response to a revenue shortfall in its Water Fund due to fewer water
purchases as a result of water conservation and lack of water sales
from unoccupied new downtown housing.
Pasadena
annually uses about 35,000 to 37,000 acre feet of water according to
its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. A 10% cutback in water use would
be about 3,500 to 3,750 acre feet of water. Pasadena relies on
groundwater from the Raymond Basin for 30% to 40% of its water at a
cost of about $125 per acre foot. The new Tier 4 and 5 drought water rates for
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District are about $800 to
$1,000 per acre foot (or $400 to $500 per household per year).
To
comply
with water conservation mandates Pasadena plans to hire six new
water enforcement personnel and set up a water court for water wasters
to appeal fines at an administrative cost of about $1,000,000. Buying
3,750 acre feet of raw water from Folsom Dam in lieu of a 10% water
cutback would only cost
about $1 million plus, say, about $375,000 in treatment costs for a total of
about $1,375,000, or about $183 per household per year. (Note: This may not include conveyance costs).
So
apparently San Diego has beat Pasadena to a source of drought water for the summer of 2009. Should
Pasadena exceed 90% of its imported water needs it would possibly be
subject to MWD's penalty water rates of about $400 to $500 per household per year (which would equate to about two to three
times the unit price of raw water purchased by San Diego plus treatment costs).
David
Powell, a retired water resources engineer and former State Department
of Water Resources official living in Pasadena has recently posed the
question whether Pasadena should just buy water to replace any
overdraft of the Raymond Basin caused by water conservation. Buying
water from Folsom Dam at roughly the same price as it costs Pasadena to
pump and treat groundwater from the Raymond Basin plus water treatment costs seems like a "no
brainer." But while local PWP water managers are diligently trying to
find alternate sources of water to mitigate overdrafting the Raymond
Basin, both local and state politicians seem asleep at the pumphouse
switch.
Neither the San Diego County Water Authority or the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation have indicated how they would transfer the purchased water
through the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant in the Sacramento Delta given
that a judge has curtailed water shipments to Southern California
purportedly to protect a tiny fish from the pumps. A proposal to
create a hatchery for the purportedly endangered fish to allow pumping
of water through the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant was rejected by the
U.S. Congress (Schiff, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein).
Read more about the San Diego water purchase at the following links:
Comments