Intertie Cost Recovery - Comments from February 11, 2014 Workshop

Agency POC Paraphrased Comments

Santa Clara Valley Water District Dana Jacobson

Mr. Jacobson asked what methodology Reclamation uses for determfacility. Michelle Denning responded that the CalSim II model was asked how future O&M benefits "as a whole" are measured. He statO&M costs it lowers O&M for everyone. Mr. Jacobson made the suconsider treating the Intertie according to the Jones Pumping Plant, oPumping Plant as an addition. Mr. Jacobson also requested that Reche provided via email regarding the Intertie cost allocation.

Westlands Water District Tom Birmingham

Mr. Birmingham stated that Reclamation's ability to supply water to contractors and refuges is improved due to the Intertie; therefore, thethe SOD contractors identified through the CalSim II modeling perfoReclamation ask contractors if the CalSim modeling is consistent wiBirmingham also provided additional background from the contractothat it was mutually agreed upon (between Reclamation and the contDMC needed to be restored because of the subsidence that has occurconditions and groundwater pumping. Canal capacity could have berehabilitation of the DMC instead of the Intertie being constructed to contractors. Mr. Birmingham made a point of saying that, had a majoccurred, the cost of the rehabilitation would have been added to the and the repayment would have been shared by all who are included. the purpose of meeting the need for restoring canal capacity; therefothat it should be treated as a conveyance action and included in the crecovery through the water rates. Mr. Birmingham further stated ththe Intertie, that it was not designed for a single group of contractorsoperationally integrated project. 
Intertie Cost Recovery - Comments from February 11, 2014 Workshop

Agency POC Paraphrased Comments

Mr. Jacobsma expressed concern about setting a president with the Iimpact it will have on other new construction that may occur in the fHe also mentioned that when new construction primarily benefits a ccosts should follow the beneficiaries. Allocating cost to all contractoprimary benefit to a specific group of contractors, and incidental benappropriate. The energy costs and the fee for the use of the Aqueduc

Friant Water Authority Ron Jacobsma should be paid by the beneficiaries. This facility [Intertie] will have 

footprint isn't as expensive as the O&M costs. Mr. Jacobsma also mby option 3. Costs shift, so over time the benefits have changed. Thishifting. Storage issues will dwarf this. These proposals [in the optioMr. Jacobsma stated that the Exchange contractors prefer option 2. that Reclamation review the position papers that were previously subAuthority regarding the treatment of the Intertie for cost recovery. Mr. Hall mentioned that the repayment of the Intertie could be treateFreeport project back in 2003/2004. He also commented that he lik

East Bay Municipal Utility District Garth Hall conveyance cost component based on the specific canals used, and th

be considered when public meetings are held regarding finalizing the stated that option 3 has some appeal to M&I contractors but there is the costs. This can't be done quickly but should be considered for 20Mr. Limas commented that Cross Valley Canal contractors do not be

Lower Tule Irrigation District Eric Limas therefore, should not be responsible for repaying the construction co

there is no benefit to the Cross Valley contractors, that this was a miAllocation paper. Mr. Limas stated that he prefers option 2.

Western Area Power Administration Regina Rieger Ms. Rieger mentioned that the Intertie will increase project use pum

providing official comments from Western in writing.