HomeMy WebLinkAboutE-mail from T St Amant - Sites Reservoir Sweeny X, Kath,leen
From: Tony St.Amiant <tsainta@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday,April 22, 2016 9:42 AM
To: Connelly, BiH; Kirk, Maureen;Wahl, Larry; BOS District 4; Teeter, Doug
Subject: April 26 Agenda,Item 5,02, Letter of Support for Sites Reservoir
Attachments: 160412 Example--StA prop Itr to JPA Rev 1,doc
Dear Supervisors,
I am a supporter of additional water storage for the state, but I ask you not to send a letter of support for Sites
to the California Water Commission at this time.
I couldn't agree more with those Sites' goals that would benefit the north state. The problem I have is that
there are no funding or operational data yet available to give me confidence that Sites JPA can do all of the
things it hopes to do without putting additional demands on north state groundwater.
Based on a review of all public JPA materials and attendance at the last four JPA Board meetings, here is my
concern:
a The project cost is estimated at $4.4 billion, of which at least $2.2 billion will have to be privately
funded. The other$2,.2 billion is, eligible for Proposition I funding, but it is unlikely that Sites will get that
much because there are over 40 organizations competing for the $27 billion available. Sites will have
to look for additional private sources of funding, and all of the major sources are south of the Delta.
0 The average annual water yield is estimated to be about 500 thousand acre feet (TAF), of which 250
TAF would have to be dedicated to public purposes if half the cost is Prop 1 funded. The remaining
250 TAF would be available to private users, and north state users have subscribed for 130 TAF so far.
a The amount of yield that has to be dedicated to public purposes is proportional to Prop 1 funding, e.g.,
with 50% Prop 1 funding the yield would be divided evenly between public and private use; with 25%
public funding 125 TAF would have go to public use and 375 TAF could go to private use.
0 The Sites general manager has acknowledged that the project could facilitate water transfers, and he is
talking to the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, the Wes,tlands Water District, the Kern County
Water Agency, and nine other out-of-area users to assess their interest in buying the available water.
0 The San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, in partnership with the US Bureau of Reclamation, has
been the driving force in promoting a long-term transfer program that seeks up to 600 TAF of north
state water for 10 years—and that is only a portion of south-of-Delta needs.
0 The Sites JPA attorney has cautioned the JPA Board to expect additional investors to want some
measure of control over the project, and it's impossible to predict where that would go in terms of water
allocation commitments and priorities with a high level of south-of-Delta agency involvement.
a Long-term water transfers of 600 TAF or more a year could not be satisfied by Sites over the long term
and would increase the chance of long-term groundwater substitution transfers that could significantly
increase the stress on north state groundwater aquifers.
0 1 can't support Sites until I can be sure that won't happen, and I hope you can't either.
The California Water Commission's draft regulation for awarding Prop 1 water storage funding will require the
kind of information you need for a knowledgeable support decision, but that process probably won't start for at
least a year and could last for 18 months or more. So a delay in your support decision won't hurt Sites'
chances of approval because there will be plenty of time between when the information you need becomes
available and the Water Commission's decision to award funds.
A more effective action for your Board at this time would be to send a letter to the Sites JPA expressing_your
agreement with the project's goals and objectives and describing the information you need for a decision on
formally supporting the project. I have attached an example.
Sincerely,
Tony St. Amant
2