Water Trading and Banking: Economic Tools for Successful SGMA Implementation• Next Steps
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
3For Discussion Purposes Only
water marketing and groundwater banking programs that
will efficiently use MWA’s surplus water from the State Water
Project and available aquifer storage capacity.
• The purpose is to generate additional revenue and increase
water supply reliability, which will improve MWA's long-term
sustainability.
detailed analysis.
Alternative Description
1.1 Exchange Transfer of surplus Table A supplies via single year exchanges
1.3 Single-Year Transfer Transfer of surplus Table A supplies via single-year transfers
1.4 Multi-Year Transfer Transfer of surplus Table A supplies under a multi-year agreement
2.1 Mojave Basin Storage Utilize existing local facilities plus construction of new conveyance/recovery facilities in MWA to store wet year surplus supplies that could also be marketed in dry years
2.2 Irvine Ranch Water District (Strand Ranch)
Acquire capacity in the Strand Ranch project to store wet year surplus supplies that are then marketed in dry years or used by MWA
2.6 Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
Develop new capacity in Rosedale to store wet year surplus supplies that are then marketed in dry years or used by MWA
4.1 through 4.9 New Bank within Mojave Water Agency
Develop a new banking program within MWA's service area and generate revenue through agreements with banking partners
5.2 Hybrid - New Central Valley Water Bank w/MWA Storage
Develop a new banking program along the Coastal Branch to generate revenue through agreements with banking partners and storing MWA’s wet year surplus supplies that are then marketed in dry years or used by MWA
Program Overview
Work Plan
7For Discussion Purposes Only
and recovery project facilities
• Demonstrate how the alternatives will be compared and
measured against each other
demonstration purposes and final analysis is still
underway
Hwy. 395 (Alt. 2)
2 Hwy 395 75 2
3 Oro Grande Wash Pipeline 75 2
4 Antelope Wash 90 2
5 Unnamed Wash 135 2
6 Oeste 30 2
9 Morongo Basin Pipeline 25 1
• Percolation rates established based on discussions with MWA
• Recovery facilities sized using a 90% recovery rate for each alternative
Facilities Analysis
• Recharge and Recovery Facility Sizing Examined Independently
– Alternative may be cost effective for recharge, but not for recovery or vice versa
• Required recharge and recovery facilities calculated for a range of flows,
with the maximum potential flow rate based on the alternative intertie
capacity
• For each potential project flow rate, the following facilities were sized:
– Recharge Facilities:
• Recharge feeder and transmission piping (max. velocity of 8 fps)
– Recovery Facilities:
• Required # of Recovery Wells (recovery well flow rates (gpm) based on
local transmissivity for each alternative)
• Well discharge and transmission piping (max. velocity of 8 fps)
Facilities Analysis
12For Discussion Purposes Only
• Existing MWA pipelines were evaluated for reverse flow conditions for recovery flow back
to the CA Aqueduct
• Pressure class of pipelines were compared to the maximum anticipated pressures for
each alternative recovery flow rate
– Mojave River Pipeline: Pressure Class 150, Anticipated maximum pressure = 92 PSI (Alternative 1)
– Oro Grande Wash Pipeline: Pressure Class 150, Anticipated maximum pressure = 99 PSI (Alternative 3)
– Morongo Basin pipeline example graph:
CA Aqueduct
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
El ev
/H G
L (f
t)
Station
Pressure Class Alt 9 Calced Pressure (psi) Alt 8 Calced Pressure (psi) Alt 4 Calced Pressure (psi)
COST ESTIMATION
13For Discussion Purposes Only
14For Discussion Purposes Only
• Recharge Basin Unit Cost: $25,000 per acre
– Based on recent water bank project conceptual and bid cost data
• Pipeline Unit Cost: $20 / in-dia / LF
– Based on recent transmission main project data
• Recovery Well Unit Cost: $2 M per well
– Preliminary estimate, based on correspondence with MWA
• Additional Cost Parameters
– 40% contingency
Facilities Analysis
15For Discussion Purposes Only
• Recharge O&M Cost
– 2% of the capital cost as an annual O&M Cost
• Recovery O&M Cost
– 2% of the capital cost as an annual O&M Cost
– Annual Power Cost
Facilities Analysis
P ro
je ct
C ap
it al
C o
P ro
je ct
C ap
it al
C o
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
P ro
je ct
C ap
it al
C o
the cost impact for each alternative
NEXT STEPS
18For Discussion Purposes Only
Banking Framework, SWP
Marketing Procedures (4/22/21)
No. 8 – Financial Analysis,
TAC & Board
Workshop 8
“Financial Feasibility”
Water Market
Strategy Report
TAC & Board
Workshop 5
“Banking Partners”
TAC & Board:
Workshop 7
21For Discussion Purposes Only