llarvcy A. Bailey 

Ch:Jirm:w ofthe BtJ;Ird 

Nick Canata 

J 'iet> Ch:~irman 

Tom Runyon 

.'iccrcf:lrpTrensun•r 

Ronald D . .Jacobsnm 

Ct•nt•ral ,J1:maf?t'r 

Jennifer T. Buckman 

(;,•nt•ral Counsl'l 

Member Agencies 


Anin~Fdiso11 JY..S:D. 


/)t'lauo~Earlimart /.D. 


Ext'fer J.D. 


Fresno J.D. 


lv:mhoe I.J). 


Kawt':lh Delta JY.CD. 


Kcrn-Tu/au W.D. 


Li11dmore J.D. 


Limlmy-Strathmon> J.D. 


Lowa Tu/e River I. D. 


/IJader:li.D. 


Orange Cow J.D. 


PhJq 1./J. 


Portaville J.J). 


Sauce/ito /.D. 


Shafta- Wasco J.D. 


Stone Corral J.D. 


Tc:1 Pot Dome JY.D. 


Terra Bella J.D. 


Tulare J.D. 


April25, 2012 

Mr. Donald R. Glaser 

Regional Director 

US Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Via email and U.S. Postal 

Subject: FWA position on allocation ofDMC Intertie O&M costs by SLDMW A and 

Capital costs by USBR 

Dear Mr. Glaser, 

As you are aware, the Friant Water Authority (FWA) and San Luis Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority (SLDMWA) have not been able to reach agreement regarding the 

allocation of operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs of the DeltaMendota/California Aqueduct Intertie facility (DMC Intertie ). As a result, on 

November 15, 2011, FWA provided SLDMWA with notice that FWA was seeking 

informal dispute resolution pursuant to Article VI.A.l. ofthe Memorandum of 

Understanding(MOU) between FW A and SLDMW A regarding cost allocation. 

Under Article VI.A.l. ofthe MOU, "At any time during this process, either party may 

request that the Regional Director ofthe United States Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) participate in the process to facilitate the resolution, and the other party 

shall accept such participation if it is provided." 

Consequently, Reclamation has been asked to participate in this non-binding dispute 

resolution process as a facilitator to the parties' discussions ofthe issues. While 

Reclamation does not have authority to issue any decision that would bind the parties 

or create any precedent, the parties do appreciate Reclamation's willingness to work 

with the parties in an attempt to facilitate an informal resolution ofthe dispute. FW A 

provides this statement of its position to assist Reclamation in its role as facilitator. 

MaiiLOfiicrc Sacramento Office 

854 N. Harvard Avenue 1107 9'" Street, Suite 640 


Lindsay, CA 93247 Sacramento, CA 95814 


Phone: 559-562~6305 Phone: 916-346-4165 


Fax: 559~562-3496 Fax: 916-346-3429 


Website: www.friantwater.org 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page2 

FWA's position is that the DMC Intertie OM&R costs should be treated as a separate 

conveyance pumping facility and should be allocated to the beneficiaries of the facility based on 

use consistent with priority ofwater service, Reclamation's ratesetting policies and cost 

allocation parameters embodied in the SLDMWA OM&R Cost Recovery Plan (Exhibit B ofthe 

Memorandum ofUnderstanding Between Friant Water (Users) Authority (assigned to FWA) and 

San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority ...as amended and restated). Additionally, as a result 

of this dispute, FWA has re-examined Reclamation's capital cost allocation ofthe DMC Intertie 

to the conveyance capital cost pool and FW A has concluded that these capital costs should be 

treated as a separate conveyance pumping cost component and allocated to the beneficiaries of 

that facility. 

BACKGROUND 

Prior to 1998, each Authority received funding from Reclamation to perform OM&R of their 

respective facilities with the costs of such OM&R being allocated by Reclamation in accordance 

with Reclamation's ratesetting policies for the CVP. Under Reclamation's ratesetting policies, 

certain cost pools are established and allocated to water contractors based upon the water 

contractor's use of a facility in the cost pool or directly charged if a water contractor is the 

primary user of a specific facility. The ratesetting policies included the following cost pools: 

storage cost pool (covering all storage facilities throughout the CVP), conveyance cost pool 

(covering all conveyance facilities throughout the CVP), Tracy pumping plant cost pool, O'Neill 

conveyance pumping cost pool, direct conveyance pumping cost pools, and drainage cost pool. 

Reclamation's ratesetting policies did not provide for allocation of costs associated with delivery 

of Exchange Contractor water with the exception of costs assigned to Friant Division Class 1 

water contractors for the Tracy Pumping Plant. Reclamation's ratesetting policies were 

extensively developed and negotiated over several years and were implemented in 1988 in 

accordance with P.L. 99-546. 

Beginning in 1998, both FWA and SLDMWA began self-funding the facilities that each 

historically OM&R'd under cooperative agreements with Reclamation. With the onset of selffunding of the conveyance and conveyance pumping facilities OM&R' d by the Authorities, it 

was determined that each Authority would need to develop an allocation methodology and 

means of recovering costs directly from the water contractors served by those facilities since the 

funding would no longer flow through Reclamation and there was not a workable mechanism to 

fund and allocate costs to water service contractors via Reclamation's ratesetting policies. (At 

the same time, self-funding of conveyance and conveyance pumping facilities by the TehamaColusa Canal Authority also occurred, and those costs also were removed from Reclamation's 

conveyance and conveyance pumping cost pools.) 

The SLDMW A OM&R Cost Recovery Plan (Cost Recovery Plan) was negotiated between FW A 

and SLDMWA over a two-year period from 1996-98. In May 1998, the Cost Recovery Plan was 

implemented. 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page 3 

THE COST RECOVERY PLAN 

The Cost Recovery Plan disaggregates certain historical cost pools that had been implemented 

under Reclamation's ratesetting policies. Instead, the Cost Recovery Plan allocates specific 

facility costs to water contractors directly benefiting from (using) those facilities in proportion to 

their use. The Cost Recovery Plan includes the following cost pools: (1) Upper DMC Cost 

Pool; (2) Lower (DMC) Cost Pool; (3) DWR Cost Pool (Joint use facilities); (4) Tracy Power 

Cost Pool; (5) O'Neill Cost Pool, which is further allocated between Direct Pumping and Storage 

Pumping; and (6) San Luis Drain Cost Pool (not relevant to this dispute and not further discussed 

here). 

Under the Cost Recovery Plan, the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) Upper and Lower Cost Pools 

are allocated to those contractors using or taking water delivery from the DMC; these Cost Pools 

include an allocation of conveyance costs for delivery ofExchange Contractor water. The Upper 

DMC Cost Pool includes the OM&R costs of the Tracy (Jones) Pumping Plant, exclusive of 

power costs. 

Before the implementation of the Cost Recovery Plan, DMC conveyance costs were historically 

included in Reclamation's conveyance cost pool but conveyance costs for delivery ofExchange 

Contractor water were not allocated or assigned in Reclamation's ratesetting policy; rather such 

costs were "absorbed" by all water contractors who were allocated conveyance costs. The Jones 

Pumping Plant costs under Reclamation's ratesetting policy were included in the Jones Pumping 

Plant pumping conveyance cost pool and were allocated to all water contractors using those 

facilities with the allocation ofExchange Contractor deliveries being made to Friant Class 1 

contractors as previously noted. 

The DWR Cost Pool consisting of the Joint Use Facilities is allocated to those contractors, 

primarily four San Luis Canal contractors, taking direct delivery from the Joint Use Facilities. 

Those costs historically were included in Reclamation's conveyance cost pool. 

Under the Cost Recovery Plan, the Tracy Power Cost Pool is allocated to all water contractors 

using the Jones Pumping Plant. Under Reclamation's ratesetting policy, all water contractors 

who used the Jones Pumping Plant were allocated power costs via the Jones Pumping Plant 

conveyance pumping cost pool with Friant Division Class 1 contractors being allocated such 

costs for delivery of Exchange Contractor water. 

The Cost Recovery Plan acknowledges that the O'Neill Pump-generating Plant (OPGP) is used 

for direct delivery ofwater as well as to pump water to be stored in San Luis Reservoir (SLR) for 

later use, thus the O'Neill Cost Pool is further divided into a Direct Pumping Cost Pool and a 

Storage Pumping Cost Pool. Under Reclamation's ratesetting policy, the OPGP costs were 

allocated to the San Luis Contractors and San Felipe contractors exclusively (net of power 

production costs when water was released from the O'Neill Forebay back into the DMC via the 

OPGP). 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page4 

During the negotiations leading to the development of the Cost Recovery Plan, the O'Neill cost 

pools were the subject of much discussion between FW A and SLDMW A. At issue was whether 

SLR provided a water supply benefit to the Exchange Contractors or to the DMC contractors, 

especially in light of the legal priority ofwater service to the Exchange Contractors, as compared 

to the DMC contractors and the San Luis Canal and San Felipe Division contractors. After much 

discussion and deliberation and in consideration of relatively small amount of water released 

from San Luis Reservoir back into the DMC via the O'Neill pumping plant and negotiations on 

other aspects of the Cost Recovery Plan, the Cost Recovery Plan included an allocation of 

O'Neill OM&R costs to contractors who use O'Neill for ultimate direct delivery and an 

allocation of O'Neill OM&R costs to those contractors on the DMC who utilized water stored in 

SLR with such water being returned to the DMC through the O'Neill Pump-generating plant. 

Thus, OM&R costs including pumping energy costs are allocated based upon the ratio of direct 

deliveries and SLR stored water being returned to the DMC. Credits created due to the 

generation of energy (revenues/expense reduction) are allocated to the storage pumping cost 

pool. 

Very little of the OPGP is needed to ensure Exchange Contractor water delivery and Exchange 

Contractor delivery obligations have always been met by Reclamation with existing facilities. 

DECISION TO CONSTRUCT THE DMC INTER TIE IN LIEU OF CORRECTING DMC 

CAPACITY RESTRICTION 

Over time, conveyance capacity in the DMC has become restricted due to subsidence and/or 

other causes resulting in up to 400 cfs less conveyance capacity in the DMC as compared to the 

pumping capacity at the Jones Pumping Plant when pumping conditions in the Delta would 

otherwise allow for this additional pumping. That additional pumping capacity would otherwise 

primarily, perhaps even exclusively, be used to augment CVP South-of Delta water contractors' 

water supplies. Pumping capacity at Jones is not the problem. 

FWA was advised that costs to remedy the DMC conveyance capacity limitations would be 

approximately equal to the costs to build the DMC Intertie. FW A accepts that under 

Reclamation's ratesetting policy, capital (or "capitalizable") costs for repair or enhancement of a 

CVP conveyance facility would have been allocated as a capital cost to the conveyance cost pool 

and allocated to all water contractors who use CVP conveyance (as provided in the ratesetting 

policy). However, had the DMC conveyance capacity correction been the chosen alternative, the 

OM&R costs associated with those improvements would not have materially changed the 

OM&R of the DMC cost pools as the footprint and features of the canal post construction would 

not have been much different than OM&R of the existing facility 

As the costs of the two alternatives were essentially the same but SLDMW A wanted a facility 

with potentially greater flexibility and a funding opportunity became available to provide for 

construction of the DMC Intertie, FWA notified Frances Mizuno by letter on April 17, 2006 

(copy attached) that the FWA was supportive of efforts to improve CVP South-of-Delta water 

deliveries and would support the construction costs being allocated to the conveyance capital 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page 5 

pool (as opposed to what the FWA deemed as an inappropriate proposal by Reclamation to 

allocate the costs ofthe DMC Intertie to the Jones Pumping Plant cost pool). 

THE DISPUTE OVER OM&R COSTS OF THE DMC INTER TIE 

The OM&R costs ofthe DMC Intertie, including energy and possibly expenses associated with 

use of the California Aqueduct to convey water to O'Neill Forebay, are expected to be much 

greater than the costs of OM&R would have been after improvements to the DMC. On this 

basis, FW A objected to SLDMW A including such costs in the Jones Pumping Plant component 

(Upper DMC cost pool). FWA's objection is spelled out in the attached letter. In summary, 

FWA continues to take the position that operation ofthe DMC Intertie provides little benefit to 

delivery ofExchange Contractor water, delivery ofCross Valley water or delivery of San 

Joaquin River Restoration Program recirculation water. To the extent that the DMC Intertie 

provides any such independent demonstrable benefit, FW A proposed that it would participate in 

a pro rata basis for the use ofthe DMC Intertie but such allocation should be considered solely 

on the basis of independent actual use ofthe facility. Including DMC Intertie costs as part of or 

allocated comparable to the Upper DMC cost pool allocation is inappropriate as this requires 

parties who enjoy no demonstrable benefit from this facility, such as FW A, to pay its OM&R 

costs. SLDMW A preferred the DMC Intertie to the DMC canal capacity correction project 

because the Intertie offered SLDMW A more flexibility and the possibility of increasing water 

deliveries to its contractors. It does not offer those same benefits to FW A, but FW A was willing 

to go along with the proposal to help CVP South ofDelta water contractors with their water 

supply problems, given that the DMC Intertie capital costs were approximately the same as the 

DMC canal capacity correction costs. However, the OM&R costs for the Intertie are more than 

they would have been for the DMC canal capacity correction. FW A believes that those 

additional costs should be borne by the water contractors that benefit from the Intertie. 

The DMC Intertie is an independent Conveyance Pumping facility similar to the OPGP although 

the DMC Intertie will be used to augment water supplies to the extent that existing capacity of 

CVP South-of-Delta facilities are inadequate to otherwise make those additional water supplies 

available. In essence, with respect to delivery of Exchange Contractor water, the OPGP already 

provides the necessary "backstop" for delivery of Exchange contractor water from storage in the 

SLR. 

In an attempt to resolve this issue, a draft compromise was developed wherein the "footprint" 

base costs (e.g., weed and pest control, general facility and grounds maintenance, etc.) ofthe 

DMC Intertie would be allocated to the Upper Cost Pool but variable costs of operating the 

facility and wheeling costs associated with conveyance using state facilities would be allocated 

to contractors benefiting from this additional conveyance pumping facility. In essence, if it 

could be demonstrated that some or all of Exchange Contractor, Cross Valley contractor or SJR 

Settlement recirculation water could only have been delivered by using the DMC Intertie, DMC 

Intertie OM&R costs would be allocated to those deliveries in a pro rata manner relative to other 

additional (CVP South ofDelta water contractor) deliveries. 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page6 

The FW A Board was willing to accept the draft compromise. Unfortunately, we were advised 

by SLDMW A that the compromise was unacceptable to SLDMW A member agencies, in part 

because some SLDMW A member agencies reject the cases establishing the Exchange 

Contractors' legal priority to water service. (See [date] email from Frances Mizuno to [Ron 

Jacobsma], attached.) 

As that issue has been the subject of extensive litigation, resulting in no fewer than seven 

published decisions, FW A is troubled that, in the context of allocating DMC Intertie costs, 

SLDMW A and/or its member agencies are suggesting that the Exchange Contractors do not have 

a legal priority to water that Reclamation pumps from the Delta. Simply put, this position is 

unsupportable. 

In Westlands Water District v. United States ofAmerica, 337 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(" Westlands VIF'), the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected Westlands' argument that the "first in 

time, first in right" principle did not give the Exchange Contractors priority over appellants' 

water service allocations. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's findings that the 

Exchange Contractors hold senior water rights that are both pre-1914 riparian and appropriative 

and, "under section 8 ofthe Reclamation Act of 1902 (43 U.S.C. § 383), the Bureau is required 

to comply with state law in acquiring water rights for the diversion and storage of water by the 

CVP." The "Exchange contractors 'exchanged' their senior rights to water in the San Joaquin 

River for a CVP water supply from the Delta. [The Bureau] thus guaranteed the exchange 

contractors a firm water supply ... Conversely, water service contractors [Westlands Water 

District and San Benito Water District] did not have water rights to 'exchange."' The Ninth 

Circuit also noted that W estlands' application to the State Water Rights Board acknowledged that 

its appropriation ofwater was "subject to vested rights." When USBR protested Westlands' 

application on behalf of its existing contractors within the Friant Division, Westlands stated it 

did not intend "to cause injury to those having valid vested rights ... and intends to take only 

that water which is in excess of the water needed to supply the valid vested rights under 

reasonable means of diversion and use." Thus, the permits for the west side diversions are 

conditioned on meeting the Exchange Contractors' senior water rights. 

Given all these facts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal concluded "both Westlands and the 

Bureau understood that [the Exchange Contractors'] prior vested rights had priority over 

Westlands' water allocations." Westlands VII, 337 F.3d at 1102. Furthermore, under the San 

Luis Act of 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-488, 74 Stat. 156, construction of the San Luis Unit required 

subordination ofthe west side water rights to those senior water rights that were existing as of 

1960, including the Exchange Contractors' rights. Westlands VII, 337 F.3d at 1102; see also 

Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1146-47 (E.D. Cal. 2001) 

(Westlands VI). For all of these reasons, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Exchange 

Contractors' substitute supply "is a vested priority obligation the Bureau must satisfy without 

including it in CVP available supply." Westlands VII, 337 F.3d at 1104. 

The priority ofwater service to the Exchange Contractors was considered when the OPGP cost 

allocation was negotiated; recognition of the Exchange Contractors' priority is what resulted in 
Donald R. Glaser 

April25, 2012 

Page7 

the split between direct delivery use of the OPGP and the use of the OPGP for storage to 

accommodate DMC deliveries to the Exchange Contractors when Jones Pumping Plant 

restrictions do not provide adequate supplies to meet concurrent Exchange Contractor demands. 

Similarly, the Exchange Contractors' priority to water pumped from the Delta must be 

recognized and honored in any resolution ofthis dispute over the allocation of costs for OM&R 

of the DMC Intertie. 

Interestingly, Cross Valley Contractor and SJR Settlement recirculation water deliveries are 

subordinate to CVP South of Delta water contractors' utilization ofCVP conveyance and 

conveyance pumping facilities. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, FWA continues to believe that the DMC Intertie is an independent conveyance 

pumping facility that should have its operational costs (along with the related state wheeling 

costs for use of the California Aqueduct) allocated to the water contractors who benefit from the 

additional water supply generated by the use of that facility. And, as the DMC Intertie is actually 

a conveyance pumping facility, the capital costs of that facility should be added as a separate 

capital feature of the CVP and allocated to the beneficiaries in accordance with Reclamation's 

ratesetting procedures. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald D. J acobsma 

General Manager 

cc: 	 (via email) 

FWA member districts 

Michael Jackson, USBR 

Katherine Thomas, USBR 

Michelle Denning, USBR 
April 17, 2006 . ---------- ----

Harvey A. Bailey 

CII•II'IIIIIS Df1M &Nird 

Erft A. 1\fcn 

Vlu 0.11711611 

Rould D. J•coblma 

Gft~Mll Mslllf6N' 

D. Zacbry Smllb 

Gum~/ CtHIIIIel 

f\JCNbcr AvariQ 

Amll-&llso• w.s.o. 

Ddulo-E:.rll...n LD. 

Emu/.0. 

F'IWIHII.D. 

lf'llsiiH/.0. 

Knr~·TIIItl~ W.O. 

UtN!aon/.0. 

"./llda~n/.0. 

Lowu Tilt. Rim- J.D. 

On•C••~LD. 

Plsleyl.D. 

hmnllle1.0. 


b6C.kllLD. 


S.IICtllllrii.D. 


S/ufm>.W.uco LD. 


$& s.. JMfllhl M.l/.0. 


StoM C.,.,.. J.D. 


Ta PetIJtnM W.O. 


Termlh/U J.D. 


fWtlrei.D. 


.. , , .- .. . F~ r· ,.,, p · f'\~ ~ 

~ ID'Z--=r~_J

I ' 

Frances Mizuno . 

I . · 

. 

--i-­

l ________ ' 

----j' ·- ­ ··- ' 

Assistant Executive Director ~ •

I _ I . • -. . 

• 

15990 Kelso Road • • • •. r"1 I : ~ - • ; , . 

Byron, CA 94514-9614 .. , 

SUBJECT: Intertie discussion at Los Banos on 2/26/2006 

Dear Ms. Mizuno: 

On Wednesday, February 22,2006, you convened a meeting at Los Banos consisting 

ofyou and your operations staff and Michael Hagman and myself. At that meeting we 

discussed allocation ofcosts associated with the potential construction of the Delta 

Mendota CanaVState Aqueduct Intertie (Intertie). 

Friant supports SLDMWA's pursuit ofthe construction ofthe Intertie though we 

believe the Exchange Contractors (EC), for whose water conveyance we pay, will 

have very limited benefit from that facility. We noted our perspective on appropriate 

allocation capital costs by the USBR and O&M costs by the SLDMWA as 

summarized below. 

USBR Capital Allocation: 

The intent e>f the project is to mitigate for subsidence in the Delta Mendota Canal 

(DMC) which has created reduced conveyance capacity on the DMC. The USBR has 

stated that they will consider the Intertie a Tracy Pumping Plant (TPP) enhancement 

even though the capacity ofthe plant is not at issue. This is problematic for us in that 

the costs would be narrowly applied to TPP beneficiaries (specifically SLDMWA and 

Friant Contractors). Whereas, ifthe cost for construction of the Intertie, which is to . 

recover diminished DMC conveyance capacity, were applied (correctly, in our view) 

to the conveyance component, the costs would be allocated broadly to all contractors 

benefiting from USBRICVP constructed conveyance facilities. 

We would like SLDMWA to support Friant in proposing to the USBR that the capital 

cost of the facility be treated as a conveyance capital cost. 

Main Office ConstructJon and Maintenance Offices Sacramento Office 

854 NOITIIHAIVAtD AYEIIUE 

UHDSA'f, CA 93247 

860 SECOND STRUT 

OIAHGE COVE, CA 93646 

WNOIWAU 

D£WCO, CA 93215 

15211 STREET 

SACIAMllfTO, CA 95814 

PHONE: 559-562-&lOS PHOKE: 559-626-4444 PHON£:661·72~ PHONE: 916-441·1931 

FAX:559·562·3496 FAX: 559-626-4457 fAX: 66l·n5·9S45 fAX: 91'-4~1-1581 
Ms. Frances Mizuno 

April 17, 2006 

Page 2 

SLDMWA Operations and Costs: 

SLDMW A has been proposing to consider the costs of operating the Intertie the same way the 

USBR is considering treating the capital costs, i.e., as a TPP cost. We do not believe that such 

an application is consistent with the objectives of the SLDMW A O&M Cost Recovery Plan 

wherein conveyance and conveyance pumping project features have been segregated in order to 

allocate costs to the greatest extent possible to the beneficiaries of those features. Friant requests 

that a separate O&M cost allocation formula be developed wherein water users are allocated 

O&M costs commensurate with their respective use of the facility. To that end, we recognize 

that Friant or Cross Valley water contractors could be allocated costs in the following 

circumstances: 

I. 	 The Intertie were used to provide EC water supplies in the event that existing pumping, 

conveyance, or storage is unavailable to meet the EC demands in consideration of the 

EC's water delivery priority (Friant would be responsible for such lntertie O&M costs to 

the extent the water is actually delivered to an EC consistent with provisions within the 

existing cost allocation formula); 

2. 	 Cross Valley Contractors would be allocated Intertie O&M costs to the extent the facility 

is used to convey Cross Valley Water supplies for delivery to Cross Valley Contractors; 

3. 	 Friant would be allocated lntertie O&M costs in the instance that the Intertie were used to 

recover, for the benefit of Friant water contractors, San Joaquin River flows resulting 

from releases from Friant for the benefit of the environment (e.g., River Restoration): 

4. 	 Any additional instances in which Friant water contractors, Cross Valley Contractors or 

EC' s benefit from the facilities as reviewed and agreed upon on a case by case basis. 

We appreciate your consideration of these issues. If you have any questions regarding this issue 

please feel free to contact myself or Michael D. Hagman at (559) 562-6305. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald D. J obsma 

General Manager 

Cc: 	 Kirk C. Rodgers, Regional Director, USBR 

Katherine Thompson, Regional Business Manager, USBR 

Larry Bauman, Rate Setting & Economic Services Manager, USBR 

Michael P. Jackson, Deputy Area Manager, USBR !/" 

Harvey A. Bailey, Chairman, FWA 

Michael D. Hagman, Financial Affairs Manager, FWA 

RDJ/pl 
' //... ·.' 

· ... -,. 

':'·'" ;,· 

...... 

i. ~) 

.. ... .. .. ,. 

... i: 

,, 

{ • I' 

.·.: ·."'· 

.: ~· 

·'· 

.. ·.. ; ~ .'. . 

; .. ; 

·'·' 

~-····;, :II ,. 

'.

. . ' ' ., .. 

'• 1, 

p··

-~ . ' 

.: . 

!(. 

.. ~ . • !· 

..·' 

·.; . ,.. ; 

.. :· 

(,' 

.:.·· 

: ~ ' ,: 

;· 

:·i:·..·.·.. ;,".'. 

p •••~: .···· 

:.·· . ' .. ' ~ .•' 
Ronald D. Jacobsma 

From: Frances Mizuno <frances.mizuno@sldmwa.org > 

Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 201112:50 PM 

To: Ronald D. Jacobsma; Kathy Bennett 

Cc: Tona Mederios 

Subject: FW: Updated WYll O&M Rates including Intertie Suspense, DWR Wheeling and PUE 

Attachments: WYll Rate Calc Including Intertie Estimated Costs.pdf 

Ron and KathyAfter consulting with Tom Birmingham in regards to the proposed lntertie Allocation that we had previous discussed 

with you, he advised me that although it has been Reclamation's practice to allocate Project water to water 

service contractors after making water available to the EC, there is no contract, statute or judicial decision that 

would give the Exchange Contractors a legal priority to water diverted at Jones. Rather, it is a exercise of 

Reclamation's discretion about the allocation of water. Based on this understanding, the additional water 

provided by the lntertie would benefit all south of Delta water users and therefore the lntertie O&M cost 

should be a cost under the "Upper Cost Pool" similarly to the Jones Pumping Plant and allocated as such. 

Attached is an illustration of the WY 11 rates for the lntertie assuming the associated cost is allocated the 

same as JPP. The cost included in the illustration includes the PUE and DWR wheeling costs based on a 

assumption the lntertie would pump 35,000 AF of water this FY. This is not likely to occur as Reclamation's 

50% Forecast shows SLR filling without the use of the lntertie. 

Let's talk after you review this and we can determine if we need to meet on Friday. Thanks. 

Frances 

From: Tona Mederios 


Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:04PM 


To: Frances Mizuno 


Subject: Updated WYll O&M Rates including Intertie Suspense, DWR Wheeling and PUE 


Frances, 


Attached is the updated worksheet. The increase to all delivery areas is $0.25 per a/f. The pool shows $.34, this is a 


result of SLDMWA O&M being moved into this pool, from the original Upper Pool. 


Alllntertie Costs have been accumulated into a separate "UPPER" cost pool. This separate pool uses the same delivery 


a/f as the original "UPPER "cost pool. 


Call to discuss. 


Tona 


1 
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

Revised WY 2011 SELF-FUNDING SLDMWA O&M WATER RATES, Adjusted for lntertie Suspense, DWR Wheeling, & PUE 

Illustration Only 

July 18, 2011 

OLS UPPER JPPPWR UPPER VOLTA WELLS 

.v:-) ~f~ f>_;·t_~·T:~::·;·.;::_::2;-'::yf~;;._;.·;

! LOWER O'NEILL PIG 

;';·!: '/·; A>'' >i!·~· 

RESERVES 

>~.-,·-c 

DWRCOSTS POWER 

: 

Upper DMC/ 

JPP/ O&M 

l!mi!IIL 

SLDMWA I 

Suspense I ' 

SlDMWA O&M I ! SUU Conveyance • 

&PUE 

3 year Dj/ol QCOjec/ 

I 

I 

;LowerDMC/ 

!Mendota Pool 

' ' I 

O'Neill O&M San Luis Canal 

O&M 

Des Amigos 

O&M 

Des Amigos 

Power 

\NTS All Users All Users All Users 

(Actual 

LOCATED- $5,994,402 $11,000,000 $855,870 

:ET 2,551,829 2,540,189 2,551,829 

~AF $2.35 $4.34 $0.34 

A B c 

RATE PER ACRE FOOT -BY DEUVERY AREA I CONTRACTOR 

Com nents Rate 

UpperDMC A+B+C+H+I $7.85 

.ower DMC/Pool A+B+C+F+H+I $9.n 

San Felipe A+B+C+G+I $9.76 

ova Doa Amigo& A+B+C+G+I+J $18.69 

low Dos Amigos A+B+C+G+I+J+K+L $23.65 

ts/Friant (Lower) A+B+C+F+H+I $9.n 

Refuge (Lower ) A+B+C+F+H+I $9.n 

l-Refuge Level II D $202.22 

-Refuge Level IV E $202.22 

San Luis Drain $90,236 $0.08 

CQSTS TO Bli ALLOCAIIiP 

O'NMl Tdol 

<ertieO&M•$216,689) $9,864,323 $ 1,425,408.00 

1dlng $1,325,000 

' ' Refuge I Refuge I LowerDMC & 

Level II (Only) i Level IV (Only)i MP Users 

' ' 

$202,220 $202,220 $2,217,762 

1,000 1,000 1,158,362 

$202.22 $202.22 $1.92 

D E F 

O'NM!89%111"4 

1,268,613.12 0.96428556 


156 794.88 0.11947269 


$90,236 1,425,408.00 

$275,761 

S &Grd H2o 

$360,358 

$11,000,000 


$34,000 


$33,600 
 O'NMI! T<*l O'NtllSi'lb/11% 

___......$_1_500=000-- $12,567,600 $1,500000 1,335,000.00 1.01474689 

165,000.00 0.12572473 

~TUSE 1,500,000.00 

ing $329,840 

tiO&M $10,400,000 

&M $3,900,000 O'NIIII To;UJ O'NWISK/11... 

$300,0001----$300=·-000- 267,000.00 0.20294938

33,000.00 0.02514495 

300,000.00 

$1 800 000 

$41213118 

All Users 

"Direct" 

$2,870,613 

1,315,599 

$2.19 

! 

G 

$0.97 

$0.20 

$1.02 

"Storage" 

$354,795 

1,312,391 

$0.28 

! 

H 

$0.12 

$0.03 

$0.13 

$2.19 $0.28 

SUDMWA lnt Suep 275,761 

lntertieO&M 216,669 

lntertiePUE 33,600 

lntertle DWR Wheeling $ 329 840 

Totlntertie $ S55 870 

All Users All SLJU 

Users 

DosAmigos 

Users 

DosAmigos 

Users 

$1,325,000 

%of10Yr 

Historical Use 

$0.54 

Y:il!IIiB 

$10,400,000 

1,165,672 

$8.93 

J 

~I.!~~LY. A~I.!M~DQ!::I~ 

$3,900,000 

1,155,672 

$3.38 

K 

$1,800,000 

1,143,672 

$1.58 

L 

Irrigation 

M&l 

Refuge 

ExPM.rRts 

80% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

SCWJD 80% 

Revised Rates Approved 

by Board Action 6/9/11 , _,...,__.____ ..,..._ '­ _,...,____DWII_,. _,...., _____PUE 

Direct Storage 

O&M •$.97 O&M • $.12 

O&M DWR •$20 O&M DWR • $.03 

Pwr•$1.02 Pwr•$.13