The urban areas are doing a good job of reducing consumption, but over half the water exported goes to mega-growers who grow water intensive crops–some of them are subsidized crops- on arid land. They get the water so cheaply it is in effect a taxpayer subsidy in addition to whatever crop subsidy they get.It takes twice a much water to grow crops in the desert as in the Delta and much of the land will not drain so it has become toxic. Many of the mega growers are also water brokers and sell their “paper water” rights to cities and developers, often for ten(or more) times as much as they paid for it. They pay a fraction of what the average person pays for water.
The BDCP is a giant boondoggle.

Hah, hah. Didn’t see this message (email above from MWD).

They are right, they have firmly said only 25%.

I have questioned why both BDCP and the Southern California Water Committee have stated that the tunnels are financially feasible by citing its per capita costs. That was the primary argument for financial feasibility in both BDCP draft finance chapter and the SCWC report, I didn’t make it up. MWD is 75% of the per capita population served by Delta exports. They are mad about the 75% assertion, but it comes from their own consultants. Their anger is misdirected. It is their consultants who suggested per capita financing, I just brought it to people’s attention.

The only way to stop your very good questions if for them to release an actual financial proposal.

————————-

I know that is what they say, and that is why BDCP may be “unfinanceable.” MWD may be able to lift their 25% share, but there are serious doubts about whether those receiving the other 75% can or will.

Farmers can not pass on the cost through higher food prices, in almost all cases, they are in a competitive market and can not pass on the costs of water. California agriculture uses 34 million acre feet of irrigation water per year, and less than 4 maf of that total (about 10%) is pumped from the Delta. Delta dependent farmers have no more ability to set crop prices than your grocery store has over the price of bread. Most of it is going to come directly out of their bottom lines. They are really buying insurance against a regulatory or earthquake disaster, but it is extremely expensive insurance compared to the risk.

The urban agencies are in a much better position to pass on the costs to ratepayers. But even they face a demand curve where their customers cut back or find alternative sources as the price rises.

And yes, ratepayers and state taxpayers are also federal taxpayers. It’s like saying don’t worry I’m not going to take it from your debit card, I am charging it to your Visa.

Jeffrey Michaels via email

The following table from pages 8-68 and 8-69 of the Bay Delta Plan details the allocated costs.

Estimated Funding Relevant to BDCP, by Plan Component
Funding Source Percent
State Water Contractors 36.5%
Federal Water Contractors 36.5%
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 8.6%
California Dept. Fish & Game 0%
New Water Bond (2014) 10.9%
Prop 1-E (levee improvement bond) 0.8%
Prop 84 – (water conservation bond) 0.2%
Delta Stewardship Council (Prop 84?) 0.4%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Other (interest income) 6.1%
Total 100%
Total Water Exporters Share 73%
Total State Funding 12%
Total Federal Funding 14%
Source: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/BDCP_Chapter_8_-_Implementation_Costs_and_Funding_Sources_2-29-12.sflb.ashx

WL

“If you were Southern Californian, would you take this costly deal that doesn’t guarantee you any set maximum of water, in exchange for a water rate increase of about $240 per year to each of your customers?”

Great, I guess we’re supposed to swallow this new outrage along with all of the others? Why are we not allowed to vote for this TAX?