Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would be met with Colorado River water during a dry year. This compares to II % <br />without the QSA and Interim Surplus Guidelines. Not surprising, 13% of demands <br />would be met with Colorado River supplies, with a QSA and no additional supplies. The <br />estimated supply for the Colorado River Aqueduct through 2016, given recent Bureau <br />forecasts is shown in Tab 5. It is anticipated that about 2.5 million acre-feet of surplus <br />would be available absent shortage sharing with Arizona. The most important variable is <br />hydrology. The sobering impact of that variable on surplus water is shown in Tab 6. As <br />you can see, our expectation for surplus water from 2003-2016 efore an shortage <br />sh~has dec me om almost 5 million acre- eet when we~in 2000 to a out 2.5 <br />million acre-feet today. <br />,..- - <br /> <br />Before I address water rates, I would like to conclude on water supply by repeating what <br />has been our consistent message over the past several years. We believe a QSA and <br />r~instatement of the access to Interim S Ius Guidelines special s Ius water would be ~ <br />desirable, t not at an cost and not at e ex e omisin fun menta a r <br />olicy rinciples. Metropolitan will plan to meet future water demands in our service <br />area within e limits of our current State Water Project contract and California's <br />Colorado River water allocation, supplemented by investments as needed in local projects <br />and water transfers, exchanges, storage and conjunctive use programs. Others have said <br />the sky will fall if we don't get a QSA on terms acceptable to the Imperial Irrigation <br />District. Metropolitan has not. and as a matter of prudent public pa1icy. will not put our <br />service area at risk of cri plin supply shortages with or without a QSA. We should <br />pursue development of a QSA in a transparent an open process, without a rush to <br />judgment or criticism against those who ask good faith questions about the QSA's <br />relevance or value compared to alternatives. <br /> <br />The projected impact on Metropolitan water rates with and without the QSA and the <br />Interim Surplus Guidelines is expected to be within a close range. This is shown in Tab <br />7. A more detailed descrip~ion of the costs, benefits and risks is shown in the <br />presentation made at the April 22, 2003 Metropolitan board workshop, which is included <br />under Tab 8. Water rates today and next year are unaffected by the QSA and Interim <br />S Ius Guidelines, or e ac of a SA and Interim S Ius Guide meso B 2 e <br />e~ate that rates ar~vely ~e with or without the ~,~we believe .!?at <br />rates could be about $2-4 per acre-foot lower with the QSA, although this difference IS <br />within t e certainty assoc ed wi ese estimates. In short, we see no <br />material impact on Metropolitan's water rates with or without the QSA and Interim <br />Surplus Guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br />-4- <br />