Date post: | 26-May-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | san-diego-county-water-authority |
View: | 2,762 times |
Download: | 0 times |
San Diego County Taxpayers AssociationSan Diego County Taxpayers AssociationSan Diego County Taxpayers AssociationSan Diego County Taxpayers AssociationBoard of DirectorsBoard of Directors
Nov. 18, 2011Nov. 18, 2011
Michael T. Hogan, Chair, Board of DirectorsMichael T. Hogan, Chair, Board of DirectorsDennis Cushman, Assistant General ManagerDennis Cushman, Assistant General Manager
The amount of money the Water Authority sent to the Metropolitan Water District last year:
$241,000,000 The amount of money at stake in the Water
Authority’s rate lawsuit vs. MWD (over 45 years):
$1,300,000,000 -$2,100,000,000
2
November 1946: Water Authority annexes into the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
By 1949 the Water Authority is buying half of By 1949, the Water Authority is buying half of all MWD water supplies◦ MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct had becomeMWD s Colorado River Aqueduct had become
operational in 1941, but MWD had low water sales Until MWD began selling water, all MWD revenues
came from from property taxescame from from property taxes Today, 80% of all MWD revenues come from water
sales
3
By the 1990s, Water Authority remains MWD’s largest member
b i 30% f MWD’1991
Local Supplies:agency, buying ~30% of MWD’s water and providing ~30% of all of MWD’s revenues
Local Supplies:26,000 AF
(5%)
Supplies from MWD account for 95% of all water used in San Diego County
MWD Supplies:552,000 AF
(95%)County◦ San Diego’s economy and quality of
life for its residents were at significant i k d i i f h
(95%)
risk during times of water shortage◦ Region had almost all of its “eggs” in
one basket: MWD
4
55
2011(estimated)199172 TAF26 TAF
2020
552 TAF (95%)
80 TAF (13%)
80 TAF (10%)
72 TAF (12%)
26 TAF (5%)
44TAF (6%)
56 TAF
103 TAF (13%)
190 TAF
75 TAF (12%)
28 TAF (5%)
20 TAF (3%)
(95%)
285 TAF (47%)
231 TAF (30%)
27 TAF (4%)
56(7%)
190 TAF (24%)
51 TAF (8%)
Total = 578 TAF
48 TAF (6%)
Total = 779 TAFTotal = 611 TAF
Metropolitan Water District
Imperial Irrigation District Transfer Seawater Desalination
Recycled Water
All American & Coachella Canal Lining
Local Surface Water
Groundwater
Conservation (existing and additional) 6
Water Authority buys more than 25% y yof MWD’s water and provides more
than 25% of MWD’s revenues
Average MWD Water Purchases by Member Agency (2000-09)
7
In October 2003, Colorado River QSA is executed:◦ Water Authority signs 45- to 75-year deal to buy
200 000 AF annually from the Imperial Irrigation200,000 AF annually from the Imperial Irrigation District◦ Water Authority agrees to line the All American and
C h ll l d i 80 000 AF ll fCoachella canals and receive 80,000 AF annually for 110 years◦ Requires transportation rate from MWD to move
supplies to San Diego through MWD’s system
8
MWD had to disaggregate its uniform water rate to develop a transportation charge for the Water Authority’s transfer supplies
Facing a loss of water sales revenues due to Facing a loss of water sales revenues due to the Water Authority’s supply diversification, MWD took vast majority of its water supplyMWD took vast majority of its water supplycosts and misallocated them to its transportation charge to move the Water
fAuthority’s IID and Canal Lining transfer supplies
9
< 2003 2003>MWD
UniformWater
MWDSystemCosts
Water
New Rate Structure Misallocates Water Supply Costs to Transportation Charge
WaterRate
WaterSupplyCosts
SystemAccess
Rate
PowerRate
WaterStewardship
Rate
WaterSupply
Rate
MWD Must Disaggregate
Charged for Transportation
Rate RateRate
Water Supply Costs
gg gIts Costs
Charged for Purchase of MWD Water10
Water Supply CostsMWD System Costs
Water Supply CostsMWD System Costs
System PowerWater SystemAccess
Rate
PowerRate
WaterSupply
Rate
Charged for Transportation
11
Charged for Purchase of MWD Water
--$0.6$0.6--$0.3$0.3$0 2$0 2
City of AnaheimCity of AnaheimCity of Beverly HillsCity of Beverly HillsCity of BurbankCity of Burbank
OverchargeOverchargeUnderchargeUndercharge
--$0.2$0.2--$2.5$2.5
--$1.5$1.5--$0.1$0.1
--$2.1$2.1$0 2$0 2
City of BurbankCity of BurbankCalleguas MWDCalleguas MWDCentral Basin MWDCentral Basin MWDCity of ComptonCity of ComptonEastern MWDEastern MWDFoothill MWDFoothill MWD--$0.2$0.2
--$0.3$0.3--$0.4$0.4
--$1.6$1.6--$0.5$0.5$0 8$0 8
Foothill MWDFoothill MWDCity of FullertonCity of FullertonCity of GlendaleCity of GlendaleInland Empire Utilities AgencyInland Empire Utilities AgencyLas Virgenes MWDLas Virgenes MWDCity of Long BeachCity of Long Beach--$0.8$0.8
--$6.3$6.3--$5.3$5.3
--$0.5$0.5$31.0$31.0
$0 0$0 0
City of Long BeachCity of Long BeachCity of Los AngelesCity of Los AngelesMWD of Orange CountyMWD of Orange CountyCity of PasadenaCity of PasadenaSan Diego County Water AuthoritySan Diego County Water AuthorityCity of San FernandoCity of San Fernando$0.0$0.0
$0.0$0.0--$0.4$0.4--$0.3$0.3
--$1.4$1.4$0 4$0 4
City of San FernandoCity of San FernandoCity of San MarinoCity of San MarinoCity of Santa AnaCity of Santa AnaCity of Santa MonicaCity of Santa MonicaThree Valleys MWDThree Valleys MWDCity of TorranceCity of Torrance
12
--$0.4$0.4--$0.5$0.5
--$2.9$2.9--$2.0$2.0
City of TorranceCity of TorranceUpper San Gabriel MWDUpper San Gabriel MWDWest Basin MWDWest Basin MWDWestern MWDWestern MWD
Present Value $ in MillionsPresent Value $ in Millions
$1,637 $1,637 $1 311$1 311
$2,105 $2,105
$330$330 $330$330
$1,033 $1,033 $1,311 $1,311
$330 $330 $330 $330
LowLow HighHigh
Next 10 YearsNext 10 Years 35 Year Term35 Year Term 45 Year Term45 Year Term
13
Case assigned to San Francisco Superior Court Judge KramerJudge Kramer
Case has been designated as “complex”◦ Assigned to single judge for all purposes◦ Complex cases generally get more attention and
resources from the court Estimated trial court decision in mid-2012st ated t a cou t dec s o d 0 Imperial Irrigation District and UCAN are
litigants on Water Authority’s sideW A h i f l O 27 2011 Water Authority successful at Oct. 27, 2011 trial hearing to amend complaint◦ Added five causes of action
14
Added five causes of action:◦ (1) Breach of contract (Exchange Agreement)◦ (2 & 3) Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair◦ (2 & 3) Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and declaratory relief (RSI clause; cancellation of conservation and recycling
t )agreements)◦ (4) Breach of fiduciary duty (MWD directors owe a
duty of loyalty to the “full constituency of the Metropolitan service area”)◦ (5) Preferential Rights (MWD failed to include
payments for transportation from calculation ofpayments for transportation from calculation of Water Authority’s Preferential Right to MWD water)
http://www.sdcwa.org/mwdrate-challenge
15
Adopt resolution supporting Water Authority i th t liti tiin the rate litigation
File amicus curiae brief at appropriate time during litigationduring litigation
Provide written and oral testimony at MWD 2013 rate-setting hearings (early 2012)P bli h i d l h Publish commentaries and letters to the editor supporting Water Authority position
Feature in Taxpayers Association publications Feature in Taxpayers Association publications Feature prominently on Taxpayers’ web site
and social media activities
16