HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 RESPONSE TO OC GRAND JURY REPORT 09-01-09Agenda Item 16
• Reviewed:
AGENDA REPORT City Manager
Finance Director NIA
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
SUMMARY
Attached for the City Council's consideration is a proposed response to a recent report by
the Orange County Grand Jury titled "Paper Water -Does Orange County Have a Reliable
Future?"
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed letter of response, and
authorize the Mayor to execute the letter to the Orange County Grand Jury.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
The 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury released a report titled "Paper Water -Does
Orange County Have a Reliable Future?" The report summarized the Grand Jury's recent
investigation of how Orange County's cities, water districts, residents and businesses are (or
are not) addressing water supply reliability issues --- and their potential impact on residents'
long-term quality of life. Attached for the City Council's review and consideration is a
proposed letter of response. The letter has been prepared with assistance from the
Community Development Department.
Is S. Stack, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Fred Adjarian
Water Services anager
September 1, 2009
The Honorable Kim Dunning
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject: Orange County Grand Jury Report: "Paper Water: Does Orange County
Have a Reliable Future?" dated June 19, 2009
Dear Judge Dunning:
The City of Tustin [City] is in receipt of the Orange County Grand Jury's letter dated June
19, 2009 concerning its findings in the report titled "Paper Water: Does Orange County
Have a Reliable Future?" The City thanks the Grand Jury for their study of the reliability
of Orange County's water supplies.
The City does not disagree that there is a water supply problem affecting the state and
Southern California at this time. However, the City disagrees with several of the Grand
Jury's findings and recommendations. Our primary disagreement stems from the fact
that the solution to this problem is outside of Orange County's immediate control. A
federal judicial ruling in 2007 known as the Wanger Decision and resulting biological
opinion reduced Southern California's imported water supply reliability an estimated 30-
40% in a single day. This critical decision has exceedingly complex and costly
consequences for the future of both Orange County and Southern California's imported
water supplies.
Please note that the City's responses incorporate by reference the background and
educational elements contained within the detailed response prepared by the Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC); City staff participated in the preparation of
this response. Following are the City's responses to the Grand Jury's Findings (F-1
through F-4), and Recommendations (R-1 through R-4):
Grand Jun/ Findings
F.1: There is inadequate coordination between local land use planning agencies and
local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues.
Response: The City of Tustin disagrees with the finding and believes that adequate
coordination currently occurs between Tustin's local land-use planning agency and local
water supply agencies. The City believes that the existing, coordinated process supports
a full review of the issues related to a proposed development project's impact upon the
water supply or service. Two water agencies currently serve Tustin; City coordination
with bofh agencies is essential because of their specific water expertise. Both of Tustin's
water supply agencies are knowledgeable of a proposed development project's water
resource needs, the regional utility service demand, and both are regularly apprised of
any larger, state-wide water supply concerns. Given their significant level of expertise
and access to current information, the City's water supply agencies are best equipped to
provide input to the City regarding a proposed development project's potential impact (if
any) upon the available water supply or service.
F.1 (a): Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in growth-
managementdecisions.
Response: The City of Tustin disagrees with the finding and is unaware of any water
agency acting in this manner.
F.1 (b): Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations of the
water agencies' supply projections.
Response: The City disagrees with the finding. The local land-use agency does not
have the expertise or access to current data to independently generate nor critically
evaluate the limitations of the water agency's supply projections. The local land-use
agency must continue to rely upon the expertise of the local water supply agency for this
analysis. To require the local land-use agency to critically evaluate information provided
by the water supply agency would be duplicative, costly and ultimately unnecessary.
Further, the City complies with state law that requires local cities to communicate and
coordinate with the local water supply agency. Per Government Code Section 10910,
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and California Planning and Zoning
Law provides a process and framework for local land-use planning agencies and local
water supply agencies to utilize when investigating and concluding whether a sufficient
water supply exists for planned development projects.
F.2: California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed
concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues
presented during development project reviews.
Response: The City partially agrees with the finding. The City and the Orange County
water industry have many communication and outreach avenues which are effective in
informing the public. For example, the City and the water industry have collectively
advertised itself as the "Family of Southern California Water Agencies," and promoted
"Bewaterwise.com" to get the word out on the current water supply situation, along with
water conservation tips and opportunities. In addition, the City utilizes bill inserts,
newsletters and websites to inform customers about important water issues. The City
also participates in meetings of a Public Affairs Workgroup sponsored by the Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) to develop message points for use by retail
water agencies.
F.2 (a): Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the
seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and urgency of the necessary
solutions.
Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. It is our experience that Tustin
citizens are intelligent, interested individuals who keep apprised of local and regional
issues and act upon this information in a responsible and urgent manner, once the
seriousness of the water supply situation and urgency of the necessary solutions is
made clear. In addition, for the past several years, a Tustin City Council member has
actively participated on the Water Advisory Committee of Orange County to enable the
City to stay informed about issues affecting Orange County's water supply reliability
(e.g., the Wanger Decision).
F.2 (b): Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway (e.g.
the OC Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that are
already informed.
Response: The City of Tustin partially agrees with the finding. Recent polling conducted
by MWDOC to track water industry messages and the understanding of the public
indicate that a high percentage of consumers understand there is a drought (76%).
Furthermore, 78% indicated they would change their water using habits to conserve to
prevent water rationing, and 67% believe that their local water agency does an effective
job of keeping them informed about water supply. The City also believes that a high
percentage of the public are engaged because of recent actions such as the run on
rebates for water conservation devices, which exhausted available funding from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Following is a summary of
several on-going outreach efforts in which the City is an active participant:
• In June 2008, the Public Affairs Workgroup developed a comprehensive,
strategic communications plan that incorporated public education, strategic
partnerships with the business community, and specific marketing techniques.
The plan complements and enhances the major conservation media
campaign implemented by MWD in 2007 to increase public awareness of the
drought and related water supply issues.
• For many years, City council members, local business leaders and educators
have participated in MWD sponsored tours of major regional and state water
facilities to learn about key water issues.
• The City also actively participates in both the MWDOC and Orange County
Water District (OCWD) school education programs to increase awareness of
water issues by students and their families.
F.3: LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitating constructive changes in
governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCO is
conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated representative for
nearly all the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on their behalf with their
surface water supplier Metropolitan.
F.3 (a): There are a number of points of governance disagreement between MWDOC
and several of its member agencies. This is creating an impediment to the on-going
effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply
management.
F. 3 (b): The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the agencies
working toward Orange County's water future.
F.3 (c): The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009 deadline
for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable.
Response: The City agrees with all of the findings. The City has actively participated in
the stakeholder meetings facilitated by LAFCO for the MWDOC Governance Study. The
City will continue to monitor and provide input as appropriate as LAFCO's study process
continues forward.
F.4: Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high quality, well-managed
groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its south reaches, it
has an equally large, high-growth area with virtually no available groundwater resources.
Response: The City agrees with the finding.
F.4 (a): The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus have-Hots"
situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts.
Response: The City agrees with the finding, since this situation has been the case for
many years. To allow south County water agencies access to the Orange County
Groundwater Basin (Basin) would require legislative modification to the Orange County
Water District Act.
F.4 (b): The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for responsible
participants to develop and construct long-term solutions which will benefit the entire
County.
Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. Use of storage in the Basin is
allowed only by agreement with OCWD. The OCWD is responsible for managing the
Basin. OCWD has entered into storage arrangements that allow MWD to store up to
66, 000 AF of imported water, and to recall as much as 20, 000 AF out of this same
storage in any one year. This additional yield out of storage benefits water users in
Orange County and southern California. Also, in February 2006, an Emergency Services
Program Agreement was also developed by OCWD that allows emergency wafer
supplies from the Basin to be exchanged with water agencies in south Orange County.
Specifically, this program allows the conveyance of water to south Orange County during
emergency situations. Allowing access to the lower cost groundwater outside of the
Basin, or allowing access to more storage by south County agencies would increase the
cost to the City and other Basin agencies and put the Basin agencies at risk.
Grand Jury Recommendations
R.1: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation with its
respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to
exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures
based on objective-based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future
water supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address
imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic
availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated
groundwater reclamation, and surface water recycling.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because the City of Tustin
already prepares an Urban Water Management Plan every five years. Also, MWD
prepares an Urban Water Management Plan, an Integrated Resources Plan and a Water
Supply Outlook. In addition, the City's adopted General Plan currently includes a
Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element that notes the constraints associated with
essential natural resources (including water) and sets forth goals and policies that further
the protection and maintenance of these natural resources. The City's
Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element encourages many water conservation
goals and measures including protection of domestic groundwater supply, conservation,
expansion of reclaimed water production and use, coordination of water quality and
supply programs with responsible water agencies, and cooperation and participation in
water quality and supply plan preparation and programs. Collectively, these documents
already provide the information suggested in the Grand Jury's report.
The proposed Water Element is not mandated by state law to be included in a City's
General Plan. Current state law grants cities the discretion to choose which additional
optional elements should be included in a General Plan. The Grand Jury does not have
the authority to supersede state law and mandate that cities adopt an additional General
Plan element. In addition, if state law were to be adopted mandating cities to adopt a
Water Element as part of the General Plan, adoption by June 30, 2010 would be
unrealistic. Existing state law prohibits a City from amending its General Plan more than
four times a year. Past General Plan amendments would preclude many cities from
meeting the proposed deadline.
R-2: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should affirm its
responsibility to develop new, additional, innovative public outreach programs beyond
water conservation and rationing programs, to expose the larger issues surrounding
water supply constraints facing Orange County. The objective should be to connect the
public with the problem. The outreach effort should entail a water emergency exercise
that simulates a complete, sudden break in imported water deliveries. The exercise
should be aimed directly at the public and enlist widespread public participation on a
recurring basis beginning by June 30, 2010. This recommendation may be satisfied by a
multi-agency exercise but the inability to coordinate such an event should not preclude
the individual agency's responsibility.
Response: The recommendation has already been implemented by the City which
addresses both public outreach and emergency planning. From a public outreach
standpoint, the City and water industry communications systems already in place provide
sufficient opportunities for the public to be informed about key water conservation and
supply issues. In terms of emergency planning, the scenario involving a complete
sudden break in imported water deliveries was a component of the Golden Guardian
exercise sponsored in 2008 by the State. The Water Emergency Response Organization
of Orange County (WEROC) was an active participant in this important statewide
emergency test exercise.
R-3: Each MWDOC member agency should reaffirm to R AFCO that it will assign the
resources necessary to expediently resolve regional governance issues. While the
subject study is being facilitated by LAFCO, the options are with the agencies to decide
what is best for all. Once conclusions are reached, the parties need to agree quickly and,
hopefully, unanimously to adopt a course of action.
Response: The recommendation has already been implemented by the City. The City
has actively participated in the stakeholder meetings facilitated by LAFCO for the
MWDOC Governance Study. The City will continue to monitor and provide input as
appropriate as LAFCO's study process continues forward.
R-4: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should affirm its
commitment to a fair-share financial responsibility in completing the emergency water
supply network for the entire County. The entire County should be prepared together for
any conditions of drought, natural or human caused disaster, or any other catastrophic
disruption. WEROC should commence meetings of all parties, to facilitate consensus on
an equitable funding/financing agreement.
Response: The recommendation has already been implemented by the City. WEROC
was established to conduct emergency planning and preparedness at the regional level,
and respond to disaster type events that could impact the City as well as other water and
wastewater agencies within Orange County. WEROC participates with regional and
statewide emergency planning forums as well. The City also has an emergency plan and
periodically conducts activities to be in a state of emergency preparedness. In addition,
the City maintains emergency interties with neighboring water agencies to allow water to
be moved back and forth as needed during emergency situations.
The City trusts that the submittal of this response letter demonstrates our intent to work
in full cooperation with the Orange County Grand Jury. Please call Fred Adjarian, Water
Services Manager, at (714) 573-3381 should you have questions, or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Doug Davert, Mayor
City of Tustin
C: Honorable City Counal
William A. Huston, City Manager
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
Douglas S. Stack, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer
Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development
'Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have A Reliable Future?
Summary
"Paper water" is an illusion. It
is a term used in the water industry
that represents an entitlement, exist-
ingonly on paper, which agencies
can expect to receive from state and
federal water prgjects based on pro-
jections and expectations. The gap
between allocated "paper water"
and available "real water" can be
dramatic. This term may succinctly
define Orange County's water
future as judicial rulings systemati-
cally continue to remove available
supplies from the reach of Orange
County's consumers.
'i'he Grand Jury has learned
from multiple, expert sources that
Orange County's watc;r supply is
very vuhlerable to extended outages
from catastrophic disruptions and
other long-teen system failures.
"These are issues above and beyond
concerns of drought. Critical parts
of the water supply infrastructure
upon which much of California and
Orange County relies is in a deplor-
able state of disrepair and neglect.
The Grand Jury investigated
how Orange County's cities. eater
districts, residents and businesses
are-or are not planning for and
responding to a profound redistri-
bution of water supplies away from
Orange County, with the potential
of affecting its residents' quality of
life for generations.
The following excerpts from
this report highlight some significant
issues that led the Grand Jury to
reach conclusions from which it has
posed a series of ke_y findings and
recommendations:
On the State Water Project...
"Predictions are fora 67%
chance of drastic levee failures
sometime during the next 2S
years. In a seismic failure, sci-
entificmodels predict massive
areas of the Delta inundated
with a reverse, flow of secnvater
.from the San Francisco Buy.
Fresh water in the Delta will
be rendered useless for agri-
cultural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would be
destroyed for two to four years,
or longer. "
On water from northern Califor-
n~a...
"..:for the first time in Metro-
politan's BIl-year history, the
agency is projecting a sig-
nificant draivdmvn in its water
reserves.... Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rap-
idly depleted and the ability to
refill its reservoirs has fiecome
increasingly problematic. "
On water from the Colorado
River...
"The assumption tlz~rt ...
we fvill continue to.find new
sources of water ... is wrong.
Those days are over .... Every
source of water coming into
southern California from afar
... is increasingly unreliable. "
On coordination of laaid-use
planning with water resources plan-
ning...
"... land planning and wa-
ter resources planning have
distinctly different, highly
complex parameters that drive
their technical analyses and
decision-making processes.
The unique complexities of
these professions tend to deter
either side from interacting
effectively. "
On public awareness...
"...the residents of Orange
County do not seem to under-
standthe perilous conditions
within which tl:ey live. Orange
County water consumers have
not, to any significant decree,
experienced long-duration
water supply outages. The
public's consideration for
water supply typically starts
and stops at the faucet handle
as they expect, with every turn,
dependable delivery gfhigh-
yuality, safe, clean water. "
On water reliability for south
Orange County...
"Approximately 9 ~ percent of
south Orange County's water
is imported from northern
Culifi~rziia and the Colorado
River and ... sent 35 miles to
south Couzzty via two, aging
pipelines, traversing active
seismic faults. "
On emergency water supply
planning .. .
"The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately ... 1 // percent of what is
needed. /The remainder/ will
arrive when a planned array of
pump, pipeline, treatment and
reservoir projects is hunt ...
as well as [having) available
brackish and seativater puri-
fication systems ... for south
Orange County. "
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Page 1
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
On Orange County's groundcva-
ter resources...
"Water experts ... univer-
sally praise the innovative and
effective methods by wl:ich
Orange (.'ounty has protected
and managed its innate water
resources. In particular, its
groundwater ac/ttifer is att in-
credihly rich natural resource
that is the envy of many areas
in the country challenged by
depleted and damaged water
tahles. "
On the govcrnarice of Orange
County's fragmented, autonomous
water resources agencies...
"The MWDOC memher
agencies need to resolve t{teir
differences and dedicate
themselves to a unified vision,
whet/ier it he continuing with
MWDOC' under a modified
agreement or creating a new,
unified, County-wide water
authority. "
"phis report offers several ways
to strengthen government processes
whereby the residents and decision
makers of Orange County will be
knowledgeable about the County's
water supplies. It also pinpoints
areas needing attention by water
agencies to become as prepared as
possible for any potential adverse
water supply event.
These issues are discussed more
fully in this report. It is important to
recognize that the Grand Jury found
all the agencies it contacted to be
performing their duties profession-
ally and with due diligence. This is
reassuring but it neither solves the
underlying problems nor absolves
the officials. More needs to be
done.
Reason for Investigation
News reports and alarming
warnings from knowledgeable wa-
ter officials throughout California
have raised serious concerns: (1)
Supply deficiencies are becoming
critical due to a prolonged drought.
(2) Court rulings intended to pro-
tect environmental impacts in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin .Delta and
redistribute water rights from the
Colorado River have forced drastic
supply cutbacks. (3) Water dcliven'
infrastructure is in a precarious and
deteriorating condition and subject
to severe damage in the event of
seismic and other natural forces.
"i`he current, unusually severe
economic contraction affecting the
home-building market has slowed
population growth statewide. if
conditions were different, a more
controversial public policy debate
would likely be occurring over the
accuracy of adequate water supply
projections to serve these develop-
ments. This situation is in dramatic
contrast to major projects receiving
environmental approval even as re-
centl~ as within the past five years.
"I'he Grand Jury reviewed
environmental and planning docu-
ments that were approved ir1 2004,
for 14,000 homes in southern
Orange Count`•. Water supply for
this extensive, planned community
received virtually no overt concern
aside from a brief discussion to ad-
dress growth-inducement and emer-
gency outages within the supplying
water district's system.' No com-
ments on water supply were found
from any environmental agency, in
contrast to the project's extensive
debate over traffic/transportation
and 8ora/fauna impacts.
Accurate water supply projec-
tions are elusive at best and are
the reason we are in our current
situation. A "water emergency" is
a result of a complex interrelated
series of actions and conditions.
Conservation -and then rationing
- are the first steps in controlling
the situation. however, increased
demand is inherent in population
growth. Legislation was enacted
within the past eight years to in-
crease the responsible coordination
between approval of projects that
induce growth in population and
identification of water supplies to
support increased.demand. Cali-
fornia Government Code Sections
6645.3 and 66473.7 requires iden-
tification of adequate potable water
supplies to serve a planned devel-
opment project based on at least 20
years of historical data. California
Water Code Sections 10631, 10656,
10910, 10911, 10912, 10915 and
10657 require Water Supply As-
sessments (WSA's.) These laws,
commonly referred to respectively
as SB 221 and SB 610, are viewed
by some as enviromnentalist-driven
mechanisms for curtailing growth.'
Other water experts involved
with the crafting of these bills
have indicated that the legislation
does not go far enough since only
projects over 500 dwelling units
are required to comply with these
laws. Regardless, these measures
have helped to place a greater im-
portance on responsible plamling,
identifying dependable, long-teen
water supplies preceding major
development approvals. This seems
not only reasonable but responsible.
T'he Grand Jury desired to assess
the following:
• whether and to what extent
the Count,~'s water supplies
are vulnerable to major dis-
ruption
• to what extent the residents
and decision makers are
aware of the County~s water
supply conditions
• how the development project
Page 2
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
approval process is conducted
in Orange County with re-
spect to water supplies
what measures are being
taken by water managers
to ensure the integrity o~f
the C'owlt_v•s water delivery
systems
how public awareness, the
project review process and the
County's water system integ-
rity may be strengthened
Method of Investigation
As part of this investigation, the
Grand Jury researched numerous
documents obtained from expert
sources and interviewed representa-
tives of numerous agencies. Agen-
cies and their staff consulted during
this study included the following:
• Major water retailers (water
districts and cities) both in
Orange County and adjacent
counties
• Water wholesalers such as the
Municipal Water District of
Oratlge County (MWDOC)
• Groundwater purveyors both
inside Orange County and in
adjacent counties
• local agency planning depart-
ments
• Renowned academic authori-
ties who have studied Califor-
nia•s unique water resources
issues for decades.
'the Grand July visited a
number of local facilities that have
demonstrated innovative means of
producing "new" water such as Or-
ange County Water District's (OC-
WD's) Groundwater Replenishment
Svstcm and Irvine Ratlch Water
Districts Dcep Aquifer Treatment
System. It observed the state of
southern California's ~',-'ater supply
on a three-day inspection of the
immense State WateC Project. This
system, along with the Colorado
River Aqueduct, conveys at least ~U
percent of the water consumed by
Orange County. The study included
review of authoritative textbooks
and documentaries that provided an
overview of cur-
rent conditions as Orange
they affect Orange
Couuty. the region
and the nation.
From these Inter-
V10WSand In Vetihga_ San Gabriel Basir
t 0,000 AF
tID11S, a repetltlVe MET`Naterto
pattern Of COnCern Barrier 5,000 AF
emerged over ocwD eosin
many key ISSUeS. Groundwater
360.000 AF used
They were seen to
threaten the avail-
ability of adequate Inatlental Rechar
46,000 AF (e
water supply to
support California's
growth.
Background and Facts
Organizational Structure
Delivering Orange County's
Water Supply
Orange County relies heavily
on imported water for its on-going
supply as well as much of its
groundwater storage replenishment
needs. F~xhibit A depicts the sources
of supply and How volumes. Im-
ported water from Metropolitan
Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia (Metropolitan) constitutes
over one half of Orange County's
supply.
Metropolitan pumps its supply
through aqueducts from the State
Water Project in northern Califor-
niaand through pipelines from the
Colorado River along California's
easterly border with Nevada and
Aricona. Persistent drought condi-
tions have compromised the State
Water Projects as well as the
Colorado River's supplies. Res-
ervoirs and dammed storage have
Water
Colorado River
Direct Replen
0 AF ~
ants Ana Rrver
213.000 A,F
~ Santiago Ck.
~~ 5 000 AF (est. )
AF
Small Local
Pasins 4.000 AF
Recycled Water
6e 36,000 AF Irngation, etc.
st.) 18.000 AF into GW Basin
Most of the immediate impact of
this has been seen in cutbacks for
agricultural uses and groundwater
replenishment. Added concerns
have arisen most recently over the
December lit, 2007 ntling by U.S.
District Court Judge Oliver W.
Wangcr in what has become known
as the "Wangcr Dccision•' (Case
No. l:U~-cv-1207 OWW GSA)
which adversely affects the State
Water Project. The Colorado River
water allocations have also suffered
significant court decisions adverse
to southern California.
Exhibit B depicts how water is
distributed within Orallgc County.
MWDOC is the predominant
intermediary that buys imported
water from Metropolitan and sells
it to Orange County's retail water
agencies (cities and special dis-
tricts). Note that OCWD is a major
provider of grouiidwnter only,
generally limited to the cities in the
north Orange County area.
Exhibit C demonstrates ho~a
widespread MWDOC's influence is
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
reached reduced levels that are
worrisome. Diamond Valley Lake.
Metropolitan's newest reservoir
built to provide emergency stor-
age, is today less than one-half full.
Exhibit A
County Water Supply Sources in FY 07-OS
State Water Metropolitan
Pro)ecl ~ 'hater District
(MET)
258.000 AF Regular
D AF In-Lieu Replen
Page 3
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Orange County's
Precarious Water Systems
ocwn ~n+ u~ l~
e
ti:i11 •~1INII ~ CJ
u I;»%nl
0 y
atL•Ihln ~ ,,
,
~
Ra.iu .
~~huhet lyd tl alH'
al~~g
t__ ___ _. _._.
Rec~•ded tt'xtw•
C~IOwId>~afer
1,1 etr~polltan
\y:a el Dislricl
['ulolallo Iticpr Aganlud
w»ter t2et»Iln• j Galeral flan
_~._ __-
St»Ir~\'»tet S'f•ujrit
Orange County's water supplies,
from all imported sources, are in
great peril. Metropolitan has de-
veloped an extensive infrastructure
backbone to bring water to southern
California. It is the predominant
supplier of imported water to every
area within Orange County. These
supplies are completely dependent
on rivo primary, man-made convey-
ances: (1) t1Te State Water Project
Which taps the Sierra Nevada
IYlOUntaln range SnOW melt In north-
ern California and (2) the Colorado
River Aqueduct which intercepts
Exhibit B
in Orange County. M W DOC repre-
sents nearly every water agency in
Orange CowTt} on the Metropolitan
Board of Directors. However, three
cities (Anaheim. Fullerton and SaIT-
ta Ana) are direct member agencies
to Metropolitan. MWDOC's role as
the wholesaler to every corner of
the County is v~ important facet of
this investigation.
Exhibit D (on the follow-
ing page) depicts the general
boundaries of the Orange County
groundwater basin administered by
OCW D. This water is accessible.
by law, only to cities and special
districts overlying the i~0-squarc-
mile service area that serves 75
percent of the County~s three
million residents. Typically, the
agencies with groundwater rights
draw approximately two-thirds of
their supplies from the groundwater
basin and purchase their remain-
ing demand from Metropolitan via
MWDOC. Three cities (Anaheim.
Fullerton and Santa Ana) purchase
dicir water fraln Metropolitan
directly.
a ~.,~~ ~1
..~, ~..~.~. w ,...,..
., m
~~ _
.~. ,v. ~.
0
~~ ~m
...~,
..:,;e,
Nn
®Mwa
( CYnwr
u:e
ss
_ ux~~c.x am-R ~,~,~.;
i
CJ Eva amve ~;w~x, E4av. ^m~~l:,k,,,.....
(~ 4~~e~~.~, ~.~~, ~~
9rr..'u M.M.^.t ~v: ~_~6Je kab~ ~hM~~ :...:.:.. :. .....: i.
Fri t; Y!.ti .
,... ., ._ . ,1 _
MWDOC Service Area
and Member Agencies
Page 4
Exhibit C
„~.
s
. ~..
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
~,.~„
...;.~ .,
~~:~
,~
._ .. ,
Y
i~,~ ~ ~
I
I
'.; . ~ ,
~'
• ~
A.
t
1
r
~
.._
Exhibit D
runoff from the west slopes ofthe
Rocky Mount<1ins, as far nortJt as
Wyoming, via the Colorado River.
The current water supply situa-
tion in Mctropolitatt~s service area
and throughout the state of Califor-
nia is critically tenuous and signals
2007-2009 as one of Califomia~s
most severely-dry three-year
periods in over 100 years. In ad-
dition to the lack of precipitation
in early 2008, the following warrn
spring season resulted in early
depletion of the mountain snow-
pack. "Phis is considered the largest
'7cservoir" for Califomia's water
supply to see the state through
the ensuing seasons. Without a
substantial snowpack leading into
spring_ California must rely on its
man-made reservoirs and stored
groundwater to survive the dry
seasons. Even though 2009 snow
pack achieved 80 percent of normal
volume, it cannot overcome the
depletion caused by the two, previ-
ous, record-low years, especially
when hobbled by the court-enacted
pumping restrictions. Until now,
consumers' conservation efforts,
combined with water manag-
ers' programs to install low-flow
fixhrres, agricultural usage cutbacks
and other restrictions, have been
effective in substantially reducing
consumer demand. Unfortunately,
this has finally fallen shorC and
local water agencies are predicting
a 50% likelihood of embarking on
water rationing as summer 2009
approaches. In fact, several agen-
cies have already instihrted the
first stages of rationing as a result
of Metropolitans adopted Water
Supph~ Allocation Plan which takes
effect,luly 1,2009.
The 2008-2009 Crand Jury is
extremely concerned that residents,
planners and decision makers
in Orange Counh• are not doing
enough to recognize and publicize
the perilous condition of our water
supplies. "they are not giving this
issue adequate consideration in the
process of approving plans for the
growth of Orange County.
The State Water Project
Metropolitan, on average. does
not have sufficient water supplies
to meet demands. Watersheds arc
currently providing 650 thousand
acre-feet (about 212 billion gallons)
lower than normal runolT due to
reduced rainfall and snowpack. 'i'he
Wangcr Decision ordered the State
Water Project to reduce pumping
from the Sacramento-San Joa-
quin River Delta due to identified,
adverse environmental impacts on
a threatened fish species, the Delta
smelt. In April, 2008, Judge Wangcr
issued a second ruling, further
cutting water exports to protect the
declining populations of Chinook
salmon '
Judge Wangcr•s rulings resulted
in Metropolitan curtailing delivery
of 500 thousand acre-feet (about
l63 billion gallons) of water from
nortttem California in 2008. These
lost resources would have pro-
vided water for over seven million
Californians for a year. As a result.
for the first time in Metropolitans
80-year history, the agency is
projecting a significant drawdow~n
in its water reserves. Before the
Wangcr Decision, projections were
for surplus conditions 70 percent of
the time and reserve drawdowns re-
quired 30 percent of the time. Now.
this projection is reversed with
surplus conditions expected 30 per-
cent ofthe time and drawdowns 70
percent of the time. Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rapidly
depleted and the ability to refill its
reservoirs has become increasingly
problematic.
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Located in Califoniia~s Butte
Counh. Lake Oroville is the
farthest upper reach of the State
Water Project. Exhibits E-l and E-2
provide a startling contrast of the
drastic changes that had occurred in
fewer than three years. In Febru-
ary 2009, Oroville Dam's storage
was at 30 percent of its capacity.
Because ofnear-average precipi-
tation this year, the reservoir has
recovered to nearly 60 percent o~f its
capacit<. But even with some gains
in rainfall and snowpack in 2009,
conditions are still below normal
and the drought continues to stiftc
the buildup of reserves.
No State Water Pro-ject water
delivered to southern California
and Orange County arrives with-
out traversing the Sacramento-San
Exhibit E-1
Joaquin Delta (Exhibit F, on the
following 1~1ge). The Delta is a
convergence of five major rivers
in the Central Valley which have
been tamed by mining and agricul-
tural operations dating back to the
mid-l9th century. "this was accom-
plished by building what is now an
1,100-mile "spider web" of pre-
dominantly privately owned, non-
engineered, earthen levees. From its
accumulated data. Metropolitan has
asserted the following with regard
to the Delta:
• "There have been at least l66
documented levee failures
over the last 109 years, caus-
ing geotechuical experts to
describe the situation in a
rather cynical manner: "There
are two types of levees in
the Delta. There arc those
_.,,x., -~-~~.
+. ..~.~ ~ _ _ •.r
Exhibit E-2
- r
~y~
vT" ~~r LsxYka ~: w.n_
that have failed and there are
those that wi// fail.
• Predictions are fora 67%
chance o{'drastic levee
failures sometime during the
next 2~ years. Most likely,
the failures will be associated
with either a 6.7 or greater
magnitude seismic event,
severe earth subsidence or a
100-year intensity flood.
• In a seismic failure, scientific
models predict massive areas
of the Delta inundated with a
reverse flow of sea~sater from
the San Francisco Bav. Fresh
water in the Delta will be
rendered useless for agricul-
tural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would
be destroyed for two to tour
years, or longer.
• 'the potential for calamity has
been recognized by recent
Legislature budget discus-
sions. It also lias received a
high priority with the Gover-
norwhen he created the `'Blue
Ribbon "Task Force'" that led
to the 2007 Delta Vision
report However, action for
urgent, preemptive levee res-
torations has not materialized.
Even without a catastrophic
incident, experts are forewarning
of major, long-range degradation
of the Delta ecosystem. Califomia
needs to prepare for the inevitable
end of the Deltas role as a massive
drinking water conveyance as its
salinity increases to non-potable,
brackish levels.'
The Colorado RiverAqueduct
The original allocations of
Colorado River water to the south-
~vcstern states and Mexico were
sealed by the 1922 Colorado River
Compact and the Boulder Canyon
Page 6 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Exhibit F
Map of the Sacramento-San Joagvln Delta and Suisun Marsh
~!:M"F~MFI~I
„ . ,..
i V• e..
wauH
~,~~
,~~,M
~ ..~
~~,,~
Y
.. ~'
~,
.e a ... t L,v,
`. ~..
.~
.. ~v~
~^4t ~\-
a ... ...
~~ , W w
,.. .... .
... ~
Project Act of 1928. In retrospect.
water planners today recognize that
those allocations were based on
overly optimistic assumptions. T'he
historical hydrographic data of that
time was unusually wet. Also, the
population projections for all the
now clearly-identified high-growd~
areas afthe southwestern states,
and southern California in particu-
lar- were notoriously short sighted.``
"two critical forces have created
major problems for the viability of
the Colorado River. (I) The Colora-
do River Basin at Lake Powell has
been suffering from severe drought
conditions since October 1999. (2)
The 2003 Colorado River Quan-
tification Settlement Agreement,
involving Metropolitan. San Diego
Cocmty WaterAuthority, Coachella
Valley Water District, Imperial
lmgation District and numerous
other federal, state and regional
agencies and interest groups have
redistributed the available water
within southern California. Deliver-
ies to Metropolitan are down some
400,000 acre-feet (130 billion gal-
lons) as a result.
Considering the plight of our
Colorado River allocation. Dr. Peter
Gleick, President of the Pacific
histitute, in 2008, observed the
following: "The assLnnption that
southern California can grow as
much as it wants and that we will
continue to find new sources of
water ... is wrong. Those days arc
over.... Even' source of watc;r
corning into southern California
from afar ... is increasingly unreli-
able.-,.,
Researchers have posed the con-
cern whether the Colorado River,
which provides up to three-fourths
of Metropolitan's supply, will
cease to be a viable water source
within the next 20 years. Recently,
U.S. Secrctan• of the Interior Ken
Salazar of Colorado- when he was
a Scnatc member of the Energ} &
Natural Resources Commission_
asserted that water in the United
States has always been taken for
granted. As a result, as might be
expected, the only time people
^nderstand the importance of water
is when they don~t have it. In sum-
mary, experts have sent this warn-
ing: "The water crisis is much more
significant to the world than is the
energy crisis... "i'ry living without
water... it doesn't work_"'
The following is a synopsis of
comments uncovered by the Grand
Jury in the context of the future of
the Colorado River:
• Mark Pisano, past Executive
Director of the Southern Cali-
forniaAssociation of Govern-
ments, in the context of water
supplies, predicted the fol-
lowing: `We're going to grow
differently in this century than
we did in the past century....
[L]arge regions are going to
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
have to be much more sensi-
tive to what supports them en-
viromnentally so that they're
sustainable ... and if they're
not sensitive to (this] they~re
going to have real difficulty."~
• Secretary Salazar stated that,
in communities where there
is not a dependable, long-
term source of water, there
will be "... an explosion of
controversy because land-use
planners have not done what
they should have done."`~
• Scripps Institution of Ocean-
ography researchers Tim Bar-
nett mid David Pierce, wrote a
paper, When will Lake Mean!
go dry?, that was accepted
for publication in the journal
Water Resources Research,
by the American Geophysical
Union. Then concluded that.
because of allocation de-
mand, aggravated by climate
changes, the reservoirs on
the Colorado R.ivcr system
will never fill again. They
further predicted that there is
a 50-percent probability Lake
Mead will be dry by 2021.
Barnett stated that they "...
were stunned at the magnitude
of the problem and how fast it
ryas coming at us.... Make uo
mistake, this water problem
is not a scientific abstraction,
but rather one that wilt impact
each and every one of us that
live in the Southwest."5
Environmental Consequences
One internationally acclaimed
water resources expert has experi-
enced and analyzed the et~'ects of
severe water shortages worldwide.
Ele offered what he considers to be
one of the earliest signs and one of
the most tragic long-term, dam-
aging outcomes that occur when
regions are faced with water crises.
Specifically, where water supplies
are chronically unable to meet
demand in spite of all conserva-
tion, rationing and similar cutbacks,
essential surface flows begin to
drain from environmentally sensi-
tive habitats. Wetlands areas begin
to desiccate and degrade. Ground-
waterbasin overdrafting creates
irreversible geological subsidence,
permanently damaging the basin's
ability to recover. If water supply
desperation reaches those levels,
fundamental changes in that aspect
of the ecosystem could occur.
Land-Use Planning and aCrisis-
Oriented Public
How do California's statewide
water supply issues directly affect
Orange C:ounty'? The Grand Jury
found that there are rivo, equally
important points. First, long-range
water resources planning takes a
major degree of innovation and
creativity to establish dependable
sources of diversified supply. This
includes bringing "new" water
to serve new homeowners in the
growth areas, and the industry
and commerce that sustains them.
It also requires a degree of good
data analysis to accurately project
hydrologic and climatologic data
decades into the future.
Second, the water resource
agencies, the land-use planning
agencies and the consumers all
need to be equally focused on the
possibility of major supply outages
to w-hick the County is vulner-
able. "hhe Grand Jury found that
the water agencies and, in fact,
the water industry as a whole, are
kc;enly aware of the inadequacies
and potentially disastrous circum-
stances California faces. The sense
of urgency could not be higher. But,
it seems that gaining the attention
of acrisis-oriented public is a dif-
ferent story.
'I11e Grand .lury found that
planning agencies dealt with these
concerns very differently. In fact,
water issues seem to be of no more
consequence than a noise impact
study or a traffic impact analysis.
Water resource issues in Orange
County demand more than a check
box on the environmental review
form. Based on what was observed
in this investigation, this has not
been the case.
Johnson and l.,oux described
this issue as a "black box" phenom-
enon wherein the professions of
land planning and water resources
planning have distinctly differ-
ent, highly complex parameters
that drive their technical analyses
and decision-making processes.
The unique complexities of these
professions tend to deter either side
from interacting effectively.
Adding to the professionals'
difficulties, the residents of Orange
County do not seem to understa,id
the perilous conditions within
which they live. Orange Count<~
water consumers have not, to any
significant degree, experienced
long-duration water supply out-
ages. The public's consideration for
water supply typically starts and
stops at the faucet handle as they
expect, with every turn, dependable
delivery ofhigh-quality, safe, clean
water,
The perception that water sup-
plies are taken for granted is an
understatement. Water agencies'
conservation messages are suc-
cessfully making consumers more
aware of their responsibility to
conserve water resources. But, this
is merely a fraction of the larger,
more compelling issue. Conserva-
tion happens after the problem has
been identified. Consumers need
to be cognizant of the impacts of
Page 8
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
development and the need for deci-
sions before land-use decisions are
made.
Case Studies
"I'he Grand Jury interviewed key
staff and studied voluminous public
records of land-use applications and
environmental reviews pertaining
to several, recent, major develop-
ment proposals in various areas of
the County. In each case, the entire
land-use decision-making process
as it relates to water resources, one
of the County~s most precious and
precarious commodities, was found
to be ven~ disappointing. When
anah~ses were required, land-use
and development decision makers
deferred to the water agencies to
solve the water issues. Typically,
the input came via a WSA, after
which it quickly disappeared from
the public dialogue. Public input to
express any shred of concern for-
or to even question-the long-term
viability of potable water resources
was conspicuous by its absence. If
not relegated to a separate volume
of appendices, the water supply
reports were found buried hwtdreds
of pages behind other, more "vis-
ible,'" issues raised by vocal constit-
uents, never to be heard from again
in the public process.
In these case studies, the Grand
Jun' could find tittle. if an_v, ex-
pressed concern from any person
or responsible agency. This begged
the question as to whether the
public process is flayed in light of
the gravity of our water resources
predicament. It also substantiated
the inference that, aside from the
caveats involved. ``...the duty to
serve is often viewed as the first,
foremost, and perhaps only mission
of awater-purveying agency."`'
Case Study #1: County of
Orange -Rancho Mission Viejo
(The Ranch Plan) Development
The Rancho Mission Viejo
development (known as "The
Ranch Plan") is in south Orange
Countt~. T11e County of Orange
processed this development over
a several-year period, culminat-
ing in its adoption by the Board of
Supervisors in 2004. This master
planned 22,000 acres of land with
7,700 acres designated for 14,000
dwelling units. Other significant
elements were established. with 130
acres for urban activity centers, 258
acres for business parks, 39 acres
for neighborhood retail centers,
five golf courses and a 1,079-acre
regional park.
The Ranch Plan Program Envi-
ronmental Impact Report (EIR) and
General Plan Amendment, prepared
in 2003, presented exhaustingly
detailed analyses of, among other
particulars, watershed runoff water
quality, traffic circulation impacts
a~1d endangered flora and fauna
protection. Mention of emergency
water storage and concern for
temporary water disruption via the
imported water connections were
limited to a single paragraph. Aside
from that outdated discussion, no
mention was found of how reliable
water supplies would be ensured.
Indeed. there was a WSA prepared
by Santa Margarita Water District
which also fully complied with SB
22l acid SB 610 but the Grand Jun'
found no substantive discussion
from its review of the following
EIR sections:
• Executive Summary: Refer-
ences were made to "areas of
controversy' voiced during
public comments at scoping
meetings. No water supply
concerns were considered
worthy of any mention.
• Growth Inducing Impacts:
Over a dozen, nearby, devel-
opment-related, potentially
growth-inducing projects
were discussed, each making
no mention of water supply
concerns.
Water Resources: This per-
tained primarily to surface
water quality and runoff
hydrology, with absolutely no
discussion of potable water
resources..
There was seemingly no con-
cern for water supply scenarios that
could leave 14,000 homes without
water. Indeed, the following EIR
excerpt clearly established the
priorities: "Due to the nature of the
project, potential impacts to bio-
logical resources, hydrologic condi-
tions and ~runot~J water quality are
of primary concern."
The EIR process solicited com-
ments not only ti•om the public but
also via the State Clearinghouse
from every agency and environ-
mental group in the state. There
were records of interminable (albeit
important) discussions and debates
over such issues as traffic and en-
dangered. species but potable water
supply was anon-issue. It was not
even deemed to be of enough rel-
evance to be mentioned in the ?004
staff report when the project was
presented to the Board of Supervi-
sOCS.
The aforementioned 2003 WSA
was appended to The Ranch Plan.
It was a comprehensively written
document that assessed Califoniia's
~a ater future. The W SA provided
the required numerical justification
for 2~ years of water to this area,
based on a series of assumptions
that have long since been supersed-
ed by changed conditions. The nu-
merous, crucial effects over just the
past few years have great potential
to derail many of the critical deci-
sions made in the recently adopted
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
plan. The Grand Jury's view on the
state of affairs is that asix-year-
old water planning document, with
a 25-year projection upon which
permanent development is hinged,
leaves much to be desired. It makes
no sense to have so little attention
paid to a natural resource with such
a profound impact.
Despite all this, the 2003 WSA
was apparently enough for the deci-
sion makers and the public. Despite
the fact that this development will
take place in awater-deficient area
of the County that relies virtually
entirely on imported supplies from
Metropolitan, the Grand Jun_ ~ could
find not one comment at all from
the general public, let alone any
expression of concern during the
public review period. The agencies
have argued that the absence of
comment is not necessarily indica-
tive of a lack of concern but rather
a recognition that all issues were
addressed. The Grand Jury, for
all the reasons cited in this report,
has found otherwise and that there
should be concern.
Caearly, the agencies process-
ing 1'he Ranch Plan followed the
mandatory processes to determine
adequate water supplies, using es-
tablished procedures and their best
efforts to provide professional data
to decision makers. Nonetheless,
the glaring point of this investiga-
tion is that there is a serious discon-
nect in the process where critical
data are presented seemingly as
footnotes and decisions are made
in a manner that masks the situa-
tion from public awareness. This
was certainly not found to have
been done intentionally but rather
was the inevitable byproduct of the
sheer volume and complexity of the
documents.
"Typically, it is safe to presume
that anyone lacking an engineer-
ing degree is challenged in com-
prehending the complex technical
analyses of water supply issues and
the concomitant impacts of various
adverse scenarios. "The tendency is
to accept W5As on face value and
not challenge the caveats and quali-
fying statements that render these
assessments tentative at best. WSAs
providing 20 to 25-year projections
ou land uses that can be expected
to be in place for at least 100 years
can encounter dramatic changes.
The 2003 WSA for The Ranch Plan
was prepared long before several
major changes were made that of
feet the dependability of water sup-
plies to southern California. There
should be, at least, a mitigation and
monitoring reporting requirement
in the Plan. Optimally. the question
about an update to the WSA should
be raised. now, not later when
specific project development permit
applications are submitted. At that
point, developers, in the heat of fi-
nancing time constraints, will be in
no mood to deal with the obstacles
of additional engineering analyses;
rather, they will do whatever it
takes to demand that their project
approvals be granted.
Case Study #2: City of Orange -
Santiago Hills li and Fast
Orange Areas Planned
Community Development
In a very similar fashion to
south Orange County, the central
Orange County city of Orange, is
facilitating aggressive expansion
within its Sphere of Influence east
and south of the Peters Canyon
region of the Irvine Ranch.
The development agreement for
this area provided vested rights to
development to the Irvine Com-
pany in 2005 for approximately
4,000 dwelling units. Irvine Ranch
Water District (the designatf;d water
purveyor for this area) provided a
series of "Water Supply Verifica-
tions" subsequent to this agreement
to carry the project for 20 years.
While the water supply veri-
fications conclude that sufficient
supplies are available pursuant to
state law, it is interesting to as-
sess the methodologies, caveats
and disclaimers accompanying the
certification sheet. In particular, the
water supplier affirnls that it ``...
does not allocate particular supplies
to any project, but identifies total
supplies for its service area." It
would be safe to conclude that both
the land planners and the water
providers were satisfied that their
requirements had been met and, in
fact_ Irvine Ranch Water District
officials have subsequently empha-
sized that this is the case and that
sufficient supplies are available.
Although no documents were found
to evidence their discussions, the
officials have also emphasized that
the agencies have had a dialog re-
gardingthe conditions under which
the water supplies would be of-
fered alld District staff testified on
pertinent issues at the City Cowlcil
public hearings.
As with the The Ranch Plan,
the decisions on this major project
establish commitments far beyond
the plam~ing horizon. It is unclear
how a developer's vested rights
may prevail over any changes in the
WSA over time.
Case Study #3: City of Brea -
Canyon Crest .Development
In north Orange County, the city
of Brea, in 2009. approved (subject
to appeal) the development of 165
homes on 367 acres of hillside pas-
ture and open space surrounded by
Chino Hills State Park, near Carbon
Can~-on Road.
As would be expected, the
project environmental review
Page 10 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
extensively evaluated the woodland
habitat and wildlife corridors. An
elaborate and extensive monitoring
and mitigation program was devel-
oped for the oak-walnut woodland
habitat. Because the size of this
project fell short of the trigger
points for SB 221 and SB 610, no
WSA was required. In fact, the EIR
concludes specifically that "[n]o
impact will result from the Project
involving the acquisition of new or
expansion of existing water supply
entitlements or resources." This
was the only mention found con-
cerning water supply by either the
environmental consultant or by any
person, agency or group concerned
with the impacts of this project.
Admittedly, this single proj-
ect would have a nominal annual
demand of perhaps 100 acre-feet
(about 33 million gallons), on
the County's water supply, which
would add about one percent to
Brews annual demand. But. it is
indicative of how the cumulative
impacts of such projects can incre-
mentally affect the overall supply.
Steps Toward Understanding
A better interface between land-
use planners and water planners
has evolved over the years with the
assistance of the State Legislature.
Since the 1983 adoption of the
Urhan Water Management Plan-
ningAct (California Water Code
Section ].(1610 et seq). California
has required each water purveyor
to prepare and submit, even five
years, an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). This is a founda-
tional document and a source of
information for long-range water
plaiming. Cities and counties are
required to use these documents
when preparing their General Plans.
The UWMP, while important,
is a fairly general planning docu-
meat. It was not until 2001 (after
most of Orange County already
had been developed) that the State
seriously acknowledged that water
supply and local land-use devel-
opment planning are inextricably
intertwined. The California Legis-
latures SB 221. and SB 610 exem-
plify this need for an administrative
record in the environmental docu-
ments. 'These laws only apply to
large projects and, according to one
expert in the water environmental
field_ do "... little more than raise
awareness."
A Iso in 2001, the Legislature
passed the Integrated Regional
Water Management Planning
(IRW M P) Act, which allows a re-
gional water management group to
prepare and adopt an IRWMP that
encourages local agencies to work
cooperatively in managing their
entire array of water resources for
beneficial use.
Innovative Solutions to Long-
Term Sup}~ly Shortages and the
State of Orange County's Water
Resources
Some experts in the academic
and industrial communities con-
siderthat California's water crises
can be avoided by a concerted
effort on four fronts: (1) improving
water use efficiencies through con-
servation, water-saving appliances
and technological advances (e.g.
"smart" irrigation timers); (2) ad-
vancing innovative water recycling
and reuse strategies; (3) improving
stone water runoff capture, storage
and groundwater recharge; and (4)
securing water transfer agreements
between agencies to effectively
balance supply and demand. The
Grand Jury found that Orange
Count} water agencies are, in many
cases, setting the example of best
practices through sophisticated ap-
plications on each of these fronts.
In addition, concerted public/pri-
vate efforts are underway to build
at least two major seawater desali-
nation plants in Orange County.
Combined with a third desalina-
tion plant near Camp Pendleton,
planned jointly with the San Diego
County Water Authority, coastal
desalination projects will supply up
to 140,000 acre-feet (45.6 billion
gallons) per year of new water.
Orange County water agencies
are pursuing long-term water trans-
fers outside the County boundar-
ies. An agreement with the South
Feather Water and Power Agency
in northern California was being
negotiated to bring up to 10,000
acre-feet (about 3.3 billion gallons)
per year to Orange Count<~.' While
this project now appears unlikely
to be consummated, there are other,
similar e{'forts underway that are
considered to be more viable.
Santa Margarita Water Districts
transfer agreement with Cucamon-
ga Valley Water District also rep-
resents individual agency attempts
to secure firnt water contracts. In
this case, 4,250 acre-feet (about 1.4
billion gallons) per year would be
allocated to Orange County from
surplus water in an entirely separate
groundwater basin. "Phis basin re-
sides within Metropolitan's service
area, which helps to facilitate the
actual water transfer.
[wine Ranch Water District is
developing a water banking pro-
gram in partnership with the central
valley Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water
Storage District near Bakersfield
in Kern County. This arrangement
will provide up to 17,500 acre-feet
(5.7 billion gallons) per year from
groundwater recharge and recovery
facilities, along with expanding
the Cross Valley Canal to transfer
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
stored water to the Irvine Ranch
facilities
"fhe Grand Jury was particu-
larly impressed with the OCWD's
Ground Water Replenishment
System (GWRS] established in
conjunction with its adjacent waste-
watertreatment agency, the Orange
County Sanitation District. The
Grand Jum witnessed the GWRS
while in operation, delivering
72,000 acre-feet (about 23.5 billion
gallons} per year ofultra-pure water
for direct; potable reuse via 1,600
acres of percolation basins in north
Orange County. This is about. 10
to l4% of total basin demand and
production is expected to expand to
100,000 acre-feet (32.6 billion gal-
lons) per year within the next three
years.
The 2003-2004 Orange County
Grand Jury also recognized the
GWRS while it was still in its
implementation stages. This unique
project is the largest of its kind
in the world. It exemplifies how
technology is providing innovative
solutions to environmental prob-
lemsand insight to our future.
The capital cost of the GWRS
system was approximately $500
million. While immensely expen-
sive to build and operate, federal
and state grants and subsidies have
reduced the unit cost of the product
water to approximately $650 per
acre-foot. Since imported 1Vletro-
politan water is anticipated to pass
$700 per acre-foot this summer, the
break-even point may be imminent.
As water becomes increasingly
scarce and prices rise accordingly,
recycled wastewater systems, even
those meeting stringent human
consumption requirements. are
anticipated to become more com-
petitively cost effective.
A Il these innovative programs
are admirable but they do not solve
the problem. Shortfalls from the
State Water Project and the t:olora-
do River of the magnitudes cited by
Metropolitan and others cannot be
made up by these relatively limited
efforts.
Response to Catastrophic Supply
Interruptions
Regional shortages: The most
serious water supply concerns af=
fecting Orange County lie outside
its boundaries. Metropolitan has
elaborate response plans and infra-
structure in place to deal with sup-
ply curtailments; the most recent
notable example is its Dianlond
Valley Lake near Hemet. This is an
800-thousand acre-foot (260 billion
gallons) reservoir, of which about
one-half is reserved for catastrophic
emergencies. Completed in 1999,
Diamond Valleti~ took four ~~ears
to fill with asix-month emergency
water supply and is considered the
most important achievement in pro-
tecting southern California against
a Statr; Water Project system out-
age.
County-wide shortages: If
circumstances dictate that Orange
Counn~ is forced into being self-
sufficient for an extended period,
how will it survive? Orange County
water managers have been diligent
in preparing to overcome worst-
case water delivery interruption
scenarios. In times of dire need, be-
ing able to instantly re-route water
from the north County groundwater
basin, to the south County supply
lines, through pre-established pipe-
line routes, is crucial.
Beginning in 1983, the Orange
County water agencies developed
a Wuter Supply Emergency Pre-
paredness Plan, jointly tended
by MWDOC and OCWD, and
supported by the Orange County
Water Association. This eventually
resulted in the formation of the Wa-
ter Emergency Response Organiza-
tion of Orange Count\~ (WEROC),
a single point of coordination for
every conceivable type of acute,
water-related disaster in Orange
County.
Approximately 95 percent of
south Orange County's water is
imported from northern California
alid the Colorado River acid de-
livered to Metropolitan filtration
plants in north Orange C:owlty
before it is sent 35 miles to south
County via two aging pipelines
traversing active seismic faults.
The Orange County Water System
Reliability Study, along with the
Soutlr Orange County Water Reli-
ability Study established an array of
project remedies to address specific
threats to water transmission and
distribution infrastructure through-
out Orange County and. in particu-
lar, south Orange County. in times
of long-tern crisis. On August 15,
2001, and again on April 23, 2003,
MWDOC and OCWD adopted a
Memorandum of Understanding
to accomplish among other objec-
tives, an on-going implementation
monitoring effort to help facilitate
the various agencies involved in
completing these projects.
The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately 3,000 acre-feet (about 1
billion gallons) from an emergency
connection to Irvine Ranch Water
District's Dyer Road well field
in Santa Ana. This provides only
about 10 percent of what is needed.
The other 27,000 acre-feet (about
9 billion gallons) will arrive when
a plamied array of pump, pipeline,
treatment and reservoir projects is
built. These projects will be able
to transfer and store emergency
potable water as well as have avail-
Page 12 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Recommcndod Plan
rho
±~
~~
~:~
r-,
,ti T ~ !,;C 'dC _; r:. Lczsetl Stage
;,t!emattl ~sttx>;
y, C.;f' .,.'n . n
•,. -. ~,
..:a
~..
~T6 ~f.'RClJFC?f~ -
{ ', ~ isy~ cir:n ~ Y;r~ t,~M h.;P!.°ATV;
Ut~cv ~~!' cJ12. Reaen•cu
\'~arta;- i.-s;-.n R~r>G !;r,rrM~i<n
st r rc?~r~~ a~~~9
:"! CPA tlRCllECT
Vi~~.n;~lfr,,a`„•.Bf'lY!Y.i. f{QVZ ~tq~nsi5i~`~,
~~
~~~.~
Upper CMgwta LRC Raseraov
\.~qn~:f~. q7. r'
~~,~~
,., s.. vetani~s ::a. vi.e wxlxirh~::
ET $ CPA PRG,tECT$
:rsun ccnsx~c:a.~ . ~ r ~~'.aruc~t.
Exhibit G
able brackish and seawater purifica-
tion systems to create "new'" water
for south Orange Coiurty. These
projects are depicted in 13xhibit G.
These projects vary signifi-
cantly in their planning, desig^ and
construction complexities as well
as in their funding requirements.
Completion of the entire system
is not expected until at least 2015.
Once completed, the projects will
serve daily needs while being ready
to deliver emergency reserves if the
supply network becomes disrupted
at any point.
f
Dana ?ans
Oc'a.n~
Dayalinaaan
l.aftlP ?eruHatan
Pta~r im'.Gi Jant MRYDGCtSDCWA
Gcean Desatwattvn Pont
>:x~ ,
SC°SONGS
Emerging self-sufficiency
management strategies: Several
efforts have commenced to maxi-
mize the ability of Orange County
to be self=sustaining, especially in
times of crisis. The most compre-
hensiveplanning underway was
begun in 2000. headed by the OC
Watersheds Division of OC Public
Works. [t consolidates efforts in ur-
ban runoff watershed management
and regional water resources plan-
ning strategies. A comprehensive
approach is underway, addressing
the Countv~s 13 watersheds with
several objectives:
• Protect communities from
drought
• Enhance local water supply
and system reliability
• Ensure continued water
security
• Optimize watershed and
coastal resources
• Improve watershed water
quality
• Safeguard endangered species
habitat
Nearly 100 projects have been
identified that encompass, among
other facets, the following:
• Water supply reliability-, water
conservation and water use
efficiency
• Storn1 water capture, storage.
treatment and management
• Creation and enhancement
of wetlands and acquisition.
protection, and restoration
of open space and watershed
lalldS
• Non-point source pollution
reduction, management and
monitoring
• Groundwater recharge and
management
• Water banking, water ex-
change, water reclamation,
desalting, and other treatment
technologies
Disaster Planning: Li Novem-
ber, 2008, the entire County of
Orange participated in an exercise
dubbed '`Golden Guardian," based
on a Richter Scale magnitude 7.8
seismic event. Part of this exercise
was to include dealing with the ex-
pected ef~'ects of disrupted local and
County-wide water transmission
and distribution systems. WEROC
volunteers participated in this event
to test the water agencies' ability to
respond effectively during emer-
gency events. The lessons learned
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
from this exercise were valuable in
identifying the need for better inte-
gration of the individual agencies'
responses through WEROC and on
to the Orange County Operational
Area Emergency Operations Center
(EOC). The issues appear to be
those requiring improved com-
munication rather than inadequate
resources.
MWDOC and Its Member
Agency Conflicts
As introduced earlier. MW-
DOC, with some exceptions, is
the predominant water wholesaler
that arranges for Orange Cowrty
water retailers' imported delivery
of Metropolitan water for their
customers. MWDOC is solely an
administrative agency in that it
operates no infrastructure facili-
ties that physically deliver water
to any of its member agencies,
comprised ofcities, special dis-
tricts and quasi-public companies.
Because of its unique connection
with nearly every water agency in
Orange County, by default it has
become the coordinator of rnany re-
gional programs that are generally
suited for a centralised, coordinated
response. "I11is applies to consistent
water conservation plans; compat-
ible Urban Water Management
Plans; universal customer education
outreach; centralized legislative ad-
vocacy; and coordinated emergency
preparedness.
MWDOC also is allocated four
seats on Metropolitan's ~7 member
board of directors. These four -nem-
bers (not all of them are necessarily
MWDOC board members). repre-
sent the interests of MWDOC~s 28
member agencies.
MWDOC was fornied in 19i 1,
when Orange County demographics
were quite different. Today, it finds
its role challenged, primarily by
several major, south Orange County
member agencies, over some key
differences in representation and
governance.
In Jwtc, 2006, MWDOC was
anticipating a scheduled Municipal
Services Review (MSR) by the Or-
ange County Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission (LAFCo). LAF-
Co~s Mission Statement emphasizes
that it "... serves the citizens of
Orange County by facilitating con-
structive changes in governmental
structure and boundaries through
special studies, programs, and ac-
tions that resolve intergovernmental
issues, by fostering orderly devel-
opmentand governance, and by
promoting the efficient delivery of
services." The MSR process, which
is basically a performance audit, is
one of the most effective means to
accomplish this goal.
MWDOC had commenced
stakeholder meetings with its mem-
ber agency colleagues to resolve
key issues ol'disagreement:
• Representation on Metropoli-
tan's board of directors
• Budget process and fairiess
of rate structures
• Lack of inclusiveness of south
County agencies in setting
rates
• MW DOC's financial involve-
ment in local projects (e.g.
desalination)
• Duplicative services (e.g. leg-
islative and public outreach)
• Financial reserve policies
LAFCo discovered, when it
embarked on its MSR process in
February, 2007, that there were
still major, unresolved issues. It
facilitated several meetings to
attempt resolution. In November,
2007, after limited success, LAFCo
decided to convene a "governance
study" with a definite timetable for
reaching consensus on conclusions
and specific recommendations. The
final approval for that effort was
given in January, 2008, commenced
in June, 2008, and continues to the
present time.
All 28 member agencies have
participated in the governance
study. After nearly a year of effort,
the feasible revamping options have
been narrowed to three:
1. Continuing with MWDOC~s
current structure, subject to sev-
eral administrative adjustments
to eliminate the current points
of disagreement
2. Dissolving MWDOC and forn-
ing a ne~~-, Count`-wide water
authority
3. Creating a separate south
County water authority to, basi-
cally, provide similar services
now provided by MWDOC
but being more responsive and
accountable to the unique needs
expressed by the south County
agencies, particularly for more
equitable representation with
Metropolitan.
The particulars of the gover-
nance study discussions are beyond
the scope of this investigation so
they were not reviewed in detail.
From the Grand Jury's perspective
of the issues, ho~yever, Option 3
seems short sighted. Bifirrcating the
County into t1so, basically compet-
ing agencies would be cow~terpro-
ductive as Orartgc Count}' moves
into a future with increasingly dif-
ficultand contentious water issues.
LAFCo has been consolidat-
ing agencies where jurisdictional
effectiveness would be improved.
Splitting a major overseer of the
Count<~'s water supplies into ri~o
jurisdictions would seem to con-
tradict LAFCo's previous efforts.
LAFCo has a unique role in this
discussion as a facilitator. Even
though it has hired professional
Page 14
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
support consultants and should be as a fresh water conveyance agreements are underway
lauded for its initiative, one noted due to uncontrollable salin- to create sources of "new"
professor in the field has observed ity increases. This adds more water for Orange County. The
that LAFCo may be operating be- apprehension about Orange adequacy of contributions
yond its technical abilities to effec- County~s water firture. from these new sources is
tively facilitate the varied, complex Recent court rulings on uncertain.
technical issues. environmental habitat protec- Orange County is a unique
The MWDOC member agencies tion and water rights alloca- territory with many inher-
need to resolve their differences tions have raised the level of ent advantages to endure the
and dedicate themselves to a uni- urgency by imposing possibly impending water crises. If Or-
fied vision, whether it be continuing permanent cuts to southern ange County's water agencies
with MWDOC under a modified California's fornierly reliable, work together seamlessly and
agreement or creating a new, uni- traditional water supplies the County's resident conswn-
fled, County-wide water authority. from northern California and ers become more involved
As rate increases mount and water the Colorado River. While stakeholders, a positive out-
supplies diminish, the need for uni- the California Deparpnent come is much more likely.
fication will become increasingly of Water Resources recently Orange County's ground-
essential. if a catastrophic event adjusted 2009 State Water water storage resources are
occurs, the need for wtification will Project deliveries upward to world class, both in innova-
become urgent. 30 percent of normal alloca- tive technical superiority and
tions, they had, at one point, in their management. Water
COttCIUSiOnS fallen to 10 to 15 percent of experts in both industry and
The following conclusions normal. academic institutions univer-
raise important concerns over the Orange Countv•s water sup- sally praise the innovative and
precarious condition of Orange ply infrastructure and supply effective methods by which
Countv's water resources. More constraints have received Orange Cowtty has protected
public/awareness and process im- minimal attention in the over- and managed its innate water
provement regarding water issues all discussion of developing resources. In particular, its
must be made as the development Urange Count<•. groundwater aquifer is an in-
of Orange County continues. The Interaction of land planners credibly rich natural resource
numerous water agencies in Orange and water planners in the that is the envy of many areas
County need to strengthen their development process must be in the country challenged by
unified approach in preparing fora improved. depleted and damaged water
difficult fixture. Some of the specific Water pricing to pay for the tables.
points are as follows: various, necessary, costly sup- Orange County natural water
• State Water Project infrastruc- pIY sources, under even the storage differs dramatically
ture is extremely vulnerable best-case scenarios, will rise between its north and south
to catastrophic failures from to levels never before seen. reaches. South Orange Coun-
natural events in the Sacra- hl this water-scarce region, ty has no groundwater basin,
mento-San Joaquin Delta consumers are facing dire making it almost wholly de-
and seismic events affecting circumstances regardless of pendent on imported supplies
other major water transmis_ population growth and hour- from Metropolitan.
lion infrastructure. Having ing construction. The County's resources have
atwo-out-of=three chance of Public awareness of water allowed water managers to
drastic levee failures within supply issues is far below institute protocols to deal
', 25 years which could disable acceptable levels and must be with emergencies. Examples
the state's water supply for at improved. of effective working rela-
least two years is alarming. A number of innovative infra- tionships have been demon-
s Scientists have projected the structure projects and transfer strated in associations such as
inevitable end to the Delta WEROC. It would be a shame
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
to politically sever the Counh~ very little, if any, expressed F.3(b) The current dis-
water resources management concern from the public in agreement is a distraction
structure and make a unified comparison to the numerous from the greater good
working; relationship all the other environmental issues of the agencies working
more difficult. presented during develop- toward Orange County's
In closing, the announcement ment project reviews. water future.
for t11e Ma
v 1~. 2009, O.C. Water
_
.Sa~mmit in Anaheim succinctly F.2(a): Orange County's F.3(c) The stakeholders
raises the level of urgency: "Most citizens and interest in LAFCo's study failed
business leaders and residents of groups do not appear to to meet their March 11,
Orange Cowrty have no idea that grasp the seriousness of 2009 deadline for LAFCo's
the water crisis is this serious and the water supply situa- public hearing on this mat-
escalating." Specific actions are ur- tion or the complexity and ter. Continued delays are
gent. 'T'his investigation is intended urgency of the necessary unacceptable.
to offer several of them that will
~ solutions.
F.4: Orange County is
strengthen the Countv
s condition.
- F.2(b): Several recent, uniquely fortunate to have
Findings substantial water sup- avast, high-quality, well-
ply awareness efforts are managed groundwater basin
In accordance with Califor- underway (e.g. the O.C. serving its north geographi-
nia Penal Code Sections 933 Water Summit) that show cal area. However, in its
and 933.05, each finding will be promise but appear target- south reaches, it has an
responded to by the government ed to audiences that are equally large, high-growth
entity to which it is addressed. The already informed. area with virtually no avail-
responses are to be submitted to able groundwater resources.
the Presiding Judge of the Supe- F.3: LAFCo is the agency
rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange charged with facilitating F.4(a): The difference in
Countti~ Grand Jun has arrived at constructive changes in groundwater availability
the following findings: governmental structure to creates a "haves versus
F.1: There is inadequate promote efficient delivery of have-Hots" situation that
coordination between local services. To this end, tAFCo is conducive to inherent
land-use planning agencies is conducting a governance conflicts.
and local water supply agen- study of MWDOC which is
F
4(b): The difference in
cies, resulting in a process
that fails to fully engage the the designated representa-
tive for nearly all the Orange .
groundwater availability
issues County retail water agen- provides opportunities for
. cies, acting on their behalf responsible participants
F.1(a): Water agencies with their surface water sup- to develop and construct
have tended to avoid inter- plier Metropolitan. long-term solutions which
fering with or participating will benefit the entire
in growth-management F.3(a) There are a number County.
decisions. of points of governance
disagreement between Responses to Findings F. 1,
F.1(b): Cities and the MWDOC and several of its F.l(a), F.1(b), and F.2, F.2(a) and
County have tended to not member agencies. This is F.2(h) are required from the Board
critically evaluate the limi- creating an impediment to of Supervisors of~the County r~
tations of the water agen- the on-going effectiveness Orange,' tl:e city councils of all cit-
cies' supply projections of these a
encies in critical ies responsible for landuse plan-
. g
' areas of Orange County's nlnP: Aliso Vejo, Anaheim, Brea,
F.2: California
s looming water supply management. Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
water supply crisis receives
Page 16 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Dana Paint, Fountain Valley,
Fullerton, Garden Grave, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Hahrcr,
La Palma, Laguna Beach, .Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos,
Mission Viejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
.Ivan Capistrana, .4antaAna, .4eal
Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Willa Park,
Westminster uncl Yorba Linda; t~
city councils attd boards o, f direc-
tars of al! retail water suppliers:
cities c~fArraheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton,
Carden Grove, Huntington Beach,
L.n Habra, La Palma, Netivport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San .Ivan C'apistrarta, .Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange CourttJ~ Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Winter District,
Mou/ton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District crud Yorba
Linda Water District; the Board
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange Counter the
Board ofDireetors o the Orange
County Water District, and the
C1tV councils cf the cities served
by Golden .Stute Water Compare,
cities of C'~~press, Las Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Finding F.3,
F.3(a), F.3(b) and F.3(c) are re-
quired from the Board of Directors
of the Municipal Water District o„~
Orange County; the cih> councils
and boards of directors of all Mrr-
rrieipal Water District of Orange
Coutrty memher agencies: cities
of Brea, Buena Park, Fountain
Valley, Garden Crove, Hunting-
ton Beach, La Hahra, La Palma,
Newport Beach, Orange, S'an
Clemente, .S'an Juan Capistrano,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westm/n-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Winter District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beaelt County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trahuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; tl:e Orange
County Local Agency Formation
Commission: the City Courzci! of
the cities ofAnaheim. Fullertan
and Santa Ancr: and the city coun-
cils of the cities served by Golden
State Water C"ompanv: cities of
Cypress, I:osAlamitos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Finding F.-1,
F.~J(a) and F.;l(h) are required
from the Board of Directors of the
Municipal Water District of Or-
ange Count~.• the Board of,Diree-
tors cfthe Orange County Water
District: the city councils and
hoards of directors of all Orange
County retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountrrirr Valley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
I.a Habra, L a Palma, Netivport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
S'a-r Juan Capistrano, .S'antaAna,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Rancfi Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Winter District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, Soutlr
Coust Water District, Trahuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; and the c
councils of the cities served by
Golden State Water Campan~
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Recommendations
In accordance with Califor-
nia Penal Cade Sections 933 and
933.05, each recommendation will
be responded to by the government
entity to which it is addressed. The
responses are to be submitted to
the Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court. Based on the findings, the
2008-2009 Orange Count~• Grand
Jury makes the following recom-
mendations:
R.1: Each Orange County
municipal planning agency,
in cooperation with its
respective water supply
agency, should prepare for
adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to
its General Plan in conjunc-
tion with a future update,
not to exceed June 30,
2010. This document should
include detailed implemen-
tation measures based on
objective-based policies that
match realistic projections
of the County's future water
supplies. These objectives,
policies and implementation
measures should address
imported supply constraints,
including catastrophic out-
ages and incorporate the re-
alistic availability and timing
of "new" water sources such
as desalination, contaminat-
ed groundwater reclamation
and surface water recycling.
(Findings F.1, F.1(a), F.1(b),
F.2. F.2(a) and F.2(b))
R.2: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
agency should affirm its re-
sponsibility to develop new,
additional, innovative public
outreach programs, be-
yond water conservation
and rationing programs,
to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply
constraints facing Orange
County. The objective should
be to connect the public with
the problem. The outreach
effort should entail a water
emergency exercise that
simulates a complete, sud-
den break in imported water
deliveries. The exercise
should be aimed directly at
the public and enlist wide-
spread public participation
on a recurring basis begin-
ning by June 30, 2010. This
recommendation may be
satisfied by amulti-agency
exercise but the inability to
coordinate such an event
should not preclude the
individual agency's responsi-
bility. (Finding F.2, F.2(a) and
F.2(b))
R.3: Each MWDOC mem-
ber agency should reaffirm
to t~4FCo that it will assign
the resources necessary to
expediently resolve regional
governance issues. While
the subject study is being
facilitated by t_AFCo, the
options are with the agen-
cies to decide what is best
for all. Once conclusions are
reached, the parties need
to agree quickly and, hope-
fully, unanimously to adopt
a course of action. (Finding
F.3, F.3(a), F.3(b) and F.3(c))
R.4: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
agency should affirm its
commitment to a fair-share
financial responsibility in
completing the emergency
water supply network for the
entire County. The entire
County should be prepared
together for any conditions
of drought, natural or hu-
man-caused disaster, or any
other catastrophic disruption
WEROC should commence
meetings of all parties, to
facilitate consensus on an
equitable funding/financing
agreement. (Finding F.4,
F.4(a) and F.4(b))
Responses to Recommendation
R.1 are required from the Board
of Supervisors of the C'ount~r[
Or_ar~>e; the city councils of all cit-
ies reslronsihle for land-use plan-
ninr~: Aliso Vejo, Anuheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
Dana Point, Fountain galley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Hahra,
La Palma, Laguna Bench, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, LosAlamitos,
Mission lrejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano, b'anta Ana, b'eal
Beach, Stanton, Tustin, ~Ua Park,
Westminster and &-rba Lindcr, the
city councils and hoards of direc-
tors o,J~all retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain galley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Iuntington Beaclt,
I,a Hahra, la Palma, Newport
Beaclt, Orange, San Clemente,
San .loan C'apistrann, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranclt Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trahuco
Can yon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the B -ard o '
Directors of the Munic~al Water
District of Oratrt>e Counh~: Board
ofDirectors^f the Orange Count
Water District and the cit,~coun-
cils of the cities served by Go/den
.S'tate Water Company: cities of
Cypress, Los Alamitos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Recommenda-
tion R.2 are required from the
city councils and boards ofdirec-
tors of all retail water suppliers:
cities gfAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain galley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
I.a Hahra, I_a Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
.San Juan Capistrano, S'antaAna,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Torn Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Nigue! Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, Soudt
Coast Water District, Trahuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Board o •
Directors oftheMunicipal Water
District o Oran County. the
Board of Directors o, f the Orange
County Water District: and the
city councils ofthe cities served
Golden .State Water Compare
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.3 are required from the B card o
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County; the c
councils and hoards of directors
Page 18
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
o_f all Municipal Water District
f Orange County member agen-
cies: cities of Brea, .Buena Park,
Fountain Valley, Garden Grove,
Huntington Beaclz, La Hahra,
L u Palma, Ncnvport Beach, Or-
ange, Sun Clemente, San Juan
Capistrano, .4eul13each, '1'urtin
and Westminster; East Orange
County Water District, El Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranclr Winter
District, Laguna Beach Count)
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Moulton Niguel
Water District, Sattta Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
Trahuco Canyon Water District
and Yorba Linda Water District;
the Orange Cnunri~ Local Agency
Formation Commission: the cltV
councils• of~the cities served by
Golden S'tute Water Compuny_
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.=t are required from the Board
of Directors of the .Municipal Wa-
ter District of Orange County; the
Board o,~~Directors o •the Orange
Countz,Water District: the city
councils and hoards of directors
of all Orange Counri~ retail werter
suppliers: cities ofAnalteint, Brea,
.Buena Park, Fountain VnUey, Ful-
lerton, Garden Grove, Hunting-
ton Beach, Lu Hahra, La .Palma,
Ne-vport t3euch, Orange, .San
C.7emente, .Bart Juan Capistrano,
Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin
and Westminster; East Orange
County Water District, EI Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranch Water
.District, Laguna Beaclz County
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Mouhon Niguel
Water District, Santa Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
Trahuc•o Canyon Water District
and Yorha Linda Water District:
and the city councils ofthe cit-
ies served by Golden State Water
Company: cities of Cypress, Los
Alamitos, Placentia and Stanton.
Required Responses
The California Penal Code
specifies the required pcrmis-
siblc responses to the findings and
recommendations contained in the
report. The specific sections are as
follows:
X933.05
1. For purposes of Subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury finding, the respond-
ing person or entity shall indi-
cate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees
with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees
wholly or partially with the
finding, in which case the
response shall specify the
portion of the finding that is
disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons
therefore.
2. For purposes of subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury recommendation,
the responding person or entity
shall report one of the follow-
ing actions:
(1) The recommendation
has been implemented, with
a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has
not yet been implemented,
but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe
for implementation.
(3) The recommendation
requires further analysis, with
an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis
or study, and a timeframe for
the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or
head of the agency or de-
partment being investigated
or reviewed., including the
governing body of the public
agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed
six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will
not be implemented because
it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation
therefore.
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Page 19
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Table 1: Findings and Recommendations Matrix
City/Organization/
A enc F
1 F
2 F
3 F
4 R
1 R
2 R
3 R
4
Ci /O anization/A enc F
1 F
2 F
3 F
4 R
1 R
2 R
3 R
4
Land Use City & County P~nners ~:` ., '~~t"sec ~ ,' ~"'~~ ; , ~; ~`~ '';° ,
Aliso Vie'o • • • Anaheim • • • • • • • •
Anaheim • • • Brea • • • • • • • •
Brea • • • Buena Park • • • • • • • •
Buena Park • • • Fountain Valle • • ~ • • • • •
Costa Mesa • • • Fullerton • • • • • • • •
C ess • • • Garden Grrn+e • • • • • • • •
Dana Point • • • Huntin ton Beach • • • • • • • •
Fountain Valle • • • La Habra • • • • • • • •
Fullerton • • • La Palma • • • • • • • •
Garden Grope • • • Ne rt Beach • • • • • • • •
Huntin ton Beach • • • Oran e • • • • • • • •
Irvine • • • San Clemente • • • • • • • •
La Habra • • • San Juan Ca 'strano • • • • • • • •
La Palma • • • Santa Ana • • • • • • • •
La una Beach • • • Seal Beach • • • • • • • •
La una Hills • • • Tustin • • • • • • • •
La una Ni uel • • • Westminster • • • • • • • •
I.a una Woods • • • Fact Oran a Coun Water District • • • • • • • •
Lake Forest • • • 19 Toro Water District • • • • • • • •
Los Alamitos • • • trvine Ranch Water District • • • • • • • •
Mission Vie'o • • • La una Beach Coun Water District • • • • • • • •
Ne rt Beach • • • Mesa Consolidated Water District • • • • • • • •
Oran e • • • Moulton Ni uel Water District • • • • • • • •
Placentia • • • Santa Mar arita Water District • • • • • • • •
Rancho Santa Mar arita • • • Serrano Water District • • • • • • • •
San Clemente • • • South Coast Water District • • • • • • • •
San Juan Ca 'strano • • • Trabuco Can on Water District • • • • • • • •
Santa Ana • • • Yorba Linda Water District • • • • • • • •
Seal Beach • • • Wholesale V~afier ~ ' ;=~ ~ "~~,;"c
Stanton • • • Munici 1 Water District of Oran a Coun • • • • • • • •
Tustin • • • Orange County Water District • • • • • •
Villa Park • • • Golden State Water Ce ~ ~ ~ C ~ °~ ' ~"
Westminster • • • Ci ofC ess • • • • • • • •
Yorba Linda • • • Ci of Los Alamitos • • • • • • • •
County of Orange • • • Ci of Placentia • • • • • • • •
('i of Stanton • • • • • • • •
* Includessu6setsofftndiogs I(a~,(b),(c),ctc•I OtiierPul-lic~ enci es ~.
OC Local Agency Formation Commission • •
Page 20 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Glossary of Terms
• Acre-foot: The amowlt of water that would fill aone-acre area to a depth of one foot (equivalent to
325,851 gallons)
• E1R: Environmental Impact Report
• LAFCo: Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
• Metropolitan: 1Vletropolitan Water .District of Southern California
• MSR: Municipal Services Review
• MWUOC: Municipal Water District of Orange County
• New Water: (1) A new source of potable water with or without a new pipeline delivering water from
outside the area; (2) Purified brackish or recycled water within the area that has been treated to drinking
water standards that would otherwise be discharged to waste
• Non-Point Source Pollution: Contaminated surface drainage water (runot~ of which the sources of
the pollution are so numerous that individual responsibility cannot be determined
• OCWD: Orange County Water District
• Paper Water: A teen used to describe allocated water which an individual or agency is entitled to
receive, presuming that the water exists. Paper water dit)'ers from "wet water"' in that paper water is
based on projections and expected deliveries.
• SB 22.1: California Government Code Sections 66455.3 a<ld 66473.7. Requires identification of
adequate potable water supplies to serve most development projects over 500 dwelling units, using a
historical water record of at least 20 years.
• SB 610: California Water Code Sections 10631. 10656. 10910, 1091 L 10912, 10915 a<id 10657. Re-
quires a WSA for most development projects over 500 dwelling units
• UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan
• Vested rights: A property owner's right to proceed with his development in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time of agency approval. A vested project is
generally immune from any new conditions that might otherwise have resulted between the date of ap-
proval and issuance of building permits had the project not received. vesting status.
• WE.ROC: Water Emergency Response Orgatiizatiai of Orange County
• WSA: Water Supply Assessment
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Page 21
"Paper Water" -Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
References
1. The Ranch Plan NCCP/MSAA/HCP Joint Programmatic E/R/EIS Growth Induc-
inn and Cumulative Impacts, Section 6. page 12
2. Beyond Chinatown, Steven P. Erie, Stanford University Press. 2006, page 230
3. Comparing Futures for the ,Sacramento -.San Joaquin Delta, Jay Lund, et al, 2008,
pages 3 and 53
4. The American Southwest: Are We Running Dry?. video documentary, The Chroni-
cles Group, 2008
S..Scripps Nc~vs, Scripps Institution of Occanograph}~, February 12, 2008
6. mater and I and Use; J!'lanning l~sel-~ for C'alifornia'n Future, Karen E. Johnson
and Jeff Loux, Solano Press Books. 2004, pages 16 and 66
7. 2/105 Unc~u7 Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County.
adopted :December 21.200, pages 1(-5 and 178
Exhibits A, B, C, E-l. E-2 and G arc used ~ti~ith permission of the Municipal Water Dis-
trict of Orange Count<r.
Exhibit D is used «~ith permission of the Orange Count- Water District.
Exhibit F is used c~ ith permission of the Delta Vision Foundation.
Page 22 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury