WATER RESOURCES & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES Tuesday, December 22, :15p.m.

Transcription

1 WATER RESOURCES & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES Tuesday, December 22, :15p.m. ATTENDANCE Directors: John Weed (Chair), Jim Gunther Staff: Robert Shaver, Steven Inn, Doug Chun, Leonard Ash, Stephanie Penn DISCUSSION TOPICS 1. IRWM Proposition 84 Grant Round 3 MOU: Stephanie Penn, Water Conservation Specialist, provided an update on the grant. In July 2014, the District and 11 other Bay Area agencies participated in a grant proposal submitted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for a Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management 2014 Drought Grant Round 3. In November 2014, ABAG was awarded a $32,178,423 grant by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) with $5,993,971 designated for Bay Area conservation programs. The District was awarded $535,000 in grant funds to be applied toward existing conservation programs, including toilet, washer, and landscape rebates, over the next two to three years. Alameda County Waste Management Authority ("Stop Waste") is acting as the lead agency representing the twelve agencies receiving a portion of the grant award. A Memorandum of Understanding among StopWaste, the District, and other participating agencies is necessary for the disbursement of the water conservation grant funding. Staff responded to questions from Directors Gunther and Weed. 2. Water Supply Assessment for the Pare 55 Project: Leonard Ash, Water Resources Planning Engineer, reported that on December 14, 2015, the District received a letter from the City of Fremont rescinding their October 28, 2015, request for a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Pare 55 Senior Housing Development Project (Project), located in Warm Springs. As reported to the committee last month, the original WSA request was for 560 senior housing units across various housing product types and including a 15,000 square foot public senior community center. The Project has since been reduced to only 497 residential units, underneath the threshold to require a WSA under California Water Code Section The reduced project still requires rezoning of 23.5 acres of land from Tech/Industrial to Urban Residential (30-70 units per acre). While 18.5 acres of the site have existing development and demands, approximately 5 acres are vacant land. Staff has worked with City of Fremont staff and the developer to develop conservation measures to mitigate the Project' s potential water demands to within the range of existing planned demands for that area. Staff responded to questions from Directors Gunther and Weed. 3. Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project: Mr. Ash reported that in January 2012, a California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) paper identified levee rehabilitation projects that could enhance water supply reliability through the Delta and included the rehabilitation of levees at Bacon Island as a top priority (reference Attachment 1). In conjunction with seven urban water agencies, including ACWD, Reclamation District 2028 (RD2028) proposed a project to rehabilitate Bacon Island levees under the State Department of Water Resources

2 (DWR) 2014 Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program solicitation for multibenefit proj ects (reference Attachment 2, Project Map). Earlier this year, DWR approved grant funding for 97% of the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project' s estimated cost of $10,527,000. The seven urban water agencies will supply in kind services and the remainder of the project costs up to $316,000. ACWD will be joining a letter of mutual understanding that sets forth the project cost sharing responsibilities (reference Attachment 3), and ACWD's share ofthe project costs will not exceed $5,326. Staff responded to questions and comments from Directors Gunther and Weed. 4. Update on the ACWD, CCWD, and Zone 7 Los Vaqueros Reservoir One-for-One Exchange Demonstration Project: Mr. Ash reported that the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) provided Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7) and ACWD with a letter agreement for the One-for-One Exchange Demonstration Project to exchange up to 5,000 acre-feet of water from the State Water Project (SWP) with the Central Valley Project (CVP) (reference Attachment 4). CCWD would use ACWD and Zone 7 water stored in San Luis Reservoir to apply towards customer demands rather than using their stored water supplies. Due to the time constraints for performing the demonstration project, ACWD will likely not be able to exchange the full 5,000 acre-feet before January 20, 2016, when certain project approvals expire. Water exchanges are expected to begin soon, pending DWR and CVP operational review and approval. Staff responded to questions and comments from Directors Gunther and Weed. 5. Water Supply Outlook : Doug Chun, Water Supply Manager, provided the outlook with local and imported supplies currently in-hand. Local supplies include water that can be captured in Lake Del Valle, and Alameda Creek water right diversions that are used to recharge the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. Imported supplies consist of State Water Project water (current allocated at 10% ofthe District's Table A contract entitlement), water in San Luis Reservoir that can be carried over for 2016 use, Semitropic Water Bank return water, and water available for purchase from the SFPUC. Total supply currently available appears sufficient to meet the water supply use in 2016 which is anticipated to be approximately 37,400 acre feet, assuming little change in overall use and water conservation. Staff responded to questions from Directors Gunther and Weed. 6. Public Comments: There were no public comments. RECOMMENDATIONS Topics discussed by the Committee were informational only and no recommendations are being made. 2

3 January 4, 2012 John Laird, Secretary Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA Dear Secretary Laird: Representing six Bay Area water agencies and the Metropolitan Water District, we are writing to request your assistance in our collaborative effort to improve water supply reliability in the Delta. While our agencies may have different perspectives on some of the many complex issues in the Delta, we all recognize the importance of continuing to maintain and improve the Delta levee system both in the near term and in the decades to come. As part of our collaborative discussions about near term Delta actions, we have developed a paper entitled, Urban Water Agencies Strategy for Delta Levees List of Priority Levee Projects enclosed for your consideration. The three projects described in the paper meet the criteria for Early Actions in the emerging Delta Plan and in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and reflect a no regrets approach to infrastructure investment. In particular, we believe these projects qualify for funding from Proposition 1E, and encourage you to consider full implementation to enhance water supply reliability and the general resilience of the Delta. In total, the funding need for the three levee projects ranges up to $163 million.

4 Secretary John Laird January 4, 2012 Page 2 We appreciate your attention to these priority projects, and will call your office to arrange a meeting to discuss the best approach to addressing this urgent need. Sincerely, Jerry Brown, General Manager Contra Costa Water District Michael Carlin, Deputy General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Alexander R. Coate, General Manager East Bay Municipal Utility District Jill Duerig, General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

5 Secretary John Laird January 4, 2012 Page 3 Beau Goldie, Chief Executive Officer Santa Clara Valley Water District Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Walt Wadlow, General Manager Alameda County Water District ARC:DW Enclosure cc: Gerald Meral, Deputy Secretary, Natural Resources Agency Mark Cowin, Director, Department of Water Resources Charlton Bonham, Director, Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Delta Stewardship Council Members of the California Legislature

6 Draft v5 DRAFT URBAN WATER AGENCIES STRATEGY FOR DELTA LEVEES LIST OF PRIORITY LEVEE PROJECTS Urban Water Agencies have identified the need for a strategy to strengthen the integrity of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Delta) Levee system for reliable water supplies and water quality. The projects identified should be implemented on a short-term basis to provide benefits in a timely manner. CATEGORIES OF SUPPORTED LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Urban Water Users reliant on the Delta levee system support levee improvement projects to (1) protect water supply interests reliant on Delta levees, and (2) improve protections for other uses including but not limited to life, property, infrastructure and ecosystem habitats in the Delta. Protection to Water Supply Interests Reliant on Delta Supplies Protect water supply infrastructure Provide freshwater pathway conveyance under emergency conditions Reduce risk of levee failure on islands that would have the greatest negative water quality impact at drinking water intakes (e.g. eight western Delta islands) Reduce salinity at water supply intakes and enhance operational flexibility (e.g. tidal marsh restoration in north and west Delta and marsh regions by levee breaching). Protection of Life, Property, Infrastructure and Habitats in the Delta Protect urban areas Protect infrastructure (highways, power lines, railways, etc.) Habitat restoration projects important to water users reliant on the Delta The remainder of this paper focuses on ongoing projects to protect water supply. As illustrated in Figure 1, levee improvements to protect existing infrastructure and provide a freshwater pathway overlap in many areas. SPECIFIC LEVEE IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS The following list of levee improvement actions should be implemented on a short-term basis to protect water quality and supplies of interests reliant on the Delta levee system. These actions are both consistent with protection of existing water supply infrastructure and compatible with dual conveyance options under consideration by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The list of actions is based on the general categories of need described above. Relevant information includes name, description, benefits, approximate cost, status of funding and implementation stage. 4

7 Protection to Water Supply Interests Reliant on Delta Supplies Protection of water supply infrastructure is essential during and following a major seismic or flood event. Freshwater flows in the Delta must be protected and quickly restored following seismic and flood emergencies, and levees supporting critical water conveyance facilities must be fortified. Stockpiling of emergency response materials for repairs at key locations in the Delta can facilitate protection of critical infrastructure and restoration of freshwater supplies after emergencies in a timely manner. The following specific actions are identified: Name: Mokelumne Aqueduct Levee Enhancements Description: Reduce the potential for levee failure by improving the level of flood protection afforded by various levees in the south Delta vital to the protection of the Mokelumne Aqueduct. Levees to be improved to provide added protection are: Lower Roberts Island Lower Jones Tract Upper Jones Tract Woodward Island Palm-Orwood Tract Benefits: Enhanced protection for water supply afforded by the Mokelumne Aqueduct with additional benefits to the other infrastructure and lands, including Highway 4, railroads, gas pipelines/fields and agricultural lands. Improve protection to water supply aqueducts crossing the Delta, including design and construction of emergency interties for interim supplies to aqueducts. Study relocation of the water supply aqueducts for continuation of reliable water service for public health and safety after a catastrophic levee failure. Approximate Cost: $83 million (Prop 1E) Status of Funding: Of the $83 million cited above, for five islands that the Mokelumne Aqueducts cross, about $35 million of that need was addressed by SBx2 1 (Prop 1E) and the balance of $48 million is the remaining need. Implementation Stage: Of the $35 million appropriated, about $20 million plus a local cost share has been fully authorized, cleared CEQA and awarded. The remaining $15 million is expected to clear those steps in late 2011 or early 2012 for the next construction season. Name: Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Description: Replace 4 miles of the unlined canal with a pipe (from Rock Slough to CCWD PP1), eliminating 8 miles of aging levee embankments. Benefits: Improve CCWD s water supply reliability while reducing flooding risk to nearby developments and providing the opportunity for habitat restoration. Under an agreement with DWR and a CEQA mitigation commitment, the canal must be replaced along the 5

8 restoration site before the Dutch Slough restoration project can proceed due to likely seepage from flooding of adjacent islands. Dutch Slough restoration project is a potential habitat restoration project under BDCP (and may be used to partially satisfy the 2008 FWS OCAP requirement). Seepage from the Dutch Slough restoration would make it difficult for the SWP and CVP to meet the D-1641 requirements at Rock Slough; replacing the canal with a pipe will mitigate for seepage. Approximate Cost: Approximately $100 million remaining construction costs. All planning and environmental work is complete. Status of Funding: $10 million (Prop 1E) grant with $10 million match. Unmet obligation is approximately $80 million. Implementation Stage: Phase 1 construction was completed in Next phase will commence with current Prop 1E grant, but additional funding is needed. Name: Middle River Emergency Freshwater Pathway Description: Restoration of levees to convey freshwater along Middle River and Victoria Canal to export facilities following a major emergency in the Delta. Middle River levees toe berms would be provided in advance of an emergency. Stockpiling materials in advance will facilitate pathway restoration. The pathway supports implementation of DWR s Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Program. Toe berms are proposed on the following segments of the freshwater pathway: Bacon Island (east levee) Woodward Island (east levee) Upper and Lower Jones Tract (west levees) McDonald Tract (west levee along Mildred Island) Victoria Island (east levee) The following levee segments form the southern portion of the freshwater pathway, however toe berms are not proposed: Victoria Island (south levee) Union Island (north levee) Levee improvements along the east and west levees of a potential emergency freshwater pathway are being implemented by local reclamation districts, including landside slope work, landside toe berms and setback levees at Woodward Island, Upper Jones Tract and Lower Jones Tract (see Delta Stewardship Council website). Landside toe berms are also being evaluated and implemented along the west levee of Middle River at Bacon Island by the reclamation district and through the Corps levee stability program. These improvements are 6

9 being evaluated to determine compatibility with landside toe berms to reduce levee slumping in a seismic event, which could reduce estimated costs shown below. Benefits: The benefits include freshwater delivery to 2/3 of Californians within about a 6- month window in the event of a catastrophic multi-island failure and associated salinity intrusion in the Delta. Approximate Cost: Total cost is estimated at $100 million. $60 million is estimated for levee toe berms along the pathway. $40 million is estimated for remaining stockpiling materials to facilitate pathway restoration after a major emergency. Corps levee stability program planning costs for pathway toe berm development are estimated at $2 million, comprised of state (Prop 1E), Reclamation District (in-kind) and federal (Corps Levee Stability Program) sources. Updated construction costs are being prepared at this time. Status of Funding: $10 million (Prop 84) funds were spent for emergency preparedness rock stockpiles placed in 2007/08. $37 million (Prop 1E) funds has been appropriated (SBX2_1) for DWR emergency response studies and materials/equipment stockpile purchases. $43 million (Prop 1E) funds have been authorized (but not appropriated) for remaining Delta risk reduction activities. Total Prop 1E funding appropriated or authorized is $80 million. Federal funding of toe berm levee improvements under the Corps Levee Stability Program will be evaluated upon completion of the feasibility study. Implementation Stage: The project is currently in the feasibility planning stage, although initial compatible work is underway by DWR/RD agreement at Bacon Island. Implementation of Risk-Based Analysis of Levee Protection and Standards Urban Water Agencies strongly encourage implementation of economically-based risk reduction on an island-by-island basis. This evaluation would take into account that some islands, or portions of islands, may be converted to habitat that would change how major investments are considered for levee improvements. Economically-based risk reduction analyses should consider (1) protection to life, property and infrastructure in the Delta, and (2) protection to water supply interests reliant on the Delta levee system. This non-proscriptive, risk-based approach to levee standards should be incorporated into DWR s Delta Flood Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Program and the Delta Levees Program. Long-Term Interests Implementing these short-term levee improvements strategies and economically-based standards does not foreclose or promote any future scenario for the Delta. For example, these levee improvements would be compatible with dual-conveyance improvements and are consistent with protection of existing state infrastructure. Remaining Funding under Proposition 1E The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1E) authorizes $4.09 billion in general obligation bonds to rebuild and repair California s most vulnerable flood 7

10 control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides and to protect California s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms. A March 29, 2011 State Proposition Allocation Balance Report, prepared by the Resources Agency, provides detailed information on remaining balances in Propositions 1E, 84 and 50. Proposition 1E appears to be the most practical source of significant future funding for Delta levees. The following table drawn from the March 29, 2011 report provides a comprehensive assessment of remaining funds in Proposition 1E. 1E Bond Program State Plan of Flood Control Flood control and flood prevention projects Flood protection corridors and bypasses Storm water flood management Public Resources Code 1E Bond Allocation ($000) Enacted Expenditure ($000) 8 Proposed Expenditure ($000) Statewide Bond Costs ($000) Balance Remaining ($000) $3,000,000 ($2,005,928) ($197,403) ($105,000) $691, $500,000 ($103,400) ($60,067) ($17,500) $319, $290,000 ($186,454) ($37,393) ($10,150) $56, $300,000 ($230,408) ($555) ($10,500) $58,537 TOTAL $4,090,000 ($2,526,190) ($295,418) ($143,150) $1,125,242 As of March 2011, Proposition 1E had a remaining balance of approximately $1.13 billion, or 27.5% of the $4.09 billion authorization. Beneficiaries of Delta Levees Levee improvement projects in the Delta advocated by urban water agencies offer direct benefits for protecting water supply and water quality. However, there are numerous other interests and asset owners that also stand to benefit from the three identified projects. These include, but may not be limited to: State Highway 4 (Caltrans) and local roads Shipping channel to Stockton Natural gas pipelines and storage fields (Kinder Morgan, PG&E) Electrical transmission lines (TANC) BNSF railway Agriculture

11 Recreational boating Commercial and recreational fishing At present, most of these users are not contributing financially to levee maintenance and improvement in the Delta, and any unpaid benefits they receive make them effectively free riders. If a mechanism for implementing the beneficiary pays principle were in place, these users could be assessed proportional to the benefits they receive from investments to improve the levees. Establishing such an assessment system would also help to meet the increased non-state cost share for levee investment envisioned by the Delta Stewardship Council. In practice however, most of these interests cannot be expected to participate voluntarily with financial support for the levee projects in question. Further, there is no near-term prospect of a benefit assessment district or other authorized body that could impose mandatory fees or charges under a beneficiary pays system. Therefore, the most practical approach for near term funding the multi-benefit levee projects is to utilize state funding supported by an urban agency cost share, to be determined. 9

12 10

13

14 November XX, 2015 Robert Shaver, General Manager Alameda County Water District South Grimmer Boulevard Fremont, CA Alexander R. Coate, General Manager East Bay Municipal Utility District P.O. Box 24055, MS 804 Oakland, CA Jeffrey Kightlinger, General Manager Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P.O. Box Los Angeles, CA Michael Carlin, Deputy General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA Beau Goldie, Chief Executive Officer Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA Jill Duerig, General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA Subject: Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Dear Urban Water Agency Managers: In January 2012, the California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) prepared a paper entitled Urban Water Agencies Strategy for Delta Levees List of Priority Levee Projects, which defined the levee rehabilitation projects that could provide water supply reliability benefits for all urban water agencies that receive water from supply that moves through the Delta levee channels or through pipeline infrastructure that crosses the Delta. The paper emphasized the importance of protecting water supply infrastructure during and following major seismic or flood events and the need to fortify levees supporting critical water conveyance. Bacon Island was included at the top of the list of proposed levee projects on the Old and Middle River freshwater corridor. In July 2014, Reclamation District 2028 (RD 2028) submitted a conceptual grant proposal for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project (the Project) in response to the California Department of Water Resources 2014 Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program - Project Solicitation Package for Multi-Benefit Projects. Out of 26 proposals submitted, the Project was one of five invited to submit a detailed proposal. RD 2028 submitted a detailed grant proposal for the Project in September 2014 which was subsequently approved for funding by DWR on February 17, The Project would rehabilitate approximately 5 miles of levees on Bacon Island along Old River and create several acres of native grassland and scrub shrub habitat (Attachment 1 Vicinity Map; Attachment 2 Project Map). Engineering would be performed to develop a design cross section (Attachment 3 Cross Section Map) that would sustainably meet, at a minimum, the state s Hazard Mitigation Plan levee requirements. The Hazard Mitigation Plan levee requirements are a first step at improving levee stability and storm water overtopping. The proposed Project would require RD 2028 to undertake environmental review and mitigation, engineering, planning, construction, and contract management.

15 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 2 The Project would result in a more stable levee along a portion of Bacon Island, which would reduce the risk of a levee failure in the rehabilitated segment. This, in turn, would reduce other associated risks to water supply, such as the potential for salinity intrusion that could jeopardize the water supply for local in-delta, State Water Project, and Central Valley Project export interests. The estimated Project cost is $ million. Each of our agencies benefits from improving urban water supply reliability and is willing to contribute to the Project to ensure this benefit is achieved. RD 2028 and a coalition of seven urban water agencies have been collaborating to develop funding partnerships for the non-state share of the Project cost. The urban water agencies are: Alameda County Water District, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (hereinafter each an Agency or collectively, the Agencies). This Letter of Mutual Understanding (LOMU) is an agreement between the Agencies to identify the total cost share for each Agency toward the non-state cost share of the Project. The Project is a one-time project that does not set a precedent for future projects or future investments by any of the Agencies. As the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has selected the Project for funding of 97 percent of the Project cost, our Agencies shall agree to the following terms. Conditions Precedent The following are conditions precedent for the funding commitments contained herein. In the event that a condition precedent is not met, the commitments in this LOMU shall become null and void. (1) The Bacon Island Levee Project is approved for the DWR grant; (2) RD 2028 enters into a funding agreement with DWR ( DWR Funding Agreement ); (3) RD 2028 shall complete its review of the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and submit a completed and filed Notice of Exemption to the Agencies; (4) RD 2028 and Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) shall, to the satisfaction of the Agencies, enter into a Local Funding Agreement that describes the mutual interests and obligations of RD 2028 and the Agency signatories to the LOMU relative to the costshare proposed, and incorporates the scope of work and other essential requirements of the DWR Funding Agreement. The draft Local Funding Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Attachment B. Funding Allocations and CCWD Responsibilities Under the LOMU, each Agency shall contribute funds and/or services to the Project. The LOMU sets forth the terms and conditions: (i) for the not to exceed amount allocation of funding/in-kind services contributions by each Agency and (ii) by which CCWD shall act as the

16 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 3 fiscal agent for the Agencies, and the liaison and administrator of the processing of project invoices from RD 2028 to the Agencies and the distribution of funds from the Agencies. CCWD will act as the fiscal agent for the Agencies, and will, as part of CCWD s in-kind services, invoice the Agencies for their share of costs for the Project according to the terms in Attachment A. This letter serves to commit each agency to pay to CCWD its respective share of the costs pursuant to this LOMU and the Local Funding Agreement. Budget The total cost of the Project is estimated at $10.527M. Of the total, up to $10.211M will be provided from DWR and up to $316,000 will be provided by the Agencies. Each Agency, by countersigning below, agrees to fund a portion of the local cost share as described in Attachment A. East Bay Municipal Utility District and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will provide in-kind technical review and implementation support services based on their recent completion of separate levee rehabilitation projects in the Delta. In-kind funding will also be provided by PG&E to relocate a 22-inch diameter high pressure natural gas line that crosses through the levee in the Project area, as well as overhead electrical utilities around the perimeter of Bacon Island. The high pressure gas line will be relocated either over or under the rehabilitated levee in order to provide the maximum protection for the rehabilitated levee. The overhead electrical utility lines in the Project area will also be raised or relocated. RD 2028 will coordinate with PG&E to ensure the utilities are relocated as appropriate in accordance with the terms of PG&E s utility easements on Bacon Island. PG&E will be responsible for permitting, design, implementation, and maintenance of the utility relocation and will provide all the funding required for this work. The cost to relocate PG&E s utilities is not included in the $10.527M Project cost but is anticipated to be in excess of $100,000. In-kind funding will also be provided by RD 2028, through approximately 30 acres of farmland which will be taken out of production to provide on-site borrow materials for the Project. The use of onsite borrow materials will allow RD 2028 to complete the levee rehabilitation at a significant cost savings to the overall Project. This costs savings will enable a greater portion of the levee to be rehabilitated than would otherwise be possible if imported fill were required for the entire Project. Furthermore, the costs associated with constructing and maintaining the habitat improvements will be incurred by RD RD 2028 will also provide staff time to plan and implement the Project, as well as administer the grant. The 30 acres of land and the costs incurred by RD 2028 are not included in the total Project cost but are anticipated to have a value in excess of $100,000.

17 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 4 Preliminary Schedule Anticipated Completion Date Submit grant proposal September 2014 Grant award notification February 2015 RD 2028 and DWR execute funding agreement November 2015 Agencies enter into cost share agreement January 2016 Environmental documentation and scope of work to DWR June 2016 DWR approves scope of work September 2016 Environmental documentation finalized CCWD issues first invoice October 2016 Construction contract awarded CCWD issues second invoice January 2017 Substantial completion CCWD issues final invoice December 2018 Term This cost-share agreement shall be effective upon the last signature and shall terminate upon completion of the Project, or sooner as permitted by its terms, the terms of the Local Funding Agreement, the DWR Funding Agreement, or by action of the Committee described below in the LOMU Administration section. Limitations By agreeing to this cost-share, the Agencies do not assume responsibility for the implementation, operation, maintenance, or performance of the Project. RD 2028 will be responsible for the implementation, operation, present and future maintenance, and performance of the Project. If the grant is not ultimately funded by DWR, no Agency will have an obligation, financial or otherwise, to the other signatory Agencies or RD 2028 related to the Project. Under this LOMU, the Agencies will not have any project management role in RD 2028 s design and construction of the project. However, if RD 2028 or PG&E fail to implement the project as designed (e.g., fail to improve the levee in the planned location, length, or to the HMP design standard), in accordance with the terms of the implementation agreement, DWR Funding Agreement, or in accordance with any mutually agreed upon amendment to those agreements, the Agencies will have no further obligation to pay. Likewise, should the DWR Funding Agreement be terminated for any reason, or should RD 2028 fail to complete its review and approval of PG&E s utility design and relocation, the Agencies will have no further obligation to pay. Furthermore, CCWD and RD 2028 will provide for reimbursement of Agency funds should the project fail to progress to completion for any of the aforementioned reasons. This letter and participation in the Project does not obligate or imply an obligation of the Agencies individually or collectively to participate in future projects. LOMU Administration In order to coordinate Agencies involvement in the LOMU, a Committee consisting of the Managers of each Agency will be established. Each Manager agrees to identify a staff

18 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 5 representative from their Agency and to allocate sufficient resources such that their staff representative may participate in meetings and conference calls as required. Staff activity will report to and receive direction from the Committee. The Committee will resolve any dispute related to this agreement. Decisions of the Committee will be made by majority vote. Amendments The terms of this LOMU may be amended after the funding agreement between RD 2028 and DWR has been finalized. Any amendments must be agreed upon by the Committee created for administration of the LOMU in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each Agency. Please send me your electronic signature as noted below and I will send out an electronic copy of the accepted and approved letter to each Agency. We look forward to working cooperatively with you on this effort. Sincerely, Jerry Brown General Manager MP/MM:wec ACCEPTED AND APPROVED: Robert Shaver General Manager Alameda County Water District Date Michael Carlin Deputy General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Date Alexander R. Coate General Manager East Bay Municipal Utility District Date Beau Goldie Chief Executive Officer Santa Clara Valley Water District Date

19 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 6 Jeffrey Kightlinger General Manager Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Date Jill Duerig General Manager Zone 7 Date

20 Letter of Mutual Understanding: Cost-Sharing for the Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project November XX, 2015 Page 7 ATTACHMENT A FUNDING COST SHARE FOR EACH URBAN WATER AGENCY Cost Sharing. Each Agency has agreed to provide funding which will not exceed the amount shown in the Table below. Agency Cost Share of Project ($) ACWD $5,326 CCWD $24,728 MWDSC $243,848 SCVWD $32,019 Zone 7 $9,891 EBMUD In kind services SFPUC In kind services Total $315,812 Billing and Payments RD 2028 will submit three invoices to CCWD for reimbursement based on the completion milestones of the Project. a) Following the finalization of all environmental documents as required in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the first invoice for 20% of the total Agency cost share will be sent to CCWD by RD The final certified CEQA documents will be included with the invoice. b) Following the award of the construction contract and issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the second invoice, for 70% of the Agency cost share, will be sent to CCWD by RD Final design documents will be made available for review by the Agencies. c) Following RD 2028 s determination that the Project has reached substantial completion, such that RD 2028 can utilize the Project for its intended use, the third and final invoice for 10% of the Agency cost share will be sent to CCWD by RD A report of the construction status will be included with the invoice. Upon receipt of an invoice from RD 2028, CCWD will submit invoices to the Agencies for their respective share of the cost. Each Agency may pay an amount greater than the amount billed on an individual invoice up to the full cost share amount. Each Agency agrees to submit payments to CCWD within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. CCWD will remit payment to RD 2028 within 60 days of receiving an invoice.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31