Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01 PUBLIC HEARING FOR UWMP 2010
• AGENDA REPORT Reve eAgenda idm 1 City Manager Finance Director N/A MEETING DATE: JUNE 7, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 11-41 THE 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY The California Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires the City to develop and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five (5) years. It requires urban water suppliers providing water for municipal services of more than 3,000 connections or 3,000 acre-feet of water production annually, to prepare, conduct a public hearing and adopt a plan in accordance with the prescribed requirements of the Act. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing, respond to public comments, and adopt by Resolution No. 11-41 the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City provides water to a population of 69,010 throughout its 8.4 square mile service area. The City receives its water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) through East Orange County Water District (EOCWD). Groundwater is pumped from 8 untreated or "clear' groundwater wells that pump directly into the distribution system and two treatment facilities that treat groundwater from 5 additional wells. Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by the City is approximately 13,000 acre-feet annually consisting of 1,890 acre-feet of imported water and 11,110 acre-feet of local groundwater. The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years, in years ending in five or zero. Though normally due to be completed by December 1, 2010 the due date for adoption of the updated UWMP has been extended until July 1, 2011 due to the December 2009 adoption of SBx7-7 — the "20% by 2020" conservation requirement which now must be addressed in the UWMP and an interim goal of "10% by 2015". The UWMP provides the DWR with information on the present and future water resources and demands and provides an assessment of the City's water resource needs. The UWMP is intended to serve as a general, flexible, and open-ended document that periodically can be updated to reflect changes in water supply trends, Public Hearing for the UWMP June 7, 2011 Page 2 conservation and water use efficiency policies. Over the past year, staff has been working with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to develop the updated UWMP. The City's 2010 UWMP update has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Act, as amended, and revises the adopted 2005 UWMP. The 2010 UWMP, along with the City's Water Master Plan and other City planning documents, will be used by City staff to guide the City's water use and management efforts through the year 2015, when the UWMP is again required to be updated. The City's baseline water use is 189.5 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) which was obtained from the 10 -year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. DWR has established four compliance options for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. Each supplier is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: • Option 1: 80 percent of the base daily per capita (GPCD) water use • Option 2: Performance standards-based water budget • Option 3: 95 percent of a regional target set by the Department of Water Resources • Option 4: Water savings estimates for replacement of plumbing fixtures Option 1 was determined by MWDOC/Malcolm Pirnie staff to provide the most flexibility for meeting both the 2015 and 2020 GPCD target, because it allows for either a retail agency to meet the conservation target or form a Regional Alliance to meet the conservation target. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County. While each retail agency is required to choose a compliance option in 2010, DWR allows for the agency to change its compliance option in 2015. This will allow the City to determine its water use targets for Compliance Options 2 and 4 as it anticipates more data to be available for target calculation in the future. Under Compliance Option 1, the simple 20% reduction from the baseline, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 170.6 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 151.6 GPCD. The Regional Alliance Weighted 2015 target is 174.1 GPCD and 2020 target is 156.5 GPCD. Based upon the recommendation of MWDOC/Malcolm Pirnie, staff concurs with using Method 1 to develop the City's 2015 and 2020 water use targets since it yields the highest and most conservative targets. The Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance will achieve its water use reduction by building on the existing collaboration between Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan), MWDOC and the local agencies in Orange County. MWDOC as a regional wholesale water provider implements many of the urban water conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) on behalf of its member agencies. MWDOC's conservation measures are detailed in MWDOC's Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP), and Metropolitan's conservation measures detailed in Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP. Additionally, Metropolitan in collaboration with MWDOC and other Metropolitan member agencies is in the process of developing a Long Term Conservation Plan, which seeks an aggressive water use efficiency target in order to achieve a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020 for the entire Metropolitan service area. The City's 2010 UWMP update has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, as amended, and revises the adopted 2005 UWMP. The 2010 UWMP, along with the City's Water Master Plan and other City planning documents, will be used by City staff to guide the City's water use and management efforts through the year 2015, when the UWMP is again required to be updated. Public Hearing for the UWMP June 7, 2011 Page 3 The attached 2010 UWMP has been made available to the public for review on the home page of the City's website, at the City Clerk's office, at the Public Works Department front counter, and at the City of Tustin Public Library. Staff is recommending that the City Council conduct a public hearing, respond to public comments, accept and adopt by resolution the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The last Tustin UWMP was adopted by the City Council in 2006. The 2010 UWMP updates are due to DWR by August 1, 2011. Stack, P.E. Public Works/City Engineer Attachment: Resolution No. 11-41 2010 Urban Water Management Plan S:\City Council ltems\2011 Council Items\PH for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.docx RESOLUTION NO. 11-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY OF TUSTIN 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA WATER CODE SECTIONS 10610 THROUGH 10656 WHEREAS, the waters of the State of California are a limited yet renewable resource subject to ever-increasing demands statewide; and WHEREAS, the conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level; and WHEREAS, a long-term, reliable supply of water is essential and urban water management plans are required to effectuate the efficient use of available supplies; and WHEREAS, the City of Tustin has completed a 2010 update to its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 as prescribed by AB -797; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Plan is a local resource information document and complements other regional water planning documents, including the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the East Orange County Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the City's 2010 Plan is to provide an analysis of the current and alternative water demands, supplies, conservation activities and water shortage contingency planning for the City; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Plan will be updated no less than every five years to reflect changes in local water supply trends, resource management reliability planning and conservation policies within the boundaries of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Tustin adopts the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and orders the Plan to be filed with the State of California Department of Water Resources. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council on the 7th day of June 2011. Jerry Amante, Mayor ATTEST Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-41 was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7t' day of June, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Final Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan May 2 t r_ �Jy i'�f yyl� 4f O t 10Q ^ Uu 0 6 y B . C 4 � NP,'RcNO,V' � V2 ARCAQIS The Water Division of ARC.ADIS City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, CA 92780 2010 Urban Water Management Plan May 2011 Report Prepared By: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 8001 Irvine Center Drive Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92618 949-450-9901 Table of Contents Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1. Urban Water Management Plan Requirements............................................................ 1-1 1.2. Agency Overview.......................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3. Service Area and Facilities........................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1. Tustin's Service Area.................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2. Tustin's Water Facilities................................................................................ 1-6 2. Water Demand 2-1 2.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Factors Affecting Demand............................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1. Climate Characteristics................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.2. Demographics............................................................................................... 2-3 2.3. Water Use by Customer Type....................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1. Overview........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.2. Residential.....................................................................................................2-4 2.3.3. Non-Residential.............................................................................................2-4 2.3.4. Other Water Uses.......................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4.1. Sales to Other Agencies..................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4.2. Non -Revenue Water........................................................................... 2-5 2.4. SBx7-7 Requirements................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.1. Overview........................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4.2. SBx7-7 Compliance Options......................................................................... 2-6 2.4.3. Regional Alliance........................................................................................... 2-6 2.4.4. Baseline Water Use....................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.5. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets........................................................................... 2-8 2.5. Demand Projections...................................................................................................... 2-9 2.5.1. 25 -Year Projections....................................................................................... 2-9 2.5.2. Low Income Household Projections............................................................ 2-10 3. Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3-1 3.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Imported Water............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1. Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan .................... 3-3 3.2.2. Tustin's Imported Water Supply Projections ................................................. 3-8 3.3. Groundwater................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1. Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin ................................................. 3-9 3.3.2. Basin Production Percentage...................................................................... 3-10 3.3.3. Recharge Facilities...................................................................................... 3-11 3.3.4. Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program ................................... 3-12 3.3.5. Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program ...................................................... 3-12 3.3.6. Historical Groundwater Production............................................................. 3-13 3.3.7. Projections of Groundwater Production...................................................... 3-14 3.4. Supply Reliability......................................................................................................... 3-15 City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table of Contents 3.4.1. Overview...................................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.2. Factors Contributing to Reliability............................................................... 3-16 4.2.1. DMM 1: Water Survey Programs for Single -Family Residential and Multi - 3.4.2.1. Water Quality.................................................................................... 3-17 3.4.3. Normal Year Reliability Comparison........................................................... 3-18 3.4.4. Single Dry -Year Reliability Comparison...................................................... 3-19 3.4.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison.................................................... 3-19 4. Demand Manaaement Measures 4-1 4.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Water Use Efficiency Programs.................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1. DMM 1: Water Survey Programs for Single -Family Residential and Multi - Family Residential Customers...................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2. DMM 2: Residential Plumbing Retrofit.......................................................... 4-3 4.2.3. DMM 3: System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair .......................... 4-3 4.2.4. DMM 4: Metering with Commodity Rates ...................................................... 4-4 4.2.5. DMM 5: Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives ............. 4-5 4.2.6. DMM 6: High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs ...................... 4-5 4.2.7. DMM 7: Public Information Programs........................................................... 4-6 4.2.8. DMM 8: School Education Programs............................................................ 4-7 4.2.9. DMM 9: Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts........................................................................................................ 4-9 4.2.10. DMM 10: Wholesale Agency Programs...................................................... 4-11 4.2.11. DMM 11: Conservation Pricing................................................................... 4-11 4.2.12. DMM 12: Water Conservation Coordinator ................................................. 4-12 4.2.13. DMM 13: Water Waste Prohibition.............................................................. 4-12 4.2.14. DMM 14: Residential Ultra -Low -Flush Toilet Replacement Programs ....... 4-14 5. Water Supplies Contingency Plan 5-1 5.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Shortage Actions........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3. Three -Year Minimum Water Supply............................................................................. 5-5 5.4. Catastrophic Supply Interruption.................................................................................. 5-9 5.5. Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods ................................... 5-11 5.6. Impacts to Revenue.................................................................................................... 5-15 5.7. Reduction Measuring Mechanism............................................................................... 5-16 6. Recycled Water 6-1 6.1. Agency Coordination..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Wastewater Description and Disposal.......................................................................... 6-3 6.3. Current Recycled Water Uses...................................................................................... 6-3 6.4. Potential Recycled Water Uses.................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1. Direct Non -Potable Reuse............................................................................. 6-4 6.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse.................................................................................. 6-4 6.5. Optimization Plan.......................................................................................................... 6-4 7. Future Water Supply Projects and Programs 7-1 7.1. Water Management Tools............................................................................................. 7-1 City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 7.2. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities ................ 7.3. Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs 7.4. Desalination Opportunities ............................... 7.4.1. Groundwater ..................................... 7.4.2. Ocean Water .................................... Table of Contents ........................................................... 7 -1 ........................................................... 7 -1 ........................................................... 7 -2 ........................................................... 7 -3 ........................................................... 7-3 8. UWMP Adoption Process 8-1 8.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2. Public Participation....................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3. Agency Coordination..................................................................................................... 8-2 8.4. UWMP Submittal........................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4.1. Review of Implementation of 2005 UWMP................................................... 8-3 8.4.2. Filing of 2010 UWMP.................................................................................... 8-3 List of Tables Table 2-1: Climate Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2: Population — Current and Projected........................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3: Past, Current and Projected Service Accounts by Water Use Sector ....................... 2-4 Table 2-4: Past, Current and Projected Water Demand by Water Use Sector ........................... 2-4 Table 2-5: Additional Water Uses and Losses (AFY).................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-6: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 10 -year range .................................................... 2-8 Table 2-7: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 5 -year range ...................................................... 2-8 Table 2-8: Preferred Compliance Option and Water Use Targets .............................................. 2-9 Table 2-9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)........................................................... 2-9 Table 2-10: Tustin's Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (AFY).................... 2-9 Table 2-11: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households(AFY)...................................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 3-1: Metropolitan Average Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-2: Metropolitan Single -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3: Metropolitan Multiple -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Table 3-4: Wholesaler Identified & Quantified Existing and Planned Sources of Water (AFY) ... 3-8 Table 3-5: Current Basin Production Percentage...................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-6: Amount of Groundwater Pumped in the Past 5 Years (AFY)................................... 3-14 Table 3-7: Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped (AFY)......................................... 3-14 Table 3-8: Wholesaler Supply Reliability - % of Normal AFY.................................................... 3-15 Table 3-9: Basis of Water Year Data......................................................................................... 3-16 Table 3-10: Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Supply........................................................ 3-17 Table 3-11: Water Quality — Current and Projected Water Supply Impacts (AFY) ................... 3-18 Table 3-12: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................. 3-19 Table 3-13: Projected Single -Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) ............................... 3-19 Table 3-14: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY)............................ 3-20 Table 4-1: Urban Supplier's Demand Management Measures Overview .................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages ......................... 4-9 Table 4-3: Water Demand Reduction Stages............................................................................ 4-13 Table 5-1: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages ......................... 5-5 City of Tustin III 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table of Contents Table 5-2: Metropolitan Shortage Conditions.............................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-3: Three -Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply.......................................................... 5-8 Table 5-4: Preparation Actions for Catastrophe........................................................................ 5-11 Table 5-5: Mandatory Prohibitions............................................................................................. 5-11 Table 5-6: Consumption Reduction Methods............................................................................ 5-13 Table 5-7: Penalties and Charges............................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-8: Proposed Measures to Overcome Revenue Impacts .............................................. 5-15 Table 5-9: Proposed Measures to Overcome Expenditure Impacts ......................................... 5-16 Table 5-10: Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms....................................................................... 5-16 Table 6-1: Participating Agencies................................................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-2: Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY)............................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3: Disposal of Wastewater (Non-Recycled)(AFY)......................................................... 6-3 Table 7-1: Opportunities for Desalinated Water.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach.......................................................................... 8-1 Table 8-2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies.................................................................... 8-2 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier............................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2: City of Tustin's Service Area..................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3-1: Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY)........................................................... 3-2 Appendices A. Urban Water Management Plan Checklist B. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update C. Bump Calculation Methodology D. Resolution No. 10-57, No. 92-15; Ordinance No. 1060, No. 1063 E. 60 Day Notification Letters F. Public Hearing Notice G. Copy of Plan Adoption City of Tustin IV 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Acronyms Acronyms Used in the Report 20x2020 20% reduction by 2020 Act Urban Water Management Planning Act AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year AWWARF American Water Works Association Research Foundation Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan BEA Basin Equity Assessment BMP Best Management Practice Board Metropolitan's Board of Directors BPP Basin Production Percentage CALFED CALFED Bay -Delta Program CDR Center for Demographic Research cfs cubic feet per second CII Commercial/Industrial/Institutional CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program City City of Tustin CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CUP Conjunctive Use Program CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council DMM Demand Management Measure DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EOC Emergency Operations Center EOCF 42 East Orange County Feeder 42 EOCWD East Orange County Water District ETo Evapotranspiration EWA Environmental Water Account FY Fiscal Year FYE Fiscal Year Ending GAP Green Acres Project GPCD gallons per capita per day gpm gallons per minute GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washer HET high efficiency toilet HOA Homeowners Association IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Acronyms IWA International Water Association LOI Letter of Intent MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MF Microfiltration MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District Poseidon Poseidon Resources LLC PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan SBx7-7 Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SWP State Water Project TDS Total Dissolved Solids ULFT ultra -low -flush toilet USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County WARN Water Agencies Response Network WEROC Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County WOCWBF 42 West Orange County Water Board Feeder 92 WRF Water Research Foundation WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan WSDM Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan City of Tustin V� 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Executive Summary This report serves as the 2010 update of the City of Tustin's (City) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP has been prepared consistent with the requirements under Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, and became effective on January 1, 1984. The Act requires "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. 2010 UWMP updates are due to DWR by August 1, 2011. Since its passage in 1983, several amendments have been added to the Act. The most recent changes affecting the 2010 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBx7-7) and SB 1087. Water Conservation Act of 2009 or SBx7- 7 enacted in 2009 is the water conservation component of the Delta package. It stemmed from the Governor's goal to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in per capita water use by 2020 (20x2020). SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. Service Area and Facilities The City provides water to a population of 69,010 throughout its 8.4 square mile service area. The City receives its water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) through East Orange County Water District (EOCWD). Groundwater is pumped from 8 untreated or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the distribution system and two treatment facilities that treat groundwater from 5 additional wells. Water Demand Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by the City is approximately 13,000 acre-feet annually consisting of 1,890 acre-feet of imported water and 11,110 acre-feet of local groundwater. The City is projecting a 17% increase in demand in the next 25 years accompanying a projected 7% population growth. With MWDOC's assistance, the City has selected to comply with Option 1 of the SBx7- 7 compliance options. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1 Executive Summary Orange County. Under Compliance Option 1, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 170.6 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 151.6 GPCD. Water Sources and Supply Reliability The City's main sources of water supply are groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Today, the City relies on 85% groundwater and 15% imported water. It is projected that through 2035, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full-service demands (non -interruptible agricultural and replenishment supplies) at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet full service demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The City is therefore capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035, as illustrated in Table 3-12, Table 3-13, and Table 3-14, respectively. Future Water Supply Projects The City has planned water infrastructure improvements to maximize groundwater production in the future. New water supply sources will be developed primarily to better manage the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin resource and to replace or upgrade inefficient wells, rather than to support population growth and new development. The City has developed a water system capital improvement program (CIP) to minimize the dependence on imported water supply and to foster a program to increase the groundwater quality in the aquifer underlying the service area. The City's goal is to develop local groundwater sources that when combined with treated groundwater supplies will provide 100 percent of the required supply within the next 25 years. In Orange County, there are three proposed ocean desalination projects that could serve MWDOC and its member agencies with additional water supply. These are the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, the South Orange Coastal Desalination Project, and the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project. City 0f Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1. Introduction 1.1. Urban Water Management Plan Requirements Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) require "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. 2010 UWMP updates are due to DWR by August 1, 2011. This UWMP provides DWR with information on the present and future water resources and demands and provides an assessment of the City's water resource needs. Specifically, this document will provide water supply planning for a 25 -year planning period in 5 -year increments. The plan will also identify water supplies for existing and future demands, quantify water demands during normal year, single -dry year, and multiple -dry years, and identify supply reliability under the three hydrologic conditions. The City's 2010 UWMP update revises the 2005 UWMP. This document has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Act as amended in 2009, and includes the following discussions: • Water Service Area and Facilities • Water Sources and Supplies • Water Use by Customer Type • Demand Management Measures • Water Supply Reliability • Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs • Water Shortage Contingency Plan • Recycled Water Since its passage in 1983, several amendments have been added to the Act. The most recent changes affecting the 2010 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBx7-7) and SB 1087. Water Conservation Act of 2009 or SBx7- 7 enacted in 2009 is the water conservation component of the historic Delta package. It stemmed from the Governor's goal to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in per capita water use by 2020 (20x2020). SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and the interim 10% goal by 2015. Each urban retail water supplier must include in its 2010 UWMPs the following information from its target -setting process: City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-1 Section 1 Introduction • Baseline daily per capita water use • 2020 Urban water use target • 2015 Interim water use target • Compliance method being used along with calculation method and support data Wholesale water suppliers are required to include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies that would help achieve the 20 by 2020 goal. The other recent amendment made to the UWMP Act to be included in the 2010 UWMP is set forth by SB 1087, Water and Sewer Service Priority for Housing Affordable to Low -Income Households. SB 1087 requires water and sewer providers to grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include low income housing. SB 1087 also requires UWMPs to include projected water use for single- and multi -family housing needed for low-income households. The sections in this UWMP correspond to the outline of the Act, specifically Article 2, Contents of Plans, Sections 10631, 10632, and 10633. The sequence used for the required information, however, differs slightly in order to present information in a manner reflecting the unique characteristics of the City's water utility. The UWMP Checklist has been completed, which identifies the location of Act requirements in this Plan and is included as Appendix A. City of Tustin 1-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan La Habra , tinea faa..4u3effev Fullerton Yorba Linda 1 Water District r La Palm Deena Park Irvine Ranch _ �� Aneheun at Water Water District ry? District Golden Stare ©range Water Co. +rt- IG.S.W.Cj I EQCWD Reta i! a� Garden Grove _ Zone Seat Westminster 1 Wg Beach Tustin VVV Santa Ana FValley �_ Valley f Valle ' h Irvine Ranch'" Mesa t Water District` Huntington Death Consolidated Water Dist Section 1 Introduction ��ernarmno I ����\ Tratwco Canyon � Water _ District I PJewgnn Dearh Ne, El Toro Water District f, r Santa Margarita r Water District Moulton I' l [ �o Emery In Bay Service District' Water Dmitrot Laguna beach County Water District se—d by �+�d San Juan j South Coast WD Capistrano i p ff Sand _ J Clemente South Coast Wafer District San L y NIWDOC Member Agency Fast Orange County Water District (Wholesale) Orange County Water District Non-MWDOC Service Area Inside MWDOC but Outside Retail Water Agency Boundary Freeway or Tollway Proposed Freeway or Tollway N WE 5 a 2 4 a M?.. Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier City of Tustin 1-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 Introduction 1.2. Agency Overview The City, located in central Orange County is a General Law city. The City has a Council -Manager form of government which consists of an elected City Council responsible for policy making, and a professional City Manager, appointed by the Council. The current members of the City Council are: • Jerry Amante — Mayor • John Nielsen — Mayor Pro Tem • Deborah Gavello — Councilmember • Rebecca `Beckie" Gomez — Councilmember • Al Murray — Councilmember The City receives its water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) through East Orange County Water District (EOCWD)_ MWDOC is Orange County's wholesale supplier and is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). 1.3. Service Area and Facilities 1.3.1. Tustin's Service Area The City is located in central east Orange County as shown in Figure 1-1. The City is bounded by the City of Orange to the north, the City of Santa Ana to the west, the City of Irvine to the south, and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the east. The City is approximately 35 miles south of Los Angeles and 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The City has an area of 8.4 square miles and an elevation of about50 feet above sea level. The topography of the City combines generally flat areas with gradual rolling hills. The City provides potable water service to most of the incorporated area of the City and also to unincorporated county areas north of the City. Figure 1-2 illustrates the City's service area boundary. City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 Introduction rr 4 r 1 f J, I f i Ja 's^ i y, d � r I � IEGEN�1 ----- TUSTIN CITY LIMITS NITRATE AND TDS AC19'.UiTY WITH / r TUSTINWATER SERNCEAREA WATER SERVICE AREA >i...rca ZONE 9 308 ZONE 3 480 Figure 1-2: City of Tustin's Service Area City of Tustin 1-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 Introduction 1.3.2. Tustin's Water Facilities The City provides domestic and fire protection water service to most of the incorporated area of the City and also to unincorporated areas north of the City. The City receives approximately 75% of its water from underlying groundwater in the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin. The remaining 25% is imported water purchased from EOCWD. The City has eight untreated or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the distribution system and two treatment facilities that treat groundwater from five additional wells. Elevations in the City's service area range from 60 feet above mean sea level at Warner and Redhill to 435 feet in the Lemon Heights area. The water system is divided into three pressure zones. The average ground elevations for Zones 1, 2, and 3 are 210 feet, 280 feet, and 400 feet above mean sea level, respectively. The City delivers water supplies through 170 miles of 1.5 -inch to 20 -inch water mains and three booster stations. The City pumps its groundwater from 12 wells, inclusive of five wells that undergo nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) removal through the Main Street Plant and the 17th Street Desalter Treatment Plant. Storage is required to balance variations in demand (operational or regulatory storage), to provide water for fighting fire (fire storage), and to provide water when normal supplies are reduced or unavailable due to unusual circumstances (emergency storage). The existing storage system consists of five reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of approximately 7.83 million gallons (MG). A sixth reservoir, Rawlings Reservoir was taken out of service. The City is currently in the process of designing a replacement to the existing Rawlings Reservoir, which will increase overall capacity to approximately 13.83 MG. The project is planned to begin in 2011. City of Tustin 1-6 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2. Water Demand 2.1. Overview Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by the City is approximately 13,000 acre-feet annually consisting of 1,890 acre-feet of potable water and 11,110 acre- feet of groundwater. In the last five years, the City's water demand increased by 1.3%while population has increased by 4.3 percent. The City is projecting a population growth of 7% accompanied by an increasing water demand trend of 17% in the next 25 years. The passage of SBx7-7 will increase efforts to reduce the use of potable supplies in the future. This new law requires all of California's retail urban water suppliers serving more than 3,000 AFY or 3,000 service connections to achieve a 20% reduction in potable water demands (from a historical baseline) by 2020. Due to great water conservation efforts in the past decade, the City is on its way to meeting this requirement on its own. Moreover, the City has elected to join the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance. The City together with other 28 retail agencies in Orange County are committed to reduce the region's water demand by 2020 through the leadership of MWDOC, the region's wholesale provider. This section will explore in detail the City's current water demands by customer type and the factors which influence those demands as well as providing a perspective of its expected future water demands for the next 25 years. In addition, to satisfy SBx7-7 requirements, this section will provide details of the City's SBx7-7 compliance method selection, baseline water use calculation, and its 2015 and 2020 water use targets. 2.2. Factors Affecting Demand Water consumption is influenced by many factors from climate characteristics of that hydrologic region, to demographics, land use characteristics, and economics. The key factors affecting water demand in the City's service area are discussed below. 2.2.1. Climate Characteristics The City is located in an area known as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB climate is characterized by southern California's "Mediterranean" climate: a semi -arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatologically pattern City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The City's average temperature ranges from 55 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 73 degrees Fahrenheit in August with an average annual temperature of 63 degrees. Annual precipitation is typically approximately 14 inches, occurring mostly between November and March (Table 2-1). The average evapotranspiration (ETo) is almost 50 inches per year which is four times the annual average rainfall. This translates to a high demand for landscape irrigation for homes, commercial properties, parks, and golf courses. Moreover, a region with low rainfall like Southern California is also more prone to droughts. Table 2-1: Climate Characteristics [1] CIMIS Station #75, Irvine, California from October 1987 to Present [2] NOAA, Tustin Irvine Ranch, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Precipitation Total [3] NOAA, Tustin Irvine Ranch, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Temperature The source of the City's imported water supplies, the State Water Project and Colorado River Project, is influenced by weather conditions in Northern California and along the Colorado River. Both regions have recently been suffering from multi-year drought conditions and record low rainfalls which directly impact demands and supplies to Southern California. City of Tustin 2-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Standard Monthly Average ETo (inches) [1] Annual Rainfall (inches) [2] Average Temperature (°F) [3] Jan 2.18 2.96 54.5 Feb 2.49 3.07 55.9 Mar 3.67 2.97 57.3 Apr 4.71 0.77 60.9 May 5.18 0.28 64.2 Jun 5.87 0.10 68.1 Jul 6.29 0.01 72.1 Aug 6.17 0.14 73.1 Sep 4.57 0.34 71.4 Oct 3.66 0.40 66.1 Nov 2.59 1.22 59.1 Dec 2.25 1.79 54.3 Annual 49.63 13.87 63.1 [1] CIMIS Station #75, Irvine, California from October 1987 to Present [2] NOAA, Tustin Irvine Ranch, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Precipitation Total [3] NOAA, Tustin Irvine Ranch, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Temperature The source of the City's imported water supplies, the State Water Project and Colorado River Project, is influenced by weather conditions in Northern California and along the Colorado River. Both regions have recently been suffering from multi-year drought conditions and record low rainfalls which directly impact demands and supplies to Southern California. City of Tustin 2-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand 2.2.2. Demographics The City serves a population of 69,010. As noted above, the population within the City's service area is expected to increase by 7% in the next 25 years, or 0.28% annually. Table 2-2 shows the population projections for the next 25 years based on the California State University at Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research (CDR) projections. The City is predominantly residential with over 70% of water service connections serving single- family or multi -family residences. With the exception of commercial development, limited growth potential exists due to minimum availability of open space. Table 2-2: Population — Current and Projected [1] Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2010 2.3. Water Use by Customer Type The knowledge of an agency's water consumption by type of use or by customer class is key to developing that agency's water use profile which identifies when, where, how, and how much water is used, and by whom within the agency's service area. A comprehensive water use profile is critical to the assessment of impacts of prior conservation efforts as well as to the development of future conservation programs. This section provides an overview of the City's water consumption by customer type in 2005 and 2010, as well as projections for 2015 to 2035. The customer classes are categorizes as follows: single-family residential, multi -family residential, commercial/industrial/institutional (CII), dedicated landscape, and agriculture. Other water uses including sales to other agencies and non -revenue water are also discussed in this section. 2.3.1. Overview The City has approximately 15,560 customer connections to its water distribution system. The City is expected to add 1,355 more connections by 2035. All connections in the City's service area are metered. Approximately 73% of the City's water demand is residential. CII including dedicated landscape consume approximately 23% of the City water supply. The City also provides sales to agriculture, 2% of total City water demand. City of Tustin 2-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Service Area Population [1] 69,010 69,999 70,987 71,976 72,964 73,953 [1] Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2010 2.3. Water Use by Customer Type The knowledge of an agency's water consumption by type of use or by customer class is key to developing that agency's water use profile which identifies when, where, how, and how much water is used, and by whom within the agency's service area. A comprehensive water use profile is critical to the assessment of impacts of prior conservation efforts as well as to the development of future conservation programs. This section provides an overview of the City's water consumption by customer type in 2005 and 2010, as well as projections for 2015 to 2035. The customer classes are categorizes as follows: single-family residential, multi -family residential, commercial/industrial/institutional (CII), dedicated landscape, and agriculture. Other water uses including sales to other agencies and non -revenue water are also discussed in this section. 2.3.1. Overview The City has approximately 15,560 customer connections to its water distribution system. The City is expected to add 1,355 more connections by 2035. All connections in the City's service area are metered. Approximately 73% of the City's water demand is residential. CII including dedicated landscape consume approximately 23% of the City water supply. The City also provides sales to agriculture, 2% of total City water demand. City of Tustin 2-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand Tables 2-3 and 2-4 provide a summary of past, current, and projected water use by customer class and the number of water service customers by sector in five-year increments from 2005 through to 2035. Table 2-3: Past, Current and Projected Service Accounts by Water Use Sector Fiscal Number of Accounts by Water Use Sector Year Ending Single Family Multi- Family Commercial Industrial Institutional /Gov Landscape Agriculture Other Total Accounts 2005 11,683 858 1,399 261 522 391 4 13,944 2010 13,178 863 827 54 179 210 9 239 15,559 2015 13,408 878 841 55 182 214 9 243 15,831 2020 13,639 893 856 55 185 217 9 247 16,102 2025 13,869 908 870 55 188 221 9 252 16,373 2030 14,099 923 885 55 192 225 9 259 161646 2035 14,329 938 899 56 195 229 9 259 1 16,914 Table 2-4: Past, Current and Projected Water Demand by Water Use Sector Fiscal Water Demand by Water Use Sectors (AFY) Year Ending Single Family Multi- Family Commercial Industrial Institutional /Gov Landscape Agriculture Other Total Demand 2005 7,175 3,522 1,174 261 522 391 13,046 2010 6,612 2,872 1,162 344 917 549 241 303 13,000 2015 6,957 2,923 1,197 355 945 565 249 311 13,500 2020 7,242 3,010 1,209 355 954 571 249 314 13,905 2025 7,532 3,108 1,221 355 964 576 249 318 14,322 2030 7,846 3,183 1,233 355 983 582 249 321 141752 2035 8,175 3,260 1,239 355 1,002 588 249 324 15,194 2.3.2. Residential Residential water use accounts for the majority of the City's water demands. The single family residential sector accounts for 51% and multi -family residential accounts for 22% of the total water demand. The remaining demands are for the non-residential sector and system losses. Water consumption by the residential sector is projected to remain at about 75% through the 25 -year planning horizon. 2.3.3. Non -Residential In 2010 non-residential demand was 27% of the overall demand and is expected to remain so through 2035. The City has a mix of commercial uses (markets, restaurants, etc.), public entities (such as schools, fire stations and government offices), office City of Tustin 2-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand complexes, light industrial, warehouses and facilities serving the public. CII uses (excluding large landscape) represent a combined 19% of the City's total demand. Demands from large landscapes such as parks and golf courses are expected to remain at around 4% of the City's total water demands for the next 25 years. 2.3.4. Other Water Uses 2.3.4.1. Sales to Other Agencies While the City does sell water outside of its service area, the City does not sell water to other agencies. 2.3.4.2. Non -Revenue Water Non -revenue water is defined by the International Water Association (IWA) as the difference between distribution systems input volume (i.e. production) and billed authorized consumption. Non -revenue water consists of three components: unbilled authorized consumption (e.g. hydrant flushing, fire fighting, and blow -off water from well start-ups), real losses (e.g. leakage in mains and service lines), and apparent losses (unauthorized consumption and metering inaccuracies). The City's non -revenue water accounts for approximately 6.8% of the City's total water uses and is expected to remain. This represents a decrease from 11% in 2005 (Table 2-5). Table 2-5: Additional Water Uses and Losses (AFY) Ir Water Use Fiscal Year Ending 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Saline Barriers - - - - - - - Groundwater Recharge - - - - - - - Conjunctive Use - - - - - - - Raw Water - - - - - - - Recycled Water - - - - - - - Unaccounted-for System Losses 1,474 1 884 1 918 1 946 1 974 1 1,003 1 1,033 Total 1,474 1 884 1 918 1 946 1 974 1 1,003 11,033 2.4. SBx7-7 Requirements 2.4.1. Overview SBx7-7, which became effective on February 3, 2010, is the water conservation component to the Delta legislative package. It seeks to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's 2008 water use reduction goals to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. As discussed above, the bill requires 1 Municipal Water District of Orange County, Water Loss Management Program Assessment (June 2010) City of Tustin 2-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. The bill establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine targets to help achieve water reduction targets. The retail water supplier must select one of the four compliance options. The retail agency may choose to comply to SBx7-7 as an individual or as a region in collaboration with other water suppliers. Under the regional compliance option, the retail water supplier still has to report the water use target for its individual service area. The bill also includes reporting requirements in the 2010, 2015, and 2020 UWMPs. An agency that does not comply with SBx7-7 requirement will not be eligible for a water grant or loan from the state on and after July 16, 2016. 2.4.2. SBx7-7 Compliance Options DWR has established four compliance options for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. Each supplier is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: • Option I requires a simple 20% reduction from the baseline by 2020 and 10 percent by 2015. • Option 2 employs a budget -based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics o Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD o Landscape water use commiserate with Model Landscape Ordinance 0 10 percent reduction in baseline CII water use • Option 3 is to achieve 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State's 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. • Option 4 requires the subtraction of Total Savings from the Base GPCD: o Total Savings includes indoor residential savings, meter savings, CII savings, and landscape and water loss savings. Tustin's Compliance Option Selection With MWDOC's assistance in the calculation of the City's base daily per capita use and water use targets, the City has selected to comply with Option 1. While each retail agency is required to choose a compliance option in 2010, DWR allows for the agency to change its compliance option in 2015. This will allow the City to determine its water use targets for Compliance Option 2 and 4 as it anticipates more data to be available for targets calculation in the future. 2.4.3. Regional Alliance Retail agencies can choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or several retail agencies may form a regional alliance and meet the water use targets as a region. The City of Tustin 2-6 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand benefit for an agency that joins a regional alliance is that it has multiple means of meeting compliance. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County as described in MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP. The Regional Alliance Weighted 2015 target is 174.1 GPCD and 2020 target is 156.5 GPCD. 2.4.4. Baseline Water Use The first step to calculating an agency's water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use (baseline water use). This baseline water use is essentially the agency's gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous 10 -year average during a period which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. Agencies that recycled water made up 10 percent or more of 2008 retail water delivery can use up to a 15 -year average for the calculation. Recycled water use represents less than 10% of the City's retail delivery in 2008; therefore, a 10 -year instead of a 15 -year rolling average was calculated. The City's baseline water use is 189.5 GPCD which was obtained from the 10 -year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. Tables 2-6 and 2-7 provide the base period ranges used to calculate the baseline water use for the City as well as the service area population and annual water use data which the base daily per capita water use was derived. Data provided in Table 2-6 was used to calculate the continuous 10 -year average baseline GPCD. Moreover, regardless of the compliance method adopted by the City, it will need to meet the minimum water use target of 5% reduction from a five-year baseline as calculated in Table 2-7. Because the City is an OCWD agency, the City's gross water use includes deductions for indirect potable recycled water use from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) and Water Factory 21 managed by OCWD. The calculations for the gross water use are described in MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP. City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-6: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 10 -year range 10 Year Avg I July 1, 1995 1 June 30, 2005 Year Ending 1996 Service Area Population 60,699 GrossFiscal Daily PerCapita (gallons per day) 11,750,208 Use 194 1997 61,618 12,593,540 204 1998 62,618 11,614,904 185 1999 63,616 12,349,121 194 2000 64,972 12,842,863 198 2001 65,399 12,440,715 190 2002 65,590 12,586,434 192 2003 65,840 11,710,681 178 2004 66,079 12,226,139 185 2005 1 66,165 1 11,579,424 1 175 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 1 189.5 [1 ] The most recent year in base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010. The base period cannot exceed 10 years unless at least 10 percent of 2008 retail deliveries were met with recycled water. Table 2-7: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 5 -year range 5 Year Avg I July 1, 2003 1 June 30, 2008 Year Ending 2004 GrossFiscal Service Area Population Daily Per (gallons per day) 66,079 12,226,139 Capita Use 185 2005 66,165 11,579,424 175 2006 67,018 11,703,420 175 2007 66,894 12,494,726 187 2008 1 67,805 1 11,992,666 1 177 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 1 179.7 [2] The base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than December 31, 2010. 2.4.5. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets Under Compliance Option 1, the simple 20% reduction from the baseline, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 170.6 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 151.6 GPCD. City of Tustin 2-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-8: Preferred Compliance Option and Water Use Targets on 1 - Simple 20% Reduction 2.5. Demand Projections 2.5.1. 25 -Year Projections 189.5 1 170.6 1 151.6 One of the main objectives of this UWMP is to provide an insight into the City's future water demand outlook. As discussed above, currently, the City's total water demand is 13,000 acre-feet comprising of 85% local groundwater and 15% imported water. As illustrated in Table 2-9, the City's water demand is expected to increase by 17% in the next 25 years from 13,000 AFY to 15,194 AFY. Table 2-9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY) Water Supply Sources Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt EOCWD (Imported (Treated Full Service (non -int.)) 1,890 2,281 2,686 3,103 3,533 3,975 BPP Groundwater 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 BEA -Exempt GW 3,191 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Total 13,000 13,500 13,905 14,322 14,752 15,194 Water Code section 10631 (k) requires urban water suppliers that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water, to provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The City, therefore, has provided MWDOC, its wholesale provider, projections of future water demands. Table 2-10 shows the projected demands for imported water the City's service area from MWDOC for the next 25 years. Table 2-10: Tustin's Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (AFY) Wholesaler Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt EOCWD/MWDOC 2,281 2,686 3,103 3,533 3,975 City of Tustin 2-9 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand 2.5.2. Low Income Household Projections One significant change to the UWMP Act since 2005 is the requirement for retail water suppliers to include water use projections for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income and affordable households. This requirement is to assist the retail suppliers in complying with the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code that suppliers grant a priority for the provision of service to housing units affordable to lower income households. A lower income household is defined as a household earning 80% of the County of Orange's median income or less. In order to identify the planned lower income housing projects within its service area, DWR2 recommends that retail suppliers may rely on Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) or Regional Housing Needs Plan information developed by the local council of governments, the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. Regional Council of Governments in California are required by the State Housing Element Law enacted in 1980 to determine the existing and projected regional housing needs for persons at all income levels. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA consists of two measurements: 1) existing need for housing, and 2) future need for housing. The current RHNA planning period is January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014 completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) in 2007. The next RHNA which will cover the planning period of January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2021 is not expected to be completed until fall of 2012; therefore, the 2007 RHNA will be used for the purpose of this 2010 UWMP. Based on the 2007 Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plana, the projected housing need for low and very low income households (hereafter referred to as low-income) in the City of Tustin are 21.5% and 17.2%, respectively or 38.7% combined. Therefore, from inference, it is estimated that approximately 38.7% of the projected water demands within the City's service area will be for housing needed for low income 2 California Department of Water Resources, Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 UWMP, Final (March 2011) s Southern California Association Governments, Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan for Jurisdictions within the Six County SCAG Region (July 2007) City of Tustin 2-10 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 Water Demand households. Table 2-11 provides a breakdown of the projected water needs for low income single family and multifamily units. The projected water demands shown here represent 38.7% of the projected water demand by customer type for single-family and multifamily categories provided in Table 2-4 above. For example, the total single family residential demand is projected to be 6,957 AFY in 2015 and 8,175AFY in 2035. The projected water demands for housing needed for single family low income households are 2,692 and 3,164 AFY for 2015 and 2035, respectively. Table 2-11: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AFY) Water Use Sector Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Total Retail Demand 13,500 13,905 14,322 14,752 15,194 Total Residential Demand 9,879 10,253 10,639 11,029 11,436 Total Low Income Households Demand 3,823 3,968 4,117 4,268 4,426 SF Residential Demand -Total 6,957 7,242 7,532 7,846 8,175 SF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 2,692 2,803 2,915 3,036 3,164 MF Residential Demand - Total 2,923 3,010 3,108 3,183 3,260 MF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 1,131 1,165 1 1,203 1 1,232 1,262 City of Tustin 2-11 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3. Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.1. Overview The City's main sources of water supply are (1) groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and (2) imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Today, the City relies on 85% groundwater and 15% imported water. It is projected that through 2035, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The City works together with three primary agencies — Metropolitan, MWDOC, and OCWD to insure a safe and high quality water supply, which will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full-service demands (non -interruptible agricultural and replenishment supplies) at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. The imported water supply numbers shown here represent only the amount of supplies projected to meet demands and not the full supply capacity. Figure 3-1 provides a projection of the City's water supply sources for the next 25 years. Groundwater supply is projected to account for approximately 85 percent of the City's total water supply in 2010 and decreased to 71 percent in 2035. Imported water from MWDOC/Metropolitan meets the remaining demand. The BPP is projected to be 62% for all years. The additional groundwater supply beyond the BPP is the BEA -exempt portion extracted from the deeper brackish groundwater wells which undergo advanced treatment. City of Tustin 3-1 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Fiscal Year Ending ■ EOCWD ■ BPP Groundwater BEA -Exempt GW Figure 3-1: Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY) The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the City's water sources as well as projections to the City's future water supply portfolio for the next 25 years. Additionally, the City's projected supply and demand under various hydrological conditions are compared to determine the City's supply reliability for the 25 year planning horizon. This section satisfies the requirements of § 10631 (b) and (c), and 10635 of the Water Code. 3.2. Imported Water The City purchases treated imported water from EOCWD, which is a member agency of MWDOC, which in turn is a member agency of Metropolitan. Imported water represents 1,890 AFY or 15% of the City's total water supply. Imported water purchases have decreased significantly in recent years as a result of groundwater system treatment and production improvements. Metropolitan imports raw water from Northern California through the State Water Project (SWP) and from the Colorado River through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) then treats the majority of water to potable standards at filtration plants located in Southern California. Imported potable water delivered to EOCWD comes from a single source, the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant (Diemer Plant) located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, Diemer Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the Metropolitan Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. Currently, the blend is approximately a 50150 split between the two sources. The City maintains three imported water connections to the Metropolitan system. City of Tustin 3-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Imported water is purchased from EOCWD through each of these connections. Water purchased through OC -43 is distributed directly into the City's system, while water purchased through the other two connections is also distributed to EOCWD's four other retail customers (City of Orange, Golden State Water Company, Orange Park Acres Mutual Water Company and the East Orange County Water District Retail Zone). EOCWD owns a total combined capacity of 25.57cubic feet per second (cfs) from these three connections. EOCWD's capacity in these three connections is provided on an "as needed" basis to each of the five retailers, including the City, with no guaranteed allotment to any agency. 3.2.1. Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) reports on its water reliability and identifies projected supplies to meet the long-term demand within its service area. It presents Metropolitan's supply capacities from 2015 through 2035 under the three hydrologic conditions specified in the Act: single dry -year, multiple dry -years, and average year. Colorado River Supplies Colorado River Aqueduct supplies include supplies that would result from existing and committed programs and from implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements to transfer water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. Colorado River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 MAF on an as -needed basis. State Water Project Supplies Metropolitan's State Water Project (SWP) supplies have been impacted in recent years by restrictions on SWP operations in accordance with the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service issued on December 15, 2008 and June 4, 2009, respectively. In dry, below -normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of the storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry -year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Banks pumping capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. In June 2007, Metropolitan's Board approved a Delta Action Plan that provides a framework for staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan aims to prioritize immediate short-term actions to City of Tustin 3-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid-term steps to maintain the Bay -Delta while the long-term solution is implemented. State and federal resource agencies and various environmental and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which is aimed at addressing the basic elements that include the Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, and flood control protection and storage development. In evaluating the supply capabilities for the 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan assumed a new Delta conveyance is fully operational by 2022 that would return supply reliability similar to 2005 condition, prior to supply restrictions imposed due to the Biological Opinions. Storage Storage is a major component of Metropolitan's dry year resource management strategy. Metropolitan's likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), is dependent on its storage resources. In developing the supply capabilities for the 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan assumed a simulated median storage level going into each of five-year increments based on the balances of supplies and demands. Supply Reliability Metropolitan evaluated supply reliability by projecting supply and demand conditions for the single- and multi-year drought cases based on conditions affecting the SWP (Metropolitan's largest and most variable supply). For this supply source, the single driest -year was 1977 and the three-year dry period was 1990-1992. Metropolitan's analyses are illustrated in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 which correspond to Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP's Tables 2-11, 2-9 and 2-10, respectively. These tables show that the region can provide reliable water supplies not only under normal conditions but also under both the single driest year and the multiple dry year hydrologies. City of Tustin $-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-1: Metropolitan Average Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 AverageYear Supply Capability' and Projected Demands Average of 1922-2004 Hydrologies (acre-feet per year) TzLeast yew 2015 21220 2025 2030 203S Current PFOgFUMS lei -region Storage aro Irograrrs California AquedUGf2 Colorado River Aqueduct C& oro a o River Aqueduct Supply2 Aque.ducf Capacify Limif-0 C-.-_; cx000 River Aqueduct Capability 685,000 1.5&3,000 1,507,000 1,250,000 1.250,000 93_.000 -1,629.000 1,5291,000 1,25aOOD 1,250,000 1,076,000 1,763,000 1,472,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 964,000 1,733,003 1.432,000 f,250,000 1,250.O03 830,000 1,734,000 1,429,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 3,485.000 3.81 O.000 4.089.000 3,947..000 3.814,000 Demands F-n Demands of MetropolHon I C -S DC'YVA Transfers and Cay _ini-g-1 1.826:01O 1a3.O__O _2 T'.001) 1,7135=0 280,000 1,769,OD0 280.003 1,826,000 280,000 Total Demands on Metropcilitan' 2,006,000 1.933.000 ],?85,000 2,049,000 2.TO6,000 Surplus 11.479,000 1.877.000 2,104,000 1,898,000 1.708.000 Frc.grarns Under Development In -Region Storage and Programs California Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Supply,3 Aqueducf Capacify Limits Co'or000 River Aqueduct Capability Capability of Proposed Programs 206,0,'0 382,0,'0 187.,000 588,000 3�':=.000 3x.'_.000 .0 C 689.000 336=0 715,000 187,0O0 0 0 1,051.000 336,OD3 715.000 182,GD3 0 .3 1,051,000 336,000 715,000 8 21. 11 '-:1) C C. 1,051,000 Potential Surplus 2,067,000 2,5456.000 3,155.000 2,949,000 2.759,000 I Represents Su col y C apaF-ty 'or peso _,ce or,�9,a -r, v^: :-iedyE-o—eoe. 2 California Aqued.ot includes Centrad Valley transfers and storage p?ogrorn suppTes convL-yeo o -y t,e oo-educt- f, Colorado River Aqueduc, inc . aes A-a-er mapagemen' programs. IID-SDCNA transfers and canal linings conveyed by the cmaL)educ"- 4&1axirr_m CRA oe ver -es -mitea to 1.2_rN1AFincluding llD-SDCWA trar-fers and canal linings. Firm aerrards o,e oojusted to inc -ae IID-SDCWA transfer- and canal rings. These rupplies are calculated as local supply, but need -o cs_ r,.,_vx'or *he purposes of CPA capacity -mit ou oulation; v.-i-hout dauble counting - City of Tustin 3-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-2: Metropolitan Single -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 Single Dry -Year Supply Capabillty, and Projected Demands Repeat of 1977 Hydrology I Represents Suppy Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 Calffc#,r-,3 Aqueduct includes Central Valley trarsfers ana storage pro -gram supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes water managerrent programs. llD-31C'NA transfers and Canal -rings conveyed by the acque-d-ct. 4 Max mum CRA aeliveriez lirr-fed to 1.25 MAF including llD-'3DCNA -rans=er5 and canal linings. 5 Frrn oemands are aa.-u5ted to inc'_,de'lD-SDCWA trarsfers ana oana -rigs.. These supplies are calculated as local c-r-dy, out need to be sr -ow- for tl-,e p_,coses of CRA capacity irqit ca -culationswrithout dovbLe counting - City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Current Programs -i-Region Storage and Program Cal'orria Aqueduct2 Colorado River Aqueduct m:: �= ivef Aqueduct Suppl L. r c3pacify UrnW C::: :,::,--.cRiveT-AqueductCapabilify Capabilit,',of Current Progranis 685.0' DO 522,0DO 1.4'6,.ODO 1,250,0G0 1,2.50.OM 2,457,OH 93 ,,DJO 601,D-30 1,824,000 U50,000 1: 50,D30 2,782,000 -N 6.0 DO 651.0D3 1,669,ODO 1,250,OGD 11,250.000 2,777,0150 964,DJO 6CO,DDO 1,419,000 USOXOG 1,250,000 2,023c000 030,007 610,000 -.419,001) I , 2SO, 000 2,00.000 Demands Finn Dernonds cf Metropol.-or 11 D-SDCVVA Tra rsfers and Cana L ni ngs 1.991 loco 180,000 1,M5"1 00 273,'D30 SU,viDvi 1:974,030 200,000 Z' 3?,0DO 2511".OD3 Total Demands on Metropolitan' 2,171,000 2,162,000 2,201,0150 2,254,1500 2,319,000 Surplus 296,0130 620,000 776.0150 SO'DO0 371,000 PFOgrOMS Under Development -i-Region Storage and Programs California Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct C olara a o River Aqueduct Supply3 Aq uedtf ct Capacity Lirn& Cdorcao River Aqueduct Ca pa bilffy 206,0D O 556.000 187,000 0 0 3,6.' COO 556,DOO - 67,000 0 0 336,ODO 700,00] 187,OD3 0 0 336,000 700,000 182,D30 0 0 336,00O 700,000 132,000 0 0 Capability of Proposed Programs. 762.ODD 862,000 1,036,000 1,034,000 1,036,000 Potential Surplus 11,04&OOD IA82)WO 1,812,00O 1,605,000 1,407,000 I Represents Suppy Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 Calffc#,r-,3 Aqueduct includes Central Valley trarsfers ana storage pro -gram supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes water managerrent programs. llD-31C'NA transfers and Canal -rings conveyed by the acque-d-ct. 4 Max mum CRA aeliveriez lirr-fed to 1.25 MAF including llD-'3DCNA -rans=er5 and canal linings. 5 Frrn oemands are aa.-u5ted to inc'_,de'lD-SDCWA trarsfers ana oana -rigs.. These supplies are calculated as local c-r-dy, out need to be sr -ow- for tl-,e p_,coses of CRA capacity irqit ca -culationswrithout dovbLe counting - City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-3: Metropolitan Multiple -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 MOHple Dry -Year Supply C a pa b i I if y and P r uj :- : f ed D erna n cl s Re peaf of 199Q-199; Hydrology Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 Colifomia Ao_educteludes Central Valley transfers and storage prograrr supplies conyeyeo by -he aqueo-ot. 3 Cc4Drado River Aqueduct includes woter management progror-rs. IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings conveyed by *he clolueo � of. 4 Mwerium CRA deliveries lir-r-ted to 1.26 MAF including 1lD4DC'wA -rens--ers and canal linings. E Fi,rn aer-rands are oajuv-ed to inc _oe !ID-SDC'NA tranders oral canal 'r'n92. These s-Pplies are calculated as local s-pply, out need to be shown for the p-rposes of CRA capacity limit ca oulat'onswithout dc;. tae counting. City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan ill�illilillilljllllllllllililillilI Current Pro -grams h-: , :e-gion Storage and :rograrrs California AquedUCf2 Colorado River Aqueduct Cobrado, River Aqueduct Suppfy,3 Aqueduct Capacify Limit-' Color000 River Aqueduct Capability 246,000 752,000 1. 3 - 8..0' 30 f, 25'. GOO 1,250,010 373,000 794,000 1,600,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 435,DOD 835,000 1,417,000 1,250,G4G 1.,250,000 398,000 8- 1,000812,000 1.416,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 353,000 1,416,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 C apability of Current Programs 2.248.000 2.417.000 2,520DW 2.459:000 2,415.000 Elrnicinds F __',ernands of Metropolitan y y'A ' Transfers and Canal Li finings gs 2,056,000 160:01,10 947.-,'O� 241.C';C-',- '1.0'3.3:D30 2,1359,000 280,0DO 2, 19,000 280,000 Total Demands on Mefropolifan� 2,236.000 2.188.000 2,281000 2,339:000 2,399.000 Surplus 12.000 229.000 237,100 120,000 161.000 Programs Under Development In -Region Storage ard :'rograrrs California Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Coloraao River Aqueduci Supply' Aqueduct Capacity Limit-' Colorado Rivef Aqueduct Capability Cupobiffy of Proposed Programs 1 :'-2..000 242,000 187,000 0 0 404,000 280,000 273,000 187,001) 0 0 553.000 314,000 419,000 187.000 0 0 733.000 336.0100 4'9.000 182.000 0 0 75S,13DO 336,00'3 419,000 52-100 0 755.000 Potential Surplus 416,1:100 782,000 970.000 875,000 771.000 Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 Colifomia Ao_educteludes Central Valley transfers and storage prograrr supplies conyeyeo by -he aqueo-ot. 3 Cc4Drado River Aqueduct includes woter management progror-rs. IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings conveyed by *he clolueo � of. 4 Mwerium CRA deliveries lir-r-ted to 1.26 MAF including 1lD4DC'wA -rens--ers and canal linings. E Fi,rn aer-rands are oajuv-ed to inc _oe !ID-SDC'NA tranders oral canal 'r'n92. These s-Pplies are calculated as local s-pply, out need to be shown for the p-rposes of CRA capacity limit ca oulat'onswithout dc;. tae counting. City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.2.2. Tustin's Imported Water Supply Projections Based on Metropolitan's supply projections that it will be able to meet full service demands under all three hydrologic scenarios, MWDOC, Orange County's wholesale supplier projects that it would also be able to meet the demands of its retail agencies under these conditions. California Water Code section 10631 (k) requires the wholesale agency to provide information to the urban retail water supplier for inclusion in its UWMP that identifies and quantifies the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale agency. Table 3-4 indicates the wholesaler's water availability projections by source for the next 25 years as provided to the City by MWDOC. The water supply projections shown in Table 3-4 represent the amount of supplies projected to meet demands. They do not represent the full supply capacity. Table 3-4: Wholesaler Identified & Quantified Existing and Planned Sources of Water (AFY) Fiscal Year Ending Wholesaler Sources 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt EOCWD/MWDOC 2,281 2,686 3,103 3,533 3,975 3.3. Groundwater Local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for the City. The City relies on approximately 11,110 acre-feet of groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Orange County Basin) each year. This local source of supply meets approximately 85% of the City's total annual demand. In the effort to maximize local resources, Metropolitan has partnered with OCWD and MWDOC and its member agencies, which are groundwater producers in various programs to encourage the development of local resources. Metropolitan's Groundwater Replenishment Program is a program where a groundwater producer may purchase imported water from Metropolitan at a reduced rate when "surplus" water is available in lieu of extracting groundwater. This program indirectly replenishes the basin by avoiding pumping. This section provides description of the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and the management measures taken by OCWD the basin manager to optimize local supply and minimize overdraft. Moreover, this section provides information on historical groundwater production as well as a 25 -year projection of the City's groundwater supply. City of Tustin 3-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.3.1. Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin The Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin, also known as the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminates at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The aquifers comprising this Basin extend over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the State of California Legislature to protect and manage the County's vast, natural, underground water supply with the best available technology and to defend its water rights to the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This legislation is found in the State of California Statutes, Water — Uncodified Acts, Act 5683, as amended .4 The Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily -imposed physical solution. Section 77 of the Act states that, `nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to affect or impair the vested right of any person, association or corporation to the use of water. s The Basin is managed by OCWD for the benefit of municipal, agricultural and private groundwater producers. The Basin meets approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand within the boundaries of OCWD. There are 19 major producers including cities, water districts, and private water companies, extracting water from the Basin serving a population of approximately 2.55 million.6 Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long- term sustainability of the basin and to protect against land subsidence. In 2007, OCWD established a new methodology for calculating accumulated overdraft and establishing new full -basin benchmarks.' Based on OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan, the optimal accumulated overdraft is between 100,000 and 434,000 AF. At the top of the range, OCWD will be able to provide at least three years of drought supply. An accumulated overdraft condition minimizes the localized high groundwater levels and increases ability to recharge storm events from the Santa Ana River. At an accumulated overdraft of 200,000 AF, the Basin is considered 99.7 percent full. OCWD estimates that 5 Orange County Water District Act, Section 77. 6 MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2008) 7 The Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy, published in February 2007, City of Tustin 3-9 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability the Basin can safely be operated on a short-term emergency basis with a maximum accumulated overdraft of approximately 500,000 AF. In an effort to eliminate long-term overdraft conditions, OCWD developed a comprehensive computer-based groundwater flow model to study and better understand the Basin's reaction to pumping and recharge. OCWD manages the Basin by establishing on an annual basis the appropriate level of groundwater production known as the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) as described below. 3.3.2. Basin Production Percentage No pumping right exists for the Orange County Basin. Total pumping from the basin is managed through a process that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable without harming the Basin. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing the BPP which is the percentage of each Producer's total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency could pump from the Basin, there is a financial disincentive to pumping above the BPP. Pumping above the BPP is also assessed a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA), which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is equal to MWDOC's melded rate. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers by OCWD on an annual basis. The BPP for the 2008-2009 water year (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) was established at 69.0. The overall BPP achieved within OCWD for non -irrigation use in the 2008-09 water year was equal to 72.5 percent. The BPP has recently been set at 62 percent for the 2010-2011 water year. For the purpose of this UWMP, the BPP is assumed to be 62 percent for the entire 25 -year planning horizon (Table 3-5). Table 3-5: Current Basin Production Percentage Basin Name Basin Production Percentage Orange County Groundwater Basin 62% Total 62% The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and Basin management objectives. The BPP is also a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production from the Basin for that year. When Metropolitan has an abundance of water, they may choose to activate their Groundwater Replenishment Program also known as In -Lieu Program, where imported water is purchased in -lieu of pumping groundwater. City of Tustin 3-10 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability In some cases, OCWD encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the BEA Exemption. A BEA Exemption is used to encourage pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to clean up and contain the spread of poor quality water. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor -quality groundwater. When OCWD authorizes a BEA exemption for a project, it is obligated to provide the replenishment water for the production above the BPP and forgoes the BEA revenue that OCWD would otherwise receive from the producer. The City is one of the Producers who are BEA -exempt. The Tustin Nitrate Removal Project (Main Street Treatment Plant) and the Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter are the two groundwater treatment facilities which production are allowed above the BPP and the charges are BEA -exempt. The Main Street Treatment Plant has operated since 1989 to reduce nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Wells No. 3 and 4 by blending untreated groundwater with treatment plant product water which undergoes reverse osmosis and ion exchange treatment process$. The Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter began operation in 1996 to reduce high nitrate and total dissolved solids concentration from groundwater produced by Wells No. 2 and 4 and Newport well using reverse osmosis. 3.3.3. Recharge Facilities Recharging water into the basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the basin. Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the basin and consequently the threat of seawater intrusion. In 1949, OCWD began purchasing imported Colorado River water from Metropolitan, which was delivered to Orange County via the Santa Ana River upstream of Prado Dam. The Basin's primary source of recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River. OCWD diverts river flows into recharge basins located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration and recycled water. Today OCWD owns and operates a network of recharge facilities that cover 1,067 acres. The recharge capacity has exceeded 10,000 AFY with the addition of the La Jolla Recharge Basin which came online in 2008. The La Jolla Recharge Basin is a 6 -acre recharge basin. One of OCWD's primary efforts has been the control of seawater intrusion into the Basin, especially via the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers. OCWD began addressing the Alamitos Gap intrusion by entering a partnership in 1965 with the Los 8 OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan 2990 Update City of Tustin 3-11 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Angeles County Flood Control District to operate injection wells in the Alamitos Gap. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. To address seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap, OCWD constructed Water Factory 21, a plant that treated secondary -treated water from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to produce purified water for injection. Water Factory 21 operated for approximately 30 years until it was taken off line in 2004. It was replaced by an advanced water treatment system, the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS is a cooperative project between OCWD and OCSD that began operating in 2008. Secondary -treated wastewater from OCSD undergoes treatment consisting of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation with ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide. It is the largest water purification project of its kind, Phase 1 of the GWRS began operating in 2008 with a capacity of purifying 72,000 AFY of water. The GWRS provides recharge water for the Talbert Injection Barrier as well as to recharge basins in the City of Anaheim. The Expanded Talbert Injection Barrier included 8 new injection wells which operation began in 2008. The GWRS increased reliable, local water supplies available for barrier injection from 5 MGD to 30 MGD. 3.3.4. Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program OCWD, MWDOC, and Metropolitan have developed a successful and efficient groundwater replenishment program to increase storage in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Groundwater Replenishment Program allows Metropolitan to sell groundwater replenishment water to OCWD and make direct deliveries to agency distribution systems in lieu of producing water from the groundwater basin when surplus water is available. This program indirectly replenishes the basin by avoiding pumping. In the in -lieu program, OCWD requests an agency to halt pumping from specified wells. The agency then takes replacement water through its import connections, which is purchased by OCWD from Metropolitan (through MWDOC). OCWD purchases the water at a reduced rate, and then bills the agency for the amount it would have had to pay for energy and the Replenishment Assessment (RA) if it had produced the water from its wells. The deferred local production results in water being left in local storage for future use. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD did not utilize replenishment water because such water was not available to purchase from Metropolitan. 3.3.5. Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program Since 2004, OCWD, MWDOC, and participating producers have participated in Metropolitan's Conjunctive Use Program (known as the Metropolitan Long -Term Groundwater Storage Program). This program allows for the storage of Metropolitan water in the Orange County groundwater basin. The existing Metropolitan storage program provides for Metropolitan to store 66,000 AF of water in the basin in exchange for Metropolitan's contribution to improvements in basin management facilities. These improvements include eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the City of Tustin 3-12 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability seawater intrusion barrier, construction of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline. This water can be withdrawn over a three-year time period. The preferred means to store water in the Metropolitan storage account has been through the in -lieu deliveries to participating groundwater producers. 3.3.6. Historical Groundwater Production Since its founding, OCWD has grown in size from 162,676 to 229,000 acres. Groundwater pumping from the basin has grown from approximately 150,000 AFY in the mid-1950s to over 300,000 AFY. During the water year July 2008 to June 2009, total basin production for all agencies was approximately 324,147 acre-feet (AF).9 Within the City's service area, groundwater for potable use is produced from 13 operating wells. The City categorizes the wells as either clear or treated groundwater. Eight of the wells are categorized as clear groundwater wells even though several wells require blending with either imported water or groundwater from another well to meet the nitrate maximum contaminant level (MCL). Blending is not considered a treatment process by OCWD and blended groundwater is not exempt from the BEA. The City also treats groundwater from five wells high in total dissolved solids (TDS) and/or nitrates at the Main Street Plant and 17th Street Desalter Treatment Plant. Groundwater produced through these treatment plants removes TDS and nitrates from the Basin. As such, these wells are exempt from the BEA and are not included in BPP calculations. Table 3-6 shows the City's recent groundwater production from the Basin in the past five years from 2005 to 2009. During certain seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007, OCWD has operated the In -lieu Program with Metropolitan by purchasing water from Metropolitan to meet demands of member agencies rather than pumping water from the groundwater basin. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD did not utilize in -lieu water because such water was not available to purchase from Metropolitan. 10 9 2008-2009 Engineer's Report on Groundwater conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2010 iU 2008-2009 Engineer's Report on Groundwater conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2010 City of Tustin 3-13 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-6: Amount of Groundwater Pumped in the Past 5 Years (AFY) Basin Name(s) Fiscal Year Ending 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BPP GW 2,628 2,568 6,865 6,704 6,513 BEA -Exempt GW 2,475 3,623 3,731 2,582 1,684 Plus In -Lieu taken from OCWD 4,227 5,786 381 - - Subtotal OCWD Basin GW 9,330 11,977 10,977 9,287 8,197 % of Total Water Supply 72% 89% 78% 69% 64% 3.3.7. Projections of Groundwater Production The mission of the OCWD is to provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, high quality water supply at the lowest reasonable cost in an environmentally responsible manner. Efforts have been made to develop and secure new supplies. Also in December 2008, OCWD secured the rights to divert and use up to 362,000 AFY of Santa Ana River water through a decision of the State Water Resources Control Board. Description to other recent OCWD projects can be found in OCWD's 2009 GWMP. Based on the annual MWDOC survey completed by each Producer in the spring of 2008, the estimated demand for groundwater in the OCWD boundary will increase from 519,000 AFY in 2015 to 558,000 AFY in 2035 representing a 7.5 percent increase over a 20 year period. OCWD's estimated total annual groundwater production for the water year 2010-2011 is 295,000 AF based on a BPP of 62 percent and includes 22,000 AF of production from water quality improvement projects. Table 3-7 shows the amount of groundwater projected to be pumped from the Basin in the next 25 years. The BPP is assumed to remain at 62 percent for the entire planning horizon. The City recently added the Pasadena Avenue Well to their system which was drilled in December 2006, completed in April 2007, and went on-line in 2009. The well is equipped with a 500 horsepower vertical turbine pump and has a capacity of 3000 gpm. The well provides chlorination treatment and includes a diesel standby power generator to run the well during emergencies. Table 3-7: Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped (AFY) Basin Name(s) Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 -opt 2035 -opt BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 BEA -Exempt GW 3,191 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 % of Total Water Supply 85% 83% 81% 78% 76% 74% City of Tustin 3-14 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.4. Supply Reliability 3.4.1. Overview It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to insure it has adequate supplies. Development of groundwater, groundwater recovery, and desalination opportunities augments the reliability of the imported water system. There are various factors that may impact reliability of supplies such as legal, environmental, water quality and climatic which are discussed below. The water supplies are projected to meet full service demands; Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet with existing supplies, full service demands of its member agencies starting 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. The foundation of Metropolitan's resource strategy for achieving regional water supply reliability has been to develop and implement water resources programs and activities through its IRP preferred resource mix. This preferred resource mix includes conservation, local resources such as water recycling and groundwater recovery, Colorado River supplies and transfers, SWP supplies and transfers, in -region surface reservoir storage, in -region groundwater storage, out -of -region banking, treatment, conveyance and infrastructure improvements. MWDOC is reliant on Metropolitan for all of its imported water. With the addition of planned supplies under development, Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan will be able to meet full-service demands from 2015 through 2035, even under a repeat of the worst drought. Table 3-8 shows the reliability of the wholesaler's supply for single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios. Table 3-8: Wholesaler Supply Reliability - % of Normal AFY In addition to meeting full service demands from 2015 through 2035, Metropolitan projects reserve and replenishment supplies to refill system storage. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP states that it will meet full-service demands to its customers from 2015 through 2035. Table 3-9 shows the basis of water year data used to predict drought supply availability. City of Tustin 3-15 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Multiple Dry Water Years Single Wholesaler Sources Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Y EOCWD/MWDOC 100% 100% 100% 100% In addition to meeting full service demands from 2015 through 2035, Metropolitan projects reserve and replenishment supplies to refill system storage. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP states that it will meet full-service demands to its customers from 2015 through 2035. Table 3-9 shows the basis of water year data used to predict drought supply availability. City of Tustin 3-15 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-9: Basis of Water Year Data Water Year Type Base Year Base Year Base Year Normal Water Year Average 1922-2004 Single -Dry Water Year 1977 Multiple -Dry Water Years 1990 1991 1992 3.4.2. Factors Contributing to Reliability The Act requires a description of the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. The City relies on import supplies provided by Metropolitan through MWDOC/EOCWD. The following are some of the factors identified by Metropolitan that may have an impact on the reliability of Metropolitan supplies. Environment — Endangered species protection needs in the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta have resulted in operational constraints to the SWP system. The Bay -Delta's declining ecosystem caused by agricultural runoff, operation of water pumps and other factors has led to historical restrictions in SWP supply deliveries. SWP delivery restrictions due to the biological opinions resulted in the loss of about one-third of the available SWP supplies in 2008. Legal — Listings of additional species under the Endangered Species Act and new regulatory requirements could impact SWP operations by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. Additionally, the Quantification Settlement Agreement has been challenged in courts and may have impacts on the Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority transfer. If there are negative impacts, San Diego could become more dependent on the Metropolitan supplies. Water Quality —Water imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) contains high level of salts. The operational constraint is that this water needs to be blended with SWP supplies to meet the target salinity of 500 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS). Another water quality concern is related to quagga mussel. Controlling the spread and impacts of quagga mussels within the Colorado River Aqueduct require extensive maintenance and results in reduced operational flexibility. Climate Change — Changing climate patterns are expected to shift precipitation patterns and affect water supply. Unpredictable weather patterns will make water supply planning even more challenging. The areas of concern for California include the reduction in Sierra Nevada snowpack, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels causing increased risk of levee failure. City of Tustin 3-16 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Legal, environmental, and water quality issues may have impacts on Metropolitan supplies. It is felt however climatic factors would have more of an impact than the others. Climatic conditions have been projected based on historical patterns; however severe pattern changes may occur in the future. Table 3-10 shows the factors resulting in inconsistency of supply. Table 3-10: Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Supply I Name of Supply Legal Environmental Water Quality Climatic State Water Project X X Colorado River X X These and other factors are addressed in greater detail in Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP. 3.4.2.1. Water Quality Imported Water - Metropolitan is responsible for providing water of a high quality throughout its service area. The water that Metropolitan delivers is tested both for currently regulated contaminants and for additional contaminants of concern as over 300,000 water quality tests are conducted each year to regulate the safety of its waters. Metropolitan's supplies originate primarily from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and from the State Water Project (SWP). A blend of these two sources, proportional to each year's availability of the source, is then delivered throughout Metropolitan's service area. Metropolitan's primary sources face individual water quality issues of concern. The CRA water source contains a higher level of total dissolved solids (TDS) and a lower level of organic material while the SWP contains a lower TDS level while its level or organic materials is much higher, lending to the formation of disinfection byproducts. To remediate the CRA's high level of salinity and the SWP's high level of organic materials, Metropolitan has been blending CRA water with SWP supplies as well as implementing updated treatment processes to decrease the disinfection byproducts. In addition, Metropolitan has been engaged in efforts to protect its Colorado River supplies from threats of uranium, perchlorate, and chromium VI while also investigating the potential water quality impact of emerging contaminants, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). Metropolitan has assured its ability to overcome the above mentioned water quality concerns through its protection of source waters, implementation of renovated treatment processes, and blending of its two sources. While unforeseeable water quality issues could alter reliability, Metropolitan's current strategies ensure the deliverability of high quality water. City of Tustin 3-17 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Groundwater - The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is responsible for managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin. To maintain groundwater quality, OCWD conducts an extensive monitoring program that serves to manage the basin's groundwater production, control groundwater contamination, and comply with all necessary laws and regulations." A network of nearly 700 wells provides OCWD a source for samples, which are tested for a variety of purposes. The District collects 600 to 1,700 samples each month to monitor the quality of the basin's water. These samples are collected and tested according to approved federal and state procedures as well as industry -recognized quality assurance and control protocols. OCWD recognizes the importance of maintaining the basin's high water quality. OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan Update includes a section labeled, "Water Quality Management," which discusses the water quality concerns as well as management programs that OCWD is currently involved with. Table 3-11 shows the amount in acre-feet per year that water quality would have on supply. Table 3-11: Water Quality — Current and Projected Water Supply Impacts (AFY) Water Source Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loca 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4.3. Normal Year Reliability Comparison The City has entitlements and/or written contracts to receive imported water from Metropolitan via the regional distribution system. Although pipeline capacity rights do not guarantee the availability of water, per se, they do guarantee the ability to convey water when it is available to the Metropolitan distribution system. All imported water supplies assumed in this section are available to the City from existing water transmission facilities. Table 3-12 shows supply and demand under normal year conditions. Water supplies are projected to be available from Metropolitan; however, it is not included here since projected supplies meet projected demands. ii The information in this section is referenced from the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update "Groundwater Monitoring" section (pages 3-1 through 3-20) and "Water Quality Management" section (pages 5-1 through 5-30). City of Tustin 3-18 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-12: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY) 3.4.4. Single Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City has documented that it is 100% reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.3% using FY 2001-02 as the single dry year. Table 3-13 compiles supply and demand projections for a single dry water year. The available imported supply is greater than shown; however, it is not included because all demands are met. Table 3-13: Projected Single -Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035. Total Demand 13,500 13,905 14,322 14,752 15,194 BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 BEA -Exempt GW 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Imported 2,281 2,686 3,103 3,533 3,975 Total Supply 13,500 13,905 14,322 14,752 15,194 3.4.4. Single Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City has documented that it is 100% reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.3% using FY 2001-02 as the single dry year. Table 3-13 compiles supply and demand projections for a single dry water year. The available imported supply is greater than shown; however, it is not included because all demands are met. Table 3-13: Projected Single -Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) 3.4.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City is capable of providing their customers all their demands with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.3% using FY 2001-02 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin. Table 3-14 shows supply and demand projections under multiple dry year conditions. City of Tustin 3-19 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 BEA -Exempt GW 3,300 3,300 31300 3,300 3,300 Imported 3,267 3,701 4,149 4,610 5,084 Total Supply 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 3.4.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City is capable of providing their customers all their demands with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.3% using FY 2001-02 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin. Table 3-14 shows supply and demand projections under multiple dry year conditions. City of Tustin 3-19 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-14: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY) City of Tustin 3-20 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 71919 First Year Supply BEA -Exempt GW 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Imported 3,267 3,701 4,149 4,610 5,084 Total Supply 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 Total Demand 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 Second Year Supply BEA -Exempt GW 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Imported 3,267 3,701 4,149 4,610 5,084 Total Supply 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 161303 Total Demand 141486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 BPP GW 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 7,919 Third Year Supply BEA -Exempt GW 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Imported 3,267 3,701 4,149 4,610 5,084 Total Supply 14,486 14,920 15,368 15,829 16,303 City of Tustin 3-20 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4. Demand Management Measures 4.1. Overview Water conservation, often called demand-side management, can be defined as practices, techniques, and technologies that improve the efficiency of water use. Such practices are referred to as demand management measures (DMM). Increased efficiency expands the use of the water resource, freeing up water supplies for other uses, such as population growth, new industry, and environmental conservation. The increasing efforts in water conservation are spurred by a number of factors: growing competition for limited supplies, increasing costs and difficulties in developing new supplies, optimization of existing facilities, delay of capital investments in capacity expansion, and growing public support for the conservation of limited natural resources and adequate water supplies to preserve environmental integrity. The City recognizes the importance of water conservation and has made water use efficiency an integral part of water use planning. The City is currently implementing all 14 DMMs described in the Act. This section of the UWMP satisfies the requirements of § 10631 (f) & 0). It describes how each DMM is being implemented by the City and how the City evaluates the effectiveness of the DMMs implemented. This section also provides an estimate of existing conservation savings where information is available. 4.2. Water Use Efficiency Programs As a member agency of MWDOC, the City actively participates in various MWDOC/Metropolitan residential and CII rebate programs, as well as school and public education and outreach programs, and other programs administered by MWDOC. MWDOC implements many of the urban water conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) on behalf of its member agencies. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP should be referred to for a detailed discussion of each regional BMP program. The City works cooperatively with MWDOC for technical and financial support needed to facilitate meeting the terms of the MOU. MWDOC's current Water Use Efficiency Program, detailed in their 2010 RUWMP, implemented on behalf of its member agencies following three basic focuses: 1. Regional Program Development — MWDOC develops, obtains funding for, and implements regional BMP programs on behalf of all retail water agencies in Orange County. City of Tustin 4-1 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures 2. Local Program Assistance - MWDOC assists retail agencies to develop and implement local programs within their individual service areas. 3. Research and Evaluation — MWDOC conducts research programs which allow an agency to measure the water savings benefits of a specific program and then compare those benefits to the costs of implementing the program in order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the program. Table 4-1 provides an overview of City's DMM program status. Table 4-1: Urban Supplier's Demand Management Measures Overview Demand Management Measure (DMM) DMM Status Past Current Future Residential Water Surveys X Residential Plumbing Retrofits X System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair X Metering with Commodity Rates X Large Landscape Conservation Programs X High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebates X Public Information Programs X School Education Programs X Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Programs X Wholesale Agency Assistance N/A Conservation Pricing X Conservation Coordinator X Water Waste Prohibition X Residential ULFT Replacement Programs X 4.2.1. DMM 1: Water Survey Programs for Single -Family Residential and Multi -Family Residential Customers Residential surveys by the City have been done on an informal basis via customer requests responding to high water bill complaints or meter readings that indicated higher than normal usage. In 1997, MWDOC began accessing Metropolitan funding assistance for residential surveys, which included retrofitting high water -using devices with low flow devices. MWDOC ceased its program in FY 01/02 and does not plan to offer the program in the future. Based on the California Urban Water Conservation Council's (CUWCC) savings rates determined in the BMP Costs and Savings Study (December 2003), savings from untargeted intensive home surveys results in an average of 21gpd per household for both single family and multifamily. The City will measure the City of Tustin 4-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures effectiveness of water survey programs through analyzing the number of surveys distributed and the difference in water consumption for the families after the surveys are conducted. The program was discontinued in 2010, due to limited budget. Additionally, the City participates in various MWDOC's programs aimed at increasing landscape water use efficiency for residential customers. In FY 2004/05, the City started participating in MWDOC's SmarTimer Rebate Program. Under this regional program, residential and small commercial properties are eligible for a rebate when they purchase and install a weather -based irrigation controller which has the potential to save 41 gallons per day per residence and can reduce runoff and pollution by 49 percent. To date, 23 rebates have been given out to residential customers and 30 rebates to small commercial customers which translate to a water savings of approximately 56.5 acre-feet. The City will continue to provide on-site meetings, literature and incentives related to this program. As part of the MWDOC Grant for the SmarTimers a site audit and inspection is required and provided by contract through MWDOC. Another program related to residential landscape water conservation is MWDOC's synthetic turf replacement program which the City has participated since the start of the program in FY 2007-08. To date 13,030 square feet of turf grass have been replaced by synthetic turf, saving residential customers 6.02 acre-feet.. 4.2.2. DMM 2: Residential Plumbing Retrofit The City participated in MWDOC's regional ultra low flow toilet (ULFT) rebate program which ended in 2009. A total of 9,571 ULFTs were distributed under this program to single-family and multi -family homes representing a cumulative water savings of 3,790 acre-feet. The high efficiency toilet rebate program has since replaced the ULFT program as discussed under DMM 14. In addition, through Metropolitan's mass showerhead distribution, over 95% of single- family and multi -family residential accounts in Orange County have been retrofitted with low flow showerheads since 2006. Both the ULFT and low flow shower programs have achieved saturation as determined in the 2001 Orange County Saturation Study. 4.2.3. DMM 3: System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair As part of the City's water system Capital Improvement Program (CIP), a program has been developed and scheduling is in place to retrofit old distribution pipelines on an annual basis. The City maintains an emergency response program that aggressively repairs main breaks, hydrant leaks or breaks, and meter leaks. A team of the City's staff are available to permanently repair main or hydrant breaks, and promptly restore water service. Both proactive and "inform and response" approaches are utilized for addressing water meter when next day service is performed. City of Tustin 4-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures In 2006 to 2010, the City in conjunction with MWDOC participated in a Water Audit Demonstration Project with funding assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The study utilized a new pilot Distribution System Audit methodology developed by the Water Research Foundation (WRF) (formerly American Water Works Association Research Foundation, AWWARF) and the International Water Association (IWA). The study includes two parts: (1) a survey of all MWDOC retail agencies to assess the context for existing water loss among the agencies; and (2) the selection of one retail agency to conduct a detailed water audit consistent with methods developed by the WRF and IWA. The new methodology includes several features that have been lacking in traditional auditing practices. The basic concept is that all water can and should be "accounted -for" as either a consumptive use or a loss. Non -revenue water is the new term to be analyzed by the study, with all non -revenue water falling into the categories of either unbilled authorized consumption, or apparent losses, or real losses. Apparent losses include unauthorized consumption, metering errors and data errors resulting in lost revenue to the water utility. Real losses include leakage from mains, storage and service connections. Such losses represent a waste of water causing unnecessary infrastructure capacity, inflated production and energy costs and undue stress on available water resources — solely to meet the non -beneficial demand of mostly system leakage. Audit validity score for the final report was 83 out of 100. The study recommended three priority areas for attention; (1) Master meter adjustment, (2) Unauthorized consumption, (3) Customer retail unit cost. The non -revenue water for 2007 as percent by volume of water supplied was 6.8% and non -revenue water as percent by cost of operating system was 5.0%. This represents a reduction from 2005 where non -revenue (as percent by volume of water supplied) was 11.3%. The City expected non -revenue water to remain around 7% in the future. Additionally, based on the water loss audit study recommendations, the City does not need to implement a formal leak repair program. As a result, the City will continue to repair leaks on an as -needed basis. 4.2.4. DMM 4: Metering with Commodity Rates The City requires meters for all new water connections and bills by volume of use. All water service connections, with the exception of dedicated fire services, are metered. The City has retrofitted all existing unmetered connections to be metered. The City will continue to require metering for all connections. Metering allows the City to conserve a total of 20-30 percent of the water demand overall, and up to 40 percent savings during peak demand periods, as estimated by the CUWCC's BMP Costs and Savings Study (December 2003). The measure of effectiveness for this DMM will include a comparison of water use before and after meter calibration. City of Tustin 4-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures 4.2.5. DMM 5: Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives The City supports large landscape conservation through MWDOC's regional programs including: Save Water Save A Buck Rebate Program — As a member agency of MWDOC, the City takes part in the Save Water Save a Buck Rebate Program which offers financial incentives to CII customers who purchase approved weather -based irrigation controllers (smart timers) and rotating nozzles. As of FY 2010-11 the total rotating nozzle program participation includes 938 residential customers representing 9.67 acre-feet of savings, collectively. A total of 23 smart timer rebates have been given out to residential customers and 30 smart timers rebates to commercial customers translating to 56.5 acre- feet of savings, collectively. Synthetic Turf Rebate Program — The City continued participation in MWDOC's landscape rebate programs resulted in the installation of 13,030 sq. ft. of synthetic turf representing 6.02 acre-feet of savings. California Friendly Landscape Training _The California Friendly Landscape Training provides education to residential homeowners and professional landscape contractors on a variety of landscape water efficiency practices they can employ. These classes are hosted by MWDOC and/or the retail agencies to encourage participation across the county. In addition, the City takes advantage of regional and local efforts which target and market to large landscape properties including bill inserts, direct marketing efforts, ads in various publications, educational seminars/symposiums for property owners, and presentations at Homeowners Association (HOA) board meetings. 4.2.6. DMM 6: High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs The City participates in the SoCal Water Smart residential rebate program offered by Metropolitan and implemented through MWDOC. This program offers financial incentives to single-family and multifamily residential customers through the form of a rebate. Orange County residents are eligible to receive an $85 rebate when they purchase of a new High Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW). This program began in 2001 and is sponsored by MWDOC, Metropolitan, and local retail water agencies. Rebates are available on a first-come, first-served basis, while funds last. Participants must be willing to allow an inspection of the installed machine for verification of program compliance. Machines must have a water factor of 4.0 or less. Depending on use, these machines can save 10,000 gallons of water per year Participants are encouraged to contact their local gas and/or electric utility as additional rebates may be available. As of FY 2010-11, the City of Tustin 4-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures City has given out 1,031 high -efficiency washing machine rebates to its customers. This equates to a water savings of 128 acre-feet. 4.2.7. DMM 7: Public Information Programs The City and MWDOC partner together on public information education and outreach programs that provide information regarding present and future water supplies, the demand for a reliable supply of high quality water, and the importance of implementing water efficient techniques and behaviors. The City informs its water customers of upcoming public information events and encourages participation in water conservation efforts and programs sponsored by EOCWD, MWDOC, and Metropolitan. MWDOC provides a comprehensive public information program built around communication, coordination and partnerships. The City participates in the monthly Public Affairs Workgroup meetings conducted by MWDOC with its member agencies. The meetings are held to coordinate public outreach efforts, as well as share information and ideas on a countywide basis. MWDOC currently offers a wide range of public information programs in Orange County in collaboration with its member agencies. Current public information programs in the MWDOC's service area are summarized below. Water Facility Inspection Trip Program - The inspection trip program is sponsored by MWDOC and Metropolitan. Each year, Orange County elected officials, residents, business owners, and community leaders are invited to attend educational inspection trips to tour key water facilities throughout the state of California. The goal is to educate members of our community about planning, procurement and management of southern California's water supply and the issues surrounding delivery and management of this vital resource. O. C. Water Hero Program - The goal of this program is to engage children in water use efficiency activities while facilitating discussion with friends and family members about how to save water. Any Orange County child can become a Water Hero by pledging to save 20 gallons of water per day. In exchange for their pledge, they receive a free Water Hero kit, which includes a variety of fun, water -saving items like a 5 -minute shower timer and "fix -it" ticket pad for busting water wasters. To become a Superhero, a student must get their parents to also pledge to save 20 gallons of water per day. To date, more than 13,000 children in Orange County have become Water Heroes and more than 4,000 have become Superheroes. eCurrents - This monthly electronic newsletter is designed to keep MWDOC's 28 member agencies, residents and businesses, stakeholder groups, opinion leaders, and others apprised of MWDOC news, programs, events, and activities. The publication also City of Tustin 4-6 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures serves to keep readers informed about regional, state, and federal issues affecting water supply, water management, water quality, and water policy and regulation. Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) - WACO was formed in 1983 to facilitate the introduction, discussion, and debate of current and emerging water issues among Orange County policymakers and water professionals. The committee's membership has evolved to include elected officials and management staff from Orange County cities and water districts, engineers, attorneys, consultants, and other industry professionals. Monthly meetings are open to the public and are typically held on the first Friday of each month at 7:30 a.m. In addition to MWDOC's programs, the City regularly distributes a variety of information materials to the public, including newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, issue bulletins, manager's reports, annual reports, briefing books, and press kits. For example, the City publishes articles in Tustin Today which is Parks and Rec Schedule of Classes and part a community news magazine to draw attention to water issues. The City uses bill inserts to inform water conservation classes (i.e. California Friendly Landscape Class). The method to measure effectiveness of implementing this DMM for the City will include quantifying the number of participants in the public programs, as well the number of public announcements/brochures distributed throughout the service area. An increase in the participation and distribution of materials will indicate heightened public water conservation awareness to work towards decreases in water use. The City will continue to work with MWDOC to offer public information programs. 4.2.8. DMM 8: School Education Programs Through MWDOC, water education programs are available to the City's public and private schools. School water education has been part of MWDOC's activities for more than 30 years. It is MWDOC's goal to educate children about local water issues and help them understand the value of water and how they can protect our water resources and the environment. MWDOC's on-going school education programs are described below. Water Education School Program - One of the most successful and well-recognized water education curriculums in southern California is MWDOC's Water Education School Program. For more than 30 years, School Program mascot "Ricki the Rambunctious Raindrop" has been educating students in grades K-5 about the water cycle, the importance and value of water, and the personal responsibility we all have as environmental stewards. The School Program features assembly -style presentations that are grade -specific and performed on-site at the schools. The program curriculum is aligned with the science content standards established by the State of California. Since its inception in 1973, City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures nearly three million Orange County students have been educated through the School Program. In 2004, MWDOC formed an exciting partnership with Discovery Science Center that has allowed both organizations to reach more Orange County students each year and provide them with even greater educational experiences in the areas of water and science. Discovery Science Center currently serves as the School Program administrator, handling all of the program marketing, bookings, and program implementation. During the 2010- 11 school year, more than 70,000 students will be educated through the program. Water Education Poster & Slogan Contest - Each year, MWDOC holds a Water Education Poster and Slogan Contest to increase water awareness. To participate, children in grades K-6 develop posters and slogans that reflect a water awareness message. The goal is to get children thinking about how they can use water wisely and to facilitate discussion about water between children and their friend, parents, and teachers. Each year, more than 1,500 poster and slogan entries are received through the contest. During a special judging event, approximately 16 posters and 10 slogans are selected as the winners. All of our winners — and their parents, teachers, and principals — are invited to attend a special awards ceremony with Ricki Raindrop at Discovery Science Center. At the awards ceremony, the winners are presented with their framed artwork as well as a custom t -shirt featuring their poster or slogan, a trophy, a certificate, and other fun water - saving prizes. Children's Water Education Festival - The largest water education festival of its kind is the annual Children's Water Education Festival (Festival). The Festival is presented by OCWD, the National Water Research Institute, Disneyland Resort, and MWDOC. Each year, more than 5,000 students participate in the Festival over the course of this two-day event. The Festival is currently held at the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace in Yorba Linda, California. The Festival presents a unique opportunity to educate students in grades four through six about local water issues and help them understand how they can protect our water resources and the environment. Students attend the Festival with their teacher and classmates, visiting a variety of booths focused on different water -related topics throughout the day. Participating organizations (presenters) engage the students through interactive educational presentations that are aligned with the science content standards established by the State of California. Since its inception, more than 80,000 children from schools throughout Orange County have experienced the Festival and all it has to offer. City of Tustin 4-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures 4.2.9. DMM 9: Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts The City offers financial incentives under the Save Water Save A Buck Rebate Program which offers rebates for various water efficient devices to CII customers. The City also participates in MWDOC's Water Smart Hotel Program as described below. Save Water Save a Buck — This program began in 2002 and offers rebates to assist commercial, industrial, and institutional customers in replacing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low -flow fixtures. Facilities where low -flow devices are installed must be located in Orange County. Rebates are available only on those devices listed in Table 4-2 below and must replace higher water use devices. Installation of devices is the responsibility of each participant. Participants may purchase and install as many of the water saving devices as is applicable to their site. Table 4-2: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages Retrofit Device Rebate Amount $50 High Efficiency Toilet Ultra -Low -Water or Zero Water Urinal $200 Connectionless Food Steamers $485 per compartment Air -Cooled Ice Machines (Tier III) $300 Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller $625 pH / Conductivity Controller $1,750 Dry Vacuum Pumps $125 per HP Water Pressurized Broom $110 As of FY 2010/11, the City's CII customers have installed a total 527 water -saving fixtures representing a water savings of 350 acre-feet. The City will continue to educate CII customers to meet the DMM requirements. Water Smart Hotel Program — In 2008 and 2009, MWDOC received grants from DWR and the US Bureau of Reclamation to conduct the Water Smart Hotel Program, a program designed to provide Orange County hotels and motels with commercial and landscape water saving surveys, incentives for retrofits and customer follow-up and support. The goal of the program is to implement water use efficiency changes in hotels to achieve an anticipated water savings of 7,078 acre feet over 10 years. City of Tustin 4-9 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures The Program is offered to hotels in MWDOC's service area as identified by retail water agencies. It is anticipated that detailed survey of the indoor and outdoor water using aspects of up to 105 participating hotels will be performed. Participating hotels will receive survey reports that recommend indoor and outdoor retrofits, upgrades, and other changes that should, based on the survey, result in significant water savings. Quantities of each device and associated fixture and installation costs, water savings and payback information (based on rebate amount Incentives offered through the Save Water Save A Buck Rebate Program will be augmented using DWR and USBR Water Use Efficiency grant funds to bridge the gap between existing incentives and the actual costs of Hotel Water Survey recommendations. To date, over 24 surveys have been performed county- wide, and over 9,500 water -saving devices have been installed through the program. These devices are saving 351 acre feet per year or 3,510 acre feet over the ten year device life. Prior to the creation of the Save Water Save a Buck Program in 2002, in FY 1995/96, MWDOC designed and implemented a commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) Water Use Survey Program on behalf of its member agencies with funding from Metropolitan and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Through FY 1995/96 to 1999/00, five CII sites were surveyed for the City through MWDOC's program. A trained auditor visited each location to survey all water using devices at each site. Participants received a report detailing potential water saving areas, both through behavioral modifications and the retrofitting of specific low -flow devices. During fiscal years 1997/98 and 1998/99, MWDOC developed an in-house CII rebate program utilizing funding provided by Metropolitan and OCSD. During fiscal year 1999/00, MWDOC phased out its own rebate program and began arrangements to participate in Metropolitan's regional rebate program. Additionally, since 1999, the City has been participating in OCWD's Hotel and Motel Water Conservation Program. This program offers free laminated hangers to promote the reuse of towels and bed linens for multiple day usage. This program allows the guests and the hotel or motel to be environmentally aware while reducing water use, lowering costs, savings energy, and reducing pollution. In addition, hotels and motels that sign up for the program also receive a bilingual instructional video for use in training their housekeeping staff. Through OCWD, the City promotes a Restaurant Water Conservation Program that offers free laminated tent cards for restaurants to place on their tables. The cards explain to guests the restaurants' interest in helping conserve water for Orange County and that the restaurant will be serving water only upon request. The City will continue to promote and support the regional CII Program through ongoing program endorsement and distribution of informational brochures. MWDOC will provide City of Tustin 4-10 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures program effectiveness and conservation savings information, and will fund the program through their budget. To measure the effectiveness of this DMM, the City will perform a water savings analysis by calculating the total number of rebates distributed and the estimated water savings for each. The total of this calculation will show the amount of water saved and should be reflected in the overall water use before and after implementation of the DMM. 4.2.10. DMM 10: Wholesale Agency Programs The City is a retail agency, therefore, this DMM does not apply to the City. In summary, the City receives assistance to implement water use efficiency programs from MWDOC. MWDOC has consistently provided the following assistance: (1) implementation of regional programs on behalf of the City and all Orange County water agencies; (2) acquisition of annual grant funding from a variety of sources; and (3) technical assistance regarding local program design and implementation, benefit/cost analysis, conservation based rate structures, and program marketing. The City will continue to work cooperatively with MWDOC to participate in regional DMM programs, informational groups and projects, determination of the most cost- effective DMMs, and tailoring programs specific to the City on an ongoing basis. 4.2.11. DMM 11: Conservation Pricing The first goal of any rate structure is to generate sufficient revenues to maintain efficient and reliable utility operations. The second target is fairness in the allocation of utility service costs. Generally, it is possible to satisfy both of these goals in a rate structure that encourages water conservation or penalizes excessive water use. Designing water rates must include the following: (1) determination of the water utility's total annual revenue requirements for the period for the period for which the rates are to be in effect; (2) determination of service costs by allocation of the total revenue requirements to the basic water system cost components and distribution of these costs to the various customer classes in accordance with service requirements; and (3) design water rates to recover the cost of service from each class of customer. The City recently adopted a new retail water rate structure under Resolution No. 10- 57(Appendix D) which became effective July 2010. The City's new seven -tier increasing block rate structure clearly meet the definition of "conservation pricing" as defined by the CUWCC, which states that conservation pricing includes, "rates designed to recover the cost of providing service." Customers are billed bimonthly on the basis of a capital charge and fixed charge based on meter size and a seven -tier consumption charge. The commodity component of the water service charge is structured to recover the actual cost of water, including the groundwater replenishment assessment (RA), imported water City of Tustin 4-11 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures charges, and energy and maintenance costs for the City's water production facilities. The fixed portion of the monthly charge is designed to cover the cost of water distribution, meter reading and maintenance of the water distribution system, as well as a portion of the capital improvement program. Distribution and production are distinct programs in the annual Water Division budget. Applicable portions of administration, engineering and water quality costs were assigned to each rate program. The City's water rates will be re- evaluated for FY 2015-16. Conservation -oriented water rate structures by themselves do not constitute an effective water conservation program. Rate structures work best as a conservation tool when coupled with a sustained customer education program. Customer education is important to establish and maintain the link between customer behavior and their water bill. Utility customers require practical information about water -conserving practices and technologies. Participation in other water conservation programs, such as plumbing fixture retrofit and replacement programs, can also be enhanced by rate incentives and customer education. Finally, public acceptance of a rate structure is often enhanced if customers understand the need for and benefits of water conservation. 4.2.12. DMM 12: Water Conservation Coordinator The City assigns staff to implement conservation programs as defined within each of the DMMs. The City staff works closely with the Water Use Efficiency staff of MWDOC to provide successful execution of regional programs, and those conducted on behalf of the City. The City may either directly participate in or be represented by MWDOC in regional workgroups including the Water Use Efficiency Workgroup, Public Affairs Workgroup, County of Orange Supervisor's Water Task Force, and the Orange County Water Use Efficiency Steering Committee. 4.2.13. DMM 13: Water Waste Prohibition The City recently adopted Resolution 10-57, which includes provisions for the Water Demand Reduction Stages to enable the City to comply with the wholesaler water use restrictions in response to regional water shortage conditions. Resolution 10-57 defines the water demand reduction stages corresponding to each of the seven tiers — the higher the demand reduction stage, the steeper the increase in the pricing tier as shown in Table 4-3. City of Tustin 4-12 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures Table 4-3: Water Demand Reduction Stages 1vt 2"d WATER I[}EMAND REDUCTION STAGES: 5r" 1; 7" STAGES esidentiail I Commercial Tier Tier 1st 2"`i 3`° 4'" sin6�' No Mandatory+ 71' STAGES Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier No Mandatory 3340 41-48 49+ (In units) Reduction 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 61+ (in units) 0-7 _a.. 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43+ STAGE 1 - Water Watch Voluntary Compliance 6-9 10-18 19-27 28-36 37-45 46-54 5,9+ 10-20% Reduction 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-M 37 TAGS 2 - Water Alert - Mandatary Compliance 0-8 9.16 17-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49+ 20-30% Redaction 16-20 21-25 25-M 31+ 3040% Reduction STAGE - Water Warning Mandatory Compliance 0-7 3-14 15-21 22-25 29-35 p 36-42 43+ 30-40% Reduction STAGE 4 - Wate r _ Emergency Mandatory Compliance 0-6 7-12 13-10 19-24 25-30 31-36 37+ X40%+ Reduction Multiple Unit Prior to adopting Resolution 10-57, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 1060 and 1063 in 1991 which allowed passage of a resolution from time to time to impose charges, surcharges, and penalties as deemed necessary to accommodate water allocations, charges and penalties imposed by Metropolitan, and other factors affecting the supply City of Tustin 4-13 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1vt 2"d 3'd a 5r" 1; 7" STAGES Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier No Mandatory+ Reduction 9-16 17-24 25-32 3340 41-48 49+ (In units) STALE 1 -Water Watch Voluntary Compliance 0-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43+ 10-200A Reduction STAGE 2 - Mater Alert Mandatory Compliance 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-M 37 20.30% Reduction - STAGE 3 - Water �- Warning Mandatory Compliance 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 25-M 31+ 3040% Reduction Prior to adopting Resolution 10-57, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 1060 and 1063 in 1991 which allowed passage of a resolution from time to time to impose charges, surcharges, and penalties as deemed necessary to accommodate water allocations, charges and penalties imposed by Metropolitan, and other factors affecting the supply City of Tustin 4-13 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 4 Demand Management Measures and cost of water to the City. This ordinance included provisions stating that at no time shall water be wasted or used unreasonably. The ordinance is phased into four water conservation stages from voluntary compliance to mandatory compliance. The ordinance prohibits "gutter flooding," where water is wasted from inefficient irrigation practices or any other water usage onto any public street or alley. Ordinance No. 1060 and 1063 is also incorporated into the City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan to comply with Section 10631(e)(6) of the Act "Penalties or charges for excessive use. " Resolution 92-49 amends Ordinance No. 1063 by rescinding all additional charges and penalties for excessive water use based on Metropolitan's adjustment in voluntary water use reduction. Metropolitan had imposed severe financial penalties on the City if it had not achieved a 30 percent reduction in imported water purchases during the last drought of 1988-1992; however, in 1992, Metropolitan modified its requirements in 1992 to request a voluntary 10 percent reduction in water use and rescinded its penalties for excessive use. 4.2.14. DMM 14: Residential Ultra -Low -Flush Toilet Replacement Programs Over the past 19 years, MWDOC has continuously implemented a regional ULFT Rebate and/or Distribution Program targeting single- and multi -family homes in Orange County. Since the end of distribution program in 2004, MWDOC's program has focused solely on providing rebate incentives for retrofitting non -efficient devices with either ULFTs or High Efficiency Toilets (HETS) — toilets using 1.28 gallons per flush or less. The ULFT portion of this program concluded in June 2009, and over 360,000 ULFTs were replaced in single family and multi -family homes, with an overall program to date savings of approximately 138,457 acre feet of water. The HET rebate program, which concluded in 2010, has incentivized over 26,000 devices, with an overall program to date savings of approximately 3,419 acre-feet. The City has participated in this program from the beginning. To date 9,571 ULFTs and 1,096 HETS have been installed representing a combined water savings of 3,925 acre- feet. As a benchmark for comparison, there are 13,178 single-family and 863 multifamily residential accounts in 2010. City of Tustin 4-14 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5. Water Supplies Contingency Plan 5.1. Overview Recent water supply challenges throughout the American Southwest and the State of California have resulted in the development of a number of policy actions that water agencies would implement in the event of a water shortage. In southern California, the development of such policies has occurred at both the wholesale and retail level. This section describes how new and existing policies that Metropolitan, MWDOC and the City have in place to respond to water supply shortages, including a catastrophic interruption and up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. In order to meet short-term water demand deficiencies, and short- or long-term drought requirements, the City has implemented its own water shortage policy, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, through adoption of Resolution No. 92-15, January 1992. The Plan is in accordance with MWDOC and OCWD water shortage/drought activities. The City will respond to MWDOC's water shortage and drought management policy. 5.2. Shortage Actions Metropolitan As an importer of water from multiple sources, including both the Colorado River and Sierra Nevada, a number of water supply challenges have impacted the reliability of Metropolitan's imported supplies. In response to these challenges, Metropolitan has implemented existing policies as well as developed new ones. The first action that Metropolitan implements in the event of a water shortage is the suspension and/or reduction of its interruptible supplies, which are supplies sold at a discount in return for the buyers agreeing to be the first to be cutback in the event of a shortage. Metropolitan currently has two interruptible programs for agricultural users and groundwater replenishment, under which supplies were either suspended or reduced in 2007. In addition, in preparation for the possibility of being unable to the meet "firm demands" (non -interruptible supplies) of its member agencies, in February 2008, the Metropolitan's Board of Directors (Board) adopted the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), which was subsequently updated in June 2009. Metropolitan's plan includes the specific formula for calculating member agency supply allocations and the key implementation elements needed for administering an allocation. City of Tustin 5-1 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Metropolitan's WSAP is the foundation for the urban water shortage contingency analysis required under Water Code Section 10632 and is part of Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP. Metropolitan's WSAP was developed in consideration of the principles and guidelines described in Metropolitan's 1999 Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM), with the objective of creating an equitable needs -based allocation. The plan's formula seeks to balance the impacts of a shortage at the retail level while maintaining equity on the wholesale level for shortages of Metropolitan supplies of up to 50 percent. The formula takes into account: impact on retail customers and the economy; growth and population; changes in supply conditions; investments in local resources; demand hardening aspects of non -potable recycled water use; implementation of conservation savings program; participation in Metropolitan's interruptible programs; and investments in facilities. The formula is calculated in three steps: based period calculations, allocation year calculations, and supply allocation calculations. The first two steps involve standard computations, while the third section contains specific methodology developed for the WSAP. Step 1: Base Period Calculations — The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the three most recent non -shortage years, 2004-2006. Step 2: Allocation Year Calculations — The next step in calculating the water supply allocation is estimating water needs in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates of retail demand for population or economic growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Supply Allocation Calculations — The final step is calculating the water supply allocation for each member agency based on the allocation year water needs identified in Step 2. Each element and its application in the allocation formula are discussed in detail in Metropolitan's WSAP. In order to implement the WSAP, the Metropolitan Board makes a determination on the level of the regional shortage, based on specific criteria, in April each year. If it is determined allocations are necessary, they go into effect in July for that year and remain for a 12 -month period, although the schedule is at the discretion of Metropolitan's Board. Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP forecasts that Metropolitan will be able to meet projected firm demands throughout the forecast period from 2015 to 2035. However, these City of Tustin 5-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan projections do not mean that Metropolitan would not implement its WSAP during this period. MWDOC To prepare for the potential allocation of imported water supplies from Metropolitan, MWDOC worked collaboratively with its 28 member agencies to develop its own Water Supply Allocation Plan (MWDOC WSAP), adopted January 2009, to allocate imported water supplies at the retail level. The MWDOC WSAP lays out the essential components of how MWDOC will determine and implement each member agency's allocation during a time of shortage. The MWDOC WSAP uses a similar method and approach, when reasonable, as that of the Metropolitan's WSAP. However, MWDOC's plan remains flexible to use an alternative approach when Metropolitan's method produces a significant unintended result for the member agencies. The MWDOC WSAP model follows five (5) basic steps to determine a retail agency's imported supply allocation. Step 1: Determine Baseline Information — The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the last three non -shortage years — calendar years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Step 2: Establish Allocation Year Information — In this step, the model adjusts for each member agency's water need in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates for increased retail water demand based on growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Metropolitan's Declared Shortage Level — This step sets the initial water supply allocation for each member agency. After a regional shortage level is established, MWDOC will calculate the initial allocation as a percentage of adjusted Base Period Imported water needs within the model for each member agency. Step 4: Apply Allocation Adjustments and Credits in the Areas of Retail Impacts, Conservation, and the Interim Agriculture Water Program — In this step, the model assigns additional water to address disparate impacts at the retail level caused by an across-the-board cut of imported supplies. It also applies a conservation credit given to those agencies that have achieved additional water savings at the retail level as a result of successful implementation of water conservation devices, programs and rate structures. City of Tustin 5-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Step 5: Sum Total Allocations and Determine Retail Reliability — This is the final step in calculating a retail agency's total allocation for imported supplies. The model sums an agency's total imported allocation with all of the adjustments and credits and then calculates each agency's retail reliability compared to its Allocation Year Retail Demand. The MWDOC WSAP includes additional measures for plan implementation, including the following: • Appeal Process — An appeals process to provide member agencies the opportunity to request a change to their allocation based on new or corrected information. MWDOC anticipates that under most circumstances, a member agency's appeal will be the basis for an appeal to Metropolitan by MWDOC. • Melded Penalty Rate Structure — At the end of the allocation year, MWDOC would only charge a penalty to each member agency that exceeded their allocation if MWDOC exceeds its total allocation and is required to pay a penalty to Metropolitan. Metropolitan enforces allocations to member agencies through a tiered penalty rate structure: penalty rates to a member agency that exceeds its total annual allocation at the end of the twelve-month allocation period, according to a specified rate structure. MWDOC's penalty would be assessed according to the member agency's prorated share (acre-feet over usage) of MWDOC penalty amount with Metropolitan. Penalty funds collected by Metropolitan will be invested in water conservation and local resource development. • Tracking and Reporting Water Usage — MWDOC will provide each member agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each member agency's current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterly reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. • Timeline and Option to Revisit the Plan — The allocation period will cover 12 consecutive months and the Regional Shortage Level will be set for the entire allocation period. MWDOC only anticipates calling for allocation when Metropolitan declares a shortage; and no later than 30 days from Metropolitan's declaration will MWDOC announce allocation to its member agencies. Due to the complexity of calculating allocations and the potential for unforeseen circumstances that may occur during an allocation year, after one year of implementation, MWDOC staff and member agencies have the opportunity to make recommendations to the MWDOC Board that will improve the method, calculation, and approach of the MWDOC WSAP. City of Tustin In a water shortage emergency, the City would request the City Council to invoke the City's Water Management Program, Ordinance No. 1060, adopted by the City Council of City of Tustin 5-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan the City on March 18, 1991. Depending on seasonal demand considerations, one of four stages of the Ordinance would be implemented. Ordinance No. 1060 delineates the stages of action that will be taken if up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply occurs. Ordinance No. 1063, which established a Mandatory Water Conservation and Rationing Program to reduce consumption by 15 percent, was adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1991. Rationing Stages and Reduction Goals The City's Ordinance No. 1060 identifies four stages of action that may be implemented in the event of a declared water shortage, based on the severity of the shortage. The City prohibits the waste of water throughout the City's service area. In addition, the following stages listed in Table 5-1 shall be enforced, as appropriate, based on the extent of the water shortage. Table 5-1: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages Stage No. Water Supply Conditions % Shortage Stage 1—Voluntary Compliance — Possibility that the City will not be Water Watch able to meet the demands of its customers. Probability exists that the City will not be able to meet all of the water Stage 2 — Mandatory Compliance — demands of its customers or when Water Alert statewide shortages cause a need for local conservation measures to be implemented. Stage 3 — Mandatory Compliance — The City will not be able to meet all Water Warning the water demands of its customers. Major failure of any supply or Stage 4 —Mandatory Compliance — distribution facility occurs in the water distribution system of the State Water 50 J Water Emergency Project, Metropolitan, MWDOC, EOCWD, or City facilities. 5.3. Three -Year Minimum Water Supply As a matter of practice, Metropolitan does not provide annual estimates of the minimum supplies available to its member agencies. As such, Metropolitan member agencies must develop their own estimates for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Act. Section 135 of the Metropolitan Water District Act declares that a member agency has the right to invoke its "preferential right" to water, which grants each member agency a City of Tustin 5-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan preferential right to purchase a percentage of Metropolitan's available supplies based on specified, cumulative financial contributions to Metropolitan. Each year, Metropolitan calculates and distributes each member agency's percentage of preferential rights. However, since Metropolitan's creation in 1927, no member agency has ever invoked these rights as a means of acquiring limited supplies from Metropolitan. As an alternative to preferential rights, Metropolitan adopted the Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) in February 2008. Under the WSAP, member agencies are allowed to purchase a specified level of supplies without the imposition of penalty rates. The WSAP uses a combination of estimated total retail demands and historical local supply production within the member agency service area to estimate the firm demands on Metropolitan from each member agency in a given year. Based on a number of factors, including storage and supply conditions, Metropolitan then determines whether it has the ability to meet these firm demands or will need to allocate its limited supplies among its member agencies. Thus, implicit in Metropolitan's decision not to implement an allocation of its supplies is that at a minimum Metropolitan will be able to meet the firm demands identified for each of the member agencies. In order to estimate the minimum available supplies from Metropolitan for the period 2011-2013, an analysis was performed to assess the likelihood that Metropolitan would re -implement mandatory water use restrictions in the event of a 1990-92 hydrologic conditions over this period. Specific water management actions during times of water shortage are governed by Metropolitan's Water Shortage and Drought Management Plan (WSDM Plan). Adopted by the Metropolitan Board in 1999, the WSDM Plan provides a general framework for potential storage actions during shortages, but recognizes that storage withdrawals are not isolated actions but part of a set of resource management actions along with water transfers and conservation. As such, there is no specific criterion for which water management actions are to be taken at specific levels of storage. The implementation of mandatory restrictions is solely at the discretion of the Metropolitan Board and there are no set criteria that require the Board to implement restrictions. Given these conditions, the analysis relies upon a review of recent water operations and transactions that Metropolitan has implemented during recent drought. The first step in the analysis was a review of projected SWP allocations to Metropolitan, based on historical hydrologies. As with the recent drought, potential impacts to SWP supplies from further drought and the recently implemented biological opinions are anticipated to be the biggest challenges facing Metropolitan in the coming three years. A review of projected SWP allocations from the DWR's State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2009 (2009 SWP Reliability Report) was made to estimate a range of conservative supply assumptions regarding the availability of SWP supplies. The 2009 SWP Reliability Report provides estimates of the current (2009) and future (2029) SWP City of Tustin 5-6 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan delivery reliability and incorporates regulatory requirements for SWP and CVP operations in accordance with USFWS and NMFS biological opinions. Estimates of future reliability also reflect potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The analysis assumes a maximum SWP allocation available to Metropolitan of 2,011,500 AF and a Metropolitan storage level of 1,700,000 AF at 2010 year-end. The analysis also assumes a stable water supply from the Colorado River in the amount of 1,150,000 AF through 2015. Although the Colorado River watershed has also experienced drought in recent years, Metropolitan has implemented a number of supply programs that should ensure that supplies from this source are relatively steady for the next three years. Based on estimated "firm" demands on Metropolitan of 2.12 MAF, the annual surplus or deficit was calculated for each year of the three-year period. A review of recent Metropolitan water management actions under shortage conditions was then undertaken to estimate the level of storage withdrawals and water transfers that Metropolitan may exercise under the 1990-92 hydrologic conditions were identified. For this analysis, it was assumed that, if Metropolitan storage levels were greater than 2 MAF at the beginning of any year, Metropolitan would be willing to take up to 600 TAF out of storage in that year. Where Metropolitan storage supplies were between 1.2 MAF and 2 MAF at the beginning of the year, it was assumed that Metropolitan would be willing to take up to 400 TAF in that year. At storage levels below 1.2 MAF, it was assumed that Metropolitan would take up to 200 TAF in a given year. It was also assumed that Metropolitan would be willing to purchase up to 300 TAF of water transfer in any given year. For years where demands still exceeded supplies after accounting for storage withdrawals, transfer purchases were estimated and compared against the 300 TAF limit. Table 5-2: Metropolitan Shortage Conditions Study Year Actual Year SWP Allocation (%) SWP (AF) CRA (AF) Total (AF) Demand (AF) Surplus/ Shortage (AF) Storage at YE (AF) Transfers (AF) 2011 1990 30% 603,450 1,108,000 1,711,450 2,124,000 (400,000) 1,300,000 (12,550) 2012 1991 27% 542,820 1,108,000 1,650,820 2,123,000 (200,000) 1,100,000 (272,180) 2013 1992 26% 522,990 1,108,000 1,630,990 2,123,000 (200,000) 900,000 (292,010) Based on the analysis above, Metropolitan would be able to meet firm demands under the driest three-year hydrologic scenario using the recent water management actions described above without re -implementing mandatory water use restrictions on its member agencies. Given the assumed absence of mandatory restrictions, the estimated minimum imported water supplies available to MWDOC from Metropolitan is assumed to be equal to Metropolitan's estimate of demand for firm supplies for MWDOC, which Metropolitan City of Tustin 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan uses when considering whether to impose mandatory restrictions. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to MWDOC is 261,577 AF is MWDOC also has also adopted a shortage allocation plan and accompanying allocation model that estimates firm demands on MWDOC. Assuming MWDOC would not be imposing mandatory restrictions if Metropolitan is not, the estimate of firms demands in MWDOC's latest allocation model has been used to estimate the minimum imported supplies available to each of MWDOC's customer agencies for 2011-13. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to the City is 6,940 AF13 As captured in its 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan believes that the water supply and demand management actions it is undertaking will increase its reliability throughout the 25 -year period addressed in its plan. Thus for purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that Metropolitan and MWDOC will be able to maintain the identified supply amounts throughout the three-year period. Metropolitan projects reliability for full service demands through the year 2035. Additionally, through a variety of groundwater reliability programs conducted by OCWD and participated in by the City, local supplies are projected to be maintained at demand levels. Based on the MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan, the City is expected to fully meet demands for the next three years assuming Metropolitan and MWDOC are not in shortage, a Basin Production Percentage of 62% for Local Supplies and zero allocations are imposed for Imported Supplies. Normal year supplies are based on the Base Period supply in the MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan, which is the average of the last three non -shortage calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The Three Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply is listed in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Three -Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply Source Normal Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Base Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 Local Supply 7,120 6,981 6,981 6,981 Imported Supply 6,327 6,940 6,940 6,940 Totol 13,447 13,921 13,921 13,921 12 Metropolitan 2010/11 Water Shortage Allocation Plan model (March 2011) " MWDOC Water Shortage Allocation model (August 2010) City of Tustin 5-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan 5.4. Catastrophic Supply Interruption Given the great distances that imported supplies travel to reach Orange County, the region is vulnerable to interruptions along hundreds of miles aqueducts, pipelines and other facilities associated with delivering the supplies to the region. Additionally, this water is distributed to customers through an intricate network of pipes and water mains that are susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other disasters. Metropolitan Metropolitan has comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address a catastrophic interruption in water supplies through its WSDM and WSAP Plans. Metropolitan also developed an Emergency Storage Requirement to mitigate against potential interruption in water supplies resulting from catastrophic occurrences within the southern California region, including seismic events along the San Andreas Fault. In addition, Metropolitan is working with the State to implement a comprehensive improvement plan to address catastrophic occurrences that could occur outside of the Southern California region, such as a maximum probable seismic event in the Delta that would cause levee failure and disruption of SWP deliveries. For greater detail on Metropolitan's planned responses to catastrophic interruption, please refer to Metropolitan's RUWMP. Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County In 1983, the Orange County water community identified a need to develop a plan on how agencies would respond effectively to disasters impacting the regional water distribution system. The collective efforts of these agencies resulted in the formation of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) to coordinate emergency response on behalf of all Orange County water and wastewater agencies, develop an emergency plan to respond to disasters, and conduct disaster training exercises for the Orange County water community. WEROC was established with the creation of an indemnification agreement between its member agencies to protect each other against civil liabilities and to facilitate the exchange of resources. WEROC is unique in its ability to provide a single point of contact for representation of all water and wastewater utilities in Orange County during a disaster. This representation is to the county, state, and federal disaster coordination agencies. Within the Orange County Operational Area, WEROC is the recognized contact for emergency response for the water community. City of Tustin A water shortage emergency could be catastrophic event such as result of drought, failures of transmission facilities, a regional power outage, earthquake, flooding, supply contamination from chemical spills, or other adverse conditions. The City maintains and City of Tustin 5-9 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan exercises a comprehensive Emergency Management Program for such emergencies including Water Shortage Emergency Response. The Water Shortage Emergency Response Plan includes the organizational and operational policies and procedures required to meet the needs of sufficient water for firefighting operations and safe drinking water, and provides a system for organizing and prioritizing water repairs. It also cites authorities and specifies the public and private organizations responsible for providing water service. The City will operate under normal operating procedures until a situation is beyond its control. This includes implementation of any allocation plan passed through by MWDOC for Metropolitan and water shortage contingency plans of OCWD. If the situation is beyond the City's control, the City's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may be activated to better manage the situation. If the situation warrants, the EOC may be activated at which time a water representative will be sent to the EOC to coordinate water emergency response. In the event the EOC is activated, the City Management Policy Group will set priorities. When the EOC is activated, the City will take its direction from the EOC_ An EOC Action Plan will be developed in the EOC that will carry out the policies dictated by the Policy Group. The City will use the EOC Action Plan in determining its course of action. If the situation is beyond the City's control, additional assistance will be sought through coordination with the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) and the County Operational Area. Additional emergency services available to the City through the State of California include the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, WARN and Plan Bulldozer. The Master Mutual Aid Agreement includes all public agencies that have signed the agreement and is planned through the California Office of Emergency Services. The California Water Agencies Response Network (WARN) includes all public agencies that have signed the agreement to WARN and provides mutual aid assistance. WARN is managed by a State Steering Committee. Plan Bulldozer provides mutual aid for construction equipment to any public agency for the initial time of disaster when danger to life and property exists. Catastrophe responses are listed in Table 5-4 City of Tustin 5-10 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-4: Preparation Actions for Catastrophe Possible Catastrophe Preparation Actions Pasadena Ave Well has backup generator; 3 portable Lawn watering and landscape irrigation with potable generators for use at 6500 GPM; all planned new Regional Power Outage facilities will have full backup generators Earthquake City of Tustin EOC, Water Emergency Response Orange County (WEROC) participation, California Supply Contamination Potable Water shall not be used to wash down streets, Water Agencies Response Network (WARN) Terrorist Act which Interrupts Service participation, Plan Bulldozer 5.5. Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods The Mandatory Water Conservation and Rationing Program Ordinance No. 1063 lists water conservation requirements, which shall take effect upon implementation by the City Council. These prohibitions shall promote the efficient use of water, reduce or eliminate water waste, complement the City's Water Quality regulations and urban runoff reduction efforts, and enable implementation of the City's Water Shortage Contingency Measures. Prohibitions include, but are not limited to, restrictions on outdoor watering, washing of vehicles, food preparation establishments, repairing of leaks and other malfunctions, swimming pools, decorative water features, construction activities, and water service provisions which can be found in Table 5-5. Prohibitions Table 5-5: Mandatory Prohibitions Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory Lawn watering and landscape irrigation with potable water is limited to 10am to bpm and hand-held hoses, Stage 2 buckets, and drip irrigation must be used. Watering is on an as -needed basis. Potable Water shall not be used to wash down streets, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis Stage 2 courts, patios, pool decks, or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. Washing of specific mobile equipment shall be done with hand-held bucket or hose equipped with a shut-off Stage 2 nozzle. Commercial car washes are permitted to wash at any time. Washing is exempted from these regulation City of Tustin 5-11 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. The use of reclaimed or recycled water is exempt from this measure. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, and recreation fields with potable water is not permitted Stage 2 between the hours of 10 am and 4pm. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers Stage 2 except when specifically requested. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar Stage 2 structure is prohibited unless reclaimed water is used. Agriculture users and commercial nurseries are exempt from Stage 2 irrigation restrictions, but will be required Stage 2 to curtail all non-essential water use. Lawn watering and landscape irrigation is limited to 6pm to 6am and handheld hoses, buckets, and drip irrigation must be used. Watering is on an as -needed basis. A Stage3 designated irrigation day is determined by the last digit in the street address. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, and recreation fields is not permitted between the hours of 6 Stage 3 pm and 6 am. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities, or other activities Stage 3 necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use Stage 3 water only between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am. All water leaks shall be repaired immediately. Stage 3 Construction water shall not be used for earthwork or road construction purposes unless authorized as a mitigation or erosion control, compaction or backfilling Stage 3 earthwork or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F-4. All outdoor irrigation of vegetation is prohibited. Stage 4 Washing of specific mobile equipment shall be done with hand-held bucket or hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle. Commercial car washes are permitted to wash at any time. The use of water by all types of commercial car Stage 4 washes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Washing is exempted from these regulation where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent City of Tustin 5-12 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles Projected used to transport food and perishables. Method Takes Filling, refilling or adding of water to swimming pools, Stage 4 spas, ponds, and artificial lakes is prohibited. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, and Stage 1 recreation fields is prohibited with the exception of plant Stage 4 materials classified to be rare, exceptionally valuable or essential to the well being of rare animals. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities, or other activities Stage 4 necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public. Water Emergency Conservation Use of water for agricultural users and commercial, Stage 4 except for livestock watering, is prohibited. Stage 4 New construction meters or permits for unmetered Measures service will not be issued. Construction water shall not Stage 4 be used for earth work or road construction purposes. The use of water for commercial, manufacturing or Stage 4 processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Use of water for agricultural users and commercial, Stage 4 except for livestock watering, is prohibited. No water shall be used for air conditioning purposes. Stage 4 Consumption Reduction Methods Methods to reduce the use of potable water exist in all Water Shortage Levels which are expected to reduce consumption up to 50 percent or more in the most restrictive stages, which are listed in Table 5-6. Table 5-6: Consumption Reduction Methods City of Tustin 5-13 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Stage When Projected Consumption Reduction Methods Method Takes Reduction (/) Effect Water Watch Conservation Measures Stage 1 Water Alert Conservation Measures Stage 2 Water Warning Conservation Stage 3 Measures Water Emergency Conservation Stage 4 50% Measures City of Tustin 5-13 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Penalties Any violation of the City's Water Management Program, including waste of water and excessive use, is a misdemeanor. In addition to any other remedies that the City may have for enforcement, service of water would be discontinued or appropriately limited to any customer who willfully uses water in violation of any provision of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 1063 establishes water usage limits for each customer and additional charges to be imposed if a violation of the usage occurs, which are listed in Table 5-7. For every billing unit over and above the allowable water usage, a charge of ninety cents shall be imposed. If two consecutive billing periods show water usage exceeding the Allowable Water Usage, an additional surcharge of twenty five percent of the total amount of the bill (including the additional ninety cents per Billing Unit) will be imposed. After the third consecutive billing period where water usage exceeds the Allowable Water Usage, a surcharge of fifty percent of the total bill (including the additional ninety cents per Billing Unit) will be imposed. For consecutive billing periods, four or more of which exceed the Allowable Water Usage, the City may install a flow restricting device to reduce the amount of water supplied to the customer and a surcharge of seventy-five percent of the total charge shall be imposed will be added to the total bill for all periods exceeding the allowable usage. The device shall not be removed until such time as the customer has provided proof satisfactory to the City that the customer will not exceed the allowable usage charge. A fee of fifty dollars shall be charged for installing the flow restricting device. Penalties shall appear on the first billing statement for that account immediately after the Billing Period in which the excess water usage occurred. The penalty shall be paid at the same time as the payment for normal water service. Failure to pay the entire amount due shall incur the same penalties as those imposed for failure to pay for normal water service. Any excess revenues received by the City from the additional charges and penalties imposed due to Ordinance No. 1063 that are greater than the additional charges and penalties paid by the City to Metropolitan, shall be used by the City solely for capital improvement costs of water facilities. The City may revised the allowable water usage and the charges, surcharges, and penalties as deemed necessary to accommodate water allocations, charges, and penalties imposed by Metropolitan and other factors. Such resolutions shall become effective within ten days of their adoption, be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated throughout the City. City of Tustin 5-14 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-7: Penalties and Charges Penalties or Charges Stage When Penalty Takes Effect Written Notice Stage 1 Violation Charge for Excess Use Stage 2 Violation $25 Fine Stage 2, First Violation $35 Fine Stage 2, Second Violation $45 Fine Stage 2, Third Violation $55 Fine Stage 2, Fourth Violation Installation of flow restrictor device and Stage 2, Fifth Violation $65 charge Discontinuation of service, $70 fine to Stage 2, Sixth Violation restore normal service 5.6. Impacts to Revenue The City receives water revenue from a commodity charge, a fixed service charge, and a capital improvement charge. The rates have been designed to recover the full cost of water service in the commodity, service, and capital improvement charges. The City's current water rate structure was designed with possible water shortage in mind. The water rate has Conservation Tier and Pass -Through mechanism that could offset the revenue loss or pass through increased cost of operation. In case of a drastic reduction in water supplies, the Conservation Tiers could be put in place by the Council. The Conservation Tiers are created to reduce water consumption by sending higher price signal and offset operation cost. The pass-through charges will also be assessed when increased costs are imposed by an outside utility and/or agency for such items as electricity, imported water and groundwater replenishment. The pass through charges will not exceed 7% of annual water charges. Should an extreme shortage be declared and a large reduction in water sales occur for an extended period of time, the City would monitor projected revenues and expenditures, and then reexamine its water rate structure. These measures are listed in Tables 5-8 and 5-9. Table 5-8: Proposed Measures to Overcome Revenue Impacts Name of Measures Conservation tiers and pass through Rate adjustment by restructured tiers Development of reserves City of Tustin 5-15 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-9: Proposed Measures to Overcome Expenditure Impacts Name of Measures Conservation tiers and pass through Use of reserves 5.7. Reduction Measuring Mechanism Under normal conditions, potable water production figures are recorded daily, and monthly reports are prepared and monitored. This data will be used to measure the effectiveness of any water shortage contingency stage that may be implemented. As stages of water shortage are declared by MWDOC, the City will follow implementation of those stages and continue to monitor water demand levels. When Metropolitan calls for extraordinary conservation, Metropolitan's Drought Program Officer will coordinate public information activities with MWDOC and monitor the effectiveness of ongoing conservation programs. Monthly reporting on estimated conservation water savings will be provided. MWDOC will provide each member agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each member agency's current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterly reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. The City will participate in monthly member agency manager meetings with both MWDOC and OCWD to monitor and discuss monthly water allocation charts. This will enable the City to be aware of imported and groundwater use on a timely basis as a result of specific actions taken responding to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The above Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms are listed in Table 5-10. Table 5-10: Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms Mechanisms for Determining Type of Data Expected Actual Reductions Monthly Reports Estimated Water Savings Drought Program Officer Monitored Effectiveness Activities Comparison of cumulative MWDOC Water Use Monthly retail usage to allocation Reports baseline. Member Agency meetings with Groundwater Conditions OCWD City of Tustin 5-16 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6. Recycled Water 6.1. Agency Coordination The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities and sends all collected wastewater to OCSD for treatment and disposal. The City relies on the Orange County Groundwater Basin for the majority of its water supply. As manager of the Basin, OCWD strives to maintain and increase the reliability of the Basin by increasing recycled water usage to replace dependency on groundwater. To further this goal, OCWD and OCSD have jointly constructed two water recycling projects, described below: OCWD Green Acres Project The Green Acres Project (GAP) is a water recycling effort that provides recycled water for landscape irrigation at parks, schools and golf courses as well as for industrial uses, such as carpet dyeing. GAP provides an alternate source of water to the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Mesa Consolidated Water District. Current water users include Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa Golf Course, Home Ranch bean field and Chroma Systems carpet dyeing. Due to a growing demand for water in Orange County, it is sensible that recycled water be used whenever possible for irrigation and industrial uses to supplement groundwater. The use of GAP water will diminish to approximately 3 MGD upon completion of OCSD's P1-102 (Fountain Valley Wastewater Secondary Treatment Expansion) project in the fall of 2011. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS), which has been operational since January 2008, takes highly treated sewer water and purifies it to levels that meet state and federal drinking water standards. It uses a three-step process that includes reverse osmosis, microfiltration, and ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide advanced oxidation treatment. The treated water is then injected into the seawater barrier to help prevent seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin and is percolated into deep aquifers where it eventually becomes part of Orange County's drinking water supply. The design and construction of the GWRS was a project jointly -funded by OCWD and OCSD. These two public agencies have worked together for more than 30 years. They are leading the way in water recycling and providing a locally -controlled, drought -proof and City of Tustin 6-1 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 6 Recycled Water reliable supply of high-quality water in an environmentally sensitive and economical manner. The first step, Microfiltration (MF), is a separation process that uses polypropylene hollow fibers, similar to straws, with tiny holes in the sides that are 0.2 micron in diameter. By drawing water through the holes into the center of the fibers, suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria and some viruses are filtered out of the water. In the second step, Reverse osmosis (RO), membranes are made of semi -permeable polyamide polymer (plastic). During the RO process, water is forced through the molecular structure of the membranes under high pressure, removing dissolved chemicals, viruses and pharmaceuticals in the water. The end result is near -distilled - quality water so pure that minerals have to be added back in to stabilize the water. RO has been successfully used by OCWD since the mid-1970s to purify highly -treated wastewater for its seawater intrusion barrier at its Water Factory 21 (WF -21) from 1975- 2004. In the third step, water is exposed to high-intensity ultraviolet (UV) light with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to disinfect and destroy any trace organic compounds that may have passed through the reverse osmosis membranes. Examples of these trace organic compounds are N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and 1-4 Dioxane, which have to be removed to the parts -per -trillion level. UV with H2O2 is an effective disinfection/advanced oxidation process that keeps these compounds from reaching drinking water supplies. The GWRS has a current production capacity of 70 MGD, and a total production of 23.5 billion gallons per year. Once the water has been treated with the three-step process at the GWRS as described above, approximately 35 MGD of GWRS water is pumped into injection wells where it serves as a seawater intrusion barrier. Another 35 MGD is pumped to recharge basins in the City of Anaheim, where GWRS water filters through sand and gravel to replenish the deep aquifers of north and central Orange County's groundwater basin. At this time, OCWD has designed Phase 2 of the expansion, which will recycle approximately another 28 MGD of effluent. Investments beyond Phase 2 have not been approved by OCWD and would require further review before proceeding. If the further envisioned phase of the project is approved and developed, it is projected that up to 118 MGD of water will be produced. City of Tustin 6-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 6 Recycled Water Table 6-1: Participating Agencies Participating Agencies Participated Water Agencies Tustin Wastewater Agencies OCSD Groundwater Agencies OCWD Planning Agencies Wastewater Collected 6.2. Wastewater Description and Disposal Wastewater is collected by the City and sent to the OCSD wastewater treatment plants. OCSD collects, treats, and disposes of wastewater and sludge from a service area covering central and north Orange County. The City is a member agency of OCSD. Table 6-2 summarizes the past, current, and projected wastewater volumes collected and treated, and the quantity of wastewater treated to recycled water standards for treatment plants within OCSD's service area. Table 6-3 summarizes the disposal method, and treatment level of discharge volumes. Table 6-2: Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY) Type of Wastewater Fiscal Year Ending 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Wastewater Collected opt & Treated in Service 273,017 232,348 302,400 312,704 321,104 329,392 333,536 Area Volume that Meets Recycled Water 12,156 75,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Standards Table 6-3: Disposal of Wastewater (Non -Recycled) (AFY) Method of Disposal Treatment Level Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 - opt Ocean Outfall Secondary 157,348 197,400 207,704 216,104 224,392 228,536 6.3. Current Recycled Water Uses There are currently no recycled water uses within the City's service area. City of Tustin 6-3 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 6 Recycled Water 6.4. Potential Recycled Water Uses While the City recognizes the potential uses of recycled water in its community, such as landscape irrigation, parks, industrial and other uses, the OCWD does not have the recycled water infrastructure to support the use of recycled water. The cost-effectiveness analyses that have been conducted throughout the years regarding recycled water infrastructure have not shown to be beneficial at this time. Therefore, the City supports, encourages and contributes to the continued development of recycled water and potential uses throughout the region through the GWRS. At this time, the City does not have any potential and projected uses for recycled water. 6.4.1. Direct Non -Potable Reuse The City does not have the potential for direct non -potable reuse within their service area. 6.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse The City benefits indirectly from the replenishment of the Orange County groundwater basin using GWRS water that meets state and federal drinking water standards for potable reuse. 6.5. Optimization Plan Because the City is not using recycled water at this time, it is not practicable to provide a recycled water optimization plan. The City has positioned itself to receive recycled water if it becomes available to serve some of the large development areas. In Orange County, the majority of recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, business and communal landscaping. However, future recycled water use can increase by requiring dual piping in new developments, retrofitting existing landscaped areas and constructing recycled water pumping stations and transmission mains to reach areas far from the treatment plants. Gains in implementing some of these projects have been made throughout the county; however, the additional costs, large energy requirements and facilities make such projects very expensive to pursue. To optimize the use of recycled water, cost/benefit analyses must be conducted for each potential project. Once again, this brings about the discussion on technical and economic feasibility of a recycled water project requiring a relative comparison to alternative water supply options. For the City, analysis has shown capital costs exceed the short-term expense of purchasing additional imported water supplies from Metropolitan through EOCWD and MWDOC. The City will continue to conduct cost/benefit analyses when feasible for recycled water projects, and seek creative solutions and a balance to recycled water use, in coordination City of Tustin 6-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 6 Recycled Water with OCWD, Metropolitan and other cooperative agencies. These include solutions for funding, regulatory requirements, institutional arrangements and public acceptance. City of Tustin 6-5 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 7. Future Water Supply Projects and Programs 7.1. Water Management Tools Resource optimization such as desalination to minimize the needs for imported water is led by the regional agencies in collaboration with local agencies. With the eventual replacement of older wells with new more efficient wells, increasing the capacity of existing booster stations, and continued efforts in reducing water waste, the City can meet projected demands with existing facilities and distribution system. 7.2. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities Metropolitan currently has a tiered unbundled rate structure. Tier 2 of this rate structure increases the cost of supply to a member agency in order to provide a price signal that encourages development of alternative supply sources. One alternative source of supply may be a transfer or exchange of water with a different agency. The CALFED Bay -Delta Program (CALFED) has helped to develop an effective market for water transactions in the Bay -Delta region. This market is demonstrated by the water purchases made by the Environmental Water Account and Metropolitan in recent years. MWDOC and its member agencies plan to take advantage of selected transfer or exchange opportunities in the future. These opportunities can help ensure supply reliability in dry years and avoid the higher Tier 2 cost of supply from Metropolitan. The continued development of a market for water transactions under CALFED will only increase the likelihood of MWDOC participation in this market when appropriate opportunities arise. MWDOC will continue to help its member agencies in developing these opportunities and ensuring their success. In fulfilling this role, MWDOC will look to help its member agencies navigate the operational and administrative issues of wheeling water through the Metropolitan water distribution system. The City relies on the efforts of Metropolitan as well as MWDOC to pursue transfer or exchange opportunities. At this time, the City is not currently involved in any transfer or exchange opportunities. 7.3. Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs The City projects that water demand will not drastically increase 2010 to 2035 due to full build out of the service area combined with continued water conservation. Potentially, the City of Tustin-� 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs City could purchase all the water it needs to serve its customers from Metropolitan through MWDOC and EOCWD. However, the City has planned water infrastructure improvements to maximize groundwater production in the future. New water supply sources will be developed primarily to better manage the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin resource and to replace or upgrade inefficient wells, rather than to support population growth and new development. The City has developed a water system capital improvement program (CIP) to minimize the dependence on imported water supply and to foster a program to increase the groundwater quality in the aquifer underlying the service area. The City's goal is to develop local groundwater sources that when combined with treated groundwater supplies will provide 100 percent of the required supply within the next 25 years. Together with Metropolitan's Local Resource Program (Groundwater Recovery), the City is implementing a groundwater development program to utilize existing wells and drill additional wells to make use of the local groundwater supply. The City has eight existing untreated groundwater wells. 7.4. Desalination Opportunities Desalination is viewed as a way to develop a local, reliable source of water that assists agencies in reducing their demand on imported water, reducing groundwater overdraft, and in some cases making unusable groundwater available for municipal uses. Currently, there are no identified projects for desalination of seawater or impaired groundwater. However, from a regional perspective, desalination projects within the region indirectly benefit the City. In Orange County, there are three proposed ocean desalination projects that could serve MWDOC and its member agencies with additional water supply. These are the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, the South Orange Coastal Desalination Project, and the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project. Table 7-1: Opportunities for Desalinated Water Sources of Water Check if Yes Ocean Water X Brackish Ocean Water X Brackish Groundwater City of Tustin 7-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs 7.4.1. Groundwater The City currently operates two Desalter plants. The Main Street Treatment plant began operating in 1989 with a capacity of 2 MGD. The Main Street Desalter reduces nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Tustin's Main Street wells. The untreated groundwater undergoes either Reverse Osmosis or Ion Exchange treatment. The Tustin 171' Street Desalter began operating in 1996 with a capacity of 3 MGD. The Desalter plant reduces high nitrate and TDS concentrations from the groundwater pumped by Tustin's 17th Street wells. The 17th Street Desalter plant uses two Reverse Osmosis membrane trains to treat the groundwater. 7.4.2. Ocean Water Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project — Poseidon Resources LLC (Poseidon), a private company, has proposed development of the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project to be located adjacent to the AES Generation Power Plant in the City of Huntington Beach along Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. The proposed project would produce up to 50 MGD (56,000 AFY) of drinking water and will distribute water to coastal and south Orange County to provide approximately 8% of Orange County's water supply needs. The project supplies would be distributed to participating agencies through a combination of (1) direct deliveries through facilities including the East Orange County Feeder 92 (EOCF #2), the City of Huntington Beach's distribution system, and the West Orange County Water Board Feeder #2 (WOCWBF 92), and (2) water supply exchanges with agencies with no direct connection to facilities associated with the Project. Poseidon had received non-binding Letters of Intent (LOI) from the Municipal Water District of Orange County and 17 retail water agencies to purchase a total of approximately 72 MGD (88,000 AFY) of Project supplies. The Project has received specific approvals from the Huntington Beach City Council, including the Coastal Development Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Conditional Use Permit, which collectively provided for the long-term operation of the desalination facility. In addition to final agreements with the participating agencies, the Project still needs approvals from the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission before Poseidon can commence construction of the desalination facility in Huntington Beach. A public hearing on the Project before the State Lands Commission is expected as early as this October. If project receives all required permits by 2011, it could be producing drinking water for Orange County by as soon as 2013. South Orange Coastal Desalination Project — MWDOC is proposing a desalination project in joint with Laguna Beach County Water District, Moulton Niguel Water City of Tustin 7-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs District, City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano, South Coast Water District, and Metropolitan. The project is to be located adjacent to the San Juan Creek in Dana Point just east of the transition road from PCH to the I-5. The project will provide 15 MGD (16,000 AFY) of drinking water and will provide up to 30% of its potable water supply to the participating agencies. Phase 1 consists of drilling 4 test borings and installing monitoring wells. Phase 2 consists of drilling, constructing and pumping a test slant well. Phase 3 consists of constructing a Pilot Test Facility to collect and assess water quality. Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and Phase 3 commenced in June 2010 and will last 18 months. If pumping results are favorable after testing, a full-scale project description and EIR will be developed. If EIR is adopted and necessary permits are approved, project could be operational by 2016. Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project— San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is proposing a desalination project in joint with Metropolitan to be located at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base adjacent to the Santa Margarita River. The initial project would be a 50 or 100 MGD plant with expansions in 50 MGD increments up to a max of 150 MGD making this the largest proposed desalination plant in the US. The project is currently in the study feasibility stage and is conducting geological surveys to study the effect on ocean life and examining routes to bring desalination to SDCWA's delivery system. MWDOC and south Orange County agencies are maintaining a potential interest in the project, but at this time is only doing some limited fact finding and monitoring of the project. City of Tustin 7-4 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 8. UWMP Adoption Process 8.1. Overview Recognizing that close coordination among other relevant public agencies is the key to the success of its UWMP, the City worked closely with other entities such as MWDOC to develop and update this planning document. The City also encouraged public involvement through a holding of a public hearing to learn and ask questions about their water supply. This section provides the information required in Article 3 of the Water Code related to adoption and implementation of the UWMP. Table 8-1 summarizes external coordination and outreach activities carried out by the City and their corresponding dates. The UWMP checklist to confirm compliance with the Water Code is provided in Appendix A. Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach External Coordination and Outreach Date Reference Encouraged public involvement (Public Hearing) May 17, 2011 Appendix F Notified city or county within supplier's service February 22, area that water supplier is preparing an updated 2011 Appendix E UWMP (at least 60 days prior to public hearing) Held public hearing May 17, 2011 Appendix F Adopted UWMP Appendix G Submitted UWMP to DWR (no later than 30 days after adoption) Submitted UWMP to the California State Library and city or county within the supplier's service area (no later than 30 days after adoption) Made UWMP available for public review (no later than 30 days after filing with DWR) This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on MONTH DAY, YEAR. A copy of the adopted resolution is provided in Appendix G. A change from the 2004 legislative session to the 2009 legislative session required the City to notify any city or county within its service area at least 60 days prior to the public hearing. The City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange and EOCWD on February 22, 2011 that it is in the process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix E). City of Tustin 8-1 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 8 UWMP Adoption Process 8.2. Public Participation The City encouraged community and public interest involvement in the plan update through a public hearing and inspection of the draft document. Public hearing notifications were published in local newspapers. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix F. The hearing provided an opportunity for all residents and employees in the service area to learn and ask questions about their water supply in addition to the City's plans for providing a reliable, safe, high-quality water supply. Copies of the draft plan were made available for public inspection at the City Clerk's and Utilities Department offices. 8.3. Agency Coordination The City coordinated with appropriate agencies in the development of this UWMP as follows: TWS 14, EOCWD, MWDOC, and Metropolitan for imported water, as well as OCWD, which manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and OCSD, which manages wastewater. All of the City's water supply planning relates to the policies, rules, and regulations of these agencies. This UWMP details the specifics as they relate to the City and its service area and will refer to EOCWD, MWDOC, Metropolitan, OCWD and OCSD throughout. Table 8-2 lists the entities that the City coordinated with in the development of the City's 2010 UWMP. Table 8-2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies 14 TWS is a contractor of imported water from EOCWD, which subcontracts through MWDOC, which subsequently is a member agency of Metropolitan. City of Tustin $-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Sent Sent Participated Attended Contacted Not Commented Copy of Notice of in Plan Public for Involved/No on Draft Draft Intention Development Meetings Assistance Information Plan to Adopt EOCWD X X X X MWDOC X X X X Metropolitan X X X OCWD X X X OCSD X X X DWR X X X X 14 TWS is a contractor of imported water from EOCWD, which subcontracts through MWDOC, which subsequently is a member agency of Metropolitan. City of Tustin $-2 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Section 8 UWMP Adoption Process As a member agency of MWDOC, MWDOC provided assistance to the City's 2010 UWMP development by providing much of the data and analysis such as, population projections, demand projections, and SBx7-7 modeling. The City's UWMP was developed in collaboration with MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP to ensure consistency between the two documents as well as Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP and 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan. As a groundwater producer who relies on supplies from the OCWD-managed Orange County Groundwater Basin, the City coordinated the preparation of this 2010 UWMP with OCWD. OCWD provided projections of the amount of groundwater the City is allowed to extract in the 25 -year planning horizon. In addition, information from OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan and 2008-2009 Engineer's Report were incorporated in this document where relevant. 8.4. UWMP Submittal 8.4.1. Review of Implementation of 2005 UWMP As required by California Water Code, the City summarizes the implementation of the Water Conservation Programs to date, and compares the implementation to those as planned in its 2005 UWMP. Comparison of 2005 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2010 Actual Programs The City recognizes the importance of water conservation and has made water use efficiency an integral part of water use planning. The City is not a California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) signatory; however, it is currently implementing all 14 DMMs described in the Act. DMMs as defined by the Act correspond to the CUWCC's Best Management Practices (BMPs). For the City's specific achievements in the area of conservation, please see Section 4 of this Plan. 8.4.2. Filing of 2010 UWMP The City Council reviewed the Final Draft Plan on DATE. The five -member City Council approved the 2010 UWMP on DATE. See Appendix G for the resolution approving the Plan. By August 1, 2011, the City's Adopted 2010 UWMP was filed with DWR, California State Library, County of Orange, and cities within the City's service area. City of Tustin 8-$ 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Appendices A. Urban Water Management Plan Checklist B. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update C. Bump Calculation Methodology D. Resolution No. 10-57, No. 92-15; Ordinance No. 1060, No. 1063 E. 60 Day Notification Letters F. Public Hearing Notice G. Copy of Plan Adoption Appendix A Urban Water Management Plan Checklist moluo-f V C? W LL 00 X_ 00 C: O _0 X — a) c U S2 O CO Q N O U i5 N N O O Cl) m Q Q O O -o c a) a) O 0 a) m O N N m C:o 0 co O N ( sz o 'a)i (6 V E to m E a) -O U S2 a) C N S20 U O O m O O U Q C m C C) m p) Q O 7 O S2 U) a) O O O a) _0m C)) o o L U) CS) S ami L U E � Z > m U N > E fl m `s? E o s o � v m c m p sz sz O s sz - E O m , m � 0 N n O -( U ro U C Q 0- O .� — a) a) SZ U) Z a) C)) OmU O i O- -O >, a) m c m O m Q a) E O m U (D 3� c Z m a) N O 0 U a) (00 m O S a) H Q C) a) E Q E m(° -O U; c m E .O w m 0 O m m 2 -F- _ m o a) m E i C m U Z (n m a 7 -O a) N V S2 Z O a) � Q a) S o J U S2 (6 'O a) C N a v co V V N LL CD 00 00 00 X X C: c c O O O U U i5 S2 S2 CO Cl) (n Q Q U � LO N N N N co V V V O O O C) O o U) a) o O a) _0m C)) o o ami o �° � Z > m � E fl m `s? E o s o � v m c m p sz sz O s sz E m , m � sz c� - " ro .� m O O i m p O m O- OU L S2 Q T .� m U a) 0- a c o m a) m -O 'O O a) OU O L 'O a) m O 7 0 m m m p a) C m UN 7 O Sn U E ?� - 7 -O a) N V S2 a) - a) O a) � a) a). L ate--, = o H U 'O a) S o o(6 U S2 (6 'O a) C N (6 i U a) - a) "M O Oi C _O C C:a"' C. m C C m U O C a-- O O O O 0) >' C-).0 (6 (6 O (6 O U m U a) S C C� O C a) ? C O O E O O O C N O N N N N O C a) S E E m E m .� m a� E f 7 0 S U O 7' j 'O U O� p Z3 >— a) U -O Z)U O> a) U .— .0 O .0 7 U S -0 -O S2 'O o C -O c0 m -O -C > sz N m m U O N �_ i Q c sz m e m o 0- m m '� O D E S1 S2 (6 O O S2 .— S1 7 (c) _0 O S2 7 ? to a) 7 to C O E 7 O (6 C to > m 7 m S2 C:) to m S2 7 C Z a) c a) a) c a) -o a) .� a- -o a) j LL c N -o E' a) 4 � `a m 1 - m o m 1 1 S2 m O '1 S2 .! .— i U. i 66 m ate-+ O .0 a) C C O m m S2 o C O a 3 E a m o a a (n w a) a e V 06 C: O U a) CO co LO a N � N U U I � V O 0 z O U U) LU D LU F -- Cf) Cf) U) V LO V V N N C C O O U U co co I N N N N i N N N N N N C C C O O O I U U U v N N N U) U) U) to N U) C N (6 to N C N � (6 -0 u):O O to C O C tiU m o . O � o O- Q U N U c- f2 C p 6 N �, N O 0- CL Z E (6 _O CO 0 to u)i -O N N f p N to �O 'O a0., LO 5 � Q C; C; C; co co co co l0 0 0 ocu c 0 m N U c (6 O O .O N (h O O N O C) O 4– O C (6 (6 V) Lo C O (6 f2 0 U N O O (6 U N U N O m ? N N i O L(i C) U) _ O I EN N O U) N O O O (0 U i C O rn O C I O (6 O L Q U o m L O O Q- CO N O ) U (V — a� C) Q C N m N o _0 F i U to U) I � �y -0 1N (6 O I D 'O O (n V LO V V N N C C O O U U co co I N N C O N a) (6Z U V co LO L6 co CO co U O N N N N C7 C7 X C6 a- C O C O C O C O C O C O C O O- > U U U U U U Q U N N N N N N N O D Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Q Cl) Z � o Lr;O i >, LC) O N O N O NO a) O N -c N 0 i -6 N C i >, a) a) C a) O - O — N O L(i i (6 a) `p p O E U a) C -c E O L � O U i � O U) (6 0 O 7 0 (6 O O 'O U O N O U a) � a3 (6 ) �- Vp U O (�6 U LF– m O -O N O -QO�-O Li C O a O MU -pN N -pa) O � N O Ln U O -0 C Op) -O NCCNO-0U U -O O 2 O 7 a) > O = a) iO U O O 00 Q U 0- N C N Q E N H O (n w a) U C a) N + N _ N 4? N O V N -0 00 C) O O O O O O O O O O co U U U) c o '> L c 0 — m o > g O 0 o C C O -0 -c O o a) o s O a) m o -O U a) 7 a3 O a3 a) N i Q a3 (6 a) O N (>6 N a) a) +� N O O Q O O O _O >, C N N O U N -O >' -p a) a3 � 7 N a) 7 C U O) � .0 Uj .> N C O) = '� N C 7 .O 'U L O L .0 O = a3 (6 C - a3 a) U a3 C .� fC - i U C (6 a3 in N + C N N C -O C O >, C ate.., C O (6 (6 N — 'fn O U U a3 C N-0 _O 7 a3 L a3 U_ O) W (06 C O Q LO U 7 a) -O 2) a) U L -O _O O U .0 -p Z) a ON O O U O a) 0E OU O CL Q N UO C U)-0XU O O O O U 'O CO O c O N O a) 00 (C6 -O N C N C C a3 a3 C U 0 (6 C � a3 a3 U 7 -O a3 a) (� L U) U a) O E U O) p �_ _O O _ C O O p � co U C U '— a) >, U '� a3 O a) U O inO .X N N a) C O (6 ?� m C C i E O -O .� C N 7 a3 O E u i(6 C L N : N O a) E a) ai O a) a) a) U E a) p O p O a) U a) a3 i O U C) C O a) O U a3 C U U) E N O) (6 (6 C 7 E O O LL U O 7 N C c-) E a) -O U a3 >� a) > N O O O O a) U) _- Z)> c O E a> — a) >, Z) O = E a� -O N N a3 C Q 7 O) C a3 +� a3 N O a) N a3 O a) Cl) W_ N N N +" U O (6 (�6 a) i a) a) Q C O J (6 -O -c u) -C o (6 O -O C E a) U� O .� a) — C) U a3 U U O U > Q C 6 a3 O N 7 p (6 > O 7 a) E 1 E U N Cl) C N a) > 7 -O j>_ _ a) 7 -O O U U '6 a) a) Q' O E O a3 m O) a) L> O +� a) O 7 L a) O a) +� W H o Ln m IT >- co IT Ln co Z co N co co Cl) M EL nowkif 1— m co C6 U_ 0Y C7 O -C 0- o C O C C C O U a) U a) Z Cn Cl) U U U (7 (7 (7 Cl) Cl) L(i 0 0 0 0 O 0 m , c O o �M 00 a) .� Z- U O L O E -O u) O m _ E -O E m f2 Q � C C m m m — CL N -p C -O U C 7 (n ooo 72 m E m c U C: (3) m m Z) O m m p -p -0 m a) m U) 'U a) O O N U m m m -0 ? c c m a) a) -O oO ; O Y .� O > C — a) Oa) O a) _ a) p m _O m a) c oa) o m -0 0 �o m� fE7f22 m �UN _-O E 0 O � O a O _O Z) a) O _0 m O a) -p -O Q- m m S) U) U m I p U E -c -) a) m m m a) c m o 0 O a) 0I?� a) O O > +�'' 0 p O a) m p C .N O a) m T m U' c U O a) O O UQ (Ea) _0O a) -o (f) m O=(-) -L °)-0 0U 4 0 m O p LL UU -O O- f2 00 O) o O N 1— co N (o V m I-- I— C C C C O O O O U U U U Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) L(i 0 N O o Cl) c N O -p U C: (3) m O LCj f2 N N 0 0 o O NO N V 0 0 0 0 o 0 E U Q -o O (6 U m O O i O- f2 O C p O a) 0- �6 2 -O 7 f2 U E -O M +- m m m m XL-- N c a) m i O p a) U p U O a) — O) - a) O i N N i f2 N m c p (6 m -p a) s m m m Q 0 .D) N O5 m m O f2 c � a) N f2 � E o N m Q � o S) U X m m m a) m a) m m O a) O O a) O n .p U C: -O p C= -O N U o- O a) 0- U O p m o a) 0 --am c E Y m -0 -0 (u a)CL E (6 Q ECL -0 m mtf o Z) a) -O (n m O f2 m -0 c m a m a) a) O _0 > u) E O m c 0 S o p U m m p p U i V (D N N Cl) (� m V V OI (C) (D (� (� (D (O a- I c c c c c c O O O O O O U U U U U U D co co co co co co nowkif V m M I�; c;-_,_ O N 0 U N i 7 O U N N V C7 C: 0 U N LO M N N LO C: O U N (6 N C7 (0 O Ln U 70- C: O 0 Q N U C N � N j 4co S? U O N C-0 O (h (h (h co mo o 0 0 0 nowkif V m M I�; c;-_,_ O N 0 U N i 7 O U N N V C7 C: 0 U N LO M N N LO C: O U N (6 N C7 (0 O Ln e m 7 r r LO r a a \o } } .0 \ \ Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) C) E __ § / S \ / 7 \ -0 / : { E _0 G § 2 = — a t 3 .g » _ a�®©7 ) § / M « 0 0 / b E / £ a)& a)_ § / CO:) C-) C: $/ K E ® CL , 0 e c M _ \ ( 0 ® \ C-) '0\/ E 3 : 7 3 { m � =§ c- o : g / / § 0 --F- m \ \ 2 ; \ j ` © ° # / 0 ` ¥ \ 2 2 E / / $ ,§ ,» �\ Cl) ■ .\ .o U) o \ �0 C@ k k . G 2 E _\ \ \ ) j\ 2 a 0 CL\ 06 I\)\) ) .�0a) % F / \ ¥ - 0 \ \ �0 e � \ k / .\ �7 7 0 ) � C: / j 7 0 �7= e, &(\ ¢4 : _ _ = o , 'I & \ �w a ;a w L0 0 :\ \ � % L6 \ � \ & a § \ * _ % \ 2 % Cl) / |S S ) *2! cu (U 2� \ / [ 0 ® 0 » ,\ G: 0 ( \ CO C-) / ° ) a / m 0- 0 § !3) \G -4 | t @ o o f�°E ) E o / 0 ,J =c 0 ' ® % e '§ :7 =_ !7 / E m C? � r a IT IT Cl) Cl) Cl) 2 .2 .2 .2\ 2 2 \ \ \ \ j § Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) 7 Cl) Cl) \ \ § 2 7%% / \ 70- / U) ° ` \ / � CL _0 / \ ) \ CL \ \ _ ƒkms\ / 7 > CL co 0 / 0 c\§\ U) 2 / 7 $ ( CL ` o \ \ / k t� 7 / > E / / S J ƒ e ! §CL j } § \ \ » ]\) Lo S S a § m o / 7= 0 co ± 2 2 2 0 e§ 2 E 2 m J# 0% e 2 S _ \ 2 2 \ \ \ 0 7 \) ® E f t e ® \ a E ° ` \ _ _ = o = o# S Z 7 = e g » % > } E e _ / \ § » E//\ E E q T (\\\ 2 ` /7 ° \/ T e ® ® 0)2 _ \ = e ) a 7 2 \ / \ \ ® § E .� = _ § q / \ -0 § § C 3 ) \ § 0 = J - ° a�=eefU) o § / / / \ 2 ) \ U § / El } / } / k / \ / \ � \ erm p (n 0) � \ _ \®/ q \ CL = o @ / 7 / 7 / A - C-)\®0§ E % t E 0¥af/} ( \ .2 2E -0 \} = o'/§� \ _g 3 ƒ Cl) e.E s \ ±a } 2 q CO m c- ƒ % / \ .E / C- /e/0- ƒ D _ / ` o 5 / / Cl)f \ -E � /� \ } k \ U) \ \ ` ® 2 / e f ) \ / \ / k®` = ui 0 \ q 2§ / E o \ \ 3 \ 4 / \ § o ` \ ± o = E $ _ @_= / \ \ J » _ - a@ z g E g; ) » » ® .2-'a- $ - E § _ .e < G 2 t = \ \ ESE = > _ \ \ < y = � a E ! \ > 2 b \ Co \ IT \ / �\ » 2 / j § Cl) 7 a \ \ § 2 7%% / \ 70- / U) ° ` CL _0 / \ ) \ CL \ \ o > CL co 0 / 0 / U) 2 / 7 $ ( CL ) o \ \ / k / 7 / / / ! j } § \ \ » ]\) Lo S S a § m o / 7= 0 ± � m 0 e§ E E \ m J# 0% e 2 S _ = } 2 2 \ \ \ \ / / \ \ \ �» /0 E e w = \ § � � � #7 » (\\\ /7 q \/ _ E 5 e ® ® 0)2 _ § 7 § E / \ \ ® § E .� 2 / S j \ § 0 7 U)o / 2 -0 2 ) \ U \ / \ \ E / # � � \ �\ CL = o / .� ƒ / C-)\®0§ t E ® ( \ .2 -0 / 2 4 \ 3 ƒ / / / ¥ > s \ ) § J ( 3 / \ '§ \ .E _0 ƒ a7/ \7�^� / > w 5 / / 6 / -E � /� U) -ems e _ q / » Appendix B Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update JUV UPDATE4, undwater Management Plan ri.�'. nge County Water District SINCE " Now OL A' r r.. x A�1 t SINCE 1933 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GOUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2009 UPDATE Greg Woodside, PG CHg Marsha Westropp, Senior Watershed Planner July 9, 2009 PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................... ES -1 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1-1 1.1 HISTORY OF OCWD........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS.............................................................. 1-7 1.3 PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS.......................................................... 1-9 1.4 PREPARATION OF THE OCWD GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .... 1-10 1.5 OCWD ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 2004-2008 ..........................................1-10 1.6 PUBLIC OUTREACH...........................................................................1-14 1.7 COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA WATER CODE....................................1-14 1.8 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................... 1-14 1.8.1 PROTECT AND ENHANCE GROUNDWATER QUALITY ............... 1-15 1.8.2 PROTECT AND INCREASE THE BASIN'S SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER...........................................1-15 1.8.3 INCREASE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY..................................1-16 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY................................................................................2-1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY............................................2-1 2.1.1 FOREBAY AND PRESSURE AREAS..........................................2-3 2.1 .2 GROUNDWATER SUBBASINS, MESAS, AND GAPS.....................2-5 2.2 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL BASIN VOLUME...........................................2-6 2.3 WATER BUDGET.................................................................................2-7 2.3.1 MEASURED RECHARGE.........................................................2-7 2.3.2 UNMEASURED RECHARGE.....................................................2-8 2.3.3 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION...............................................2-9 2.3.4 SUBSURFACE OUTFLOW.....................................................2-10 2.4 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND STORAGE CALCULATION ................... 2-1 1 2.5 ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT CALCULATION.........................................2-14 2.5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW METHODOLOGY..............................2-15 2.6 ELEVATION TRENDS.........................................................................2-15 2.7 LAND SUBSIDENCE...........................................................................2-21 2.8 GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION...............................................2-22 2.8.1 MODEL CALIBRATION..........................................................2-27 2.8.2 MODEL ADVISORY PANEL...................................................2-31 2.8.3 TALBERT GAP MODEL.........................................................2-32 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING.......................................................................3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................3-1 3.2 COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF MONITORING DATA ........................3-1 3.3 WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS........................................3-4 3.4 PRODUCTION AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MONITORING .................3-7 3.5 WATER QUALITY MONITORING............................................................3-8 3.5.1 DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS...........................................3-9 3.5.2 MONITORING FOR CONTAMINANTS IN THE BASIN ...................3-10 3.6 SEAWATER INTRUSION MONITORING AND PREVENTION ....................... 3-1 1 3.7 MONITORING QUALITY OF RECHARGE WATER....................................3-15 PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 3.7.1 SANTA ANA RIVER WATER QUALITY....................................3-15 3.7.2 REPLENISHMENT WATER FROM METROPOLITAN ...................3-18 3.7.3 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM ...........................3-18 3.7.4 INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING..........................................................3-18 3.8 PUBLICATION OF DATA.....................................................................3-19 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT.....................................................4-1 4.1 RECHARGE OPERATIONS....................................................................4-1 4.1.1 PRADo BASIN......................................................................4-3 4.1.2 RECHARGE FACILITIES IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE....................4-4 4.2 SOURCES OF RECHARGE WATER ...................................................... 4-1 1 4.2.1 SANTA ANA RIVER..............................................................4-12 4.2.2 SANTIAGO CREEK..............................................................4-14 4.2.3 PURIFIED WATER...............................................................4-16 4.2.4 IMPORTED WATER..............................................................4-17 4.3 RECHARGE STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS.............................................4-19 4.3.1 OCWD RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT WORKING GROUP .........4-19 4.3.2 COMPUTER MODEL OF RECHARGE FACILITIES ......................4-20 4.4 IMPROVEMENTS TO RECHARGE FACILITIES........................................4-20 4.4.1 RECHARGE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 2004-2008 ..............4-21 4.5 POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO EXPAND RECHARGE OPERATIONS ...............4-22 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT....................................................................5-1 5.1 GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION................................................5-1 5.1.1 OCWD GROUNDWATER PROTECTION POLICY ........................5-1 5.1.2 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT GOALS FOR GROUNDWATER PROGRAMS....................................................................5-2 5.1.3 REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINANTS...............5-2 5.1.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT..............................................5-3 5.1.5 DRINKING WATER SOURCE ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM......................................................................5-3 5.1.6 WELL CONSTRUCTION POLICIES............................................5-4 5.1.7 WELL CLOSURE PROGRAM FOR ABANDONED WELLS ..............5-4 5.2 SALINITY MANAGEMENT......................................................................5-5 5.2.1 SOURCES OF SALINITY..........................................................5-5 5.2.2 REGULATION OF SALINITY.....................................................5-5 5.2.3 SALINITY IN THE GROUNDWATER BASIN..................................5-7 5.2.4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INCREASING SALINITY ......................5-10 5.2.5 SALINITY MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN THE UPPER WATERSHED................................................................5-12 5.2.6 OCWD SALINITY MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMS..................................................................5-13 5.2.7 SEAWATER INTRUSION BARRIERS........................................5-13 5.3 NITRATE MANAGEMENT....................................................................5-14 5.3.1 SOURCES OF NITRATES......................................................5-14 PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 5.3.2 REGULATION OF NITRATE....................................................5-15 5.3.3 OCWD NITRATE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMS........................................................................ 5-15 5.4 COLORED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT..........................................5-17 5.4.1 OCCURRENCE OF COLORED WATER IN THE BASIN ................5-17 5.5 SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS...............................................5-19 5.5.1 MTBE...............................................................................5-19 5.5.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS........................................5-20 5.5.3 NDMA..............................................................................5-21 5.5.4 1,4-DIOXANE..................................................................... 5-21 5.6 PERCHLORATE.................................................................................5-21 5.7 CONSTITUENTS OF EMERGING CONCERN...........................................5-22 5.8 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ...........................5-24 5.8.1 NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT .......... 5-25 5.8.2 SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT ..........5-25 5.8.3 MTBE REMEDIATION..........................................................5-26 5.8.4 IRVINE DESALTER...............................................................5-27 5.8.5 TUSTIN DESALTERS............................................................5-27 5.8.6 GARDEN GROVE NITRATE REMOVAL....................................5-27 5.8.7 RIVER VIEW GOLF COURSE................................................5-27 5.8.8 COLORED WATER TREATMENT............................................5-28 5.9 BEA EXEMPTION FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS................................5-28 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE ..........................6-1 6.1 GENERAL MANAGEMENT APPROACH....................................................6-1 6.2 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................6-1 6.2.1 SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY (SAWPA)...... 6-1 6.2.2 WATER QUALITY AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION IN THE PRADO BASIN......................................................................6-3 6.2.3 CHINO BASIN INTEGRATED PLANNING....................................6-4 6.2.4 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN ORANGE COUNTY .........................6-4 6.2.5 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN OCWD SERVICE AREA.................6-5 6.3 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES....................................................6-6 6.3.1 USE OF RECYCLED WATER...................................................6-6 6.3.2 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS......................................6-6 6.3.3 CONJUNCTIVE USE AND WATER TRANSFERS ..........................6-6 6.4 WATER DEMANDS..............................................................................6-7 6.5 BASIN OPERATING RANGE..................................................................6-8 6.6 BALANCING PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE ......................................... 6-1 1 6.7 MANAGING BASIN PUMPING..............................................................6-13 6.7.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING THE BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE..................................................................... 6-14 6.7.2 BASIN PRODUCTION LIMITATION..........................................6-16 6.8 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT..................................................................6-16 PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 6.8.1 MAINTAINING WATER IN STORAGE FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS......................................................................6-17 6.8.2 BASIN OPERATION DURING DROUGHT..................................6-17 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT..............................................................................7-1 7.1 BACKGROUND FINANCIAL INFORMATION...............................................7-1 7.2 OPERATING EXPENSES.......................................................................7-1 7.2.1 GENERAL FUND...................................................................7-2 7.2.2 DEBT SERVICE..................................................................... 7-2 7.2.3 WATER PURCHASES.............................................................7-2 7.2.4 NEW CAPITAL EQUIPMENT...................................................7-2 7.2.5 REFURBISHMENT AND REPLACEMENT FUND ...........................7-2 7.3 OPERATING REVENUES......................................................................7-3 7.3.1 REPLENISHMENT ASSESSMENTS............................................7-3 7.3.2 PROPERTY TAXES................................................................7-3 7.3.3 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE........................................7-3 7.4 RESERVES.........................................................................................7-4 7.4.1 RESERVE POLICIES..............................................................7-4 7.4.2 DEBT SERVICE ACCOUNT......................................................7-5 7.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS......................................................7-5 8 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................8-1 9 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................9-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPENDIX B REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS APPENDIX C GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION APPENDIX D REPORT ON EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY, OCWD, FEBRUARY 2007 APPENDIX E OCWD MONITORING WELLS APPENDIX F ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1-1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARY....................................................1-1 1-2 SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED........................................................................... 1-3 1-3 SANTA ANA RIVER LOOKING UPSTREAM IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE ........................ 1-6 1-4 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 1961-2008............................................................1-7 1-5 RETAIL WATER AGENCIES IN ORANGE COUNTY.....................................................1-8 2-1 DWR BULLETIN 118 GROUNDWATER BASINS........................................................2-2 2-2 ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN ... .......................................................... 2-3 2-3 GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN.. 2-4 2-4 DISTRIBUTION OF GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION...................................................2-9 2-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BASIN STORAGE AND ESTIMATED OUTFLOW.................2-11 2-6 .LUNE 2008 WATER LEVELS................................................................................2-12 2-7 WATER LEVEL CHANGES.. .... .......................... ........................................ 2-13 2-8 ACCUMULATED BASIN OVERDRAFT.....................................................................2-14 2-9 PRINCIPAL AQUIFER HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION PROFILES..............2-16 2-10 AVERAGE PRINCIPAL AQUIFER GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS FOR THE FOREBAY, TOTAL BASIN, AND COASTAL AREA...............................................................2-17 2-11 LOCATION OF LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER ELEVATION HYDROGRAPH ................2-18 2-12 WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPHS OF WELLS A-27 AND SA -21 .................................2-19 2-13 WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPHS OF WELLS SAR-1 AND OCWD-CTG-1 ................2-20 2-14 BASIN MODEL EXTENT.......................................................................................2-23 2-15 MODEL DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART...................................................................2-24 2-16 BASIN MODEL CALIBRATION WELLS....................................................................2-28 2-17 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL AM -5A ..............................2-29 2-18 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL SC -2 .................................2-29 2-19 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL GGM-1.............................2-30 2-20 TALBERT GAP MODEL AND BASIN MODEL BOUNDARIES.......................................2-33 2-21 TALBERT GAP MODEL AQUIFER LAYERING SCHEMATIC.......................................2-34 3-1 PRODUCTION WELL LOCATIONS.. .... ..................................................................... 3-2 3-2 OCWD MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS................................................................3-3 3-3 OCWD STATE CERTIFIED NEW LABORATORY.......................................................3-4 3-4 THREE COMMON MONITORING WELL DESIGNS.....................................................3-5 3-5 MULTI PORT WELL DESIGN DETAIL.......................................................................3-5 3-6 DUAL BOOM WATER QUALITY SAMPLING VEHICLE.................................................3-6 3-7 EXAMPLES OF SEASONAL WELL PUMPING PATTERNS............................................3-7 3-8 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE SITE SAMPLES COLLECTED BY OCWD .................. 3-8 3-9 SEAWATER BARRIER LOCATIONS........................................................................3-12 3-10 LANDWARD MOVEMENT OF 250 MG/L CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR ...... 3-13 3-11 EXAMPLE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION TREND CHARTS.......................................3-14 3-12 OCWD SURFACE WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS ABOVE PRADO DAM ............. 3-16 4-1 OCWD RECHARGE FACILITIES IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE......................................4-2 4-2 PRADO DAM AND OCWD PRADO WETLANDS........................................................4-3 4-3 MAXIMUM CONSERVATION STORAGE ELEVATIONS ALLOWED BEHIND PRADO DAM. 4-4 4-4 INFLATABLE DAM ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER.........................................................4-6 4-5 SAND LEVEES ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER .... .......................................................... 4-7 4-6 CLEANING OF RECHARGE BASINS.........................................................................4-8 4-7 BURRIS BASIN......................................................................................................4-9 4-8 SANTIAGO CREEK STORAGE AND RECHARGE AREAS..........................................4-10 4-9 SANTA ANA RIVER FLOWS AT PRADO DAM .......................................................... 4-12 FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 4-10 PRECIPITATION AT SAN BERNARDINO..................................................................4-13 4-11 STORMFLOW RECHARGED IN THE BASIN.............................................................4-14 4-12 NET INCIDENTAL RECHARGE...............................................................................4-15 4-13 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM MAP..................................................4-16 4-14 ANNUAL RECHARGE OF IMPORTED WATER FROM MWD, 1937-2008 ...................4-18 5-1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES.................................................................5-6 5-2 TDS IN GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION WELLS... ................ ......... ............... 5-8 5-3 TDS IN A POTABLE SUPPLY WELL (SA -16/1) ...................................................... 5-10 5-4 ANNUAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 100 MG/L SALINITY DECREASE IMPORTED WATER SUPPLIES.....................................................................................5-11 5-5 ANNUAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 100 MG/L SALINITY DECREASE GROUNDWATER AND WASTEWATER ... ............................................... ......... 5-11 5-6 TALBERT BARRIER INJECTION WATER-TDS TOTAL FLOW WEIGHTED AVERAGE TDS OF ALL SOURCE WATERS......................................................5-14 5-7 PRADO WETLANDS.............................................................................................5-16 5-8 AREAS WITH ELEVATED NITRATE LEVELS............................................................5-16 5-9 PERCENT OF WELLS MEETING THE DRINKING WATER NITRATE STANDARD (MCL) 2007 AVERAGE NITRATE DATA.....................................................................5-17 5-10 CROSS-SECTION OF AQUIFERS SHOWING COLORED WATER AREAS .................... 5-18 5-11 EXTENT OF COLORED WATER............................................................................ 5-19 5-12 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS........................................................5-24 5-13 NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT........................................5-25 5-14 SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT........................................5-26 6-1 ARUNDO REMOVAL..............................................................................................6-4 6-2 HISTORIC TOTAL DISTRICT WATER DEMANDS.......................................................6-7 6-3 SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF IMPACTS OF CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE.........................................................................6-9 6-4 STRATEGIC BASIN OPERATING LEVELS AND OPTIMAL TARGET.............................6-11 6-5 BASIN PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE SOURCES..................................................6-12 6-6 BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE HISTORY.......................................................6-13 6-7 BPP CALCULATION....................................................................................6-14 TABLE LIST OF TABLES PAGE 1-1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS........................................................................1-10 1-2 SUMMARY OF COMPLETED PROJECTS 2004-2009 .............................................. 1-12 2-1 ESTIMATED BASIN GROUNDWATER STORAGE BY HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT...............2-6 2-2 REPRESENTATIVE ANNUAL BASIN WATER BUDGET. ......... ..................................... 2-8 3-1 DISTRIBUTION OF WELLS IN BASINWIDE MONITORING PROGRAM ...........................3-8 3-2 MONITORING OF REGULATED AND UNREGULATED CHEMICALS............................3-10 3-3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING FREQUENCY WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY ...... 3-15 3-4 GWR SYSTEM PRODUCT WATER QUALITY MONITORING ..................................... 3-18 3-5 DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING................................................................... 3-19 4-1 AREA AND STORAGE CAPABILITIES OF RECHARGE FACILITIES................................4-5 4-2 SOURCES OF RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES........................................................4-11 5-1 SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR SELECTED CONSTITUENTS ......... 5-6 5-2 TDS WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT ZONES....................................................................................5-7 5-3 SALT INFLOWS FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE MANAGEMENT ZONES...............5-9 5-4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED SALINITY.................................5-12 5-5 NITRATE -NITROGEN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE FOR LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT ZONES.............................................................. 5-15 5-6 SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATIONS ....... 5-29 6-1 ESTIMATED POPULATION WITHIN OCWD BOUNDARY............................................6-8 6-2 ESTIMATED FUTURE WATER DEMANDS IN OCWD BOUNDARY...............................6-8 6-3 BENEFITS AND DETRIMENTS OF DIFFERENT STORAGE LEVELS............................6-10 6-4 ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT, BASIN REFILL, PROBABILITY FACTOR & RAINFALL AMOUNT......................................................................................................6-16 6-5 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES ESTIMATED FOR 2008-09 .....................................6-16 6-6 IMPACT OF DROUGHTS ON RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES....................................6-17 6-7 APPROACHES TO REFILLING THE BASIN..............................................................6-18 7-1 FY 2008-09 BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSES ............... ............... ..................... 7-1 7-2 FY 2008-09 OPERATING REVENUES.....................................................................7-3 8-1 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................8-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature. The District manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.5 million residents living within the District boundaries. ES -1 Introduction The mission of the OCWD is to provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, high quality water supply at the lowest reasonable cost in an environmentally responsible manner. The District implements a comprehensive program to manage the groundwater basin to assure a safe and sustainable supply. The Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update documents the objectives, operations, and programs aimed at accomplishing the District's mission. The Orange County groundwater basin meets approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand within the boundaries of the District as shown in Figures ES -1 and ES -2. Nineteen major producers, including cities, water districts, and private water companies, pump water from the basin and retail it to the public. There are also approximately 200 small wells that pump water from the basin, primarily for irrigation purposes. OCWD History Since its founding, the District has grown in size from 162,676 to 229,000 acres. Along with this growth in area has come a rapid growth in population. Facing the challenge of increasing demand for water has fostered a history of innovation and creativity that has enabled OCWD to increase available groundwater supplies while protecting the long- term sustainability of the basin. Groundwater pumping from the basin has grown from approximately 150,000 acre-feet per year (afy) in the mid-1950s to over 300,000 afy, as shown in Figure ES -3. History of Active Groundwater Recharge To accommodate increasing demand for water supplies, OCWD started actively recharging the groundwater basin over fifty years ago. In 1949, the District began purchasing imported Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), which was delivered to Orange County via the Santa Ana River upstream of Prado Dam. In 1953, OCWD began making improvements in the Santa Ana River bed and constructing off -channel recharge basins to increase recharge capacity. The District currently operates 1,067 acres of recharge facilities adjacent to the Santa Ana River and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Control of Seawater Intrusion and Construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System One of the District's primary efforts has been the control of seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin, especially in two areas- the Alamitos Gap and the Talbert Gap. OCWD began addressing the Alamitos Gap intrusion by entering a partnership in 1965 with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to operate injection wells in the Alamitos Gap. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. FIGURE ES -1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARY LOS ANGELES " SAN r COUNTY BERNARDINO nrn�: COUNTY W i ' Prado Dam o�C RIVERg tp COUNTY carbon 5enta90 I jm.. - % ,:*# ORANGE •�•.r`' COUNTY •s, ♦• r: #"•fir � J e A r' 00 1;-1cl0 0. r N SAN DIEGO WOE COUNTY 5 0 20,000 40,000 County Boundary Feet i OCWD Boundary P,g.0rrhi"O -th p9rrmSw. grunted by "niOMPS BROS MAPS, 0 Oftwi85 Sms MVS Rl l ngNs rewwd EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To address seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap, OCWD constructed Water Factory 21, a plant that treated secondary -treated water from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to produce purified water for injection. Water Factory 21 operated for approximately 30 years until it was taken off line in 2004. It was replaced by an advanced water treatment system, the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System. The GWR System, the largest water purification project of its kind, began operating in 2008 to provide water for the Talbert Injection Barrier as well as to supply water to recharge basins in the City of Anaheim. FIGURE ES- 2 ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN La Habra , ub-Bas ii •.� m ; coyote Yorba Lind Hills a` Chino 1 'C X % Sub -Basin Hills zIr'; : An,, C+ 'T h Main Main Basin Basing, ;- f � 1lr. 111:=irn y a +r� J, - Irvine 1�1. Sub -Basin San Joaqu ti + rt�in 0 Hills' CIS P N - g Sub -Basin Boundary W E — F®rebayrPressure Line OCWD Boundary 8 _ � { Aquifer Condition 0 10,000 20,000 `�, _ r,�` Confined Feet Unconfined R�FxnpuceJ' wxlh Per gni axiom {yun9aq try 7Nc)FAAS R{ia MRP9 G.�7#ur xi.je Lar uy. VV. ,411,ghte re nerved 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Groundwater 250,000 Production (acre-feet) 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE ES- 3 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION �`l• Sp1 '��' 1� ��'01 Sb1 °��' °a1 �`L Al NCO ti ti Water Year: July 1 -June 30 Preparation of the Groundwater Management Plan The District's previous update to the Groundwater Management Plan was prepared in 2004. The five Key Performance Indicators established in the 2004 plan were accomplished, as shown in Table ES -1. In addition, over eighteen major projects completed between 2004 and 2008 have improved District operations, increased groundwater recharge capacity, and improved water quality. The Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update provides information on District operations, lists projects completed since publication of the 2004 report, and discusses plans for future projects and operations. The updated plan was prepared and adopted in accordance with procedures stipulated by A.B. 3030 and Section 10750 et seq. of the California Water Code. Goals and Objectives The District's goals are to (1) protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner and (3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD's operations. Section 1.8 contains a complete list of management objectives aimed at accomplishing these goals. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES- 1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2004 Groundwater Management Plan 2008 Status Key Performance Indicators GWR System began operation in 2008. Cease landward migration of 250 mg/L Reliable, local water supplies available for barrier chloride contour by 2006 injection increased from 5 mgd to 30 mgd. Reversal of landward migration at Talbert Barrier observed in 2008. Increase Prado water conservation Memorandum of Agreement with the Army Corps of pool elevation by four feet by 2005 Engineers was executed in 2006 allowing a four -foot increase in the maximum winter pool elevation. Increase in recharge capacity of greater than Increase recharge capacity by 10,000 afy occurred with (1) the La Jolla Recharge 10,000 afy Basin coming on line in 2008 and (2) operation of Basin Cleaning Vehicles. All water recharged into the basin No exceedances of MCLs or Notification Levels in through District facilities meets or is recharge water as documented in Santa Ana River better than Department of Public Water Quality Monitoring Reports (OCWD 2005, Health MCLs and Notification Levels. 2006, 2007, and 2008) and GWR System permit reports. Basin's accumulated overdraft was reduced by Reduce basin overdraft by 20,000 afy 202,000 of between June 2004 and June 2007. (OCWD Engineer's Report, 2008) ES -2 Basin Hydrogeology The Orange County groundwater basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles underlying the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands known as the Tustin and Downey plains. The aquifers comprising the basin extend over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. In the inland area, generally northeast of Interstate 5, the clay and silt deposits become thinner and more discontinuous, allowing larger quantities of groundwater to flow between shallow and deeper aquifers. Forebay and Pressure Areas The basin is divided into two primary hydrologic divisions; the Forebay and Pressure areas (see Figure ES -2). The boundary between the two areas generally delineates the areas where surface water or shallow groundwater can or cannot move downward to the first producible aquifer in significant quantities from a water supply perspective. Most of the groundwater recharge occurs in the Forebay. OCWD conducts an extensive groundwater monitoring network to collect data to depths of up to 2,000 feet in the basin. Data from these monitoring wells were used to delineate EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the depth of the "principal" aquifer system, within which most of the groundwater production occurs. Figure ES -4 schematically depicts the basin's three aquifer systems, with groundwater flowing from Yorba Linda to the coast. FIGURE ES- 4 GROUNDWATER BASIN CROSS-SECTION Seal Beach Pressure Area Forebay Yorba Linda 1,000' \ \ PRINCIPAL AQUIFER SYSTEM \ (Layer 2) 2,000' DEEP AQUIFER SYSTEM 400000 (Layer 3) NON-WATERBEARING 3,000' FORMATION 0 miles 5 10 15 Shallower aquifers exist above the principal aquifer system. Production from this system, principally for industrial and agricultural uses, is typically about five percent of total basin production. Deeper aquifers exist below the principal aquifer system, but these zones have been found to contain colored water or are too deep to economically construct production wells; few wells penetrate this system. A vast amount of water is stored within the basin, although only a fraction of this amount can be removed without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or the potential for land subsidence. Water Budget OCWD developed a hydrologic budget in order to construct a Basin Model and to evaluate basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The hydrologic budget quantifies the amount of basin recharge, groundwater production, and subsurface flows along the coast and across the Orange/Los Angeles County line. Calculation of Groundwater Elevation, Storage, and Accumulated Overdraft Annual changes in the amount of groundwater stored in the basin are estimated using groundwater elevation measurements and aquifer storage coefficients for the three primary aquifer systems in the basin. This three -layer method involves measuring the water levels throughout the basin at the end of each water year at nearly every production and monitoring well in the basin. Water level measurements are contoured and digitized into the Geographic Information System. Storage change volumes for each of the three aquifer levels are determined and then totaled to provide a net annual storage change for the basin. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The District estimates that the basin can be operated on a short-term basis with a maximum accumulated overdraft (storage reduction from full condition) of approximately 500,000 acre-feet (af) without causing irreversible seawater intrusion and land subsidence. In 2007, OCWD developed a new methodology to calculate accumulated overdraft and storage change. The need for this change was driven by the record- setting wet year of 2004-05, which resulted in the basin approaching a near -full condition. Analysis showed that the traditional method of cumulatively adding the annual storage change each year contained considerable uncertainty. The updated approach is based on a determination of the amount of groundwater in storage in each of the three major aquifer systems. Elevation Trends and Groundwater Model Groundwater level profiles generally following the Santa Ana River in Orange County are prepared to evaluate changes in the basin due to groundwater pumping and OCWD recharge operations. Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the basin and to protect against land subsidence. The District has developed a comprehensive computer-based groundwater flow model. Development of the model substantially improved the overall understanding of processes and conditions in the basin. The model also allows analysis of how the basin reacts to various theoretical pumping and recharge conditions. The model's ability to simulate known and projected future conditions will evolve and improve as new data become available and updated simulations are completed. ES -3 Groundwater Monitoring For its size, the Orange County groundwater basin is one of the world's most extensively monitored. The comprehensive monitoring program tracks dynamic basin conditions including groundwater production, storage, elevations, and water quality. OCWD's monitoring program has helped improve groundwater management throughout the basin by: • Establishing on an annual basis the appropriate level of groundwater production. • Determining the extent of seawater intrusion and subsequently building improvements to seawater barriers to prevent and reverse such intrusion. • Discovering areas of groundwater contamination to protect public health and beneficial use of groundwater, and to begin remediation efforts at an early stage. • Assuring that the groundwater basin is managed in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. Collection and Management of Monitoring Data Large -capacity well owners report monthly groundwater production for each of their wells. OCWD operates its own groundwater monitoring network with a diverse cross- section of well types and broad range of well depths and screened intervals. The type EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and number of wells in the basin wide monitoring program are shown in Table ES -2; the distribution of wells is shown in Figure ES -5. TABLE ES- 2 DISTRIBUTION OF WELLS IN BASIN WIDE MONITORING PROGRAM Well Type No. of Wells No. of Individual Sample Points Drinking Water Wells 228 228 Industrial And Irrigation wells 123 123 OCWD Monitoring Wells (excluding seawater monitoring) 254 728 OCWD Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells 93 244 Total 698 1323 FIGURE ES- 5 PRODUCTION AND MONITORING WELL NETWORK S Active Large -System Production Well 1y Active Sma19-System Production Well £e OCWD Monitoring Well • OGWD Multiport Monitoring Well IL 1 OGWD Boundary W 4 M E 0 10,000 20.000 Feet R.P-It.ad An ryerm 1SW grnryeA by THOMAS EROS MM9 8 Crrho.a er65. MADS All, .!-:^, .tO— ! S Active Large -System Production Well 1y Active Sma19-System Production Well £e OCWD Monitoring Well • OGWD Multiport Monitoring Well IL 1 OGWD Boundary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, nearly 14,000 groundwater samples were collected and analyzed in order to comply with state and federal regulations and to enable OCWD to monitor the water quality of the basin. The number of water quality samples continues to increase in response to new regulatory requirements and to gain a better understanding of the basin. OCWD's laboratory is state -certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses. State -certified contractor laboratories analyze radiological samples. OCWD's water quality monitoring program includes: • Testing groundwater samples for more than 100 regulated and unregulated chemicals at a specified monitoring frequency established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regulations. • Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones along coastal Orange County. • Assessing Santa Ana River water quality. Since the quality of the surface water that is used to recharge the groundwater basin affects groundwater quality, a routine monitoring program is maintained to continually assess ambient river water quality. Water samples are collected each month from the river. The District also monitors the quality of imported replenishment water and tests selected monitoring wells to assess the water quality in areas where GWR System water is being injected and recharged. Data Management and Publication Data collected in OCWD's monitoring program are stored in the District's electronic database, the Water Resources Management System (WRMS). WRMS contains comprehensive well information, as well as information on subsurface geology, groundwater modeling, and water quality. Data are used in calibrating the basin model, evaluating the causes of seasonal groundwater fluctuations, and estimating changes in basin storage throughout the year. Regular District publications include the annual release of the Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization; the Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Report; and the Groundwater Replenishment System Operations Annual Report. ES -4 Recharge Water Supply Management OCWD operates recharge facilities to maximize groundwater recharge. Recharging water into the basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the basin. The basin's primary source of water for groundwater recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River. OCWD diverts river flows into recharge basins located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration, recycled water, and imported water. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY History of Recharge Operations Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the basin and, consequently, the serious threat of seawater intrusion. In 1953, OCWD began to make improvements in the Santa Ana River bed and areas adjacent to the river to increase recharge capacity. Today the District owns and operates a network of recharge facilities that cover 1,067 acres, as shown in Figure ES -6. The District has an ongoing program to assess enhancements in the existing recharge facilities, evaluate new recharge methods, and analyze potential new recharge facilities. OCWD Recharge Facilities Surface water from the Santa Ana River flows into Orange County through the Prado Dam. The District is able to recharge essentially all non -storm flow in the Santa Ana River that enters Orange County through Prado Dam. The dam was built and is operated by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for flood control purposes. Agreements between the ACOE and OCWD enable the dam to be operated for water conservation purposes, such that the District is able to capture a portion of the storm flows for groundwater recharge. Water released at Prado Dam naturally flows downstream into Orange County and percolates through the river's 300-400 foot -wide unlined channel bottom. Active management of recharge begins at the intersection of the river and Imperial Highway in the City of Anaheim. It is in the six -mile reach of the river below Imperial Highway and areas adjacent to the river where many of the recharge basins are located. The recharge facilities are grouped into four major components: the Main River System, the Off -River System, the Deep Basin System, and the Burris Basin/Santiago System. The Main River System consists of approximately 290 acres of the Santa Ana River Channel. One of the District's main control facilities, the Imperial Inflatable Dam and Bypass structure diverts Santa Ana River water flows from the Main River System into the Off -River System. The Off -River System is a shallow, sandy bottom, 100- to 200 - foot wide channel that runs parallel to the Main River System; a levee separates these two systems. Water can be diverted from the Off -River System into the Deep Basin System. These recharge basins range in depth from ten to sixty feet. Flows are regulated between these basins to maximize recharge. Water in the Santa Ana River can also be diverted at the Five Coves Inflatable Dam into the Burris Basin/Santiago System. This system includes 373 acres of shallow and deep recharge basins. The Santiago Pipeline allows water to be diverted from Burris Basin into the Santiago Basins. The Santiago Basins recharge water diverted from Burris Basin as well as flows from Santiago Creek. The creek is a tributary of the Santa Ana River that extends from the Santa Ana Mountains through the City of Orange to its confluence with the Santa Ana River in the City of Santa Ana. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE ES- 6 OCWD RECHARGE FACILITIES IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE Faster- COnrUCk Huckbberay herr t Ponds 14 $aFAa 1 smith Sash sam ago Bide Basins Diarmnd Basin Bond Hasler • r 1 1 A', r Recharge Facility - - GWRS Pipeline Main River System Recharge Water Pipeline Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue Forebay Recharge Structure - Inflatable Rubber Dam Off -River System - Transfer Tube Weir Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, Off -River Recharge Basin between Weir Pond 4 N and Carbon Creek Diversion Channel, Olive Basan Deep Basin System WE Huckleberry, Conrock; Warner, Little Warner, Anaheim; Mini Anaheim, Miller, r' Kraemer, Placentia, Raymond, and La .Jolla Basins Burris Basin/Santiago System S Upper Five Coves; Lower Five Coves, Lincoln; Burris, River View, 0 4,000 8-000 Blue Diamond, Bond, and Smith Basins Feet koprMuodwfth po—n wn Tare.€a tv TP QMA, LW,05 Ml, -5 0 Drhemas Uros bap: Pll 9�h%mr,r d Nrahefrr ,r y�r�a Bas�if m 8a P7acen[�ia Garbe � sis©rran � Darn Aw Kraemer sin 7 e r� 1 I hyo S�; Rayrmea Basin upper Five "+ Coves Basin Lower Five 1. coves Basin # Lincoln 6asinr 1 1 +1 River View �r Basel r I i r r r 1 II 1 1 r 1 i r 1 I Faster- COnrUCk Huckbberay herr t Ponds 14 $aFAa 1 smith Sash sam ago Bide Basins Diarmnd Basin Bond Hasler • r 1 1 A', r Recharge Facility - - GWRS Pipeline Main River System Recharge Water Pipeline Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue Forebay Recharge Structure - Inflatable Rubber Dam Off -River System - Transfer Tube Weir Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, Off -River Recharge Basin between Weir Pond 4 N and Carbon Creek Diversion Channel, Olive Basan Deep Basin System WE Huckleberry, Conrock; Warner, Little Warner, Anaheim; Mini Anaheim, Miller, r' Kraemer, Placentia, Raymond, and La .Jolla Basins Burris Basin/Santiago System S Upper Five Coves; Lower Five Coves, Lincoln; Burris, River View, 0 4,000 8-000 Blue Diamond, Bond, and Smith Basins Feet koprMuodwfth po—n wn Tare.€a tv TP QMA, LW,05 Ml, -5 0 Drhemas Uros bap: Pll 9�h%mr,r d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sources of Recharge Water Supplies In addition to Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, other sources of recharge water include natural recharge, imported water, and water purified by OCWD's GWR System. The GWR System (Figure ES -7) is a cooperative project with the OCSD that began operating in 2008. Secondary -treated wastewater from OCSD undergoes treatment consisting of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation with ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide. The water purified through the GWR System is injected into the groundwater basin near the coast to maintain a barrier preventing seawater intrusion and provides an additional supply of water for recharge operations. FIGURE ES -7 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM ES -5 Groundwater Quality Management OCWD conducts an extensive program aimed at protecting the quality of the water in the basin. These efforts include groundwater monitoring, participating in and supporting regulatory programs, remediation projects, working with groundwater producers, and providing technical assistance. Groundwater Protection Policy The District adopted a Groundwater Protection Policy in May 1987, in recognition of the serious threat posed by groundwater contamination. This policy is described in Section 5 of the Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salinity and Nitrate Management Managing salinity, the amount of dissolved minerals in water, and nitrates are significant water quality challenges in southern California. Elevated levels of nitrates pose a risk to human health. High concentrations of salts can contaminate groundwater supplies, constrain implementation of water recycling projects, and cause other negative economic impacts such as the need for increased water treatment by residential, industrial and commercial users. Sources of salinity in water used to recharge the groundwater basin include Santa Ana River water, imported water, shallow groundwater within Orange County, seawater migrating into the basin, precipitation, and legacy contamination from historical agricultural operations. Water treatment plants, also referred to as desalters, have been built in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to reduce salinity levels in water supplies. Within Orange County, desalters in Tustin and Irvine are reducing salinity levels in the groundwater basin. The GWR System provides a dependable supply of low salinity water that is expected to reduce the basin salt imbalance by approximately 47,000 tons/year. Nitrates are one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies. Elevated levels of nitrates in soil and water supplies originate from fertilizer use, animal feedlots and wastewater disposal systems. OCWD conducts an extensive program to protect the basin from nitrate contamination, including operating 450 acres of wetlands in the Prado Basin (Figure ES -8) to naturally remove nitrate before the water enters the District's recharge facilities. FIGURE ES -8 PRADO WETLANDS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ninety-eight percent of the drinking water wells pumping from the Orange County groundwater basin meet the nitrate drinking water standard. The two percent that do not meet the nitrate standard are treated to reduce nitrate levels prior to being served to customers. The Irvine and Tustin desalters are in operation to remove salts and nitrate from groundwater. The Irvine Desalter also addresses contamination from organic compounds. Synthetic Organic Contaminants Ninety-five percent of the basin's groundwater that is used for drinking water is pumped from the main aquifer. Water from this aquifer continues to be of high quality. OCWD routinely monitors potential contamination and is working to remediate some localized contamination in the shallow aquifer. One contaminant of concern is methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a chemical previously added to gasoline. The District analyzes groundwater for MTBE and other fuel -related contaminants. The District is implementing remediation efforts to address contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Two particular projects are the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project and the South Basin Groundwater Protection Project. The North Basin Groundwater Protection Project is being constructed in Anaheim and Fullerton to remove and contain groundwater contaminated with VOCs. The South Basin Groundwater Protection Project is being designed to address VOC and perchlorate contamination in the area of southeast Santa Ana/South Tustin and the western portion of Irvine. ES -6 Integrated Management of Production and Recharge OCWD is internationally known for its unique, proactive, supply-side management approach. This is a major factor that has enabled the District to develop one of the most advanced and progressive groundwater management systems in the world. Growth in demand for water supplies has challenged the District to augment recharge water supplies, effectively manage demands on the basin, and balance the amount of total recharge and total pumping to protect the basin. Cooperative Efforts to Protect Water Supplies and Water Quality OCWD participates in cooperative efforts with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies and stakeholders within the District boundaries and in the Santa Ana River Watershed. For example, the ACOE works cooperatively with OCWD to store water behind Prado Dam and to release flows at rates that allow for the maximum capture of water for recharge operations. Other cooperative efforts include natural resource conservation efforts in the Prado Basin and participating in working groups and task forces with stakeholders throughout the watershed. Water Supplies OCWD provides access to basin supplies at a uniform cost to all entities without regard to the length of time they have been producing from the basin. The District's programs include operating the groundwater recharge basins, increasing supplies of recycled EXECUTIVE SUMMARY water available for groundwater recharge, producing recycled water for irrigation and other non -potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, and working with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. Water Demand Numerous factors influence water demands such as population growth, economic conditions, conservation programs, and hydrologic conditions. Estimates of future demands are therefore subject to some uncertainty and are updated on a regular basis. Total water demand within the District's boundary for water year 2007-08 (July 1 - June 30) was 480,000 af. Total demand is met with a combination of groundwater, imported potable water, local surface water, and recycled water used for irrigation and industrial purposes. Figure ES -9 shows historical total District water demands from 1984 to the present. Estimating water demands is necessary for the planning of future water supply project and programs. 600,000 500,000 400,000 AFY 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 FIGURE ES -9 HISTORICAL TOTAL DISTRICT WATER DEMANDS Lo 0 1- W M o - N M V Lo M M o N M V LO 0 I- M 090? w ao w rn rn rn o 0 o rn rn rn rn o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = = = = N N N N N N N N Wate r Year Basin Operating Range Total pumping from the basin is managed through a process that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable without harming the basin. The process that determines a sustainable level of pumping considers the basin's safe operating range and the amount of recharge water available to the District. The basin operating range refers to the upper and lower levels of groundwater storage in the basin that can be reached without EXECUTIVE SUMMARY causing negative impacts. Each year the District estimates the level of storage for the following year. Integrated Management of Recharge and Production Over the long term, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long term viability of the water supply. In one particular year, water withdrawals may exceed water recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years where water recharged exceeds withdrawals. Levels of basin production and water recharged since water year 1991-92 are shown in Figure ES -10. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The BPP is the percentage of each Producer's total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment. Pumping above the BPP is also assessed a Basin Equity Assessment, which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is higher than purchasing imported potable water. This serves to discourage production above the BPP. 600,000 500,000 400,000 AFY 300,000 200,000 100,000 FIGURE ES -10 BASIN PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE SOURCES 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 Water Year SAR Baseflow Natural Incidental Recharge Captured SAR Stormflow Imported Water/GWR System Groundwater Production EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drought Management During a drought, flexibility to maintain pumping from the basin becomes increasingly important. To the extent that the basin has water in storage that can be pumped out during a drought, the basin provides a valuable water supply asset during drought conditions. For the basin to serve as a safe, reliable supply, sufficient groundwater must be stored before a drought occurs and the basin needs to be refilled after a period of storage reduction occurs. ES -7 Financial Management The District has an excellent revenue base and a strong "AA+" financial rating. The District also has the ability to issue additional long-term debt, if necessary, to develop projects to increase the basin's yield and protect water quality. The annual operating budget for fiscal year 2008-09 was approximately $116.3 million. OCWD maintains reserve funds to ensure financial integrity and to purchase supplemental water when it becomes available for groundwater recharge. The District's primary sources of revenue include the Replenishment Assessment, Basin Equity Assessment, property taxes, and other miscellaneous revenues such as rental fees on District property. The District's programs to protect and increase the basin's sustainable yield in a cost- effective manner continue to evolve due to changes in the availability of recharge water supplies. Below average rainfall over the past four years in the Santa Ana River Watershed as well as other factors has reduced the availability of Santa Ana River water. The availability of imported water supplies for groundwater recharge has also changed significantly in the last few years. The occurrence of wet and dry periods, the future availability and cost of imported water supplies for recharge, and changing water management practices of agencies in the watershed will continue to affect the District's management of the basin. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page left blank intentionally SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin (the basin) in coastal Southern California This section provides background information on the District and sets the framework for the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update (Plan). The subsections below: • Discuss the District's formation, mission, and operating authorities. • Trace changing conditions in the basin that are important to development of the Plan. • Describe the public participation component of the Plan. • Discuss the Plan's compliance with the California Water Code. • Present basin management objectives that guide the District's management of the basin. • Explain the District's public education programs. 1.1 Historyof OCWD The OCWD was formed by a special act of the California Legislature in 1933 to manage the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County. District boundaries are shown in Figure 1-1. OCWD is not a water retailer and does not serve water to the public; rather, the District manages the groundwater basin. Figure 1-1 Orange County Water District Boundary at r. 5 � a4 fA _ ORANGE "I'll ♦ ki. l COLPLTY e 7 n gcN .�Gei 5 Nineteen major producers, including cities, water districts, and private water companies, pump water from the basin and retail it to the public. There are also approximately 200 small wells that pump water from the basin, primarily for irrigation purposes. OCWD protects and manages the quantity and quality of the groundwater resource that meets approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand for a population of over 2.5 million. Since its founding, the District has grown in area from 162,676 to 229,000 acres and has experienced an increase in population from approximately SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 120,000 to 2.5 million people. Facing the challenge of increasing demand for water has fostered a history of innovation and creativity that has enabled OCWD to increase available groundwater supplies while protecting the long-term sustainability of the basin. The District's powers, as defined in its enabling legislation by the State of California (Water Code App §40-1, et seq., or the `OCWD Act'), include the following: Within or outside the District to construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, and to operate and maintain necessary waterworks... to replenish the undergroundwater basin within the district, or to augment and protect the quality of the common water supplies of the district, ... (portions of Section 2.5 of OCWD Act) For the common benefit of the district and for the purpose of managing the groundwater basin and managing, replenishing, regulating, and protecting the groundwater supplies within the district to exercise the following powers.- Provide owers: Provide for the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water resources within the district area. Store water in undergroundwater basins or reservoirs within or outside of the district. Regulate and control the storage of water and the use of groundwater basin storage space in the groundwater basin. Purchase and import water into the district. Transport, reclaim, purify, treat, inject, extract, or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons or property within the district and to improve and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies within the district. (Portions of Section 2.6 of OCWD Act) To provide for the protection and enhancement of the environment within and outside the district in connection with the water activities of the district. (Section 2.7 of OCWD Act) These powers illustrate the range of activities the District is involved with in managing the groundwater basin. The Orange County Groundwater Basin was used by early settlers to supplement Santa Ana River surface water. Adequate, dependable water supplies were always a challenge for the residents of this semi -arid land. By 1900, conflicts over water supplies were escalating. The county's economic growth into an agricultural center was only one source of the problem. The other source was upstream: Santa Ana River flows were decreasing due to increased water use in the basins upstream of Orange County. San SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties were dependent on the same water source — the Santa Ana River in the Santa Ana River Watershed (shown in Figure 1-2). j Orange County Water District A 387 Square Miles 0 FIGURE 1-2 SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED ffi Santa Ana River Watershed 2,481 Square Miles Prado Dann do r0 C, M S 0 5 10 Miles Pmo.... ...; ,' to mrrmssi ': -i:. ii�d by THONCO S SROS Gi'iAP$ O nr'1Aam&& SrU Maps !WI rigNs rMipwd Santa Ana River �~ OCWD Boundary Santa Ana River Watershed Boundary ® San Jacinto watershed Boundary SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION In the early 1900s, reduced river flows and lowering of the Orange County groundwater table heightened conflicts between water users. Lower basin users initiated legal and other efforts to secure rights to water supplies. In 1932, The Irvine Company filed suit against upper basin users to protect its rights to river flows. Around the same time, the Orange County Farm Bureau formed the Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association to consider options to secure adequate supplies. This group developed a series of proposals, one of which led to legislation that created the OCWD. The Orange County Water District Act was passed by the state legislature on June 4, 1933. The new District promptly joined The Irvine Company's lawsuit and was party to the 1942 settlement of that suit. The agreement limited the amount of river water that could be used for recharge in the upper basin to ensure that Orange County would have a share of Santa Ana River water. Creation of the District and settlement of the lawsuit did not immediately solve the water supply problems in Orange County. Throughout the 1930s to early 1950s, groundwater pumping continued to exceed the rate of water recharged into the basin, a condition referred to as "overdraft." OCWD began looking for additional water supplies. Efforts to bring more water into southern California were already underway. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), created in 1927, built an aqueduct to transport and sell Colorado River water. Between 1949 and 1953, OCWD purchased 28,000 acre feet per year (afy) of Metropolitan water for groundwater recharge. However, these additional supplies were not enough to satisfy growing demand; by 1954, groundwater levels fell an average of fifteen feet below sea level. Now, the principal limitation faced by OCWD was the lack of an adequate, dependable funding base for purchasing the large amounts of recharge water needed to refill the overdrafted basin. OCWD's only funding source at that time was local ad valorem taxes. Using property taxes to buy imported water was becoming controversial. Property owners in most of the District belonged to Metropolitan so their property taxes were funding imported water purchases. But water users pumping from the basin who were not Metropolitan members were benefiting from the imported supply without paying for it. In addition, some tax -paying property owners were not using the water that they were being charged for. A twelve -person Orange County Water Basin Conservation Committee (the Committee of Twelve) was formed in 1952 to develop a solution to the funding problem. This process is described by author William Blomquist in his book "Dividing the Waters" (Blomquist, 1992). "The area's water management problems were discussed at a joint meeting in 1952 of the Water Problems Committee of the Orange County Farm Bureau, the Water Committee of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. The twelve -man Orange County Water Basin Conservation Committee (the Committee of 12) was formed to study the issues further and develop recommendations. The Committee of 12 maintained the area's basic commitment to increasing supply rather than restricting SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION demand. They considered and rejected centralized control over water consumption and distribution by an agency empowered to enforce conservation, or adjudication and limitation of water rights using the court - reference procedure. They supported instead a proposal to fund replenishment by taxing pumping. This approach held the promise of raising the necessary funds, relating producers' taxation to their benefits received, and relieving non -producers from paying for replenishment except to the extent that they purchased water from producers. Furthermore, at least theoretically, a tax on pumping would build in conservation incentives without mandating conservation. OCWD was not authorized to tax pumping, so the Orange County Water District Act would have to be amended. The Committee of 12 assembled a package of amendments that amounted to a substantial redesign of the district. To be fair, a pump tax would have to be implemented basin -wide, so the Committee proposed enlarging the district's territory to include Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana, plus areas owned by the Anaheim Union Water Company and the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company near the canyon. A pump tax would make it necessary to measure and record water production from the thousands of wells within the district, so an amendment was proposed requiring every producer therein to register wells with OCWD and to record and submit production data to the District twice per year. The Committee also proposed that an annual District Engineer's Report on basin conditions and groundwater production be submitted to the District and water users, to allow them to monitor the effects of the replenishment program and to provide a shared picture on a regular basis of basin conditions, including the extent of seawater intrusion and the level of the water table." Passage of these proposed amendments in 1954 was one of the most significant modifications to the original District Act. These major revisions gave OCWD the authority to assess a charge to pump groundwater, known as a Replenishment Assessment (RA). The OCWD Board of Directors voted to institute the first RA on June 9, 1954. The District now had adequate funds to purchase the amount of imported water needed for groundwater recharge, to monitor water quality and basin conditions, maintain and improve spreading facilities and pay for administrative costs. One pressing problem arising from overdrafting the basin was seawater intrusion. In 1956, the groundwater level dropped to its lowest historical point, as much as 40 feet below sea level, and seawater intruded 3'/2 miles inland. Although imported water was helping refill the basin, the challenge of seawater intrusion remained. This was a problem primarily in two areas: the Alamitos Gap at the mouth of the San Gabriel River at the Orange County/Los Angeles County border and the Talbert Gap in Fountain Valley. In 1965, the District began a joint program that continues to the present with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to inject fresh water in the Alamitos Gap to prevent saltwater intrusion. The Talbert Gap was a greater challenge as it needed nearly six times the amount of water. After much research and planning, the District built Water Factory 21 (WF -21), a SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION water treatment plant that treated secondary -treated water from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to produce purified water for injection into the Talbert Gap. For over 20 years, a blend of WF -21 water and imported water was used to successfully manage seawater intrusion at the Talbert Gap. WF -21, with a capacity that varied through time from four to fifteen million gallons per day (mgd), operated until 2004 when it was shut down to allow for construction of the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System. In operation since 2008, the GWR System is capable of producing up to 72 mgd of water for use in Talbert Barrier operations and for groundwater recharge. OCWD's recharge operations have played a central role in expanding water supplies. Efforts to increase the capture of Santa Ana River baseflows and stormflows and to recharge imported water date back to 1949. Currently, OCWD operates approximately 1,067 acres of riverbed and off -stream infiltration basins in the cities of Anaheim and Orange. Figure 1-3 is a view of the Santa Ana River looking upstream. Freeway 22 crosses the river in the foreground, Freeway 5 in the middle of the photograph, and Freeway 57 in the background. FIGURE 1-3 SANTA ANA RIVER LOOKING UPSTREAM IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE OCWD has achieved world-renowned status for its innovative approach to groundwater recharge, water quality protection, and groundwater resource management. The District has employed groundwater management techniques to increase the annual yield from the basin as shown in Figure 1-4. Annual production increased from approximately 150,000 afy in the mid-1950s to approximately 350,000 afy in water year 2007-08. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION OCWD has managed the basin in order to provide a reliable supply of relatively low-cost water and to accommodate rapid population growth while at the same time avoiding the costly and time-consuming adjudication of water rights experienced in nearly every other major groundwater basin in Southern California. 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Groundwater 250,000 Production (acre-feet) 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 FIGURE 1-4 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 1961-2008 ■ Non -Irrigation ❑ Irrigation 6' fob A 1� 0�' �� 4"' �� Off' OZ ^-�^ ^4�41'11�, ^_& Off^ O�6 ti ti Water Year: July 1 - June 30 Note: Non -irrigation includes In -lieu recharge. (See explanation of In -lieu recharge water in Section 4.2.4.3) 1.2 Groundwater Producers The local agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin are shown in Figure 1-5. As part of its plan to involve other affected agencies and work cooperatively where service areas or boundaries overlie the basin, the District meets monthly with nineteen local, major water producers to discuss and evaluate important basin management issues. This group is referred to as the groundwater producers (Producers). Generally each year a chairman is elected to represent the group. This monthly meeting provides a forum for the Producers to provide their input to the District on important issues such as: • Setting the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each year; • Reviewing the merits of proposed capital improvement projects; • Purchasing imported replenishment water to recharge the groundwater basin; • Reviewing water quality data and regulations; SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION • Maintaining and monitoring basin water quality-, and • Budgeting and considering other important policy decisions. The District as the groundwater basin manager and the Producers as the local retailers cooperate to serve the 2.5 million residents within the OCWD service territory. The Producers and OCWD served as the Advisory Committee for the preparation of this Groundwater Management Plan. FIGURE 1-5 RETAIL WATER AGENCIES WITHIN OCWD I LOS ANGELES SAN BERNARDINO CQIJNTI .'- COUNTY– m y+ =� Golden 0State, – ro J Fullerton Water, Y a Linda L, c} _� ;j Wat District Company �. uena n.A L Park 'Palm Anaheim Anaheim r Serrano /Golden Golden StateDistrict Water Company • OrangeEast � .�— Garden ,� � CoOrange Co - Grove County tminste I ; water Seal < .:s Dist. C Beach Santa �Tustin Y Ana Fountain Valley 'j Irvine ' — Ranch Water a° Huntington Mesa ._ P , district Beach Consolidated Water �N Dlst,;e""hyl �a Newport fp $each IIS W E h 0 10.000 20-000 Water Producers Boundary Feet � OCwD Boundary 1 i ,4ecl w ill Rtll — milyp THOMAS eras MAPS 0 Whmsa 8ro3 M90s ,all f hli mw ed �-_•`, e�u� r pa rrn �r lry SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.3 Public Education Programs Proactive community outreach and public education are central to the operation of the OCWD. Each year, staff members give more than 120 presentations to community leaders and citizens, conduct more than 70 tours of OCWD facilities, and take an active part in community events. In addition to presentations and tours, OCWD administers multiple education programs as described below. Since its inception in 1996, the Children's Water Education Festival has been the largest of its kind in the nation, hosting more than 6,000 children each year. This two- day outdoor event teaches children about water resources, recycling, pollution prevention, wetland preservation, and other environmental topics through interactive and hands-on activities. In 2007, the O.C. Water Hero program was initiated to make water conservation fun while helping children and parents develop effective water -use efficiency habits that will last a lifetime. The program challenges both children and their parents to commit to saving 20 gallons of water a day. O.C. Water 101 is a free water education class that is offered to the public. This one - day session focuses on the global water crisis, how water affects health, California's unique water situation, future challenges for water supplies in Orange County, and how water agencies are helping to conserve available water resources. Discussions include high-tech solutions to help alleviate water shortages today and in the future, as well as providing individuals with the resources and information necessary to save water. The Hotel/Motel Water Conservation Program began in 1999 to assist hotels and motels in Orange County. At no cost, hotels and motels can order laminated towel rack hangers, bed cards, or combination cards that ask guests to consider reusing their towels and bed linens during their stay. The cards, which gently encourage guests to be environmentally aware, help hotels and motels save money and water. In 2008, the District, in conjunction with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the Orange County Business Council, hosted the O.C. Water Summit, which brought over 400 key policy makers, community leaders and business professionals together to discuss the state's water challenges and possible regional solutions. The District was recognized as a Groundwater Guardian member in 1996, thereafter forming the OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team. This program is designed to empower local citizens and communities to take voluntary steps toward protecting groundwater resources. The OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team attends and supports community events that are related to this cause. Through its programs and outreach efforts OCWD informs and educates the public about Orange County's water supply, as well as overall water issues. OCWD strives to draw the communities' attention to the state's water needs and teaches them effective ways to minimize water consumption. The community is encouraged to make life-long commitments to conserving water and respecting it as a precious resource. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.4 Preparation of the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan OCWD prepared the first Groundwater Management Plan in 1989 and updated the plan in 1990, 1994, and 2004. The 2009 update of the Plan includes new information about projects completed by the District in the past five years and the updated approach to calculating basin storage changes. The Plan identifies OCWD's goals and basin management objectives in protecting and managing the Orange County groundwater basin. The Plan also describes factors for the District's Board to consider in making decisions regarding how much pumping the basin can sustain. Specific projects that may be developed as a result of recommendations in the Plan would be separately reviewed and approved by the District's Board of Directors and processed for environmental review prior to project implementation. The Plan does not commit the District to a particular program or level of basin production, but describes the factors to consider and key issues as the Board makes basin management decisions on a regular basis each year. Potential projects that are conceptually described in the Plan are described in greater detail in the District's Long -Term Facilities Plan (OCWD, 2009). 1.5 OCWD Accomplishments, 2004-2008 In the OCWD 2004 Groundwater Management Plan, the District established quantifiable objectives, identified as Key Performance Indicators. Those Key Performance Indicators are listed in Table 1-1 along with a summary of actions taken and projects completed to accomplish them. TABLE 1-1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2004 Groundwater Management Plan Key Performance Indicators 2008 Status GWR System began operation in 2008. Cease landward migration of Reliable, local water supplies available for barrier 250 mg1L chloride contour by 2006 injection increased from 5 mgd to 30 mgd. Reversal of landward migration at Talbert Barrier observed in 2008. Increase Prado water conservation Memorandum of Agreement with the Army Corps of pool elevation by four feet by 2005 Engineers was executed in 2006 allowing a 5,000 of increase in the maximum winter pool elevation. Increase in recharge capacity of greater than Increase recharge capacity by 10,000 afy occurred with (1) the La Jolla Recharge 10,000 afy Basin coming on line in 2008 and (2) operation of Basin Cleaning Vehicles. 2004 Groundwater Management Plan Key Performance Indicators All water recharged into the basin through District facilities meets or is better than Department of Public Health MCLs and Notification Levels SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 2008 Status No exceedances of MCLs or Notification Levels in recharge water as documented in Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Reports (OCWD 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) and GWR System permit reports. Basin's accumulated overdraft was reduced by Reduce basin overdraft by 20,000 afy 202,000 of between June 2004 and June 2007. (OCWD Engineer's Report, 2008) Major accomplishments since adoption of the 2004 Plan include: • Phase 1 of the GWR System began operating in 2008 with a capacity of purifying 72 afy of water for the Talbert Barrier and groundwater recharge. • The Irvine Desalter Project, a cooperative project between OCWD and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), began operating in 2007 to remediate groundwater contamination and provide 8,000 afy of additional water supplies. • The Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy, published in February 2007, established a new methodology for calculating accumulated overdraft and establishing new full -basin benchmarks (see Appendix D). • Development of a groundwater model. • Beginning the construction of the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project. • Securing the rights to divert and use up to 362,000 afy of Santa Ana River water through a decision of the State Water Resources Control Board in December 2008. A comprehensive list of projects completed between 2004 and 2009 and the location in the Plan of the project description is shown in Table 1-2. Project Groundwater Replenishment System Prado Basin Water Conservation Project Talbert Barrier Expansion Irvine Desalter Project La Jolla Recharge Basin Olive Basin Intake Structure Improvements Basin Cleaning Vehicles Santiago Creek Recharge Enhancement Conjunctive Use "8 Well Project" SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Table 1-2 Summary of Completed Projects 2004-2009 Description Location Construction Operation in GWMP Completed Began Purifies up to 72,000 afy of secondary -treated water from OCSD to create a new water supply for seawater intrusion barrier and groundwater recharge Increases winter -time storage level at Prado Dam by 5,000 of Expanded Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier by constructing 8 new injection wells (4 with 1 casing each and 4 with 3 casings each) Constructed extraction and treatment system to pump and treat up to 8,000 afy contaminated groundwater New 6 -acre recharge basin increases recharge capacity up to 9,000 afy Construction of new intake structure and transfer pipe decreases sediment fouling of recharge basin Construction of four basin cleaning vehicles removes sediment from recharge basins Grading of Santiago Creek bed improves recharge rate by an estimated 3,600 afy Construction of 8 new extraction wells as part of Conjunctive Use Project with MWD to allow storage and withdrawal of imported water in the groundwater basin for use in drought years Section 2007 4.2.3.1 Section N/A 4.1.1 Section 2007 6.3.3 Section 2007 5.8.4 Section 2008 4.4.1 Section 2006 4.4.1 Section 4.1 2004 Section 2008 4.4.1 Section 2007 6.3.3 2008 2006 2008 2007 2008 2007 2004 2008 001 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mini -Anaheim Modifications to increase Recharge Basin recharge basin performance Modifications Kraemer -Miller New pipelines to provide Pipeline enhanced supply of recharge Improvements water to recharge basins Three new monitoring wells Santiago Creek constructed to assess Monitoring Wells hydrogeologic conditions along Santiago Creek Construction of three new Monitoring Wells monitoring wells for GWR for GWR System System compliance monitoring Monitoring Wells Construction of new for North Basin monitoring wells to assess Groundwater occurrence of groundwater Protection Project contamination Extraction Wells Four new extraction wells for North Basin constructed to remove Groundwater contaminated groundwater Protection Project Construction of ten Lincoln & Burris monitoring wells to Exploratory Wells characterize the ability of sediments adjacent to the basin to percolate water Prado Wetlands Flood damage repairs Reconstruction restore wetlands function Location Construction Operation in GWMP Completed Began Section 2005 4.4.1 Section 2007 4.4.1 Section 2009 4.2.2 Section 2004 3.7.3 Section 2008 5.8.1 Section 2009 5.8.1 Section 2006 4.4.1 Section 2008 5.3.3 Construction of a dam to Warner Basin replace need for building Section Dam temporary earthen berms for 4.4.1 each basin cleaning. 2007 2005 2007 2009 2005 2008 Estimated in 2010 2007 2008 2007 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.6 Public Outreach The California Water Code describes the process for development and adoption of a groundwater management plan that includes a public participation component. To adopt this plan, publicly -noticed meetings held as part of the District's regularly -scheduled board meetings and information were posted on the OCWD website. Appendix A contains copies of the public notices. In addition to the publicly -noticed public participation opportunities and postings on the web site, the District held workshops with the Producers. The Producers include cities, special districts, and investor-owned utilities that produce more than 90 percent of the water pumped from the basin. The content of the Plan was developed with input and review from the Producers through holding workshops and providing the Producers with draft versions of the Plan prior to its finalization. This group and OCWD served as the advisory committee of stakeholders guiding the development and implementation of the plan and providing a forum for resolving controversial issues. As part of its overall outreach program, the District informs and engages the public in groundwater discussions through an active speaker's bureau, media releases, and the water education class "Orange County Water 101". 1.7 Compliance with California Water Code Criteria regarding adoption of a groundwater management plan are included in Section 10750 et seq. of the California Water Code, also referred to as A.B. 3030. A complete list of required and recommended components of groundwater management plans and the location of those components in the Plan can be found in Appendix B. This plan is developed to meet the requirements of the California Water Code. 1.8 Groundwater Management Goals and Basin Management Objectives OCWD's goals in managing the Orange County groundwater basin are as follows: • To protect and enhance the groundwater quality of the Orange County groundwater basin, • To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost- effective manner, and • To increase the efficiency of OCWD's operations. Basin management objectives that accomplish all three of the above mentioned goals include: • Updating the Groundwater Management Plan periodically, • Updating the Long -Term Facilities Plan periodically, and • Continuing annual publication of the Santa Ana River Water Quality Report; the Engineer's Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Utilization; the Santa Ana River Watermaster Report; and the Groundwater Replenishment System Operations Annual Report. More specific basin management objectives set to accomplish one of the above mentioned goals are summarized below and described in detail in this report. 1.8.1 PROTECT AND ENHANCE GROUNDWATER QUALITY Basin management objectives established by OCWD to protect and enhance groundwater quality include: • Conducting groundwater quality monitoring programs throughout the basin. • Monitoring and managing recharge water supplies so that water recharged through District facilities meets or is better than primary drinking water levels and notification levels. • Monitoring the quality of Santa Ana River water on a routine basis at Imperial Highway and in the upper watershed. • Implementing the District's Groundwater Quality Protection Policy. • Constructing and managing water quality treatment projects. • Operating seawater intrusion barriers to prevent landward migration of seawater into the groundwater basin. • Supporting natural resource programs in the Santa Ana River Watershed to improve water quality. • Participating in cooperative efforts with regulators and stakeholders within the Santa Ana River Watershed. 1.8.2 PROTECT AND INCREASE THE BASIN'S SUSTAINABLE YIELD IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER Basin management objectives established by OCWD to protect and increase the basin's sustainable yield include: • Monitoring groundwater levels, recharge rates, and production rates. • Operating the groundwater basin in accordance with the Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy. • Managing recharge operations to maximize recharge of the groundwater basin. • Researching and implementing new strategies and programs to increase recharge capacity. • Promoting incidental recharge to the extent feasible without negatively impacting groundwater quality. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION • Planning for and conducting programs that maximize the capacity of the basin to respond to and recover from droughts. • Supporting natural resource programs in the Santa Ana River watershed. 1.8.3 Increase Operational Efficiency Basin management objectives established by OCWD to increase operational efficiency include: • Managing the District's finances to provide long-term fiscal stability and to maintain financial resources to implement District programs. • Operating District programs in a cost-effective and efficient manner. • Managing natural resource programs in the Santa Ana River watershed in an efficient manner. • Implementing efficient environmental management programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as use of solar power where feasible. District programs that are conducted to meet the state goals and basin management objectives and to contribute to a more reliable supply for long-term beneficial uses of groundwater are described in the following sections, a summary of which can be found in Appendix C. SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The groundwater basin covers approximately 350 square miles in north -central Orange County and is composed of layers of sediment with variable thickness and hydraulic properties. Because of the basin's size and complexity, understanding basin hydrogeology is critical to successful water management. This section: • Describes the hydrogeologic characteristics of the basin, including aquifer systems, basin boundaries, and physiographic features. • Describes the major components of inflows and outflows that compromise the basin water budget. • Presents groundwater storage and elevation trends and issues related to land subsidence. • Explains the updated methodology for calculating accumulated overdraft and groundwater storage change implemented in 2007. • Traces the history, development, and operation of the District's Basin Model. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County Groundwater Basin is located in the area designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the "Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin" in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). Figure 2-1 displays the OCWD boundaries in relation to the boundaries of Basin 8-1. The groundwater basin underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands known as the Tustin and Downey plains. The basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The basin boundary extends to the Orange County -Los Angeles line to the northwest, where groundwater flow is unrestricted across the county line into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County (see Figure 2-2). The Newport -Inglewood fault zone forms the southwestern boundary of all but the shallow aquifer in the basin. Basin aquifers are over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits (DWR, 1967). In coastal and central portions of the basin, these deposits are extensively separated by lower -permeability clay and silt deposits, known as aquitards. In the inland area, generally northeast of Interstate 5, the clay and silt deposits become thinner and more discontinuous, allowing larger quantities of groundwater to flow more easily between shallow and deeper aquifers. Figure 2-3 presents a geologic cross section through the basin along the Santa Ana River. Shallower aquifers exist above the principal aquifer system, the most prolific being known as the Talbert aquifer. Production from this shallow aquifer system is typically about five percent of total basin production. The majority of water from the shallow SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY aquifer is pumped by small systems for industrial and agricultural use although the cities of Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Tustin have a few large system wells that pump from the shallow aquifer for municipal use. Deeper aquifers exist below the principal aquifer system. Few wells penetrate into this region because of the high cost of drilling deep wells and because the aquifers contain colored water in some areas. The treatment and use of colored water is discussed in detail in Section 5.4. FIGURE 2-1 DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins i 6 2 J' d` 6112 LOS ANGELES COUNTY P Y 412144-23 i a 04 8-2-02 8-2.03 •, r3=2.06 'SAN BERNARDINO 4-13 c COUNTY`,•,, 8-2,01 4-11.04 .ti 8-2.03 4-11.03 6-1 8-4 IN ORANGE COUNTY W-4 JE S v` 0 5 10 Miles b: wfnen]yn:Ftl. -[h pa ft$,abn ryra ea ty THOMAS BROS "S 0 Whwa6 Of% MOPS Al n9rxs'-wved PI 8-5 1 9-5 1 SWR Groundwater Basins (Bulletin 11 S) OCW❑ Boundary L County Boundaries SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY 2.1.1 FOREBAY AND PRESSURE AREAS The Department of Water Resources, formerly the Division of Water Resources (DWR, 1934), divided the basin into two primary hydrologic divisions, the Forebay and Pressure areas, as shown in Figure 2-2. The Forebay/Pressure area boundary generally delineates the areas where surface water or shallow groundwater can or cannot move downward to the first producible aquifer in quantities significant from a water -supply perspective. From a water -quality perspective, the amount of vertical flow to deeper aquifers from surface water or shallow groundwater may be significant in terms of impacts of past agricultural or industrial land uses (e.g., fertilizer application and leaky underground storage tanks). FIGURE 2-2 ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN a C3 Main Basin La H abrit cnyote Yorba Linda Hills , Gl,inn Sub -Basin Hills Main Basin a s San I Joaquin Hills A Irvine Sub -Basin N r YY■ 'E f _T_ r 0 10.000 20.000 Fest R",Produand Mr.. permissim granUd b}' THOMAS gRrX- MAPSA �Wnm w Braa Maps. Nl fights jomrod 19 So •- — Sub -Basin Boundary ForebaylPressure Line -3 0CWD Boundary Aquifer Condition Confined Unconfined U W U) Z_ a m LU Z O w 0 H Z O U LU M Z NLU 9 Q LL O x H Z O U W U) Ch N O U U_ C7 O J O W AlU u� ¢ Of w 2 H O w 1 r as s oG w w zf as U G u 0 vZ rm as CD cc 7.0 m rf w a H ua LU D co w w z 0 a L3 a c) a Ll3 k3l tri S NVEIVq 133 37 N 01 JV/13-9{ SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Forebay refers to the area of intake or recharge where most of the groundwater recharge occurs. Highly -permeable sands and gravels with few and discontinuous clay and silt deposits allow direct percolation of Santa Ana River and other surface water. The Forebay area encompasses most of the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Villa Park and portions of the cities of Orange and Yorba Linda. The Pressure Area, in a general sense, is defined as the area of the basin where large quantities of surface water and near -surface groundwater is impeded from percolating into the major producible aquifers by clay and silt layers at shallow depths (upper 50 feet). The principal and deeper aquifers in this area are under "confined" conditions (under hydrostatic pressure); the water levels of wells penetrating these aquifers exhibit large seasonal variations. Most of the central and coastal portions of the basin fall within the Pressure Area. 2.1.2 GROUNDWATER SUBBASINS, MESAS AND GAPS The Irvine subbasin, bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and the San Joaquin Hills, forms the southern -most portion of the basin. The Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard form the subbasin's approximate western boundary with the main basin. Here the aquifers are thinner and contain more clay and silt deposits than aquifers in the main portion of the basin. The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is the primary groundwater producer. The aquifer base in the Irvine subbasin ranges from approximately 1,000 feet deep beneath the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin to less than 200 feet deep at the eastern boundary of the former MCAS EI Toro. East of former MCAS EI Toro, the aquifer further thins and transitions into lower -permeability sandstones and other semi - consolidated sediments, which have minor water storage and transmission capacity. Groundwater historically flowed out of the Irvine subbasin westerly into the main basin since the amount of natural recharge in the area, predominantly from the Santa Ana Mountains, was typically greater than the amount of pumping (Singer, 1973; Banks, 1984). With the operation of the Irvine Desalter Project commencing in 2007, groundwater production in the Irvine subbasin may exceed the natural replenishment from the adjacent hills and mountains, in which case groundwater would be drawn into the Irvine subbasin from the Main Basin. The Yorba Linda subbasin is located north of the Anaheim Forebay recharge area, within the cities of Yorba Linda and Placentia. Due to low transmissivity and high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations (Mills, 1987) there is little groundwater pumped from this subbasin. Groundwater from the Yorba Linda subbasin flows southward into the Main basin since the limited groundwater production is less than the natural replenishment from the adjacent Chino Hills. The La Habra Basin is located north of the Main Basin within the cities of La Habra and Brea. It comprises a shallow alluvial depression between the Coyote Hills and the Puente Hills. Similar to the Yorba Linda subbasin, little groundwater production occurs in the La Habra Basin due to low transmissivity and poor water quality (high TDS). Hydrogeologic studies have indicated that 2,200 to 5,500 afy of groundwater flows out of the La Habra Basin in two areas: (1) southerly into the Main Basin along the Brea SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Creek drainage between the East and West Coyote Hills and (2) westerly into the Central basin in Los Angeles County (James M. Montgomery, 1977; Ramsey, 1980; OCWD, 1994). Four relatively flat elevated areas, known as mesas, occur along the coastal boundary of the basin. The mesas were formed by ground surface uplift along the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. Ancient meandering of the Santa Ana River carved notches through the uplifted area and left behind sand- and gravel -filled deposits beneath the lowland areas between the mesas, known as gaps (Poland et al., 1956). Groundwater in the shallow aquifers within the gaps is susceptible to seawater intrusion. The Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers were constructed to address this problem. Locations of mesas and details of seawater barrier operations are discussed in Section 3.6. 2.2 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL BASIN VOLUME A vast amount of fresh water is stored within the basin, although only a fraction of this water can be removed practically using pumping wells and without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or the potential for land subsidence (Alley, 2006). Nonetheless, it is important to note the total volume of groundwater that is within the active flow system, i.e., within the influence of pumping and recharge operations. OCWD used its geographic information system and the aquifer system boundaries described in detail in Section 2.8 to calculate the total volume of each of the three major aquifer systems as well as the intervening aquitards. The total volume was calculated by multiplying the area and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Because groundwater fills the pore spaces that represent typically between 20 and 30 percent of the total volume, the total volume was multiplied by this porosity percentage to arrive at a total groundwater volume. Assuming the basin is completely full, based on District estimates, the total amount of fresh groundwater stored in the basin is approximately 66 million acre-feet (maf), as shown in Table 2-1. Total 49,400,000 16,600,000 66,000,000 Notes: 1. Volumes calculated using the 3 -layer basin model surfaces with Arclnfo Workstation GRID. 2. A porosity of 0.25 was assumed for aquifer systems. 3. A porosity of 0.30 was assumed for aquitards. TABLE 2-1 ESTIMATED BASIN GROUNDWATER STORAGE BY HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT (Volumes in Acre-feet) Hydrogeologic Unit Pressure Area Forebay Total Shallow Aquifer System 3,800,000 1,200,000 5,000,000 Aquitard 900,000 200,000 1,100,000 Principal Aquifer System 24,300,000 8,600,000 32,900,000 Aquitard 1,600,000 300,000 1,900,000 Deep Aquifer System 18,800,000 6,300,000 25,100,000 Total 49,400,000 16,600,000 66,000,000 Notes: 1. Volumes calculated using the 3 -layer basin model surfaces with Arclnfo Workstation GRID. 2. A porosity of 0.25 was assumed for aquifer systems. 3. A porosity of 0.30 was assumed for aquitards. SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY For comparison, DWR (1967) estimated that about 38 maf of fresh water is stored in the groundwater basin when full. DWR used a factor known as the specific yield to calculate this volume. The specific yield (typically between 10 and 20 percent) is the amount of water that can be drained by gravity from a certain volume of aquifer and reflects the soil's ability to retain and hold a significant volume of water due to capillary effects. Thus, DWR's drainable groundwater volume, although technically correct, is roughly half of OCWD's estimate of total groundwater volume in the basin. 2.3 WATER BUDGET OCWD staff developed a hydrologic budget (inflows and outflows) for the purpose of constructing the Basin Model and for evaluating basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The key components of the budget include measured and unmeasured (estimated) recharge, groundwater production, and subsurface flows along the coast and across the Orange/Los Angeles County line. Because the basin is not operated on an annual safe -yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over the period of several years, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance. Table 2-2 presents the components of a balanced basin water budget (no annual change in storage) and does not represent data for any given year. The annual budget presented is based on the following assumptions: (1) average precipitation, (2) accumulated overdraft of 400,000 af, (3) recharge of 235,000 of at the Forebay recharge facilities, and (4) adjusted groundwater production so that total basin inflows and outflows are equal. The 235,000 of of Forebay recharge consists of 148,000 of of Santa Ana River baseflow, 50,000 of of Santa Ana River stormflow, and 37,000 of of GWR System water. The major components of the water budget are described in the following sections. 2.3.1 MEASURED RECHARGE Measured recharge consists of all water artificially recharged at OCWD's Forebay percolation facilities and water injected at the Talbert Barrier and on the Orange County side of the Alamitos Barrier. Santa Ana River stormflows and baseflows serve as the primary source of recharge in the Forebay. OCWD's Talbert Barrier is a series of injection wells that span the 2.5 -mile wide Talbert Gap, between the Newport and Huntington Beach mesas. A blend of imported and purified water is injected into multiple aquifers that are used for municipal supply. Over 95 percent of the injected water flows inland and becomes part of the basin's replenishment supply. The Alamitos Barrier is a series of wells injecting a blend of imported and purified water into multiple aquifer zones that span the Alamitos Gap at the Los Angeles/Orange County line. Essentially all of the injected water flows inland, replenishing groundwater basins in the two counties. From inspection of groundwater contour maps, it appears that roughly one-third of the Alamitos Barrier injection water remains within or flows into Orange County. SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY TABLE 2-2 REPRESENTATIVE ANNUAL BASIN WATER BUDGET FLOW COMPONENT Acre-feet INFLOW Measured Recharge 1. Forebay recharge facilities 235,000 2. Talbert Barrier injection 35,000 3. Alamitos Barrier injection, Orange County portion only 2,500 Subtotal: 272,500 Estimated Unmeasured Recharge (average precipitation) 1. Inflow from La Habra basin 3,000 2. Recharge from foothills into Irvine subbasin 14,000 3. Areal recharge from rainfall/irrigation into Main basin 17,500 4. Recharge from foothills into Yorba Linda subbasin 6,000 5. Subsurface inflow at Imperial Highway beneath Santa Ana River 4,000 6. Santa Ana River recharge, Imperial Highway to Rubber Dam 4,000 7. Subsurface inflow from Santiago Canyon 10,000 8. Recharge along Peralta Hills 4,000 9. Recharge along Tustin Hills 6,000 10. Seawater inflow through coastal gaps 500 Subtotal: 69,000 TOTAL INFLOW: 341,500 OUTFLOW 1. Groundwater Production 333,500 2. Subsurface Outflow 8,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW: 341,500 CHANGE IN STORAGE: 0 2.3.2 UNMEASURED RECHARGE Unmeasured recharge also referred to as "incidental recharge" accounts for a significant amount of the basin's producible yield. This includes recharge from precipitation at the basin margin along the Chino, Coyote, and San Joaquin Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains; Santa Ana River recharge between Imperial Highway and the OCWD rubber diversion dam; irrigation return flows; urban runoff; and underflow beneath the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. This latter refers to groundwater that enters the basin at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon, the Santiago Creek drainage below Villa Park Dam, and seawater inflow through the gaps. Unmeasured recharge is estimated at an average of 60,000 afy. This number is derived from estimating annual changes in groundwater storage by comparing groundwater elevation changes, after subtracting losses to Los Angeles County. Net incidental recharge is used to refer to the amount of incidental recharge after accounting for groundwater losses, such as outflow to Los Angeles County. This average unmeasured recharge was substantiated during calibration of the Basin Model and is also consistent SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY with the estimate of 58,000 afy reported by Hardt and Cordes (1971) as part of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) modeling study of the basin. Because unmeasured recharge is one of the least understood components of the basin's water budget, the error margin of staff's estimate for any given year is probably in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 af. Since the unmeasured recharge is well distributed throughout the basin, the physical significance (e.g., water level drawdown or mounding in any given area) of over- or underestimating the total recharge volume within this error margin is considered to be minor. 2.3.3 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION Groundwater production from the basin, as shown in Figure 2-4, occurs from approximately 450 active wells within the District, approximately 200 of which produce less than 25 afy. FIGURE 2-4 DISTRIBUTION OF GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION r 4 v rid ° O t 0 0r a a ` 0 u_ ' 60 0 0 © 0 . IN 4�r 4CIO 9 A. G Saw •. N� Production WL -11 Location and Volume (acre-feet) W E July 2407 through June 2008 6,000 See caf circle $P � 3,000 is proportional Q Q, 70Q zQ.oOa j f 300 t4 Volume Feet s �QCWD Boundary SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Groundwater production from approximately 200 large -capacity or large -system wells operated by the 21 largest water retail agencies accounted for an estimated 97 percent of the total production in 2006-07. Large -capacity wells are all metered, as required by the District Act, and monthly individual well production has been documented since 1988. Prior to 1988, per -well production data were recorded semi-annually. Groundwater production is distributed uniformly throughout the majority of the basin with the exceptions of the Yorba Linda subbasin, the immediate coastal areas, and the foothill margins of the basin, where little to no production occurs. Increases in coastal production would lead to increased stress on the Talbert and Alamitos barriers, requiring additional barrier capacity. Inasmuch as it is technically and economically feasible, future increases in coastal groundwater demand should be addressed by wells constructed inland in areas of lower well density and higher aquifer transmissivity. The distribution of existing wells and the siting of future wells depend on many different factors, including logistics, property boundaries, hydrogeology, and regulatory guidelines. Logistical considerations include property availability, city and other political boundaries, and proximity to other water facilities. Proximity to existing water transmission pipelines can be extremely important, given the cost of new reaches of pipeline. Hydrogeologic considerations for siting a well may include: thickness of permeable aquifer units, groundwater quality, drawdown interference from nearby wells, seasonal water level fluctuations, and potential impacts to the basin such as seawater intrusion. 2.3.4 SUBSURFACE OUTFLOW Groundwater outflow from the basin across the Los Angeles/Orange County line has been estimated to range from approximately 1,000 to 14,000 afy based on groundwater elevation gradients and aquifer transmissivity (DWR, 1967; McGillicuddy, 1989). The Water Replenishment District has also indicated underflow from Orange County to Los Angeles County within the aforementioned range. Underflow varies annually and seasonally depending upon hydrologic conditions on either side of the county line. Modeling by OCWD indicated that, assuming groundwater elevations in the Central Basin remain constant; underflow to Los Angeles County increases approximately 7,500 afy for every 100,000 of of increased groundwater in storage in Orange County (see Figure 2-5). With the exception of unknown amounts of semi -perched (near -surface) groundwater being intercepted and drained by submerged sewer trunk lines and unlined flood control channels along coastal portions of the basin, no other significant basin outflows are known to occur. SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BASIN STORAGE AND ESTIMATED OUTFLOW 40,000 30,000 Simulated 20,000 Outflow to LA County (AFY) 10,000 0 -10,000 L 0 7,500 afy outflow change for each 100 of of overdraft June 2008 306,000 of overdraft Outflow to LA Inflow from LA 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Simulated Cumulative Overdraft (af) 2.4 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND STORAGE CALCULATION OCWD estimates annual changes in the amount of groundwater stored in the basin using groundwater elevation measurements and aquifer storage coefficients for the three primary aquifer systems in the basin. This three -layer method involves measuring the water levels at the end of each water year at nearly every production and monitoring well in the basin. Water level measurements are contoured, as shown in Figure 2-6, and then digitized into the Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS is then used to subtract the previous year's water level maps from the current water year, resulting in a water level change contour map for each of the three aquifer layers. Figure 2-7 shows the water level change for the principal aquifer (layer 2). For each of the three aquifer layers, the GIS is then used to multiply these water level changes by a grid of aquifer storage coefficients from OCWD's calibrated basin groundwater model. This results in a storage change volume for each of the three aquifer layers, which are totaled to provide a net annual storage change for the basin. A more detailed description of the three -layer methodology is presented in OCWD's Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy (February 2007). SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-6 JUNE 2008 WATER LEVELS i` Wj E S 0 10.000 20,00❑ Feet Ro�radurod with pormissinr. granted by THOMAS 6RO$. MAPSID r3Thomas Bros Maps NI rrghts. msorvcd. i .. . y 1 �r Principal Aquifer June 2008 Water Levels Groundwater Elevation (Feet, MSL) - -127 - -10O0 0- 20 IQ 140 - 180 - -100--80 20-40 180 - 220 - -80 - -60 40 - 60 - 220 - 260 - -60 - -40 l'• - -d 60 - 80 - 260 - 280 ® -40--20 - 80- 100 ® -20-0 - 100-140 SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-7 WATER LEVEL CHANGES N w E 0 10.000 20,000 Feet ;c-i:ra,Jurod with pormissi on granted by THOMAS BRC6. MAPS.& ra5Thomos Bros Mops AJI rig I-'-, Tc oc I 'co I I'dincipal Aquifer June 2007 - 2008 Water Level Changes (Feet) <-30 -10 -0 -30--20 =0-10 -20 - -10 - Forebay/Pressure Line SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY 2.5 ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT CALCULATION OCWD estimates that the basin can be operated on a short-term basis with a maximum accumulated overdraft (storage reduction from full condition) of approximately 500,000 of without causing irreversible seawater intrusion and land subsidence. The estimated maximum historical accumulated basin overdraft of 500,000 to 700,000 of occurred in 1956-57 (DWR, 1967; OCWD, 2003). Until 2007, water level elevations in November 1969 were used as the baseline to represent near -full conditions. The net decrease in storage from 1969 conditions represented the accumulated overdraft. Since 2004, OCWD has participated in Metropolitan's Conjunctive Use Program. This program allows for the storage of Metropolitan water in the Orange County groundwater basin. Figure 2-8 illustrates the basin accumulated overdraft since 1962. The accumulated overdraft including the Metropolitan Conjunctive Use water is shown in red. The blue line indicates the basin accumulated overdraft calculated without Metropolitan's stored water. 0 100,000 200,000 Accumulated 300,000 Overdraft (AF) 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 FIGURE 2-8 ACCUMULATED BASIN OVERDRAFT w w Iq w le w Iq w cfl i• i• 00 00 w w o 0 Cumulative Overdraft Excludes Metropolitan Stored Water(Conjunctive Use Program) SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY 2.5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW METHODOLOGY The traditional full -basin benchmark of 1969 was revised in 2007. A new methodology was developed to calculate accumulated overdraft and storage change. The need for this new methodology was driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which an unprecedented storage increase of 170,000 of was estimated by OCWD staff. During that year, water levels throughout the basin rose approximately 30 feet overall, approaching a near -full condition. Analysis showed that groundwater in storage in November 2005 was only 40,000 of less than the full basin 1969 benchmark. However, the traditional method of cumulatively adding the annual storage change each year to the previous year's accumulated overdraft produced an accumulated overdraft of approximately 190,000 acre-feet for November 2005. The discrepancy of 150,000 of in the two different calculations indicated that the current condition could not be properly rectified back to the 1969 benchmark. This brought to light three important discoveries: • The traditional storage change calculation contained considerable uncertainty that when cumulatively added over tens of years, led to a large discrepancy in the accumulated overdraft relative to 1969. • Water level conditions in 1969 no longer represent a full basin, particularly because of changes in pumping and recharge conditions. • A more accurate storage change calculation should be based on water level changes and storage coefficients for each of the three major aquifer systems. In February 2007, the District adopted an updated approach to defining the full basin condition and calculating storage changes. This updated approach includes: • A new full -basin groundwater level based on the following prescribed conditions: o Observed historical high water levels o Present-day pumping and recharge conditions o Protective of seawater intrusion o Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins • Calculation of the amount of groundwater in storage in each of the three major aquifer systems. A more detailed description of this new methodology is presented in OCWD's Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy (February 2007), which is included as Appendix D. 2.6 ELEVATION TRENDS Groundwater elevation profiles for the principal aquifer, generally following the Santa Ana River from Costa Mesa to the Anaheim Forebay area, are shown in Figure 2-9. The groundwater elevation profiles represent the newly -calculated full basin condition, 1969 conditions (formerly considered full), and 2007 conditions. A comparison of these profiles shows that groundwater elevations in the Forebay recharge area are relatively close while elevations in 2007 are significantly lower in the central and coastal portions of the basin than the full or 1969 conditions. SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-9 PRINCIPAL AQUIFER HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION PROFILES 300 250 200 150 Elevation 100 (Feet MSL) 50 0 -50 -100 COSTA MESA ANAHEIM _______ FULL BASIN (THEORETICAL) �X 1969 (NEAR FULL BASIN) ��� •� 2007 (198,000 AF BELOW FULL) j •� GROUND %• SURFACE MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AREA > FOREBAY 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 MILES FROM COAST ALONG SANTA ANA RIVER 20 The lowering of coastal area groundwater levels relative to groundwater levels further inland in the Forebay translates into a steeper hydraulic gradient, which drives greater flow from the Forebay to the coastal areas. However, the lowering of coastal water levels also increases seawater intrusion potential. Figure 2-10 presents average groundwater elevations for the principal aquifer in the Forebay, coastal areas, and the total basin on November 1 of each year, when groundwater levels are somewhat intermediate between the late summer low and late winter high. Average values were calculated using a 1,000 -foot square grid and the groundwater elevation contour map prepared each year. Groundwater elevations were estimated at each grid point using the groundwater elevation contours, and the average values were calculated for each of the three areas. A comparison of the groundwater level trends in Figure 2-10 to the changes in accumulated overdraft in Figure 2-8 provides insights into the basin's response during filling and emptying cycles. From November 2003 to November 2005, the basin's accumulated overdraft reduced 220,000 of due to the near -record high precipitation in water year 2004-05. During this period of refill, average groundwater levels in the coastal area increased approximately 20 feet, while groundwater levels in the Forebay increased approximately 40 feet. Between November 2005 and November 2007, basin accumulated overdraft increased approximately 100,000 of as groundwater withdrawals exceeded recharge due to several factors, including near -record low precipitation. Average groundwater levels during this period fell by 40 feet in the Forebay and coastal areas. 100 80 60 40 Devation (feet MSL) 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-10 AVERAGE PRINCIPAL AQUIFER GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS FOR THE FOREBAY, TOTAL BASIN, AND COASTAL AREA ------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------------- -- ---- --------------------------- ----- -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Data for November 2006 are unavailable O - N M 1�4- L0 M 1- M O O � N M '�T L0 M 1- m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N Year (on November 1) --*--Fo rebay Area Total Basin SAP—Coastal Area Figure 2-11 shows the locations of four wells, A-27, SA -21, SAR-1, and OCWD-CTG1, with long-term groundwater level data. Figure 2-12 presents water level hydrographs and locations of wells A-27 and SA -21, representing historical conditions in the Forebay and Pressure area, respectively. The hydrograph data for well A-27 near Anaheim Lake date back to 1932 and indicate that the historic low water level in this area occurred in 1951-52. The subsequent replenishment of Colorado River water essentially refilled the basin by 1965. Water levels in this well reached an historic high in 1994 and have generally remained high as recharge has been nearly continuous at Anaheim Lake since the late 1950s. The hydrograph for well SA -21 indicates that water levels in this area have decreased since 1970. In addition, the magnitude of the seasonal water level fluctuations has approximately doubled from pre -1990 to the present. The increased water level fluctuations are due to a combination seasonal water demand -driven pumping and participation in the Metropolitan Short -Term Seasonal Storage Program by local SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Producers (Boyle Engineering and OCWD, 1997), which encouraged increased pumping from the groundwater basin during summer months when Metropolitan was experiencing high demand for imported water. Although this program did not increase the amount of pumping from the basin on an annual basis, it did result in greater water level declines during the summer. FIGURE 2-11 LOCATION OF LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER ELEVATION HYDROGRAPH LC' SA -21 rD g.�.i A-27 SAR-1 OC W D-CTG1 N W4 - E r' S 0 10.000 20.000 Feet Pc4 od Cod with pam is,on granMd vy THQNVG eROS. MAYS 0 5$iifpmm [arm Maps. NI NIrt5 mwNUd 9 Active Large -System Production Well Monitoring Well Multipart Monitoring Well L.- I aC:WL7 Boundary SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-12 WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPHS OF WELLS A-27 AND SA -21 Production Well A-27 200 180 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160 140 - Water Level 120 --------------------------------- ----- Elevation (ft MSI) 100 --- 80 ---------- ------ 60 40 - - --------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 20 ----------------- ------------------ Perforated Interval: 197-287 ft. bgs* 0 111111111111 11 11 111 11 11111111111 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliI N V (D OD O N V (D 00 O N V (D 00 O N V (0 00 O N V (D 00 O N V (D 00 O N V (D 00 O N V (D 00 O M M M M V V V V V In to to to to O O O O O I- I- I- I- r 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 Production Well SA -21 40 Perforated Interval: 400-960 ft. bgs* 20 --- ---- -- ----- ----- o----- - - -- ----- ---- --------------- - - - ----------------- -- ------ Water Level Elevation -20 ----------- - -- -- ----- ---- - - - (ft MSI) 40 --------------------------------------------- - - ----- -60 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -80 1969 197119731975197719791981 19831985 1987 19891991 1993199519971999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 *msl = mean sea level *bgs = below ground surface SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Figure 2-13 presents water level hydrographs and locations of two OCWD multi -depth monitoring wells, SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1, showing the relationship between water level elevations in aquifer zones at different depths. The hydrograph of well SAR-1 in the Forebay exhibits a similarity in water levels between shallow and deep aquifers, which indicates the high degree of hydraulic interconnection between aquifers characteristic of much of the Forebay. FIGURE 2-13 WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPHS OF WELLS SAR-1 AND OCWD-CTG1 Monitoring Well SAR-1 160 140 120 100 Water Level Elevation 80 (ft msl) 60 40 20 0 -20 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monitoring Well OCWD-CTG1 40 20 0 -20 Water Level Elevation -40 (ft msl) -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 'msl = mean sea level 'bgs = below ground surface SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The hydrograph of well OCWD-CTG1 is typical of the Pressure Area in that a large water level distinction is observed between shallow and deep aquifers, indicating the effects of a clay/silt layer that restricts vertical groundwater flow. Water levels in the deepest aquifer zone at well OCWD-CTG1 have higher elevations than overlying aquifers, in part, because few wells directly produce water from these zones, primarily due to their associated colored water. 2.7 LAND SUBSIDENCE Subsidence of the ground surface has been associated with groundwater withdrawal in many regions of the world. In the case of thick sedimentary groundwater basins comprised of alternating "confined" or "pressure" aquifers (permeable sands and gravels) and aquitards (less permeable silts and clays), the extraction of groundwater reduces the fluid pressure of the saturated pore spaces within the buried sediments. The pressure reduction in the deeper sediments allows the weight of the overlying sediments to compact the deeper sediments, particularly the clays and silts. If groundwater withdrawals cause water level drawdowns to be sustained for several years or more, the incremental amount of sediment compaction can eventually manifest itself in a measurable lowering of the land surface (USGS, 1999). OCWD commissioned a study by the DWR (1980) to evaluate the potential for land subsidence in the basin. Because the study was limited in scope, its findings were deemed preliminary pending further investigation. Nevertheless, the study cited survey data from the Orange County Surveyor that indicated that the land surface in the city of Santa Ana declined a maximum of 0.84 inch/year from 1956 to 1961. Surveys during the period 1970 to 1976 indicated maximum land surface declines of 0.24 inch/year in Santa Ana. Key findings of the study included the following: • Subsidence in the City of Santa Ana is apparently related to the removal of groundwater. However, it is not possible to directly correlate observed subsidence and historic water -level declines. • Subsidence in the vicinity of the City of Huntington Beach can be attributed to the removal of oil. • Most of the compaction takes place in the fine-grained sediments. • Water squeezed out of the compacted fine-grained sediments, known as "water of compaction," results in a permanent loss of storage in fine-grained sediments. Land surface changes (rising and lowering) of similar magnitude to those noted by DWR were reported by Bawden (Bawden et al, 2001) while reviewing satellite radar images for a seismic assessment of Southern California. Bawden reported seasonal land surface changes of up to 4.3 inches (total seasonal amplitude from high to low) in the Los Angeles -Orange County area and a net decline of approximately 0.5 inch/year near Santa Ana over the period 1993 to 1999, which coincides with a period of net withdrawal of groundwater from the basin. Despite the indications of land subsidence to some degree in portions of Orange County, there has been no indication that the suggested land surface changes have caused, or are likely to cause, any structural damage in the area. By maintaining groundwater levels and basin storage within its SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY historical operating range, the potential for problematic land subsidence is reduced. Conversely, land subsidence could become a problem if the basin was overdrafted beyond the historical operating range. Groundwater withdrawals are regulated within the basin operating range, which is explained in detail in Section 6.5. In the event that land subsidence becomes a problem in a localized area, OCWD will work with local officials to investigate and remediate the problem. 2.8 GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION In general, a groundwater flow model contains two major components: the mathematical model and the conceptual model. The mathematical model is the computer program used to solve the complex system of equations that govern the flow of groundwater. The conceptual model is the hydrogeologic framework of the area being modeled, obtained by gathering, analyzing, interpreting, and finally integrating all the geologic and hydrologic data for a given area into a conceptual understanding of how the flow system looks and behaves. For a properly -constructed model, the mathematical model needs to be appropriate for the level of detail inherent in the conceptual model. For a mathematical model solved by numerical methods, the modeled area must be divided into a mesh of grid cells — the smaller the grid cells, generally the more accurate the computations — assuming the hydrogeology can be reasonably -defined at the grid cell level of detail. Based on all the input data, the model calculates a water level elevation and fluxes for each and every grid cell of the modeled area at a given point in time. OCWD's basin model encompasses the entire basin and extends approximately three miles into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County to provide for more accurate model results than if the model boundary stopped at the county line (see Figure 2-14). As noted previously in this chapter, the county line is not a hydrogeologic boundary, i.e., groundwater freely flows through aquifers that have been correlated across the county line. Coverage of the modeled area is accomplished with grid cells having horizontal dimensions of 500 feet by 500 feet (approximately 5.7 acres) and vertical dimensions ranging from approximately 50 to 1,800 feet, depending on the thickness of each model layer at that grid cell location. Basin aquifers and aquitards were grouped into three composite model layers thought sufficient to describe the three distinguishable flow systems referred to as the shallow, principal, and deep aquifer systems. The three model layers comprise a network of over 90,000 grid cells. The widely -accepted computer program, "MODFLOW," developed by the USGS, was used as the base modeling code for the mathematical model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). Analogous to an off-the-shelf spreadsheet program needing data to be functional, MODFLOW requires vast amounts of input data to define the hydrogeologic conditions in the conceptual model. The types of information that must be input in digital format (data files) for each grid cell in each model layer include the following: 0 Aquifer top and bottom elevations SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY • Aquifer lateral boundary conditions (ocean, faults, mountains) • Aquifer hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient/specific yield • Initial groundwater surface elevation • Natural and artificial recharge rates (runoff, precipitation, percolation, injection) • Groundwater production rates for approximately 200 large system and 200 small system wells Central FIGURE 2-14 BASIN MODEL EXTENT Orange County Groundwater Basin 12 ry X' n, w Yr' 6�� V_ w' A r dpX,� . 6► ��C�d a r� -, L j Layer 1 (Shall©v4 r Layer 2 (Principal) '< Layer 3 (Deep) �� 0CWD Boundary -� �E `r S 0 10.004 20.004 Feet rdgprp�51e9d wirlr yylnssSrOn snlB�l by'TYfCT1+Ah's QCT$ MAP"', S AT hammSms Mx Cpl A7 FiV" r '.'.d L j Layer 1 (Shall©v4 r Layer 2 (Principal) '< Layer 3 (Deep) �� 0CWD Boundary SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY These data originate from hand -drawn contour maps, spreadsheets, and the Water Resources Management System (WRMS) historical database. Because MODFLOW requires the input data files in a specific format, staff developed a customized database and GIS program to automate data compilation and formatting functions. These data pre-processing tasks form one of the key activities in the model development process. Before a groundwater model can be reliably used as a predictive tool for simulating future conditions, the model must be calibrated to reach an acceptable match between simulated and actual observed conditions. The basin model was first calibrated to steady-state conditions to numerically stabilize the simulations, to make rough adjustments to the water budget terms, and to generally match regional groundwater flow patterns. Also, the steady-state calibration helped to determine the sensitivity of simulated groundwater levels to changes in incidental recharge and aquifer parameters such as hydraulic conductivity. Steady-state calibration of the basin model is documented in more detail in the OCWD Master Plan Report (OCWD, 1999). Typical transient model output consists of water level elevations at each grid cell that can be plotted as a contour map for one point in time or as a time -series graph at a single location. Post -processing of model results into usable graphics is performed using a combination of semi -automated GIS and database program applications. Figure 2-15 presents a simplified schematic of the modeling process. FIGURE 2-15 MODEL DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART Define objectives Compile data Mchemistry ta nbasin rogeologic Model ections boundaries phs smissivity ps e coefficient ' data ater balance Build Computer Model create grid Revise !conceptual ogeoloqic Model digitize layers revise gic cross sections, create data input files ed faults define model conditions refinmodel ■ Calibrate Model match historical water levels adjust until results acceptable ERun Model Scenarios deveproduction/recharge alternatives up data for each alternative as contour maps and hydrographs SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Model construction, calibration, and operation were built upon 12 years of effort by OCWD staff to collect, compile, digitize, and interpret hundreds of borehole geologic and geophysical logs, water level hydrographs, and water quality analyses. The process was composed of ten main tasks comprising over 120 subtasks. The major tasks are summarized below: 1. Finalize conceptual hydrogeologic model layers and program GIS/database applications to create properly formatted MODFLOW input data files. Over 40 geologic cross sections were used to form the basis of the vertical and lateral aquifer boundaries. 2. Define model layer boundaries. The top and bottom elevations of the three aquifer system layers and intervening aquitards were hand -contoured, digitized, and overlain on the model grid to populate the model input arrays with a top and bottom elevation for each layer at every grid cell location. Model layer thickness values were then calculated by using the GIS. 3. Develop model layer hydraulic conductivity (K) grids. Estimates of K for each layer were based on (in order of importance): available aquifer test data, well specific capacity data, and lithologic data. In the absence of reliable aquifer test or specific capacity data for areas in Layers 1 and 3, Iithology-based K estimates were calculated by assigning literature values of K to each Iithology type (e.g., sand, gravel, clay) within a model layer and then calculating an effective K value for the entire layer at that well location. Layer 2 had the most available aquifer test and specific capacity data. Therefore, a Layer 2 transmissivity contour map was prepared and digitized, and the GIS was then used to calculate a K surface by dividing the transmissivity grid by the aquifer thickness grid. Initial values of K were adjusted during model calibration to achieve a better match of model results with known groundwater elevations. 4. Develop layer production factors for active production wells simulated in the model. Many production wells had long screened intervals that spanned at least two of the three model layers. Therefore, groundwater production for each of these wells had to be divided among each layer screened by use of layer production factors. These factors were calculated using both the relative length of screen within each model layer and the hydraulic conductivity of each layer. Well production was then multiplied by the layer factors for each individual well. For example, if a well had a screened interval equally divided across Layers 1 and 2, but the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 1 was twice that of Layer 2, then the calculated Layer 1 and 2 production factors for that well would have been one-third and two-thirds, respectively, such that when multiplied by the total production for this well, the production assigned to Layer 1 would have been twice that of Layer 2. For the current three -layer model, approximately 25 percent of the production wells in the model were screened across more than one model layer. In this context, further vertical refinement of the model (more model layers) may better represent SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY the aquifer architecture in certain areas but may also increase the uncertainty and potential error involved in the amount of production assigned to each model layer. 5. Develop basin model water budget input parameters, including groundwater production, artificial recharge, and unmeasured recharge. Groundwater production and artificial recharge volumes were applied to grid cells in which production wells or recharge facilities were located. The most uncertain component of the water budget — unmeasured or incidental recharge — was applied to the model as an average monthly volume based on estimates calculated annually for the OCWD Engineer's Report. Unmeasured recharge was distributed to cells throughout the model, but was mostly applied to cells along margins of the basin at the base of the hills and mountains. The underflow component of the incidental recharge represents the amount of groundwater flowing into and out of the model along open boundaries. Prescribed groundwater elevations were assigned to open boundaries along the northwest model boundary in Los Angeles County; the ocean at the Alamitos, Bolsa, and Talbert Gaps; the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon; and the mouth of Santiago Creek Canyon. Groundwater elevations for the boundaries other than the ocean boundaries were based on historical groundwater elevation data from nearby wells. The model automatically calculated the dynamic flow across these open boundaries as part of the overall water budget. 6. Develop model layer storage coefficients. Storage coefficient values for portions of model layers representing confined aquifer conditions were prepared based on available aquifer test data and were adjusted within reasonable limits based on calibration results. 7. Develop vertical leakance parameters between model layers. Vertical groundwater flow between aquifer systems in the basin is generally not directly measured, yet it is one of the critically -important factors in the model's ability to represent actual basin hydraulic processes. Using geologic cross-sections and depth -specific water level and water quality data from the OCWD multi -depth monitoring well network, staff identified areas where vertical groundwater flow between the modeled aquifer systems is either likely to occur or be significantly impeded, depending on the relative abundance and continuity of lower -permeability aquitards between model layers. During model calibration, the initial parameter estimates for vertical leakance were adjusted to achieve closer matches to known vertical groundwater gradients. 8. Develop groundwater contour maps for each model layer to be used for starting conditions and for visual comparison of water level patterns during calibration. Staff used observed water level data from multi -depth and other wells to prepare contour maps of each layer for November 1990 as a starting point for the calibration period. Care was taken to use wells screened within the appropriate vertical interval representing each model SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY layer. The hand -drawn contour maps were then digitized and used as model input to represent starting conditions. 9. Perform transient calibration runs. The nine-year period of November 1990 to November 1999 was selected for transient calibration, as it represented the period corresponding to the most detailed set of groundwater elevation, production, and recharge data. The transient calibration process and results are described in Section 2.8.1. 10. Perform various basin production and recharge scenarios using the calibrated model. Criteria for pumping and recharge, including facility locations and quantities, were developed for each scenario and input for each model run. 2.8.1 MODEL CALIBRATION Calibration of the transient basin model involved a series of simulations of the period 1990 to 1999, using monthly flow and water level data. The time period selected for calibration represents a period during which basic data required for monthly transient calibration were essentially complete (compared to pre -1990 historical records). The calibration period spans at least one "wet/dry" rainfall cycle. Monthly water level data from almost 250 target locations were used to determine if the simulated water levels adequately matched observed water levels. As shown in Figure 2-16, the calibration target points were densely distributed throughout the basin and also covered all three model layers. After each model run, a hydrograph of observed versus simulated water levels was created and reviewed for each calibration target point. In addition, a groundwater elevation contour map for each layer was also generated from the simulated data. The simulated groundwater contours for all three layers were compared to interpreted contours of observed data (November 1997) to assess closeness of fit and to qualitatively evaluate whether the simulated gradients and overall flow patterns were consistent with the conceptual hydrogeologic model. November 1997 was chosen for the observed versus simulated contour map comparison since these hand -drawn contour maps had already been created for the prior steady state calibration step. Although November 1997 observed data were contoured for all three layers, the contour maps for Layers 1 and 3 were somewhat more generalized than for Layer 2 due to a lower density of data points (wells) in these two layers. Depending on the results of each calibration run, model input parameters were adjusted, including hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, boundary conditions, and recharge distribution. Time -varying head boundaries along the Orange/Los Angeles County line were found to be extremely useful in obtaining a close fit with observed historical water levels in the northwestern portion of the model. Fifty calibration runs were required to reach an acceptable level of calibration in which model -generated water levels were within reasonable limits of observed water level elevations during the calibration period. Figures 2-17 through 2-19 show examples of hydrographs of observed versus simulated water levels for three wells used as calibration targets. i i SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-16 BASIN MODEL CALIBRATION WELLS 09 9 ! ! 00 a Q. r i ��►� OCA?.. � E srr-- — w 4. J!. E 5 0 10.000 20,000 Feet ,,r-d—d-0 n, i.1 r14m,' mAj:, -,r r,,—R«,c Calibration Well With Example Hydrograph +9 Calibration Well 6I; Basin Model Boundary C,—• J OGWUIJ Boundary SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY Figure 2-17 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL AM -5A (Model Layer 1 -- Anaheim Forebay) 200 180 Water Level Elevation 160 (ft MSI) 140 120 100 80 11/1/90 Screened Interval: 168-176 ft bgs. Ink 0 46A d2tA lam V 1 1 , 1 94 ,y-1 IR8 m , I Run 10 Run 50 Observed MON=03,MNE --�-- Run 10 ----o---- Run 60 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/1196 11/1/98 FIGURE 2-18 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL SC -2 (Model Layer 2 -- Santiago Pit Area) 200 180 Water Level Elevation 160 (ft MSI) 140 120 100 MA Ink 0 Run 10 Run 50 MON=03,MNE 111901"/11/427\J 11/1/94 11/1%96 -%V 11/1/98 SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-19 CALIBRATION HYDROGRAPH FOR MONITORING WELL GGM-1 (All Three Model Layers -- Garden Grove) $0, 11/1/90 L1 Observed I .--�� L2 Observed o--4 s L3 Observed ------ L1 Simulated L2 Simulated L3 Simulated 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/1/96 11/1/98 Noteworthy findings of the model calibration process are summarized below: • The model was most sensitive to adjustments to hydraulic conductivity and recharge distribution. In other words, minor variations in these input parameters caused significant changes in the model water level output. • The model was less sensitive to changes in storage coefficient, requiring order -of -magnitude changes in this parameter to cause significant changes in simulated water levels, primarily affecting the amplitude of seasonal water level variations. • The vast amount of observed historical water level data made it readily evident when the model was closely matching observed conditions. • Incidental (unmeasured) recharge averaging approximately 70,000 afy during the 1990-1999 period appeared to be reasonable, as the model was fairly sensitive to variations in this recharge amount. • Groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County was estimated to range between 5,000 and 12,000 afy between 1990 and 1999, most of this occurring in Layers 1 and 3. • Groundwater flow at the Talbert Gap was inland during the entire model calibration period, indicating moderate seawater intrusion conditions. Model - derived seawater inflow ranged from 500 to 2,700 afy in the Talbert Gap and is consistent with chloride concentration trends during the calibration period that indicated inland movement of saline groundwater in these areas. • Model -derived groundwater inflow from the ocean at Bolsa Gap was only 100- 200 afy due to the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, which offsets the Bolsa 60 Port Depths: 150 ft bgs 40 1,074 ft bgs Water Level 2011 ft bgs Elevation (ft msl) 20 0 ` 20 , � e -40 $0, 11/1/90 L1 Observed I .--�� L2 Observed o--4 s L3 Observed ------ L1 Simulated L2 Simulated L3 Simulated 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/1/96 11/1/98 Noteworthy findings of the model calibration process are summarized below: • The model was most sensitive to adjustments to hydraulic conductivity and recharge distribution. In other words, minor variations in these input parameters caused significant changes in the model water level output. • The model was less sensitive to changes in storage coefficient, requiring order -of -magnitude changes in this parameter to cause significant changes in simulated water levels, primarily affecting the amplitude of seasonal water level variations. • The vast amount of observed historical water level data made it readily evident when the model was closely matching observed conditions. • Incidental (unmeasured) recharge averaging approximately 70,000 afy during the 1990-1999 period appeared to be reasonable, as the model was fairly sensitive to variations in this recharge amount. • Groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County was estimated to range between 5,000 and 12,000 afy between 1990 and 1999, most of this occurring in Layers 1 and 3. • Groundwater flow at the Talbert Gap was inland during the entire model calibration period, indicating moderate seawater intrusion conditions. Model - derived seawater inflow ranged from 500 to 2,700 afy in the Talbert Gap and is consistent with chloride concentration trends during the calibration period that indicated inland movement of saline groundwater in these areas. • Model -derived groundwater inflow from the ocean at Bolsa Gap was only 100- 200 afy due to the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, which offsets the Bolsa SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY aquifer and significantly restricts the inland migration of saline water across the fault. • Model adjustments (mainly hydraulic conductivity and recharge) in the Santiago Pits area in Orange significantly affected simulated water levels in the coastal areas. • Model reductions to the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 2 (Principal aquifer system) along the Peralta Hills Fault in Anaheim/Orange had the desired effect of steepening the gradient and restricting groundwater flow across the fault into the Orange area. These simulation results were consistent with observed hydrogeologic data indicating that the Peralta Hills Fault acts as a partial groundwater barrier. • Potential unmapped faults immediately downgradient from the Santiago Pits appear to restrict groundwater flow in the Principal aquifer system, as evidenced by observed steep gradients in that area, which were reproduced by the model. As with the Peralta Hills Fault, an approximate order -of - magnitude reduction in hydraulic conductivity along these suspected faults achieved the desired effect of reproducing observed water levels with the model. 2.8.2 MODEL ADVISORY PANEL The model development and calibration process was regularly presented to and reviewed by a Model Advisory Panel. This technical panel consisted of four groundwater modeling experts who were familiar with the basin and highly qualified to provide insight and guidance during the model construction and calibration process. Twelve panel meetings were held between 1999 and 2002. The panel was tasked with providing written independent assessments of the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity and usefulness of the model in evaluating various basin management alternatives. Two memoranda were prepared: one at the completion of the steady-state model calibration and steady-state scenarios (Harley et al., 1999) and one at the completion of the transient model calibration and initial transient basin operational scenarios (Harley et al., 2001). Key conclusions and findings of the panel regarding the transient model are summarized below. • Transient modeling has substantially improved the overall understanding of processes and conditions that determine how and why the basin reacts to pumping and recharge. This improved understanding, coupled with the model's ability to simulate existing and possible future facilities and alternative operations, significantly improves the District's potential ability to enhance and actively manage basin water resources. • Modeling has helped verify major elements of the basin conceptual model and has been instrumental in clarifying: o Variations in the annual water balance o Hydrostratigraphy of the basin o Horizontal flow between basin subareas SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY o The potential degree of interconnection and magnitude of vertical flow between major aquifers o The potential hydraulic significance of the Peralta Hills Fault in the Anaheim Forebay o Variations in aquifer hydraulic properties o The relative significance of engineered versus natural recharge and groundwater outflow within the basin o Numerous other issues and conditions. • The ability of the model to simulate known and projected future conditions will evolve and improve as new data become available and updated calibration runs are completed. • Parameters used to set up the model appear to be within limits justified by known, estimated, and assumed subsurface conditions based upon available historic data. • Initial transient calibration completed using a nine-year calibration period (1990-1999) is considered adequate to confirm the initial validity of the model for use in evaluating a variety of potential future projects and conditions. • Areas of the basin that could benefit from future exploration, testing, monitoring, analysis and/or additional model calibration were identified. • The model is not considered appropriate for assessing detailed local impacts related to new recharge facilities or well fields. These impacts should be assessed using more detailed local submodels and by conducting detailed field studies. • The model does not, nor is it intended to, address water supply availability, cost, water quality, or land subsidence. Recommendations of the panel included suggestions that thorough documentation be prepared on model configuration and calibration and that the model calibration period be extended as new data become available. 2.8.3 TALBERT GAP MODEL Between 1999 and 2000, CICWD contracted with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. to develop a detailed groundwater flow model of the Talbert Gap and surrounding area for the purpose of evaluating and estimating the amount and location of fresh water injection wells needed to control seawater intrusion under current and projected future basin conditions. The Talbert Gap modeling effort was undertaken as part of the design scope of work for Phase 1 of the GWR System, which included expansion of the existing Talbert Barrier. The configuration and initial calibration of the Talbert Gap Model and further model refinement and calibration were documented by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (2000, 2003). Consistent with the Basin Model Advisory Panel's findings, CICWD determined that a more detailed model of the Talbert Gap was necessary to evaluate the local water level changes associated with various potential injection barrier alignments and flow rates. The Talbert model comprises an area of 85 square miles, 13 Layers (seven aquifers SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY and six aquitards), and 509,000 grid cells (250 feet x 250 feet horizontal dimensions). Figures 2-20 and 2-21 show the model area and layering schematic, respectively. FIGURE 2-20 TALBERT GAP MODEL AND BASIN MODEL BOUNDARIES W-� �E 0 10.000 20.004 Feet •;.,r,ie s.ed,.•ar ::..r. yr.a�lF,i by YHO.MAS EROS MAPS 0 V homes pros Meps wf rq"s reserved Talbert Gap Model Boundary Basin Model Boundary �� OGwD Boundary SECTION 2 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY FIGURE 2-21 TALBERT GAP MODEL AQUIFER LAYERING SCHEMATIC f Pacific Ocean Talbert Barrier ft Aquifer Name talber Moolsa alpha beta lambda omicronfupper rho main lower main aquitard 5,000 ft �r Key findings of the Talbert Gap model are summarized below. ,000 • Depending on the amount of basin production, particularly near the Talbert Barrier, 30 mgd (approximately 34,000 afy) of injection will substantially raise water levels, yet may not be sufficient to fully prevent seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap. Additional injection wells beyond those planned for Phase 1 of the GWR System may be required. • Under projected 2020 conditions, the future Talbert Barrier may require an annual average injection rate of up to 45 mgd based on the results of existing analyses. This estimated future injection requirement will be further evaluated as additional data are collected. • The Talbert model inland boundaries do not coincide with hydrologic or geologic features, e.g., recharge area, faults. Therefore, simulated water levels are highly influenced by the time -varying water levels specified along the boundaries. For future Talbert model predictive runs, the basin model should be used to generate water levels that can then be specified along the inland Talbert model boundaries. • The Talbert model was less sensitive to adjustment hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient than the basin model, primarily because of the stronger influence of the specified -head boundaries in the Talbert model. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING OCWD conducts a comprehensive monitoring program of the groundwater basin and surface water supplies in the watershed to properly manage water supplies and to safeguard the basin's water quality. This section describes OCWD's basin monitoring programs, including the following: • Groundwater monitoring locations; • Water sample collection and analysis procedures; • Monitoring of production rates, groundwater elevation, groundwater quality, and recharge water quality; and • Seawater intrusion monitoring and prevention. 3.1 Introduction For its size, the Orange County groundwater basin is one of the world's most extensively monitored. The District's comprehensive monitoring program tracks dynamic basin conditions including groundwater production, storage, elevations, and water quality. OCWD's monitoring program has helped improve groundwater management throughout the basin by: • Establishing on an annual basis the safe and sustainable level of groundwater production. • Determining the extent of seawater intrusion and subsequently building improvements to seawater barriers to prevent and reverse such intrusion. • Discovering areas of groundwater contamination to protect public health and beneficial use of groundwater, and to begin remediation efforts at an early stage. • Assuring that the groundwater basin is managed in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. 3.2 Collection and Management of Monitoring Data Data are collected through a vast network of production and monitoring wells at frequencies necessary for short- and long-term trend analyses. The wells are located throughout the basin to enable not only analysis of the basin as a whole but also to focus on local or sub -regional investigations. Multi -depth monitoring wells provide depth -specific water level and quality data allowing analysis of the basin's multiple - aquifer configuration. The network of nearly 700 municipal drinking water, private domestic, industrial, irrigation, and monitoring wells is used to collect data for a variety of purposes. A list of SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING each OCWD monitoring well with well type, cased depth, and top and bottom perforation is shown in Appendix E. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of over 200 production wells that extract groundwater for municipal use. Monthly individual well production rates for large -capacity wells have been collected since 1988. Monitoring wells, shown in Figure 3-2, are operated by OCWD to supplement the water quality data collected at production wells and to fill data gaps. FIGURE 3-1 PRODUCTION WELL LOCATIONS 04 .�,,.•: 41 v u� Q �= "Ci , o- -4T?. . OOm� - r �^ �r S 0 10.000 20.001) Feet .. ..-,i with p®tm."s a, 9,W ad py THOMAS WiOS MAPS XT ho. n Bras M.Fip6 AN ngMs ras .d fi Active Large -System Production Well 9 Active Small -System Production Well 0CW© Boundary SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING FIGURE 3-2 OCWD MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS N W'� n G S 0 110.000 20,000 Feet Rlpvdeod with mmin swn 9—t -J Fey rHOMA5 EROS. M*P9 S Vhf m" Faros Mdpa'. AW nghta W -0d. f OCWD Monitoring Weld ♦ OCWD Multiport Monitoring Wel +7_~ OCWC3 Boundar L�.i Y Note: Monitoring wells constructed and/or owned by other entities besides OCWD are not shown. Data collected in OCWD's monitoring program are stored in the District's electronic database, the Water Resources Management System (WRMS). WRMS contains comprehensive well information, current and historical data, as well as information on sub -surface geology, groundwater modeling, and water quality. This database provides for subsequent retrieval and analysis of data or preparation of data reports and data submittals to other agencies. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3.3 Water Sample Collection and Analysis OCWD's laboratory is state -certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses (see Figure 3-3). The District utilizes state -certified contractor laboratories to analyze asbestos, dioxin, and radiological samples. Analytical methods approved by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are used for analyzing water quality samples for the drinking water compliance program. As new chemicals are regulated, the OCWD laboratory develops the analytical capability and becomes certified in the approved method to process compliance samples. The amount of samples taken is dynamic, ranging from 600 to 1,700 samples in any given month. Water quality samples are collected in the field in accordance with approved federal and state procedures and industry -recognized quality assurance and control protocols to ensure that sampled water is representative of ambient groundwater (or surface water) conditions. Water samples are collected in method -specific containers, stored in coolers at approximately 4°C, and delivered to state -certified laboratories, researchers, or contract laboratories for analysis. The majority of samples are delivered to the laboratory on the day of sample collection. When samples must be shipped, they are sent overnight for next -day delivery. Site conditions, field measurements of selected water quality parameters (temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, and dissolved oxygen), and other relevant sample observations are recorded in field notebooks at each sampling location, and a chain -of -custody form is completed for each sample collected per site. Sampling occurs in a variety of terrains and occasionally in inclement weather and outside normal business hours. FIGURE 3-3 OCWD's STATE CERTIFIED NEW LABORATORY SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING FIGURE 3-4 THREE COMMON MONITORING WELL DESIGNS Westbay Nested Well Production wells that provide water for Multipoint Well Well Cluster drinking water, irrigation/agriculture, and industrial uses generally have well screens located in the permeable, �• f• f f f f• r• f water -bearing zones that may tap multiple aquifers. Therefore, water quality samples collected from these wells may represent water from one or more aquifers; some permeable zones fti• f�. tiftiftiftif ;f f�. f may provide greater contribution than f�• f�: tiftiftiftif .f f�: .f 1, others to the overall water sample. In contrast, monitoring wells are designed and constructed with well f. f.. •.f.f.f.f.f.f.f f.. screens placed at a specific depth and ,.1. ti ,titititi1.1.1. 1, ti ff f f f f f f f f f length to provide water quality at . f.f.f.f.f.f.f f.. desired zones within an aquifer. Figure 3-4 illustrates the three monitoring well designs used for basinwide water quality monitoring activities: multi -point, nested, and cluster. The multi -point well is a Westbay well design that contains a single casing with sampling ports located at specific depths in the underlying aquifers (Figure 3-5). Individual sampling points are hydraulically separated by packers. A computer-assisted sampling probe is used to collect a water sample at the desired depth. The sampling port has direct hydraulic connection between the port and the aquifer, allowing groundwater to flow into a detachable stainless steel sample container. OCWD has more than 50 multi -point wells ranging from a few hundred feet to over 2,000 feet in depth. FIGURE 3-5 MULTIPORT WELL DESIGN DETAIL SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING A nested well design consists of a single borehole with individual monitoring wells screened at specific depths and completed in the borehole. A cluster is represented by individual monitoring wells completed with single casings at targeted depths within close proximity of each other. A "single point" monitoring well is one individual monitoring well that typically is screened over about 10 to 30 feet of sediments. The primary difference between the multi -point wells and the nested, cluster or single -point monitoring wells is the method of sample collection. Westbay multi -point wells do not require purging of groundwater prior to sample collection. In contrast, single point monitoring wells use a submersible pump to purge groundwater from the well and the surrounding formation until "ambient" or steady state conditions are obtained as determined by steady, continuous field measurements of pH, electrical conductivity, and temperature. Between forty to nearly 2,000 gallons of groundwater may be purged from a monitoring well prior to sample collection. Generally, a truck equipped with one or more submersible pumps and a portable generator is used to purge and sample groundwater from single -point monitoring wells. Portable submersible pump and reel systems provide additional flexibility to increase the efficiency of sampling monitoring wells without dedicated pumps. One truck is outfitted with a dual system of submersible pumps and environmental hoses installed separately on hydraulic booms to sample two wells simultaneously (see Figure 3-6). FIGURE 3-6 DUAL Boom WATER QUALITY SAMPLING VEHICLE SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3.4 Production and Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Approximately 200 large -capacity municipal supply wells account for 97 percent of production. Large -capacity well owners, who are required by the District Act to report to OCWD every six months, voluntarily report monthly groundwater production for each of their wells. The production volumes are verified by OCWD field staff. Data are used to assess the Replenishment Assessment, quantify total basin pumping, calibrate the basin model described in Section 2.8, and to evaluate seasonal groundwater level fluctuations. As an example, Figure 3-7 illustrates seasonal groundwater production trends in three municipal wells. FIGURE 3-7 EXAMPLES OF SEASONAL WELL PUMPING PATTERNS 600 500 400 Groundwater Production per 300 Month (AF) 200 0 L� 2004 IRWD-C8 ■ GG 22 * _ - �� 0-25 ---------------- ------ 1 i �i ------- ---- i�llrN Heti r - - � 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Groundwater elevation (or level) data are measured at least semi-annually at nearly every production and monitoring well. Over 1,000 individual measurement points are monitored for water levels on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate short-term effects of pumping or recharge operations. More frequent water level measurements are collected at selected monitoring wells in the vicinity of OCWD's recharge facilities, seawater barriers, and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts, or contamination are of concern. The number of municipal wells that are monitored varies from year to year depending on well maintenance, abandonment, new well construction, and related factors. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3.5 Water Quality Monitoring In 2008, nearly 14,000 groundwater samples were collected and analyzed to comply with state and federal regulations and to enable OCWD to monitor the water quality of the basin. OCWD conducts the EPA/CDPH compliance sampling and reporting for Producers wells. The number of water quality samples varies each year in response to regulatory requirements and to gain a better understanding of the basin, as shown in Figure 3-8. A summary of the well types, the number of wells, and the number of sample points is presented in Table 3-1. FIGURE 3-8 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE SITE SAMPLES COLLECTED BY OCWD 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Number of $ 000 Samples 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Well Type e �' �1 e �� ':p ebb\ '�b '�-' O" O^ & 03 Off` p O`O p, O� CALENDAR YEAR TABLE 3-1 DISTRIBUTION OF WELLS IN BASINWIDE MONITORING PROGRAM Drinking Water Wells Industrial And Irrigation wells OCWD Monitoring Wells (excluding seawater monitoring) OCWD Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells Total No. of No. of Wells Individual Sample Points 228 228 123 123 254 728 93 244 698 1323 SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING Samples collected throughout the basin are used to monitor the impacts of basin extraction, determine the effectiveness of the seawater intrusion barriers, assess the impacts of historic and current land uses, and serve as a sentinel or early warning of emerging contaminants of concern. The District's comprehensive water quality monitoring programs fall roughly into three categories: (1) compliance with permits and drinking water regulations, (2) OCWD Board approved projects for research and other purposes, and (3) basin management. 3.5.1 DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs the EPA to set health -based standards (maximum contaminant levels or MCLs) for drinking water to protect public health against both naturally -occurring and man-made contaminants. EPA administers the SDWA at the federal level and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, inorganic, organic, and radiological constituents (U.S. Code Title 42, and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40). California administers and enforces the federal program and has adopted its own SDWA, which may contain more stringent state requirements (California Health and Safety Code, Section 116350 and related sections). The regulations implementing the California SDWA are referred to as the Title 22 Drinking Water Standards. Since the 1970s, the number of chemicals regulated in groundwater sources has increased more than four -fold. OCWD monitors more than 100 regulated and unregulated chemicals at a specified monitoring frequency established by regulation as shown in Table 3-2. Typically, about one-third of the drinking water wells are sampled every year for general minerals, metals, and secondary MCL constituents (color, odor, TDS, sodium, chloride, alkalinity, etc.). VOCs and nitrate are sampled annually at every well. Quarterly monitoring is required if VOCs are detected or if nitrate concentrations exceed 50 percent of the MCL. In addition, OCWD monitors wells routinely for selected chemicals on the unregulated lists, chemicals with Notification Levels, or new chemicals of concern. Analyses for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) including tests for herbicides, pesticides, plasticizers, and other semi -volatile organics require use of twelve or more analytical methods. Newly -constructed wells are monitored for SOCs for four consecutive quarters to provide seasonal data for CDPH to assess the long-term monitoring frequency in their vulnerability assessment. In addition to the regulated chemicals, both EPA and the CDPH require monitoring for unregulated chemicals. Unregulated chemicals do not have an established drinking water standard, but are new priority chemicals of concern. Monitoring provides information regarding their occurrence and levels detected in drinking water supply wells as the first assessment step to determine if the establishment of a standard (MCL) is necessary. Wells must be sampled twice within twelve months to comply with the unregulated chemical monitoring rules. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING TABLE 3-2 MONITORING OF REGULATED AND UNREGULATED CHEMICALS DPH Title 22 Drinking Water Monitoring Frequency -- Regulated Chemicals Chemical Class Frequency Monitoring Notes do - Trace Metals Once eve 3 years and nitrite Annually New wells samDled auarteriv for 1st Perchlorate Detected > 50% MCL Detected > DLR I New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year Quarterly (Detection limit = 4 DDb Non -detect at < DLR Once every 3 years ' _ chemicals (VOC) Annually New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year DHS : 4 -Inorganic and 5 -organic chemicals EPA UCMR1 - List 1: 1 -Inorganic and Two required samples: 10 -organic chemicals (1) Vulnerable period: May -Jun -Jul -Aug -Sep (2) 5 to 7 months before or EPA UCM R1 - List 2: 13 -Organic after the sample collected in chemicals the vulnerable period. No EPA UCMR2 - List 1: 10 organic further testing after chemicals completing the two required sampling events EPA UCM R2 -List 2: 15 organic chemicals Monitoring completed for existing wells in 2001- 2003; new wells tested during 1 st year All water utilities serving >10,000 people. Monitoring period: 2008- 2010 All water utilities serving population >100,000 and EPA selected systems serving <100,000 population. Monitoring period: 2008- 2010 3.5.2 MONITORING FOR CONTAMINANTS IN THE BASIN Comments OCWD will monitor at least Reduced monitoring after initial year Reduced monitoring after initial year i DHS UCMR - required testing for all new wells EPA UCMR1 - no longer required by EPA; sampling period was 2001-2003; received waiver April '08 from DPH of non vulnerable so no further testing required. New wells were being tested since 2001 to Apr. 08 (waiver granted by DPH) Current EPA program: Jan 2008 - Dec. 2010 OCWD has taken a proactive role in monitoring the basin for VOCs for over twenty years. This extensive monitoring program that tests agricultural, industrial, private, and domestic wells, led to the discovery of the EI Toro MCAS solvent plume, discussed in Section 5.5. In response to the detection of VOCs in Anaheim and Fullerton over 100 monitoring wells, many in cluster well configuration were drilled to provide a broad range of monitoring points to define the areal extent of VOC contamination. Monitoring wells are sampled as frequently as quarterly in areas of localized high concentrations of solvents and annually at other locations. Other chemicals are added to the monitoring program when concern arises. In the case of the North Basin New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year; if organic chemicals (SOC non -detect, susceptibility waiver for 3 years Atrazine and simazine Once every 3 years New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year (initial screening) to determine reduced ical monitoring frequency for each radionuclide letected at> 1/2 MCL < MCL Once every 3 years Per radionuclide Detected at < 1/2 MCL Once every 6ye2rs Per radionuclide Non -detect at < DLR Once every 9 years Per radionuclide EPA and DPH Unregulated Chemicals DHS : 4 -Inorganic and 5 -organic chemicals EPA UCMR1 - List 1: 1 -Inorganic and Two required samples: 10 -organic chemicals (1) Vulnerable period: May -Jun -Jul -Aug -Sep (2) 5 to 7 months before or EPA UCM R1 - List 2: 13 -Organic after the sample collected in chemicals the vulnerable period. No EPA UCMR2 - List 1: 10 organic further testing after chemicals completing the two required sampling events EPA UCM R2 -List 2: 15 organic chemicals Monitoring completed for existing wells in 2001- 2003; new wells tested during 1 st year All water utilities serving >10,000 people. Monitoring period: 2008- 2010 All water utilities serving population >100,000 and EPA selected systems serving <100,000 population. Monitoring period: 2008- 2010 3.5.2 MONITORING FOR CONTAMINANTS IN THE BASIN Comments OCWD will monitor at least Reduced monitoring after initial year Reduced monitoring after initial year i DHS UCMR - required testing for all new wells EPA UCMR1 - no longer required by EPA; sampling period was 2001-2003; received waiver April '08 from DPH of non vulnerable so no further testing required. New wells were being tested since 2001 to Apr. 08 (waiver granted by DPH) Current EPA program: Jan 2008 - Dec. 2010 OCWD has taken a proactive role in monitoring the basin for VOCs for over twenty years. This extensive monitoring program that tests agricultural, industrial, private, and domestic wells, led to the discovery of the EI Toro MCAS solvent plume, discussed in Section 5.5. In response to the detection of VOCs in Anaheim and Fullerton over 100 monitoring wells, many in cluster well configuration were drilled to provide a broad range of monitoring points to define the areal extent of VOC contamination. Monitoring wells are sampled as frequently as quarterly in areas of localized high concentrations of solvents and annually at other locations. Other chemicals are added to the monitoring program when concern arises. In the case of the North Basin SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING Groundwater Protection Project, described in Section 5.8, OCWD monitors for VOCs, 1,4 -dioxane, and other constituents. Monitoring gaps for regulated and unregulated chemicals occur in areas within Irvine where drinking water wells were not operating on a regular basis. OCWD's fills the data gaps with the non -potable well monitoring program. Monitoring wells and accessible agricultural wells are sampled for volatile organics, general minerals, and selected chemicals of concern to provide water quality information in this area of the basin. 3.6 Seawater Intrusion Monitoring and Prevention Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones along coastal Orange County is a major basin management issue. Seawater encroachment also represents a key factor in determining the basin operating range in terms of the maximum accumulated overdraft. Besides seawater intrusion, other identified sources of coastal groundwater salinity include connate water (water trapped in the pore spaces of sediments at the time of deposition) and brines disposed of at the ground surface during past oil production (Poland et al., 1956; DWR, 1961; DWR, 1968; J.M. Montgomery, 1974). The primary avenues for seawater intrusion into the basin are permeable sediments underlying topographic lowlands or "gaps" between the erosional remnants or "mesas" of the Newport -Inglewood Uplift, as shown in Figure 3-9. The susceptible locations are the Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos Gaps. Seawater intrusion through the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps is controlled via the operation of seawater barriers consisting of injection wells. The Alamitos Barrier has been operated since 1965 under a joint funding agreement between OCWD and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) and a joint management committee consisting of OCWD, LACDPW, and other local stakeholders including the Water Replenishment District, City of Long Beach, and Golden State Water Company. OCWD has operated the Talbert Seawater Barrier since 1975. Flow and pressure readings are used to maximize total injection without over pressurizing the wells. A coastal seawater monitoring program assesses the effectiveness of the Alamitos and Talbert Barriers and tracks salinity levels in the Bolsa and Sunset Gaps. Over 425 monitoring and production wells are sampled semi-annually to assess water quality conditions during periods of lowest production (winter) and peak demands (summer). Monthly water levels are measured in many of the coastal wells to evaluate seasonal effects of pumping and the operation of the injection barrier. A small subset of coastal wells is equipped with pressure transducers and data loggers for twice daily measurement and recording of water level conditions. Key groundwater monitoring parameters used to determine the effectiveness of the barriers include water level elevations, chloride, TDS, electrical conductivity, and bromide. Groundwater elevation contours for the aquifers most susceptible to seawater intrusion are prepared to evaluate the freshwater mound developed by the barrier injection wells and to determine if it is sufficient to prevent the inland movement of saline water. The Talbert Gap chloride concentration contours shown in Figure 3-10 illustrate both the historical inland progression of groundwater salinity and its recent SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING reversal due to injecting large volumes of water and basin management practices employed in the last four years. FIGURE 3-9 SEAWATER BARRIER LOCATIONS 1900 W E 5,000 10,000 Feet THI-YMA,13 BROS MAPS* 1ZTh,,,m"8r0$ MRps NirightgrnzOrwd 4 Active Large -System Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well 0 Multiport Monitoring Well .0w Pathway Of Seawater Intrusion • 'ALAMITOS ti BARRIER N", Alamitos 'A" tit Ile Gap , 1; fo, 1i andin 6i Sunset Gap\L 1301sa Gap Huntington Beach r;t r"a TALBERT BARRIER 'YA1 t±3 ff Newport Mesa Talbert 1900 W E 5,000 10,000 Feet THI-YMA,13 BROS MAPS* 1ZTh,,,m"8r0$ MRps NirightgrnzOrwd 4 Active Large -System Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well 0 Multiport Monitoring Well .0w Pathway Of Seawater Intrusion SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING FIGURE 3-10 LANDWARD MOVEMENT OF 250 MG/L CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR t ti c • e Mesa ©CWD-BS02 LISM-HB- • y , Bolsa TALBERT BARRIER, Il rTI= "V Gap �u .+ + • Huntington Beach Mesa A 00 N S 0 5.000 10,000 Feet raspindacad with pernassiun grwtv4 byTHOMM W405 "SO PThamos Bros Maps 9 ri9Ms.d P—d 04 4,(..,2CO 2009 •,' ._,.._. 1998 ;1993 NeYwpor' 1p Active Large -System Production Well ■ Injection Well Monitoring Well f Multipor# Monitoring Well 250 mglL Chloride Concentration Countours Index f Questionable Index In addition to contour maps, OCWD staff prepares and reviews chloride concentration trends at individual wells to identify and evaluate intrusion in specific aquifer zones, Chloride concentration trend charts for two of those wells are shown in Figure 3-11 with their locations shown in Figure 3-10. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING FIGURE 3-11 EXAMPLE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION TREND CHARTS DOMESTIC WELL LIBM-HB NEAR BEACH BLVD. AND TALBERT AVE., HUNTINGTON BEACH 500 E 400 s= b 300 L U 0 200 („ 3 rU L 0 100 U Borehole Depth. 4601# bgs (Alpha Aquifer) Chloride Secondary prinAkrrr2 Water Standard = 2f TVIL _ _L 0 L-- I I 1 1 i i i I i i I I i 1 i i i i i i 1 1 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CALENDAR YEAR MONITORING WELL OCWD BSO -2/1 BOLSA CHICA AREA, NEAR WINTERSBURG CHANNEL 8000 J 6000 0 to L COD 4000 t, c 0 A" ar ' 2000 0 Screened Interval: 44-106 ftWs (Bolsa -Omicron) 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 CALENDAR YEAR SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3.7 Monitoring Quality of Recharge Water OCWD conducts an extensive program to monitor the quality of the water recharged into the groundwater basin. This includes monitoring of the Santa Ana River surface water and other recharge water supplies. 3.7.1 SANTA ANA RIVER WATER QUALITY Since the quality of the surface water that is used for recharge may affect groundwater quality, a routine monitoring program is maintained to continually assess ambient river water quality conditions. Characterizing the quality of the Santa Ana River and its impact on the basin is necessary to verify the sustainability of continued use of river water for recharge and to safeguard a high-quality drinking water supply for Orange County. On-going monthly surface water monitoring of the Santa Ana River is conducted at Imperial Highway near the diversion of the river to the off -river recharge basins and at a site below Prado Dam. Sampling frequencies for selected river sites and recharge basins are shown in Table 3-3. TABLE 3-3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING FREQUENCY WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY Volatile organic compounds (VOC) SAR Below SAR Anaheim Kraemer/ Category Imperial compounds (SOC) Miller Q Dam Hwy Lake Basin General Minerals M M M Q Nutrients M M M Q Metals Q Q Q Q Microbial M M M M Volatile organic compounds (VOC) M M M Q Semi -volatile organic compounds (SOC) Q Q Q Q Total organic halides (TOX) M M M Radioactivity Q Q Q Q Perchlorate M M M Q Chlorate M M M Q Iodine Q Q NDMA Formation Potential (NDMA-FP) Q Q M = monthly, Q = quarterly Note: NDMA-FP and iodine are focused testing initiated in late 2007 and will continue through 2009. Data will be reviewed to determine if monitoring should continue or incorporated into the long-term monitoring program. SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING General minerals, nutrients, and selected other constituents are monitored monthly, and radioactivity constituents, metals, volatile organics, and semi -volatile organics (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) are monitored quarterly. Several points on the river and key tributaries to the river above Prado Dam, as shown in Figure 3-12 are also monitored annually for general minerals and nutrients. FIGURE 3-12 OCWD SURFACE WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS ABOVE PRADO DAM SAR-BED F 5AR-1lUA -01 DEN WR Fd' .. ....... SAR-RIVERSIDEA41E ,r- RIVER.510ri:.-. d o -a c uiceirri "'� s� ! _ SAR- RIVER RD -01 \ _ .. . LI -TEM ESCAL-02 AVPRADCIDA.M r.y-x {'� r '�•L,,. .�- s 1� E f` 'S Feet OCWD Surface Water Monitoring Location Strum Gage Location SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 3.7.1.1 Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study In 2004, OCWD completed the Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health (SARWQH) study (OCWD, 2004). This voluntary study was conducted from 1994 to 2004 at a cost of $10 million. The study was initiated due to OCWD's concerns about the high percentage of treated wastewater discharges into the non -storm flows of the Santa Ana River. The goal of the SARWQH Study was to apply advanced water quality characterization methods to assess the quality of Santa Ana River water and the groundwater after Santa Ana River water is used to recharge the groundwater basin. The multi -disciplinary study design included an examination of hydrogeology, microbiology, inorganic and organic water chemistry, toxicology and public health. The organic water chemistry component included an analysis of trace (low concentration) constituents and dissolved organic compound (DOC) characterization. Analyses and research in the SARWQH Study were conducted by scientists, researchers, and water quality experts from numerous organizations, including Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USGS, Oregon State University, and Metropolitan Water District. The results of this extensive study confirmed that current recharge practices using Santa Ana River water are protective of public health. Findings from the SARWQH Study provided information necessary for the planning and permitting of other OCWD projects, such as the GWR System. Results are also helping to shape the CDPH proposed regulations for groundwater recharge. At the request of OCWD, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) conducted an independent review of the results from the SARWQH Study. NWRI assembled a group of experts in the fields of hydrogeology, water chemistry, microbiology, and the other requisite fields to form the Scientific Advisory Panel. This Panel met annually during the study to review the results and provide recommendations on future work. The panel also prepared a final report (NWRI, 2004) that concluded: "Based on the scientific data collected during the SARWQH Study, the Panel found that: • The SAR met all water -quality standards and guidelines that have been published for inorganic and organic contaminants in drinking water. • No chemicals of wastewater origin were identified at concentrations that are of public health concern in the SAR, in water in the infiltration basins, or in nearby groundwaters. The constituents that were considered included non-regulated chemicals (e.g., pharmaceutically active chemicals) and contaminants of concern that arose during the course of the SARWQH study (e.g., n-Nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]). The unprecedented classification of the major components of DOC and the transformations that occur within these chemical classes as water moves downstream and into the aquifer provided significant new evidence to support the conclusion that the product water is suitable for potable SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING consumption and is also becoming comparable to other sources of drinking water, such as the Colorado River, in its organic profile." 3.7.2 REPLENISHMENT WATER FROM METROPOLITAN When the District purchases replenishment water from Metropolitan and it is delivered at Anaheim Lake, the water is blended with Santa Ana River water. OCWD samples this blended water for general minerals, nutrients, and other selected constituents. The District may also sample for radioactive constituents, metals, volatile organics, and semi -volatile organics (e.g., pesticides and herbicides). 3.7.3 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM Recharge water produced by the GWR System is extensively monitored daily, weekly, and quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbiological constituents as shown in Table 3-4. Focused research -type testing has been conducted on organic contaminants and selected microbial species (i.e., protozoa, coliphage, etc.) TABLE 3-4 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM PRODUCT WATER QUALITY MONITORING Category General Minerals Nitrogen Species (NO3, NO2, NH3, Org-N) and TDS Metals Inorganic chemicals Microbial Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Non-volatile synthetic organic compounds (SOCs) Disinfection Byproducts Radioactivity D = Daily, W = twice weekly, M = monthly, Q = quarterly, Testing Frequency M W Q Q D D Q Q Q After the GWR System water is recharged, the water is monitored in the groundwater basin. The District uses an array of monitoring wells in the Talbert Gap and in Anaheim to monitor the water quality. As part of the construction of the GWR System, three new monitoring wells were constructed to complement the District's existing monitoring wells network. 3.7.4 INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING As part of its recharge water quality monitoring program, the District monitors groundwater quality at selected monitoring wells downgradient of the recharge facilities where the subsurface rate of travel of recharge water is known. These wells provide an indication of groundwater quality as recharge water flows away from the recharge SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING basins. Recharge water samples are collected in coordination with these targeted groundwater samples so that the changes in water quality with time after recharge can be assessed. This allows for evaluations of water quality for parameters such as nitrate as the water is infiltrated and subsequently flows in the subsurface. This integration of groundwater and surface water monitoring was established based on recharge water tracer studies conducted with water recharge at Anaheim Lake, Kraemer Basin, and the Santa Ana River (Clark et. al, 2004). 3.8 Publication of Data In addition to collecting and managing data in the District's WRMS as described previously in this section, OCWD analyzes and reports data in a number of regular publications as shown in Table 3-5 below. TABLE 3-5 DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING Report Frequency of Contents Publication Engineer's Report on the Basin hydrology, groundwater conditions, Groundwater Conditions, total groundwater production, groundwater Water Supply and Basin Annual levels, coastal groundwater conditions, Utilization in the Orange calculation of basin accumulated County Water District overdraft, supplemental water purchases; required by the District Act Santa Ana River Water Quality Annual Surface water quality data for the Santa Monitoring Report Ana River Groundwater Replenishment Data related to the operation of the System and Talbert Barrier Annual Groundwater Replenishment System and Report the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier; required by RWQCB permit Santa Ana River Watermaster Amounts of Santa Ana River flows at Report Annual Prado Dam and Riverside Narrows; required by 1969 stipulated judgment Total amount of managed recharge, Managed Aquifer Recharge Annual recharge data for each recharge basin, beginning 2009 sources of and quantities of recharge water supplies SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING This page left blank intentionally. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OCWD manages the District's recharge facilities to maximize groundwater recharge. Efficiently operating existing groundwater recharge basins and facilities and expanding recharge operations where feasible are major District objectives. This section: • Describes the operations of the OCWD recharge facilities; • Explains seawater intrusion barrier operations; and • Discusses the sources of recharge water supplies. 4.1 Recharge Operations Recharging water into the basin, through natural and artificial means, is essential to support pumping from the basin. Although the amount of recharge and total pumping may not be the same each year, over the long-term the amount of recharge needs to be similar to total pumping. The basin's primary source of water for groundwater recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River is the largest coastal stream in southern California with a length of 80 miles and a drainage area of 2,470 square miles (Blomquist, 1988). OCWD diverts river flows into recharge basins located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water supplies include natural recharge, recycled water, and imported water. OCWD currently operates 1,067 acres of recharge facilities located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. OCWD recharge facilities are shown in Figure 4-1. Active or managed recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the basin and, consequently, the serious threat of seawater intrusion contaminating groundwater. The first imported water used to recharge the basin was Colorado River water purchased from Metropolitan. In 1953, OCWD began making improvements in the Santa Ana River bed and areas adjacent to the river to increase recharge capacity. These improvements included modifying river channels and construction of off -channel recharge basins. Expansion of the recharge system has continued to the present time to the point where nearly all Santa Ana River non-stormflows are captured for recharge into the groundwater basin. Sources of recharge water have expanded to include water from Santiago Creek and purified water from the GWR System. The recharge system consists of a series of recharge basins, also called percolation or spreading basins, whose sidewalls and bottoms allow for percolation into the underlying aquifer. The rate at which water enters from the surface into the ground is the percolation rate (or recharge or infiltration rate). The percolation rate and how it changes through time is the main factor in determining the effectiveness of the recharge facilities. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 4-1 OCWD RECHARGE FACILITIES IN ANAHEIM AND ORANGE PdacenVa Basin 21W RBymand Sawn AnBFrr_rm P"Srni LaBe $naheim T 'hF7tar•. Laka � ,F a Js'ta Sasrr Censor C[° &sin i Foster- riraemer � �gnrockNr�kdsher+Y F'6'err Basi?— + •� "Ponds 44 c 1 L 0 6 n Mer a • t1'pper Fare Coves Basin 13 I -. .. LaverFrve ■ - Sawsadoo _- a Main River System Basins Basdna a- #, - ■ Off -River System Bonn- c■ 8asrn and Carbon Creek Diversion Channel, Olive Basin a Deep Basin System " E mt River �a v� •. Kraemer, 'Placentia, Raymond; and La Jolla Basins da Bassa �r ■ Upper Five Coves, Lower Five Caves, Lincoln, Burris, River View, Santa l ■ Smith - — - ■ - Sawsadoo _- a Main River System Basins Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue ■.. Basin a } - ■ Off -River System Bonn- Weir Ponds 1, 2; 3, and 4, Off -River Recharge Basin between Weir Pond 4 8asrn and Carbon Creek Diversion Channel, Olive Basin r r ■ r •Gt°� ■ � a ■ s y Recharge Facility - - GWRS Pipeline Main River System Recharge Water Pipeline Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue Forebay Recharge Structure - Inflatable Rubber Dam Off -River System - Transfer Tube Weir Ponds 1, 2; 3, and 4, Off -River Recharge Basin between Weir Pond 4 N and Carbon Creek Diversion Channel, Olive Basin Deep Basin System " E Huckleberry,. Conrock, Warner. Little Warner, Anaheim, Mini Anaheim, Miller, •. Kraemer, 'Placentia, Raymond; and La Jolla Basins Burris Basin/Santiago System S Upper Five Coves, Lower Five Caves, Lincoln, Burris, River View, 0 4.000 8,000 Blue Diamond, Bond, and Smith Basins Feet koprodu �dMth Da-9sim TanW by 1HOMAF OROS MAP'$ V Mromar, i3r Mn5 Al n'ght5 rem'.'ei SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Higher percolation rates allow a greater quantity of water to infiltrate into the groundwater basin. Percolation rates tend to decrease with time as the percolation basins develop a thin clogging layer on the basin bottom. The clogging layer develops from fine grain sediment deposition and from biological growth. Percolation rates are restored by mechanical removal of the clogging layer from the basins. Mechanical removal methods that are employed utilize heavy equipment such as dozers, scrapers, and other equipment. Additionally, basin cleaning vehicles are employed in selected basins. These basin cleaning vehicles operate while the basin is in operation. 4.1.1 Prado Basin The majority of water recharging the basin is Santa Ana River water that enters Orange County after flowing through the Prado Dam. The dam, shown in Figure 4-2, was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in 1941 "for flood control and other purposes." FIGURE 4-2 PRADO DAM AND OCWD PRADO WETLANDS SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT In the 1960s the ACOE began working with OCWD to conserve base and stormflows behind the dam in order to enable OCWD to divert flows into recharge facilities. In 1994, the ACOE adopted new dam operating procedures to increase water conservation (ACOE, 1994). During non -storm periods, the ACOE now releases water stored behind Prado Dam at rates compatible with OCWD's recharge capacity as long as the stored water does not compromise the use of the dam for flood control purposes. Although the District's recharge system has the capacity to capture all Santa Ana River baseflows released through the Prado Dam, stormflows occasionally exceed the diversion capacity. OCWD continuously works with the ACOE to manage flow rates in order to maximize the recharge of stormflows. A new Memorandum of Agreement between OCWD and the ACOE, executed in 2006, authorized a four -foot increase in the maximum winter pool elevation. Water now can be stored temporarily behind Prado Dam up to an elevation of 498 feet mean sea level during the flood season, and up to an elevation of 505 feet during the non -flood season, as shown in Figure 4.3. FIGURE 4-3 MAXIMUM CONSERVATION STORAGE ELEVATIONS ALLOWED BEHIND PRADO DAM n sz�0 ,, n, r' S PRA DO Non -storm Season DAM Elevahon = 50514. Storage udurns = 28,000 ai Recharge Storm Season Facilities Elevation = 498 8. Storage Volume= ld.ON ai 4.1.2 Recharge Facilities in Anaheim and Orange Prada Basin The District operates 30 recharge facilities in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County. These facilities, listed in Table 4-1, have a combined total storage volume of approximately 26,000 af. For descriptive purposes, they are grouped into four major components: the Main River System, the Off -River System, the Deep Basin System, and the Burris Basin/Santiago System. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT TABLE 4-1 AREA AND STORAGE CAPACITIES OF RECHARGE FACILITIES Wetted Max. Storage Facility Area Capacity (1) (acres) (af) Anaheim Lake 72 2,260 Burris Basin 120 2,670 Conrock Basin 25 1,070 Five Coves Basin: Lower 16 182 Five Coves Basin: U peer 15 164 Foster -Huckleberry Basin 21 630 Kraemer Basin 31 1,170 La Jolla Basin 6.5 26 Lincoln Basin 10 60 LittFe Warner Basin 11 225 Miller Basin (2) 25 300 Mini -Anaheim Lake 5 13 Off -River Channel: Olive Basin -Carbon Creek Diversion 42 N/A Off -River Channel: Weir Pond 4 -Olive Basin 47 N/A Olive Basin 5.8 122 Placentia Basin (2) 9 350 Raymond Basin (2) 19 370 River View Basin 3.6 11 Santa Ana River: Ball Road - Orangewood Ave. 59 N/A Santa Ana River: Five Coves Dam -Ball Road 74 _ N/A Santa Ana River: Imperial Hwy -Five Coves Dam 158 N/A Santiago Basins: Bond Basin 86 8,380 Santiago Basins: Blue Diamond Basin 79 5,020 Santiago Basins: Smith Basin 22 320 Santiago Creek: Santiago Basins -Hart Park (3) 2.6 N/A Warner Basin 70 2,620 Weir Pond 1 6 28 Weir Pond 2 9 42 Weir Pond 3 14 160 Weir Pond 4 4 22 Totals 1,067 26,215 Notes: 1. Maximum (Max.) storage capacity is typically not achieved for most facilities due to need to reserve buffer space for system flow and level fluctuations. 2. Owned by Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). Max. storage capacity shown is maximum flood control storage. 3. Various owners, including OCFCD, City of Orange, and Metropolitan. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4.1.2.1 Main River System Water released at the Prado Dam naturally flows downstream and percolates through the river's 300-400 foot wide unlined channel bottom that consists of sandy, permeable sediment. The Main River System consists of approximately 291 acres along a six -mile reach of the Santa Ana River Channel, just west of Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue. Downstream of Orangewood Avenue shallow, low -permeability clay layers reduce the ability to recharge river water. The upstream portion of the Main River System begins at the Imperial Inflatable Dam. The Imperial Inflatable Dam and Bypass Structure is one of the District's key control structures. It allows the District to divert Santa Ana River water from the Main River System into the Off -River System. The Imperial Inflatable Dam, installed in 1993, is seven feet in diameter and 300 feet long, as shown in Figure 4-4. It is constructed of rubberized fabric that is inflated with air. When the stormflow rate exceeds approximately 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), the dam is deflated and only minimal water can be diverted for recharge. During some flow conditions, from 1,000-2,000 cfs, the dam is partially inflated, allowing some diversion for recharge and the remainder of the water to flow over the dam. FIGURE 4-4 INFLATABLE DAM ON THE SANTA ANA RIVER The pooled water behind the inflated dam flows through the bypass structure on the north side of the river. The bypass structure includes a series of steel gates leading to conduits that divert up to 550 cfs of water into the Off -River System. Water passes through trash racks to keep debris out and then flows into Weir Pond 1. .-` OCWD maximizes recharge in the Main River System by bulldozing a series of sand levees in the river, as shown in Figure 4-5. These levees allow greater percolation by increasing the residence time of water in the permeable section of the river and by spreading the water across the width of the river to maximize the wetted surface area. Typically, water flows at a velocity sufficient to prevent the accumulation of fine sediment and biological growth. The riverbed is also cleaned naturally, when winter and spring stormflows wash out the levees and scour the bottom. When necessary, heavy equipment is used to move sediments in order to restore the high percolation rate. Sand levees remain intact until flows exceed approximately 350 cfs, at which time they erode and water flows from bank to bank in the riverbed. Although percolation is believed to remain high during these high flow conditions, rates are difficult to measure. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 4-5 SAND LEVEES IN THE SANTA ANA RIVER 4.1.2.2 Off -River System The Santa Ana River bed percolation rate has been declining by approximately one percent per year for the last 20 years due to the coarsening of the river bed that is a common problem in river beds downstream of dams. This occurs because sand that would naturally flow down the river is trapped behind Prado Dam. The reduction in the amount of sand in the river bed causes sediments to become less conducive to percolation, particularly in the area closest to Imperial Highway. The Imperial Inflatable Dam and Bypass Structure diverts Santa Ana River water flows from the Main River System into the Off -River System. This system includes four ponds called `Weir Ponds' and a channel called the `Off -River recharge basin'. Weir Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4 are used to remove sediment from the Santa Ana River water diverted at the Imperial Inflatable Dam. The Weir Ponds have a surface storage of approximately 200 acre-feet. At the most downstream Weir Pond, Weir Pond 4, water can flow into the Off -River Recharge Basin, the Huckleberry Basin, or the Warner Bypass Pipeline. The Off -River Recharge Basin consists of a shallow, sandy bottom, 200 -foot wide channel that runs parallel to the Main River System for approximately 2.3 miles from the Imperial Inflatable Dam down to the Carbon Creek Diversion Channel. The Off -River Recharge Basin is separated from the Main River System by a levee. Water in the Off -River Recharge Basin can be diverted into Olive Basin, which is located near Tustin Avenue. 4.1.2.3 Deep Basin System The Deep Basin System consists of the Warner Basin Sub -system (Foster -Huckleberry, Conrock , Warner, and Little Warner Basins), along with Anaheim Lake, Mini Anaheim, and Miller, Kraemer, La Jolla, Placentia, and Raymond Basins. Up to 400 cfs of water can be diverted into Foster -Huckleberry and then into Conrock and Warner Basins. These recharge basins range in depth from 10 to 60 feet. Portions of their side-walls and bottoms are composed of natural, sandy, permeable materials that allow water to percolate into the aquifer. Percolation rates vary depending on the size and depths of the basins; rates slow significantly as fine-grained sediment particles accumulate on the basin bottoms. Most of the basins in this system can be drained and cleaned with equipment, shown in Figure 4-6, to remove this clogging layer, thereby restoring percolation rates and increasing recharge efficiency. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 4-6 CLEANING OF RECHARGE BASINS When the Warner Basin Sub -system is full, flows into the system are reduced to approximately 250 cfs. This maximizes percolation and allows the remainder of the water to be piped to the other downstream basins (Anaheim Lake, Mini Anaheim Lake, Miller, Kraemer, La Jolla, Placentia, and Raymond). Placentia and Raymond basins are owned by Orange County Public Works and can only be used during the non -flood season. Water is conveyed to these two basins using the Carbon Creek Channel. The Five Coves Inflatable Dam is located on the Santa Ana River approximately three miles downstream of the Imperial Inflatable Dam. It was installed by OCWD in 1994 to divert flows into Five Coves, Lincoln, and Burris Basins. The dam is essentially the same size and construction as Imperial Inflatable Dam. Excess flows above 100 cfs and less than 500 cfs can be diverted at the dam; during storm events, flows over 500 cfs are lost to the ocean beyond this dam. 4.1.2.4 Burris Basin/Santiago System The Burris Basin/Santiago System consists of 354 acres of shallow and deep recharge basins. The system begins at the confluence of the Santa Ana River and the Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel and ends at the Santiago Basins in Orange. It consists of Upper Five Coves, Lower Five Coves, Lincoln, Burris (shown in Figure 4-7) and River View Basins, the Santiago Basins (Blue Diamond Basin, Bond Basin, and Smith Basin), and Santiago Creek five miles east of the river. The Five Coves Inflatable Rubber Dam diverts up to 500 cfs of flow from the Santa Ana River into Upper Five Coves Basin. This water can then flow sequentially into Lower SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Five Coves Basin, Lincoln Basin, and Burris Basin. From there, the Burris Basin Pump Station can pump up to 230 cfs of water through the 66 -inch diameter Santiago Pipeline to the Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek. Once Burris and the Santiago Basins are full, the flow must be reduced to match the Santiago Basins' percolation rate of approximately 125 cfs. FIGURE 4-7 BURRIS BASIN `. Santiago Creek, a tributary to the Santa Ana River, yry� shown in Figure 4-8, is the ry,a primary drainage for the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Mountains. The creek extends from the mountains, through the City `- of Orange to its confluence with the Santa Ana River in the City of Santa Ana. Two dams along the river impound flows. Santiago Dam, which creates Irvine Lake, is owned by the Irvine Ranch and Serrano Water x_. Districts. Villa Park Dam is primarily a flood control dam owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD's Santiago Basins are located downstream of Villa Park Dam. Here Santiago Creek flows are supplemented by water diverted from the Santa Ana River through the Santiago Pipeline. These former gravel pits recharge up to approximately 125 cfs when full. When the Santiago Basins are full, overflow from the basins flows down the sandy and rocky Santiago Creek bed. Natural percolation through the creek bottom into the groundwater basin occurs until water reaches Hart Park in the City of Orange. The Santiago Basin Pump Station, completed in 2003, provides greater flexibility in managing recharge operations. Pumps placed in the bottom of Bond Basin move water out of the Santiago Basin into Santiago Creek or back down into the Santiago Pipeline where water can be discharged to the River View Basin or back to Burris Basin. River View Basin is located on the east side of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Burris Basin. Pumping water to and from the Santiago Basins increases the quantity of groundwater recharge and creates capacity in the Santiago Basins for storage of water from winter storms. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 4-8 SANTIAGO CREEK STORAGE AND RECHARGE AREAS - I . lop f0 14T, 3se r ALF $Irrilh f _ vw gy� sarvrlaaa PrPEu VE f EAS9�F G f, - HART PARK J _ # i'ril aT N � r � ` �. - ✓^ - g - Recharge Water Pipeline 0 4,000 8,000 Villa Park Dam Feet,Hart Park Re(uas sign grantol tq THID R'a $ ^S. MAPS m7,` served SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4.2 Sources of Recharge Water Water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin are listed in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 SOURCES OF RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES Water Supply Source of Recharge Water Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Natural Recharge Purified Water Imported Water and Supplemental Water Supply Perennial flows from the upper Baseflow watershed in Santa Ana River; predominately treated wastewater discharges Precipitation from upper Stormflow watershed flowing in Santa Ana River through Prado Dam Groundwater Replenishment System Water Replenishment District of Southern CA Metropolitan Water (untreated) Metropolitan Water (treated) Arlington Desalter San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water Santiago Creek Precipitation and flows from Orange County foothills GWR System treatment facility Water purified at the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility State Water Project and Colorado River Water State Water Project and Colorado River Water through the Diemer Water Treatment Plant Purified water from Arlington Desalter released to Santa Ana River above Prado Dam Surplus groundwater released into the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino Surplus groundwater released into the Santa Ana River in Riverside Recharge location OCWD recharge basins and the Santa Ana River OCWD recharge basins and the Santa Ana River OCWD recharge basins; natural percolation in Santiago Creek Throughout the basin Injected into Talbert Barrier; Kraemer and Miller basins Injected into Alamitos Barrier Various recharge basins Injected into Talbert and Alamitos Barriers OCWD recharge basins OCWD recharge basins Released into the Santa Ana River above Prado Dam to OCWD recharge basins In Lieu Metropolitan Water Treated imported water used to Water is delivered Replenishment District of Southern replace pumping of groundwater, directly to Producers Water California when available SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4.2.1 Santa Ana River The primary source of water to recharge the basin is Santa Ana River flows. A large amount of the baseflow water, especially in the summer months, is composed of tertiary -treated wastewater discharges from wastewater treatment facilities upstream of Prado Dam. OCWD has legal rights to a minimum of 42,000 afy of Santa Ana River baseflow. The minimum amount of Santa Ana River baseflow was established in a legal agreement entered into by OCWD and upstream water agencies in 1969. This agreement is commonly referred to as the `1969 Judgment.' From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, the rate of Santa Ana River baseflow increased from approximately 50,000 afy to 150,000 afy. This is attributed primarily to population increases in the area above Prado Dam, which resulted in additional treated wastewater discharges from upstream communities. Figure 4-9 illustrates historic baseflow in the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam for the period from water year 1934-35 to 2006-07. FIGURE 4-9 SANTA ANA RIVER FLOWS AT PRADO DAM 600 LEGEND ❑ STORM FLOW BASE FLOW 500 400 Thousands of Acre -Feet 300 200 100 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O M V V N N (O (O I1 r o9 o9 W W O O V V V V V V V WV W W O O W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O WATER YEAR Source: Santa Ana River Watermaster 2009 SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT In December 2008, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved the issuance of a permit to OCWD to appropriate 362,000 afy from the Santa Ana River. The SWRCB also agreed to hold an additional 143,000 afy in abeyance for OCWD for possible future projects. This provides an opportunity for OCWD to pursue long-term projects and complete environmental analysis and planning of those projects by 2023. Provided that this is completed by 2023, OCWD can seek the additional rights without the need to restart the water rights application process. The volume of water recharged into the basin from Santa Ana River stormflows changes yearly due to variations in the amount of precipitation and the timing of precipitation and stormflow. Although stormflows average approximately thirty- three percent of the total Santa Ana River flows, only approximately half of that amount is recharged at OCWD's spreading facilities. This is primarily because the magnitude of stormflow releases from Prado Dam often greatly exceeds the District's diversion and recharge capacity. While the estimated maximum percolation capacity of the recharge basins is 500 cfs, the rate of Santa Ana River stormflow can reach up to 3,000 cfs or more, roughly six times the recharge capacity. The volume of water lost to the ocean can reach 5,000 of/day or more. Although it is common to have some loss to the ocean every year, during wet years losses can be great; in water year 1997-98, the District lost approximately 270,000 of of Santa Ana River stormflows to the ocean. Figure 4-10 shows the precipitation at San Bernardino, indicating the variation of precipitation from year to year. 50 40 30 Precipitation (inches) 20 10 FIGURE 4-10 PRECIPITATION AT SAN BERNARDINO 0 Annual Precipitation Average Precipitation ------ Accumulated Departure From Average 0? c? c? v v v v v in u? in in u? co co co co to r� co co m co corn rn rn ITrn o O O O O V CO c0 O N V CO c0 O N V CO c0 O N V CO c0 O N S CO c0 O N V CO cO O N V CO c0 O N V CO c0 M M M V V V V V����� O O CO O O r r r r r W c0 W W W rn rn rn rn rn 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 03 rn 0 0 0 0 O Water Year (Oct -Sep) 80 60 40 Accumulated 20 Departure from Average (inches) 0 -2C SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Figure 4-11 shows the amount of Santa Ana River stormflow recharged by the District for the past eighteen years. Based on the data in this figure, an average of 50,000 afy of stormflow has been captured and recharged. Precipitation in the form of snow accumulating in the upper watershed's mountains usually allows for greater recharge as snow melting over time provides a steady baseflow for recharge. Maximizing the capacity to store stormwater at Prado Dam for groundwater recharge also aids OCWD's efforts to maintain good water quality. Stormwater usually has lower total dissolved solids and nitrate concentrations than Santa Ana River baseflow, so blending stormwater with other sources of recharge water improves water quality. Im 120 Thousands 80 of Acre-feet 40 0 FIGURE 4-11 STORMFLOW RECHARGED IN THE BASIN rn rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrno O N M V N 0 1- 00 0 Water Year 4.2.2 Santiago Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N M V N 0 1- 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Most of the natural flow of Santiago Creek is captured behind the impoundments described earlier. Water released into the creek flows downstream and recharges into the groundwater basin. Since 2000, OCWD has operated the Santiago Creek Recharge Project. A permit from the SWRCB (permit 19325) allows OCWD to collect and store up to 33,560 afy from Santiago Creek. Using controlled releases into the creek, up to approximately 15 cfs is recharged between the Santiago Basins and Hart Park in the City of Orange. In 2008, OCWD completed a project to grade the channel to smooth out the channel bottom. Over time the creek flows became confined to a relatively small notch in the channel. Removing this low -flow channel allowed water to spread out and cover a larger surface area, which increased the recharge rate. In 2008-09, three monitoring wells were constructed to assess recharge conditions and water quality along Santiago Creek and the Santiago Basins. These wells will provide important information regarding recharge from the creek and the Santiago Basins. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4.2.2.1 Natural Recharge Natural infiltration of recharge, also referred to as incidental recharge, occurs from subsurface inflow from the local hills and mountains, infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, unmeasured recharge from small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Natural incidental recharge occurs outside the District's control. Net incidental recharge refers to the net amount of incidental recharge that occurs after accounting for subsurface outflow to Los Angeles County. As described in Section 2, an increase in the accumulated overdraft in the basin decreases the estimated amount of outflow to Los Angeles County. Estimated net incidental recharge and precipitation in Anaheim is shown in Figure 4-12. On average, approximately 60,000 of of net incidental recharge occurs each year. In very wet years such as 2004-2005, the amount of incidental recharge can be 100,000 afy or more. The increase of impermeable surfaces reduces the amount of natural infiltration. New industrial, commercial, and residential developments may divert storm flows into channels that drain to the ocean instead of percolating into the ground. Decades of development with the emphasis on flood protection have encouraged rapid, efficient removal of stormwater. Concerns about the reduction in natural recharge as well as water quality impacts from landscape irrigation runoff and storm flow have increased interest in low -impact development (LID), the on-site capture and management of runoff. Utilization of LID, such as dry -wells, swales, wetlands, and other engineered systems can lead to an increase the rate of incidental recharge. Increasing infiltration, however, could have negative impacts if percolation of poor quality water would adversely impact the basin's water quality. 200 150 Incidental Recharge 100 (1,000 AF) 50 0 0 �°opo �°000 FIGURE 4-12 NET INCIDENTAL RECHARGE Precipitation in An Natural Incidental Recharge 40 30 Precipitation 20 (inches) 10 0 o° o4, c% C§° o`O o\ o%' o0 ON oti 03 0°` oh oR o1\' Water Year SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 4.2.3 Purified Water OCWD has been purifying wastewater to recharge the basin since 1975. Water Factory - 21 (WF -21), in operation from 1975 to 2004, purified treated wastewater to provide a source for the Talbert Barrier. In 2008, the GWR System replaced WF -21 and began operation to provide water for groundwater recharge in Anaheim as well as for the Talbert seawater intrusion barrier. 4.2.3.1 Groundwater Replenishment System The GWR System is a joint project of OCWD and the OCSD. The GWR System creates a new source of recharge water that will increase the reliability and sustainability of local groundwater supplies. The GWR System augments existing groundwater supplies by producing up to 72,000 afy of purified water to recharge the basin and provide a reliable supply of water for the Talbert Seawater Barrier. As shown in Figure 4-13, the GWR System consists of three major components: (1) Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) facilities and pumping stations, (2) a pipeline connection from the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins, and (3) expansion of the Talbert Barrier. 'i'�l_1I1 rJ >>=l r T P JT1I1 r_1 L'J1J rl FIGURE 4-13 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM MAP JIl JI/Ya r �)l' -D =1 1;1Il SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Secondary -treated effluent from the OCSD Wastewater Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley is pumped to the AWT facilities instead of to the ocean for disposal. The advanced water purification plant purifies the water with microfiltration (MF); reverse osmosis (RO); and advanced oxidation processes (AOP), which consist of ultraviolet (UV) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The first step in the tertiary treatment process is MF membrane treatment. MF is a low- pressure membrane process that removes small suspended particles, protozoa, bacteria and some viruses from the water. Sodium hypochlorite, a bleach solution, is added to the MF feedwater to minimize MF membrane fouling. Next, the MF filtrate is fed to the RO treatment system. Dissolved contaminants and minerals, including dissolved organics, total dissolved solids, silica, and virus, are removed in the RO treatment process. The water then undergoes UV and H2O2 treatments. UV light penetrates the cell walls of microorganisms, preventing replication and inducing cell death. This provides an additional barrier of protection against bacteria and viruses. More importantly, UV with H2O2 oxidizes organic compounds. At this point, the product water is so pure that it can not be moved in conventional pipes. Small amounts of minerals are added back into the water so that it is stable in the concrete pipes. Although the GWR System is capable of producing 72,000 afy of water, the first year of operation actually produced less than 45,000 of of water. Operation of the system is limited by the supply of secondary -treated wastewater from OCSD. OCSD is in the process of constructing a pump station, scheduled to be completed before the end of 2009, which will help provide additional flow into the GWR System. When the pump station becomes operational, District staff expects to operate the GWR System to full capacity. In addition, OCSD anticipates that construction of an expansion to their secondary treatment processes will be complete in late 2011. With this increase of available supply of wastewater, OCWD plans to expand the GWR System. The initial expansion will be designed to increase production by 17,000 to 20,000 afy of water. 4.2.3.2 Talbert and Alamitos Barriers The GWR System is the primary source of water used for injection at the Talbert Barrier. An additional source of water for the barrier is treated potable water purchased from Metropolitan. Water for the Alamitos Barrier is supplied from two sources: imported water from Metropolitan and purified wastewater purchased from the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) under a joint cost sharing agreement with OCWD, as explained in Section 4.2.4.2. 4.2.4 Imported Water Water purchased by OCWD for recharge comes from a number of sources. This recharge water is also referred to as replenishment water, supplemental water or imported water. Total annual recharge of imported water from 1937 to 2008 is shown in Figure 4-14. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Metropolitan provides untreated replenishment water to the District when excess supplies are available. These supplemental supplies are an unreliable source of recharge water as they are typically unavailable to purchase during droughts. OCWD receives State Water Project (SWP) water from Northern California at a number of locations. Water released through a connection in Claremont flows down San Antonio Wash to Chino Creek, which drains into the Santa Ana River. Colorado River water can be delivered via the Santa Ana River upstream of OCWD's main recharge basins. A blend of SWP water and Colorado River waters can also be received directly into Anaheim Lake. The District typically has recharge capacity available to receive this water during the summer/fall months. However, these supplies by nature are more frequently available during the winter season, which is when the District's recharge facilities are being used to capture and recharge Santa Ana River flows. The District can usually take between 50 cfs to 200 cfs (100 - 400 of/day) of direct replenishment water depending upon the operating condition of the recharge facilities. FIGURE 4-14 ANNUAL RECHARGE OF IMPORTED WATER FROM METROPOLITAN, 1950-2008 250 200 Tota 1 150 Annual Recharge (1,000 AF) 100 50 Cd State Project Water Colorado River Water O N V 0 M O N V 0 M O N V 0 M O N V 0 M O N V 0 M O N V 0 M �? �? � �? �? �? �? �? �? �? �? �? �? �? � �? �? �? �? �? � �? �? �? �? N N N N N Water Year (Jul -Jun) 4.2.4.1 Upper Watershed Imported Water OCWD has historically entered into agreement with water agencies in the upper watershed to pay for excess upper watershed water that the agencies pump into the Santa Ana River that reaches Prado Dam. This water is captured for recharge in the OCWD facilities. The sources listed here are only available when the supplying water SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT agency has excess supplies. During times of drought, these sources become less available. • The Arlington Desalter. When potable consumption does not match the output of the Arlington Desalter in Riverside, the District may purchase the excess water for groundwater recharge. • The Bunker Hill Basin groundwater pump out project in San Bernardino is a cooperative project with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The project was constructed to mitigate the negative impacts of high groundwater levels. Groundwater is pumped from the Bunker Hill Basin into the Santa Ana River. • Western Municipal Water District provides to OCWD up to 7,000 afy of recharge water when available. This water is discharged into the Santa Ana River and is recharged into the groundwater basin in the District's recharge system. 4.2.4.2 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier Source Water The WRD manages groundwater for nearly four million residents in 43 cities of southern Los Angeles County. The City of Long Beach, under contract with WRD, operates the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility, an advanced water treatment facility that treats effluent water from the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County using MF, RO, and UV treatment. About 2.7 million gallons of purified water are blended with imported water and pumped into the Alamitos Seawater Barrier. 4.2.4.3 In Lieu Replenishment Water When recharge capacity is unavailable, OCWD can also receive replenishment water via an In -lieu program. In -lieu recharge refers to the practice of increasing groundwater storage by providing interruptible potable water supplies to a user who relies on groundwater as a primary supply. This treated potable water is made available to Producers who, in turn, use the supply in place of pumping an equal supply of groundwater. This program is revenue neutral for Producers and helps recharge the groundwater basin in a targeted manner. 4.3 Recharge Studies and Evaluations The District has an ongoing program to assess enhancements in existing recharge facilities, evaluate new recharge methods, and analyze potential new recharge facilities. 4.3.1 OCWD RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT WORKING GROUP (REWG) The REWG is composed of staff from several departments that works to maximize the efficiency of existing recharge facilities and evaluate new concepts to increase recharge capacity. REWG, with staff from recharge operations, hydrogeology, engineering, research and development, regulatory affairs, and the planning departments, meets on a regular basis to review new data and evaluate potential new projects. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Proposed projects, such as reconfiguration of existing basins, operational improvements to increase flexibility in the management of the basins, alternative basin cleaning methods, potential sites for new basins, and control of sediment concentrations, are discussed and prioritized. 4.3.2 COMPUTER MODEL OF RECHARGE FACILITIES OCWD is in the process of developing a computer model of the District's recharge system in Anaheim and Orange. The model will simulate Prado Dam operations, Santa Ana River flow, and each recharge facility in order to model how the recharge system operates in conjunction with storage of water behind Prado Dam and flows from the Santa Ana River. This planning tool will be used to evaluate various conditions including estimating recharge benefits if new recharge facilities are constructed, existing facilities are improved, increased storage is achieved at Prado Dam, or baseflow changes occur in the Santa Ana River. Output from the model will include • Amount of water in storage at Prado Dam and storage and recharge rates at each recharge facility; • Amount of water that could not be recharged and the frequency of water loss to the ocean; • Optimal amount of cleaning operations; and • Available (unused) recharge capacity. The model will be constructed so that it can be operated by District staff from a desktop personal computer using a graphical user interface. 4.4 Improvements to Recharge Facilities The District regularly evaluates potential projects to improve the existing recharge facilities and build new facilities. Changes to existing facilities may include: • improving the ability to transfer water from one recharge basin to another; • improving the ability to remove the clogging layer that forms on the bottom of the recharge basins; • removing shallow low -permeability silt or clay layers that occur beneath recharge basins • improving the shape or configuration of the basin to increase the infiltration rate or ability to clean the basin; and • converting an existing underperforming recharge basin to a new type of recharge facility. The District also regularly evaluates building new facilities. This effort includes: • evaluating existing flood control facilities that could be utilized to increase recharge; SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT • evaluating potential sites for purchase and subsequent construction of new recharge facilities; and • evaluating potential dual -use sites, where a subsurface recharge system could be built and remain compatible with the existing use, such as building a subsurface infiltration gallery under a parking lot. 4.4.1 RECHARGE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 2004-2008 The following projects were completed between 2004 and 2008 by OCWD to improve recharge operations: La Jolla Basin OCWD purchased land along Carbon Creek east of Placentia Basin and west of Kraemer Basin and constructed a new 6 -acre recharge basin. Water is diverted from Carbon Creek using a rubber dam. The six-foot deep basin can be easily drained by gravity flow back to Carbon Creek when necessary for maintenance. The basin was placed on line in 2008 and is expected to recharge as much as 9,000 afy. Olive Basin Intake Structure Improvements Prior to acquisition by OCWD, the Olive Basin was mined for sand and gravel. A corrugated metal transfer tube was installed to convey Santa Ana River water into the basin. However, this transfer tube was located mid -way up the side of the basin and the flow discharging into the basin eroded the sidewalls, causing sediment to rapidly clog the basin. Improvements that were completed in 2007 included the installation of a new transfer pipe and concrete box set at the bottom of the basin to allow water to flow into the basin from the bottom. Mini -Anaheim Recharge Basin Modifications Improvements to this small basin made in 2005 increased the efficiency of moving Santa Ana River water into the basin. A new pipeline also was constructed to allow discharge of imported water directly into the basin. Kraemer -Miller Basins Pipeline Improvements An existing 48 -inch pipe in Kraemer Basin was replaced due to the potential for pipe failure that would have resulted in damage to adjacent property and a reduction in recharge capacity from loss of ability to fill the basin. An inlet pipe was installed in Miller basin. Lincoln -Burris Exploratory Wells Monitoring wells were constructed to characterize the ability of the natural sediments along the west walls of Lincoln and Burris Basins to percolate water. Data collected were used to support a feasibility study of re -contouring the Burris Basin to allow periodic cleaning of the western side wall in order to increase percolation rates. SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Warner Basin Dam In order to clean Warner Basin, staff would construct an earthen dike to allow the draining of the basin while simultaneously transferring water to Anaheim Lake, Miller Basin, and Kraemer Basin. In 2007, a rubber dam was installed within the finger channel of the Little Warner Basin to eliminate the need to build the earthen dike each time the basin needed cleaning. Santiago Creek Recharge Enhancement The recharge capacity of Santiago Creek was increased by grading the creek bed upstream of Hart Park in the City of Orange. Prior to grading, a low -flow channel developed in the channel bottom. Water flow was confined to this low - flow channel, limiting the amount of groundwater recharge. The grading project completed in 2008 created a flat cross-section allowing for flows to spread out over a larger surface area, thereby increasing groundwater recharge. 4.5 Potential Projects to Expand Recharge Operations The District's Long -Term Facilities Plan (2009) contains a list of potential new projects to expand recharge operations. Projects that are included range from those in the conceptual phase to those in the process of construction to improve operations of recharge facilities and to increase the amount of water recharged into the groundwater basin are described in this section. Desilting Improvement Program The build up of sediment in recharge basins decreases infiltration rates and increases the need for basin cleanings. Approaches are being evaluated to remove sediment from Santa Ana River water in order to increase the performance of current recharge facilities. A feasibility study identified proposed treatment systems for pilot testing. Mid -Basin Injection As the GWR System is expanded an increased supply of recharge water will be available. In order to recharge this supply of water, a mid -basin injection project is being considered. This would involve using high quality GWR System water for direct injection into the Principal aquifer in the central portions of the Basin. By directly injecting water into the Principal aquifer where most of the pumping occurs, low groundwater levels due to pumping can be reduced. Also, mid -basin injection would reduce the recharge requirement in Anaheim and Orange area recharge basins, thus providing more capacity to recharge Santa Ana River water. Santiago Creek Enhanced Recharge Two improvements to Santiago Creek in the City of Orange are being considered to enhance recharge capacity. One project consists of cutting a water conveyance channel through a concrete -lined creek channel to deliver a flow of water downstream of Hart Park. The geology in this lower stretch of the creek is being studied to determine if the recharge would be beneficial to the groundwater SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT basin. The second project would investigate the feasibility of constructing three small new recharge basins adjacent to Santiago Creek. Subsurface Recharge The subsurface recharge project would involve constructing horizontal recharge systems beneath areas with existing improvements, such as parks or school athletic fields. These infiltration galleries would allow percolation of recharge water through perforated pipes buried in gravel -filled trenches. Since there is no feasible way to clean the galleries, the source water would come from the GWR System, treated Metropolitan water, or filtered Santa Ana River water. Recharge Basin Rehabilitation All of the recharge basins are subject to clogging due to the accumulation of sediments contained in recharge water. To maintain recharge rates, the basins are periodically drained, allowed to dry, and then mechanically cleaned using heavy equipment. This process removes most of the clogging layer but also removes a portion of the underlying layer of clean sand from the basin bottom. Some of the fine-grained clogging material on the basin sides remains while the bottom of the basin progressively deepens. Although cleaning procedures have been improved to minimize the burial of fine-grained clogging material, previous cleaning practices have left an irregular mantle of fine-grained material in the upper one to two feet of some recharge basins. This may be remedied by over - excavating and replacing removed sediments with clean sand. Burris and Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration Modifications to Burris and Lincoln Basins will improve recharge capability. Plans include excavating low -permeability sediments from Lincoln Basin and the northern end of Burris Basin, reconfiguring the conveyance of water into Burris Basin, and expanding the size of Lincoln Basin. Also, a pilot transfer well will be drilled to transfer groundwater from the Shallow Aquifer to the Principal Aquifer at the southern end of Burris Basin. Five Coves and Lincoln Basins Bypass Pipeline Santa Ana River flows are diverted into the Upper Five Coves Basin by an inflatable dam. Transfer pipes convey surface flows from the Upper Five Coves to the Lower Five Coves Basin. Construction of a pipeline within the Lower and Upper Five Coves, Lincoln, and Burris basins would allow water transfers between the four basins. This would allow the Upper Five Coves, Lower Five Coves, and Lincoln Basins to be isolated and taken out of service to conduct cleaning operations, while maintaining flow of water to Burris and Santiago Basins. In the current system, inflow to Burris Basin has to be terminated to allow cleaning of the other four basins. Santiago Basins Pump Station A pump station was constructed to dewater the Santiago Basins to increase storm flow capture and percolation, to make storage available for winter season use, to provide water to the Santiago Creek for percolation, and to increase SECTION 4 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT operational flexibility by pumping water back to Burris Basin when necessary. Two of the four installed pumps failed to operate so the pump station needs to be redesigned and rebuilt. Reconstructing a pump station for the basins will increase recharge capacity and allow for more flexible and efficient operations. Placentia and Raymond Basins Improvements Improvements to Placentia and Raymond Basins that would increase the amount of water recharged in these basins include construction of in -channel diversion structures, modification of inlets to increase flows, installation of submersible pumps, and addition of flow measuring devices, water level sensors, and equipment to remotely control and record water levels and flows. Santiago Basins Intertie Constructing a connection between the Bond and Blue Diamond Basins would allow greater flexibility in managing recharge water. Conveyance of water from Blue Diamond Basin to Bond Basin is limited by a dirt berm that separates the two basins. This berm traps approximately 1,500 of of water in Blue Diamond Basin. Improvement would involve either removing a portion of the dirt berm or installing a pipe within the berm between the two basins at the bottom elevation of Blue Diamond Basin. Olive Basin Pump Station Improvements to Olive Basin will allow the basin to be drained more rapidly for cleaning. Olive Basin does not have a dewatering pump. An intake structure with a 36 -inch diameter fill pipe was constructed to allow water to flow from the Off -River System into the deepest part of the pit. This decreased the amount of sediment stirred up in the basin, thereby increasing the recharge performance. Installation of a pump station and drain pipe will allow for future draining of the basin so that the basin can be cleaned quickly and restored to service. Prado -Recharge Facilities Model This project would create a mathematical model of Prado storage, Santa Ana River flow, and each recharge facility. The model would simulate how the recharge system operates in conjunction with Prado storage and the river. It is anticipated that the model would have a time step of one day. The model would allow the evaluation of changes in recharge that would occur if the District were to construct improvements to existing facilities, build new recharge facilities, or achieve increased levels of storage at Prado Dam. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Water quality protection is a basic tenet of OCWD. The District manages the groundwater basin to protect water quality. This section describes the range of programs conducted by OCWD throughout the watershed including: ■ Implementing OCWD's Groundwater Protection Policy; ■ Participating in water quality management programs in the watershed; ■ Managing levels of salinity and nitrate; ■ Restoring contaminated water supplies; ■ Developing programs to monitor constituents of emerging concern. 5.1 Groundwater Quality Protection The District conducts an extensive program aimed at protecting the quality of the water in the basin. These programs include groundwater monitoring, participating in and supporting voluntary watershed water quality studies and regulatory programs, working with groundwater producers, providing technical assistance, and conducting public education programs. 5.1.1 OCWD GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION POLICY OCWD adopted the Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in May 1987, in recognition of the serious threat posed by groundwater contamination; passage was based on the statutory authority granted under Section 2 of the District Act. The objectives of the policy are to: • Maintain groundwater quality suitable for all existing and potential beneficial uses; • Prevent degradation of groundwater quality; • Assist regulatory agencies in identifying the sources of contamination to assure cleanup by the responsible parties; • Maintain or increase the basin's usable storage capacity; and • Inform the general public, regulatory agencies and Producers of the condition of the groundwater basin and of water quality problems as they are discovered. Eight specific programs established to achieve these objectives are: • Water quality monitoring of surface and groundwater; • Identification, interim containment, and cleanup of contamination; • Coordinated operation with regulatory agencies; • Control of toxic residuals; SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT • Hazardous waste management planning; • Dissemination of technical information; • Public disclosure; and • Groundwater protection evaluation. A key component of the policy describes circumstances under which the District will undertake contamination cleanup activities at District expense. This becomes necessary when contamination poses a significant threat and the party responsible for the contamination cannot be identified, is unable to cleanup the contamination, or is unwilling to cleanup the contamination. When appropriate to protect water quality in the basin, OCWD provides financial incentives for Producers to pump and treat groundwater that does not meet drinking water quality standards. These so-called "Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) Exemptions" are explained in Section 5.9. 5.1.2 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT GOALS FOR GROUNDWATER PROGRAMS OCWD encourages clean up of groundwater to maximize beneficial use of contaminated water in areas with high concentrations of TDS, nitrates, selenium, color, organic compounds, and other constituents exceeding drinking water standards. Treatment goals include: • State primary and secondary drinking water standards must be met when water is used for potable supplies. • Treatment for irrigation water shall meet criteria necessary for the intended beneficial use. • The District shall pursue payment or reimbursement of cleanup costs from the responsible party when contamination originates from a known source. 5.1.3 REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINANTS A variety of federal, state, county and local agencies have jurisdiction over the regulation and management of hazardous substances and the remediation of contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies. For example, the County of Orange Health Care Agency (OCHCA) regulates leaking underground fuel tanks except in cases where the city is the lead agency. OCWD does not have regulatory authority to require responsible parties or potential responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, the District has pursued legal action against entities that have contaminated the groundwater basin to recover the District's remediation costs. In other cases, the District coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination and assess the potential threat that the contamination poses to public health and the environment in the Santa Ana River watershed and within the County of Orange. Some of these efforts include: • Reviewing on-going groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports. • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT • Conducting third party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup and/or providing confirmation data of the areal extent of contamination. 5.1.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Protecting groundwater from contamination protects public health and prevents loss of valuable groundwater resources. Managing land use and planning for future development are key management activities essential for protecting water quality and reducing the risk of contamination. OCWD monitors, reviews, and comments on environmental documents such as Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), Notices of Preparation, proposed zoning changes, and land development projects. District staff also review draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and waste discharge permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed projects and programs may have elements that could cause short or long term water quality impacts to source water used for groundwater replenishment or have the potential to degrade groundwater resources. Monitoring and reviewing waste discharge permits provides the District with insight on activities in the watershed that could affect water quality. The majority of the basin's land area is located in a highly urbanized setting and requires tailored water supply protection strategies. Reviewing and commenting on stormwater permits adopted by the RWQCB for the portions of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties that are within the Santa Ana River watershed are important. These permits can affect the quality of water in the Santa Ana River and other water bodies, thereby impacting groundwater quality in the basin. OCWD works with local agencies having oversight responsibilities on the handling, use, and storage of hazardous materials; underground tank permitting; well abandonment programs; septic tank upgrades; and drainage issues. Participating in basin planning activities of the RWQCB and serving on technical advisory committees and task forces related to water quality are also valuable activities to protect water quality. 5.1.5 DRINKING WATER SOURCE ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM To comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements regarding the protection of drinking water sources, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) created the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program. Water suppliers must submit a DWSAP report as part of the drinking water well permitting process and have it approved before providing a new source of water from a new well. OCWD provides technical support to Producers in the preparation of these reports. This program requires all well owners to prepare a drinking water source assessment and establish a source water protection program for all new wells. The source water program must include: (1) a delineation of the land area to be protected, (2) the identification of all potential sources of contamination to the well, and (3) a description of management strategies aimed at preventing groundwater contamination. Managing land use and planning for future development are key management activities essential SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT for protecting, preventing, and reducing contaminant risks to future drinking water supplies. Developing management strategies to prevent, reduce, or eliminate risks of groundwater contamination is one component of the multiple barrier protection of source water. Contingency planning is an essential component of a complete DWSAP and includes developing alternate water supplies for unexpected loss of each drinking water source, by man-made or catastrophic events. 5.1.6 WELL CONSTRUCTION POLICIES Wells constructed by the District are built to prevent the migration of surface contamination into the subsurface. This is achieved through the placement of annular well seals and surface seals during construction. Also, seals are placed within the borehole annulus between aquifers to minimize the potential for flow between aquifers. Well construction ordinances adopted and implemented by the OCHCA and municipalities follow state well construction standards established to protect water quality under California Water Code Section 231. To provide guidance and policy recommendations on these ordinances, the County of Orange established the Well Standards Advisory Board in the early 1970s. The five -member appointed Board includes the District's Hydrogeologist. Recommendations of the Board are used by the OCHCA and municipalities to enforce well construction ordinances within their jurisdictions. 5.1.7 WELL CLOSURE PROGRAM FOR ABANDONED WELLS A well is considered abandoned when either the owner has permanently discontinued its use or it is in such a condition that it can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This often occurs when wells have been forgotten by the owner, were not disclosed to a new property owner, or when the owner is unknown. Past research conducted by OCWD identified approximately 1,400 abandoned wells which were not properly closed. Many of these wells may not be able to be properly closed due to overlying structures, landscaping, or pavement. Some of them may pose a threat to water quality because they can be conduits for contaminant movement as well as physical hazards to humans and/or animals. OCWD supports and encourages efforts to properly close abandoned wells. As part of routine monitoring of the groundwater basin, OCWD will investigate on a case-by-case basis any location where data suggests that an abandoned well may be present and may be threatening water quality. When an abandoned well is found to be a significant threat to the quality of groundwater, OCWD will work with the well owner to properly close the well. The City of Anaheim has a well destruction policy and has an annual budget to destroy one or two wells per year. The funds are used when an abandoned well is determined to be a public nuisance or needs to be destroyed to allow development of the site. The city's well permit program requires all well owners to destroy their wells when they are no longer needed. When grant funding becomes available, the city uses the funds to SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT destroy wells where a responsible party has not been determined and where the well was previously owned by a defunct water consortium. 5.2 Salinity Management Increasing salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and Southern California, including Orange County. Elevated salinity levels can contaminate groundwater supplies, constrain implementation of water recycling projects and cause other negative economic impacts such as the need for increased water treatment by residential, industrial, commercial users, and water utilities. Often a component of salinity, elevated levels of nitrates pose a risk to human health. 5.2.1 SOURCES OF SALINITY Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water. Also referred to as salts or TDS, salinity is measured in the laboratory by evaporating a known volume of water to dryness and measuring the remaining salts. Dissolved minerals are composed of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions. Principal cations include sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium. Key anions are chloride, sulfate, carbonate, and bicarbonate. Water's hardness, related to TDS, refers to the measure of divalent metallic cations, principally calcium and magnesium. High salinity and hardness limit the beneficial uses of water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural applications. Hard water causes scale formation in boilers, pipes, and heat - exchange equipment as well as soap scum and an increase in detergent use. This can result in the need to replace plumbing and appliances and require increased water treatment. Some industrial processes, such as computer microchip manufacturers, must have low TDS in the process water and often must treat the municipal supply prior to use. High salinity water may reduce plant growth and crop yield, and clog drip irrigation lines. In coastal areas, seawater intrusion can be a major source of increased salinity in groundwater. Other identified sources of coastal groundwater salinity include connate water (water trapped in the pores of the sediment at the time the sediments were deposited) and brines disposed from past oil production. 5.2.2 REGULATION OF SALINITY TDS is regulated by the EPA and the CDPH as a constituent that affects the aesthetic quality of water — notably, taste. The recommended secondary MCLs for key constituents comprising TDS are listed in Table 5-1. At the state level, TDS levels in groundwater are managed by the SWRCB which delegates this authority to the regional boards. The Santa Ana RWQCB salinity management program was developed with extensive stakeholder input. The Santa Ana Watershed is divided into management zones and allowable TDS levels are determined SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT for each of those zones. The Orange County groundwater basin is divided into two management zones as shown in Figure 5-1. TABLE 5-1 SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR SELECTED CONSTITUENTS Constituent Recommended Secondary MCL, mg/L Total Dissolved Solids (salts) Chloride Sulfate FIGURE 5-1 Groundwater Management Zones 500 250 250 N /, ; W4 G 0 2 A Miles RapmO—d W h pgrcis�on g-bJ by THOMAS BROS. MAPS® (YrW S BroS. MW . All nglt —d. 1 j OGWD Boundary Q Santa Ana River Watershed Boundary Groundwater Management Zone Irvine 0 Orange County SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT To set the allowable levels of TDS for each management zone, historical ambient or baseline conditions were determined. These were used by the RWQCB to set `Water Quality Objectives" for each management zone, which were officially adopted as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, also referred to as "the Basin Plan." The levels of TDS in each groundwater management zone are measured periodically and compared to the adopted objectives. When a newly determined ambient level is equal to or greater than the established objective, that management zone does not have an "assimilative capacity." This means that the quality of the groundwater in that zone is determined to be incapable of successfully assimilating increased loads of TDS without degrading the water quality. Conversely, when an updated ambient level is lower than the established objective, that management zone has an assimilative capacity and is determined to be capable of receiving modest inputs of TDS without exceeding the Water Quality Objective. The Water Quality Objectives and ambient quality levels for the two Orange County management zones are shown in Table 5-2. Comparing the ambient water quality to the TDS objectives indicates that neither one of these zones have assimilative capacity for TDS. TABLE 5-2 TDS WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER —BASIN MANAGEMENT ZONES Management Zone Water Quality Objective Ambient Quality (mg/L) (mg/L) Orange County Irvine (Wildermuth, 2008) 580 590 910 920 5.2.3 SALINITY IN THE GROUNDWATER BASIN As explained in Section 3, OCWD monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the groundwater basin. Figure 5-2 shows the average TDS at production wells in the basin for the period of 2004 to 2008. In general, the portions of the basin with the highest TDS levels are located in areas of Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim and Fullerton. In addition, there is a broad area in the middle portion of the basin where the TDS generally ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Localized areas near the coast, where water production does not occur, contain relatively higher TDS concentrations. Managing salinity levels in the basin and in recharge water is an important objective for the District. As explained in Section 4, water that recharges the Orange County groundwater basin includes: • Santa Ana River baseflow and stormflow, • Groundwater Replenishment System water, and • Incidental recharge, including precipitation and irrigation return flows. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-2 TDS IN GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION WELLS O- Q°° 010 ��000 CC o o Q� (DO o o o °! 0 0 00 00 ` -o- <5" 14 SA -78! �0� o� 0 r,o 0 U N �. a 0 10,000 20,000 Feet Reproduced wh perTris�idn ganbea By THOMAS BROS. MAPS® OTncmas Ms. Maps. All ngit rested. Total Dissolved Solids {mg[L) 2005-2008 4 -Year Average o <300 0 700 -900 0 300-600 0 >900 600-700 L OGWD Boundary Understanding the sources of salt and measuring the concentrations of TDS in each of the recharge sources is an important aspect in managing salinity. Table 5-3 presents the estimated salt inflows for the basin using average recharge volumes. The inflows used here are the same as those used in calculating the basin water budget as explained in Section 2.3 and displayed in Table 2-2. TDS concentrations for the inflows were based on flow and water quality data collected by the District and the USGS. The Talbert injection barrier was calculated with the assumption that barrier water is from the GWR System and the Alamitos injection barrier was calculated using SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT the assumption that injection water is a 50:50 blend of recycled water and imported water. The flow -weighted TDS of local incidental recharge of 1,100 mg/L was calculated using estimates of the TDS concentration of each component listed in Table 2-2. For subsurface inflow and recharge from the foothills, the TDS concentration was estimated using data from the closest nearby wells. As shown in Table 5-3, the District estimates that the flow -weighted average inflow TDS concentration is 536 mg/L. It is important to note that the TDS concentration of GWR System water is 60 mg/L. OCWD anticipates that over time the use of GWR System water for Talbert Barrier operations and groundwater recharge will have a positive impact on the salt balance of the groundwater basin. TABLE 5-3 SALT INFLOWS FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE MANAGEMENT ZONES Inflow TDS Salt (afy) (mg/L) (tons/yr) Recharged SAR Baseflow 148,000 620 125,000 Recharged SAR Stormflow 50,000 200 14,000 GWR System water recharge in 37,000 60 3,000 Anaheim Unmeasured Recharge (Incidental) 69,000 1,100 104,000 Injection Barriers Talbert 35,000 60 2,900 Alamitos 2,500 350 1,200 Total: 341,500 536* 250,100 * Flow weighted Figure 5-3 illustrates TDS concentrations through time at a well in Santa Ana. The location of well SA -16 is shown on Figure 5-2. The TDS concentration at well SA -16 increased from approximately 200 to 300 mg/L in the mid-1960s to approximately 600 mg/L by the mid-1980s. From the mid-1980s to 2008, the TDS concentration varied between 500 to 700 mg/L. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-3 TDS IN A POTABLE SUPPLY WELL (SA -'I 6/1) Recommended Secondary Drinking Water Standard TDS = 500 mg/L Well location: Santa Ana Pressure Area Well screen perforated interval: 305 to 950 feet bgs 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2004 2009 Sample Date 5.2.4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INCREASING SALINITY Increasing salinity of water supplies directly impacts consumer costs. A technical investigation of salinity impacts on water supplies of Southern California was published in 1999 by the United States Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Salinity Management Study assessed economic impacts of salinity increases in Colorado River water and State Water Project water. The model was developed to account for regional differences in water deliveries, demographics, TDS concentrations, and average water use per household or by agriculture or industry. The study estimated a regional economic benefit of $95 million per year (calculated in 1998 dollars) for a 100 mg/L decrease in imported water supply TDS in the Metropolitan region. Conversely, a 100 mg/L increase in TDS would increase consumer costs by $95 million annually as shown in Figure 5-4. Approximately $18 million annually would be realized in cost savings for groundwater supplies. Residential cost savings were estimated at $35 million per year. Figure 5-5 shows $64 million of benefits if most local groundwater (about 90 percent) and wastewater (about 80 percent) were to experience a 100 mg/L decrease in salinity. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-4 ANNUAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 100 MG/L SALINITY DECREASE IMPORTED WATER SUPPLIES Source: MWD and Bureau of Reclamation Salinity Management Study (1999) Residential $35 Million Recycled Water $5 Million Groundwater $18 Million Commercial Industrial $10 Million $5 Million Utilities $8 Million -ultural 14 Million FIGURE 5-5 ANNUAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 100 MG/L SALINITY DECREASE GROUNDWATER AND WASTEWATER Residenti $21 Millio Recycled Water $9 Million Groundwater Vd RAillinn $3 Million Utilities $6 Million :ultural ✓lillion Source: MWD and Bureau of Reclamation Salinity Management Study (1999) Table 5-4 summarizes the economic benefits to water users from salinity reduction. Cost savings include reduced need to construct desalting facilities and greater compliance of wastewater discharges with permit requirements. Residential consumer cost savings would be realized in longer lifespan for appliances and plumbing as well as the reduced need for water softening devices. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TABLE 5-4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED SALINITY User Economic Benefit Residential i Increased life of plumbing system and appliances Reduced use of bottled water and water softeners Decreased cost of water softening Commercial Decreased use of water for cooling Increased equipment service life Decreased cost of water treatment Industrial Decreased water usage Decreased sewer fees Agricultural Increased crop yield Decreased water usage for leaching purposes Utilities Increased life of treatment facilities and pipelines Groundwater Improved wastewater discharge requirements for permit compliance — — Decreased desalination and brine disposal costs Recycled Water Decreased use of imported water for salt management Decreased desalination and brine disposal costs MWD/USBR 1999 Salinity Management Study 5.2.5 SALINITY MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN THE UPPER WATERSHED The District has a long-standing commitment to management of salinity in groundwater supplies, avoiding the loss of water supplies due to increased salinity, and developing projects to reduce salinity are District priorities. Since the Santa Ana River is the primary source of recharge water for the basin, salt management programs in the upper watershed are vital to protect the water quality in Orange County; success in this regard requires participation and cooperation of upper Santa Ana watershed stakeholders. Several desalters, which are water treatment plants designed to remove salts, have been built in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. These plants are effectively reducing the amount of salt buildup in the watershed. The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI), built by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), began operation in 1975 to remove salt from the watershed by transporting industrial wastewater and brine produced by desalter operations directly to the OCSD for treatment. Approximately 75,000 tons of salt were removed by the SARI line in FY 2006-07. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT The other "brine line" in the upper watershed, the Non -reclaimable Waste Line in the Chino Basin operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), segregates high TDS industrial wastewater. 5.2.6 OCWD SALINITY MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMS Within Orange County, operations of the GWR System and several local and regional groundwater desalters are working to reduce salt levels. The GWR System, described in Section 4.2, purifies wastewater that is used for groundwater recharge and for injection into the Talbert Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. The GWR System provides a dependable supply of low salinity water, whose quantity and quality will not be impacted by future drought conditions. The GWR System is expected to reduce the basin salt load by approximately 48,000 tons/year, based on the difference between recharging 72,000 afy of GWR System water at 60 mg/L and an equal amount of imported blended Colorado River and SPW water at 550 mg/L. High salinity groundwater areas located in Tustin and Irvine are being treated through the operation of desalter plants; these projects are described in Section 5.8. 5.2.7 SEAWATER INTRUSION BARRIERS OCWD's Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the 2.5 -mile -wide Talbert Gap between the Newport and Huntington mesas (see Figure 3-9). From 1975 until 2004, a blend of purified water from OCWD's WF -21, deep aquifer water, and imported potable water was injected into the barrier. The Talbert Barrier wells were used to inject an average of 12 mgd of water into four aquifer zones to form a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. The GWR System began operations in January 2008 to better control seawater intrusion as well as to recharge the coastal aquifers. Twelve new wells enable injection of up to 35 mgd of purified water into the expanded injection barrier. Figure 5-6 shows the total flow -weighted average of TDS levels of the Talbert Barrier Injection Water. Prior to 2004, injection water was a blend of imported water, WF -21 purified water, and deep aquifer water. During the time that WF -21 was decommissioned and the GWR System was in construction, a blend of imported water, potable water, and deep aquifer water was injected into the barrier. In 2007, only treated, imported water was used resulting in a flow weighted average TDS of Talbert Barrier injection water of 477 mg/L. With 84 percent of injection water supplied by the GWR System, the flow weighted average for 2008 dropped to 117 mg/L. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-6 TALBERT BARRIER INJECTION WATER - TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) Total Flow Weighted Average TDS of All Source Waters 600 500 400 Flow weighted average TDS (mg/L) 300 200 100 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 The Alamitos seawater intrusion barrier is composed of a series of injection wells that span the Los Angeles/Orange County line in the Seal Beach -Long Beach area. It is operated by the LACDPW in cooperation with OCWD and the WRD. The source of this water is a blend of purified water from WRD and potable supplies from Metropolitan. 5.3 Nitrate Management Nitrate is one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies. OCWD conducts an extensive program to protect the basin from nitrate contamination. The District regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater, operates 465 acres of wetlands in the Prado Basin to remove nitrates in Santa Ana River water, and works with Producers to treat individual wells when nitrate levels exceed safe levels. 5.3.1 SOURCES OF NITRATES Nitrogen is an element essential for plant growth; in the environment it naturally converts to nitrate. Nitrate is a nitrogen -oxygen ion (NO3 ) that is very soluble and mobile in water. Elevated levels of nitrate in soil and water supplies originate from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. Plants and bacteria break down nitrate but excess amounts can leach into groundwater; once in the groundwater, nitrate can remain relatively stable for years. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT The primary concern for human health is not nitrate but its conversion to nitrite (NO2) in the body. Nitrite oxidizes iron in the hemoglobin of red blood cells to form methemoglobin, depriving the blood of oxygen. This is hazardous to infants as they do not yet have enzymes in their blood to counteract this process. They can suffer oxygen deficiency called methemoglobinemia, commonly known as "blue baby syndrome" named for its most noticeable symptom of bluish skin coloring. 5.3.2 REGULATION OF NITRATE Both federal and state agencies regulate nitrate levels in water. The EPA and CDPH set the MCL in drinking water at 10 mg/L for nitrate -nitrogen. The Santa Ana Watershed is divided into management zones with nitrate -nitrogen water quality objectives set for each of those zones. These levels are determined after considering historical ambient or baseline conditions. Water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for Orange County's management zones are shown in Table 5-5. The main Orange County basin has a minor amount of assimilative capacity but the Irvine subbasin has none. Efforts to reduce nitrate levels in the Irvine subbasin are described in Section 5.8. TABLE 5-5 NITRATE -NITROGEN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE FOR LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT ZONES Management Zone Orange County Irvine Water Quality Objective 3.4 mg/L 5.9 mg/L Ambient Quality 3.0 mg/L 6.5 mg/L Source: Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality for the Period 1987 to 2006 prepared by Wildermuth Environmental, August 2008. 5.3.3 OCWD NITRATE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMS One of the District's programs to reduce nitrate levels in the groundwater basin is managing the nitrate concentration of water recharged by the District's facilities. This includes managing the quality of surface water flowing to Orange County through Prado Dam. As explained in Section 4, the primary source of recharge water for the groundwater basin is the Santa Ana River. To reduce the level of nitrate entering Orange County from the Santa Ana River, OCWD operates an extensive system of wetlands in the Prado Basin as shown in Figure 4-3. OCWD diverts river flows through a 465 -acre system of constructed wetlands, shown in Figure 5-7, where nitrates are naturally removed from the water. The wetlands provide a natural treatment system that removes approximately 15 to 40 tons of nitrates a month depending on the season. The wetlands are more effective from May through October when the water temperatures are warmer. During summer months the wetlands reduce nitrate from nearly 10 mg/L to 1 to 2 mg/L. In 2004-05, the wetlands were damaged by flooding. The wetlands were reconstructed and placed back in service in 2008. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT All production wells are tested annually for nitrate; wells with concentrations equal to or greater than 50 percent of the MCL are monitored on a quarterly basis. Areas where nitrate concentrations exceed the MCL are shown in Figure 5-8. FIGURE 5-7 PRADO WETLANDS FIGURE 5-8 AREAS WITH ELEVATED NITRATE LEVELS ..Jf HII9s '6 San �C�� loaquan Hffl _ JTt N M W - E 6 10.006 20.064 .� Foet r xwix,�..lm s.rmsem prrva9 w annrnps eru �+.nEs ee mrrtm..m ercc. LUM Nitrate -N In Excess of h'.CL Y..ia.y C ,cwo R . ,retry SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Within Orange County, nitrate -nitrogen levels in groundwater generally range from 4 to 7 mg/L in the Forebay area and from 1 to 4 mg/L in the Pressure area. Ninety-eight percent of the drinking water wells meet drinking water standards for nitrate -nitrogen as shown in Figure 5-9. The two percent above MCL are treated to reduce nitrate levels prior to being served to customers. Areas in the basin where nitrate levels exceed the MCL are suspected to be impacted by historical fertilizer use. OCWD works with the Producers to address areas of high nitrate levels. The Tustin Main Street Treatment Plant, described in Section 5.8, is an example of such an effort. FIGURE 5-9 PERCENT OF WELLS MEETING THE DRINKING WATER STANDARD (MCL) 2007 AVERAGE NITRATE DATA 2% Wells do not meet the drinking water standard for nitrates Wells are treated to reduce nitrate to levels meeting the standard before served to customers 98% Wells meet the drinking water standard for nitrate ❑ Meet MCL ■ Exceed MCL Nitrate -Nitrogen (NO3-N) MCL = 10 mg/L 5.4 Colored Groundwater Management This section discusses the occurrence of colored groundwater, the challenges of developing colored water sources, and production processes used to treat colored water. 5.4.1 OCCURRENCE OF COLORED WATER IN THE BASIN Colored water is found in deep aquifers (600-2000 feet) over a broad region in the Lower Main aquifer, as shown in Figures 5-10 and 5-11. Natural organic material from ancient redwood forests and peat bogs gives the water an amber tint and a sulfur odor. Although colored water is of very high quality, negative aesthetic qualities, its color and odor, require treatment before use as drinking water. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-10 CROSS-SECTION OF AQUIFERS SHOWING COLORED WATER AREAS Costa Mesa Santa Ana Orange o' -- SHALLOW AQUIFER 700' PRINCIPAL AQUIFER 1,400' Colored DEEP AQUIFER Water NON-WATERBEARING 2,100' 7FORMATION 10 15 20 Miles from Ocean The total amount of colored groundwater is estimated to be over one million acre feet, perhaps as much as several million acre feet. Economic constraints pose challenges to developing colored water supplies as the water needs to be treated to remove the color and odor. Costs depend on the water quality (color and other parameters) and the type and extent of required treatment. An additional factor that must be considered is the impact of water levels in the clear zone compared to water levels in the deeper aquifers with colored water. Monitoring wells reveal a correlation of clear/colored zone water level fluctuations, indicating a fairly strong hydrologic connection between the two zones in some areas of the basin. Three facilities currently treat colored groundwater in Orange County. Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD) has operated an ozone oxidation treatment facility since 1985 at its Well No. 4 site. In 2001, MCWD opened its Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) using ozone treatment to produce 4,000 gallons per minute. The third facility is the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS), a treatment facility using nano -filtration membranes operated by IRWD since 2002. This facility purifies 7.4 mgd of colored water. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURE 5-11 EXTENT OF COLORED WATER *Ile lop W E � S S 0 10.000 20.000 Feet r+vprvd*Jcea v.. p - .isiir.ri granted t 9 Fl lVM..A$ EROS. MAPS.@ 4ihoMos Funs, Maps All ngl:ls resvrjed 5.5 Synthetic Organic Contaminants -$� Active Large -System Production Well Colored Water Areas Area of observed colored water Area of suspected colored water J OGWD Boundary Ninety-five percent of the basin's groundwater used for drinking water supplies is pumped from the main aquifer. Water from this aquifer continues to be of high quality. This section describes areas of the basin that are experiencing contamination threats, most of which occur in the shallow aquifer. 5.5.1 METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) During the 1980s, gasoline hydrocarbons of greatest risk to drinking water were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, collectively known as BTEX chemicals. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Although leaking underground fuel tanks were identified throughout the basin, these chemicals typically were degraded by naturally -occurring microbes that allowed clean up by natural attenuation or passive bioremediation. Unfortunately, a new additive to gasoline aimed at reducing air pollution has become a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is a synthetic, organic chemical that was added to gasoline to increase octane ratings during the phase-out of leaded gasoline. In the mid-1990s, the percentage of MTBE added to gasoline increased significantly to reduce air emissions. MTBE is a serious threat to groundwater quality; it sorbs weakly to soil and does not readily biodegrade. The greatest source of contamination comes from releases from underground fuel tanks. The State of California banned the use of the additive in 2004 in response to its widespread detection in groundwater throughout the state. The CDPH set the primary MCL for MTBE in drinking water at 13 pg/L. The secondary MCL for MTBE is 5 pg/L. Drinking water wells in the basin are tested annually for VOC analytes including MTBE. The District continues to work with local water agencies to monitor for MTBE and other fuel -related contaminants to identify areas that may have potential underground storage tank problems and releases resulting in groundwater contamination. 5.5.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS VOCs in groundwater come from a number of sources. From the late 1950s through early 1980s, VOCs were used for industrial degreasing in metals and electronics manufacturing. Other common sources include paint thinners and dry cleaning solvents. VOC contamination is found in several locations in the basin. In 1985, a contamination site was discovered beneath the former EI Toro MCAS. Monitoring wells at the EI Toro site installed by the U.S. Navy and OCWD delineated a one -mile wide by three-mile long VOC plume, comprised primarily of trichloroethylene (TCE). Beneath the former Air Station, VOC contamination was primarily found in the shallow groundwater up to 150 feet below the ground surface. Off -base, to the west, the VOC plume is in deeper aquifers from 200 to 600 feet deep. Another VOC contamination site was found in portions of the shallow aquifer in the northern portion of the Orange County in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. Although not directly used for drinking water supplies, groundwater in the shallow aquifer eventually flows into the deeper principal aquifer, which is used for potable water supplies. To date, two city of Fullerton production wells have been removed from service and destroyed due to VOC contamination in that area. Currently, there are no production wells in that area that extract water from the shallow aquifer. The North Basin Groundwater Protection Project, described in Section 5.8, was initiated in 2005 to clean up the groundwater in this portion of the basin. Elevated concentrations of perch loroethylene (PCE), TICE, and perchlorate were detected in IRWD's well No. 3, located in Santa Ana. OCWD is currently working with the Regional Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to require aggressive cleanup actions at nearby sites that are potential sources of the SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT contamination. OCWD has initiated the South Basin Groundwater Protection Project described in Section 5.8 to address this contamination. 5.5.3 N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) NDMA is a low molecular weight compound that can form in influent water entering wastewater treatment plants and after chlorine disinfection of wastewater. It is also found in food products such as cured meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. OCWD is monitoring NDMA levels in the groundwater basin. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 nanograms per liter (ng/L). The concentration of NDMA is typically less than 2 ng/L in the Santa Ana River at Imperial Highway. At OCWD's GWR System in Fountain Valley, NDMA concentrations are maintained below California's Notification Level through a combination of source control measures, reverse osmosis treatment, and advanced oxidation treatment using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide. 5.5.4 1,4 -DIOXANE A suspected human carcinogen, 1,4 -dioxane, is used as a solvent in various industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes and may occur in consumer products such as detergents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food products. In 2002, OCWD detected elevated levels of 1,4 -dioxane in nine production wells exceeding the California Action Level. These wells were temporarily shutdown with a loss of 34 mgd of water supply. Further investigation traced the contaminant to one industrial discharger that was discharging 1,4 -dioxane into wastewater collected by OCSD. This discharge was affecting water that was treated by WF -21 and injected into the Talbert Seawater Barrier. The discharger voluntarily ceased discharge of 1,4 -dioxane and concentrations declined. Additional monitoring data showed low concentrations, the CDPH determined that the water was not a significant risk to health, and the wells were returned to service. 5.6 Perchlorate Perchlorate has been detected at wells distributed over a large area of the groundwater basin. Based on data from 217 active production wells over the last three years and a detection limit of 2.5 micrograms per liter, perchlorate was not detected at 83 percent of the wells. Seventeen percent of the wells had detectable concentrations of perchlorate. For those wells with detectable amounts of perchlorate, 89 percent of the wells have detected perchlorate concentrations below the California primary drinking water standard of 6 micrograms per liter. Four of the 217 active production wells had perchlorate concentrations greater than 6 micrograms per liter. It is important to note that water delivered for municipal purposes meets the primary drinking water standard. Groundwater from production wells that have perchlorate concentrations over the primary drinking water standard is treated to reduce the perchlorate concentration below the primary drinking water standard prior to delivery for municipal usage. Sources of perchlorate in the groundwater basin may include: • Fertilizer application; SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT • Water imported from the Colorado River (through the use of Colorado River water for groundwater recharge, irrigation, or water supplies that impact the groundwater basin through onsite wastewater disposal systems); • Industrial or military sites that used, disposed of, or stored perchlorate. Perchlorate has historically been used as an ingredient in rocket propellant, explosives, fireworks, and road flares; and • Naturally occurring perchlorate (e.g., perchlorate in rainfall). The occurrence of perchlorate in Chilean fertilizer applied for agricultural purposes has been documented in various studies (see for example, the discussion in the December 1, 2006 publication of the journal Analytical Chemistry (Foubister, 2006); see also Urbansky et al (2001)). The occurrence of perchlorate in historic supplies of Colorado River water has been documented in published studies (see for example, the report published by the National Research Council in 2005 titled "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion" (National Research Council, 2006); see also Urbansky et al (2001)). Due to source remediation efforts near Henderson, Nevada, the concentration of perchlorate in Colorado River water has decreased (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2009). Perchlorate has been detected in groundwater at various sites in California in association with industrial or military sites (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005). Perchlorate has been detected in rainfall (see for example, the report published by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005 and Dasgupta et al (2005)). The District's ongoing monitoring program is continuing to assess the distribution of perchlorate in the groundwater basin and how concentrations change through time. The District regularly reviews this information and will continue to work with the stakeholders to address this issue. 5.7 Constituents of Emerging Concern Constituents of emerging concern are synthetic or naturally occurring substances (chemicals and microorganisms) that are not regulated but may have negative impacts on the environment and/or human health. The newest group of constituents of emerging concern includes pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) include thousands of chemicals contained in consumer and health related products such as drugs (prescription and over-the-counter), food supplements, fragrances, sun -screen agents, deodorants, flavoring agents, insect repellants, and inert ingredients. Important classes of high use prescription drugs include antibiotics, hormones, beta-blockers (blood pressure medicine), analgesics (pain -killers), steroids, antiepileptic, sedatives, and lipid regulators. Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) are compounds that can disrupt the endocrine system. They can occur in a wide variety of products such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Research investigations have documented that EDCs can interfere with the normal function of hormones that affect growth and reproduction in animals and SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT humans. Findings of secondary sex changes, poor hatching, decreased fertility, and altered behavior have been observed in fish following exposure to EDCs. In general, these substances have been identified as a pollution threat or were previously detected in the environment. As new laboratory methods are developed, substances can be detected at much lower concentrations. When such detection occurs before regulatory limits are established and potential human health effects are still unknown, water suppliers and health officials face new challenges. In some cases, public awareness and concern is high because the compounds are detected but scientific -based information on potential health impacts of such low concentrations is not available. Water quality concerns arise from the widespread use of PPCPs and EDCs. In most cases, the impacts on human health from exposure to low concentrations of these substances are not known. European studies in the 1990s confirmed the presence of some of these chemicals in the less than one microgram per liter range (ppb) in surface waters and groundwater and at low concentrations in wastewater treatment plant effluents. A USGS report found detectable concentrations of hormones and PPCPs in many vulnerable waterways throughout the United States (Kolpin 2002). Due to the potential impact of EDCs on future water reclamation projects, the District prioritizes monitoring of these chemicals. OCWD's state -certified laboratory is one of a few in the state that has a program to continuously develop capabilities to analyze for new compounds. Recognizing that the state CDPH has limited resources to focus on methods development, OCWD works on developing low detection levels for chemicals likely to be targeted for future regulation or monitoring. OCWD advocates the following general principles as water suppliers and regulators develop programs to protect public health and the environmental from adverse effects of these emerging contaminants: • Monitoring should focus on constituents that pose the greatest risk. • Constituents that are prevalent, persistent in the environment, and may occur in unsafe concentrations should be prioritized. • Analytical methods to detect these constituents should be approved by the state or federal government. • Studies to evaluate the potential risk to human health and the environment should be funded by the state or federal government. • The state and federal government should encourage programs to educate the public on waste minimization and proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. OCWD is committed to (1) track new compounds of concern; (2) research chemical occurrence and treatment; (3) communicate closely with CDPH on prioritizing investigation and guidance; (4) coordinate with OCSD, upper watershed wastewater dischargers, and regulatory agencies to identify sources and reduce contaminant releases; and (5) inform the Producers on emerging issues. SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 5.8 Groundwater Quality Improvement Projects This section describes specific projects that improve groundwater quality by removing TDS, nitrate, VOCs and other constituents as shown in Figure 5-12. Two water quality improvement projects discussed in the 2004 Groundwater Management Plan are no longer in operation. The Fullerton Iron and Manganese Removal Project was determined to be ineffective due to well capacity limitations. The Orange TICE project operated only on a temporary basis and has been permanently shut down. FIGURE 5-12 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS r North Basin Groundwater w+ Protection Project 'Qk South Basln Groundwat� Protection Project IRW RATS MCWd Color x Removal Irvine �c� = esalter 0 0\ 00 N W E ` 0 10.000 20.000 F Project Location Feet 10CWD Boundary W%—Alued ml h ®errr wc.4 i qfarited by fHGMAS SPOS. MAPS.0 01'rw m tar. MaVw M t gtl5 aes@rvbd Tustiiz ' 17th Street t]es alter River lew Golf Course iTustin Nitrate 'Qk South Basln Groundwat� Protection Project IRW RATS MCWd Color x Removal Irvine �c� = esalter 0 0\ 00 N W E ` 0 10.000 20.000 F Project Location Feet 10CWD Boundary W%—Alued ml h ®errr wc.4 i qfarited by fHGMAS SPOS. MAPS.0 01'rw m tar. MaVw M t gtl5 aes@rvbd SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 5.8.1 NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT (NBGPP) In accordance with OCWD's groundwater cleanup policy, the District is implementing the NBGPP to protect drinking water supplies and the beneficial use of groundwater. OCWD has constructed five wells specifically to remove and contain contaminated groundwater in the shallow aquifer. Additional extraction wells may be needed. OCWD will also construct pipelines to bring the contaminated groundwater to a centralized treatment plant where the contaminants will be removed. The purified water will then be re -injected back into the shallow aquifer. An overview of the VOC plumes and the NBGPP is shown in Figure 5-13. OCWD has initiated legal action against the parties responsible for contamination to seek cost recovery so that the public does not have to pay for this project. FIGURE 5-13 NORTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT W CHAPI MAY E CHAPMAN AV CH AF,ytAN RV ri C 3MMONWEALTH AV E COWSOEALTH AV C EW -2A ._ E _2_� S a c --- a EW -1 J o 51 EW -3A Q N r [TentatiVta EW -3 yq�g�av _ OgpNG ORAHGETHOR E AV LOCSti0111'f E -4 TREATMENT PLANT c AND VICINITY OF - tf INJECTfON WELLS rs a 0 W fJ4 PALMA AV 'VL f I J W t7 E LA PALMA AV v �I Z k x c VOCs > 1OX MGL VOCs > 5X MCL to 1OX MCL Composite VOC Plume Map (October 2008) and Containment System Layout (updated January 2009) VOCs > MCL to 5X MCL a a,s fdfEes 'r Active Large Production Well NORTH SAS IN r. ROU NOWATER PROTECTION PROJECT 5.8.2 SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT (SBGPP) The District has initiated the SBGPP, a project similar to the NBGPP, to protect drinking water supplies in the south part of the Orange County groundwater basin. OCWD constructed six tri -nested monitoring wells to investigate the extent of VOC- contaminated groundwater in the Shallow Aquifer. Delineation of the contaminated groundwater will likely involve more than one phase of investigation. If "hot spots" or contaminated plumes are identified, the SBGPP may include comprehensive remediation systems to contain and remove the contamination similar to the NBGPP or SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT localized interim remedial measures. The study area for the SBGPP is shown in Figure 5-14. FIGURE 5-14 SOUTH BASIN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT r n coyoty ID i Huls . 50%. ■ ♦ r Q,! - 'T Farebay ��. ► • • , Pressure Area Study Area IRWD 3 • • San Joaman 40 op Hills t N N ''� . h Active Large -System Production Well W \+- E — ForebaylPressure Line OCW'WO Boundary S� Aquifer Condition 0 90.000 20,000 Confined Feet Unconfined ?. Pviw:xeo wi Pr permit3 wi gro oo wl' TI1C1MA;o BRA?$. MAP$ * 41Th—as Oros. 'Maps. Al,grft resNwed. 5.8.3 MTBE REMEDIATION In 2003, OCWD filed suit against numerous oil and petroleum -related companies that produce, refine, distribute, market, and sell MTBE and other oxygenates. The suit seeks funding from these responsible parties to pay for the investigation, monitoring, and removal of oxygenates from the basin. Treatment technologies used to remove MTBE from groundwater include granular activated carbon (GAC) or advanced oxidation. Depending upon site-specific requirements, a treatment train of two or more technologies in series may be SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT appropriate (i.e., use one technology to remove the bulk of MTBE and a follow-up technology to polish the effluent water stream). If other contaminants (e.g., excessive nitrates or TDS) are also found in groundwater with MTBE, additional treatment processes (ion exchange membranes) would also need to be included in the process train. 5.8.4 IRVINE DESALTER The Irvine Desalter was built in response to the discovery in 1985 of VOCs beneath the former EI Toro MCAS and the central area of Irvine. The plume of improperly disposed cleaning solvents migrated off base and threatened the main basin. IRWD and OCWD cooperated in building production wells, pipelines, and two treatment plants, both of which are now owned and managed by IRWD. One plant removes VOCs by air - stripping and vapor -phase carbon adsorption with the treated water used for irrigation and recycled water purposes. A second plant treats groundwater outside the plume to remove excess nitrate and TDS concentrations using RO membranes for drinking water purposes. Combined production of the Irvine Desalter wells is approximately 8,000 afy. 5.8.5 TUSTIN DESALTERS Tustin's Main Street Treatment Plant has operated since 1989 to reduce nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Tustin's Main Street Wells Nos. 3 and 4. The untreated groundwater can undergo either RO or ion exchange treatment. The RO membranes and ion exchange unit operate in a parallel treatment train. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the treatment plant product water to produce up to 2 mgd or 2,000 afy. During fiscal year 2007-08, 55,700 pounds of nitrate were removed at this treatment plant. The Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter began operation in 1996 to reduce high nitrate and TDS concentrations from the groundwater pumped by Tustin's Seventeenth Street Wells Nos. 2 and 4 and Tustin's Newport well. The desalter utilizes two RO membrane trains to treat the groundwater. The treatment capacity of each RO train is 1 mgd. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the RO product water to produce up to 3 mgd or 3,000 afy. During fiscal year 2007-08, 154,800 pounds of nitrate were removed at this treatment facility. 5.8.6 GARDEN GROVE NITRATE REMOVAL The Garden Grove Nitrate Removal Project was a blending project utilizing two wells in order to meet the MCL for nitrate. Garden Grove Well No. 28, containing high nitrate concentrations, was blended with water from Well No. 23. The blending project operated from 1990 to 2005. The city took the well off line and is considering construction of upgraded treatment facilities to expand the pumping of groundwater in this area. 5.8.7 RIVER VIEW GOLF COURSE VOC contamination, originating from an upgradient source, was discovered in a well owned by River View Golf Course, located in the City of Santa Ana. The well was used SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT for drinking water but was converted into a supply for golf course irrigation due to the contamination. Continued operation of the well helps to remove VOC contamination from the basin. 5.8.8 COLORED WATER TREATMENT The 5-mgd MCWD ozone oxidation treatment plant removes the color from groundwater pumped from Well No. 6 and Well No. 11. One of the ozone by-products is assimiable organic carbon (AOC), which increases the microbiological regrowth potential within the distribution system. Pressurized biologically -active filtration is employed immediately after ozone oxidation in order to remove AOC and produce microbiologically stable water. In order to meet the stringent disinfection by-products MCLs, chloramination (a combination of chlorine and ammonia) is used to disinfect the product water prior to delivery to distribution system. IRWD's DATS removes color from deep aquifer groundwater. A total of 8 mgd of colored groundwater is pumped from two wells (IRWD C8 and C9) to the DATS plant. Nanofiltration (NF) membranes remove color and organics. Three NF trains each produce 2.44 mgd at a recovery rate of 92 percent. The high quality NF product water is degasified, disinfected, and pumped into the Dyer Road Wellfield pipeline for potable use resulting in 7.4 mgd added to the drinking water system. The highly colored NF concentrate is sent to disposal by OCSD. The colored water treatment projects operated by MCWD and IRWD provide benefit beyond the production of water supply. The aquifers with colored water are generally deeper than the primary clear water production zones, and upward vertical migration of the colored water into the clear water aquifers has been observed. Upward migration can impair water quality in the clear water zones. A large groundwater level difference between the colored water aquifer and clear water aquifers exacerbates this situation. By pumping from the colored water aquifer, the MCWD and IRWD projects reduce the groundwater level in the colored water aquifer, thus reducing the vertical migration of colored water into the clear water aquifers. 5.9 BEA Exemption for Improvement Projects In some cases, the District encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the BEA Exemption. The benefits to the basin include removing and beneficially using poor -quality groundwater and reducing or preventing the spread of poor -quality groundwater into non -degraded aquifer zones. As explained in detail in Section 6, OCWD uses financial incentives to manage the level of pumping from the groundwater basin. Producers pay a Replenishment Assessment (RA) for water pumped from the basin. Each year the District sets an allowable amount of pumping and assesses an additional charge, called the BEA, on all water pumped above that limit. A BEA Exemption is used to encourage pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to clean up and contain the spread of poor quality SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT water. Section 38.1 of the District Act provides specific criteria for exemption of the BEA: "If the board of directors finds and determines that the water produced from the facility or facilities or any of them has or will have a beneficial effect upon the quality of water supplies of the district, the board of directors may make an order that water produced from the water -producing facility or facilities shall be exempted from either or both of the following.- (A) ollowing: (A) The payment of all or any portion of the basin equity assessment... (8) The production requirements and limitations as provided in this act." OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor -quality groundwater. These costs typically include capital, interest, and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the treatment facilities. Under this provision, the District has exempted all or a portion of the BEA for pumping and treating groundwater for removal of nitrates, TDS, VOCs, and other contaminants. Water quality improvement projects that have received a BEA exemption are listed in Table 5-6. When the District authorizes a BEA exemption for a project, OCWD is obligated to provide the replenishment water for the production above the BPP and forgoes the BEA revenue that OCWD would otherwise receive from the producer. TABLE 5-6 SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATIONS IRWD DATS Color removal 1999 8,000 BEA Exemption Project BEA Groundwater Project Name Description Exemption Production OCWD Subsidy Approval Date above BPP (afy) Removal of Irvine Desalter nitrates, TDS, and 2001 10,000 BEA Exemption VOCs Tustin Desalter Removal of 1998 3,500 BEA Exemption nitrates and TDS Blending two Garden Grove Garden Grove 1998 4,000 BEA Exemption Nitrate wells to meet nitrate MCL Tustin Nitrate Removal of 1998 1,000 BEA Exemption Removal nitrates River View Golf Removal of VOCs 1998 350 $50/af reduction Course in BEA MCWD Colored Color removal 2000 8,700 BEA Exemption Water Removal IRWD DATS Color removal 1999 8,000 BEA Exemption SECTION 5 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT This page left blank intentionally SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE The District operates the groundwater basin in order to protect and increase the basin's sustainable yield in a cost effective manner. Accomplishing this goal requires careful management of recharge and water production. This section describes the methods and programs utilized by OCWD to maintain the long-term sustainability of the basin's groundwater supplies. 6.1 General Management Approach OCWD is internationally known for its unique, proactive, supply-side management approach. This is a major factor that has enabled the District to develop one of the most advanced and progressive groundwater management systems in the world. The District seeks to expand the basin's yield by maximizing the amount of water recharged into the basin, developing new sources of water to recharge the basin, and increasing the effectiveness of the District's recharge facilities. OCWD provides access to basin supplies at a uniform cost to all entities within the District without regard to the length of time they have been producing from the basin. After initiating this policy in 1954 with the establishment of the Replenishment Assessment (RA), OCWD witnessed a substantial growth in municipal and industrial water usage. This growth has not occurred without its accompanying challenges to OCWD: the need to augment recharge water supplies, establish methods to effectively manage demands on the basin, and balance the amount of total recharge and total pumping to protect the basin from being overdrafted. The District's participation in a wide range of cooperative efforts with other water and waste water agencies as well as stakeholder organizations plays an important part in the management of the groundwater basin. 6.2 Cooperative Efforts to Protect Water Supplies and Water Quality OCWD participates in cooperative efforts with state and federal regulatory agencies and stakeholders within the District boundaries, in Orange County, and in the Santa Ana River Watershed. 6.2.1 SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY (SAWPA) SAWPA is a Joint Powers Authority whose mission is to develop and maintain regional plans, programs, and projects that will protect the Santa Ana River basin water resources. OCWD, one of SAWPA's five member agencies, actively participates on a number of work groups that meet on a regular basis to discuss, plan, and make joint decisions on management of water resources in the Santa Ana Watershed. OCWD actively participates in the following SAWPA work groups: SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE SAWPA Commission: The commission, composed of Board members from SAWPA's five member agencies including OCWD, meets on a monthly basis to set policy and oversee the management of SAWPA. Storm Water Quality Standards Task Force: The Task Force is evaluating water quality standards as they relate to stormwater and dry weather flows. Particular emphasis is being given to the water quality that is needed to protect recreational beneficial uses. Basin Monitoring Program Task Force: The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force was formed in 1995 to determine the extent of and evaluate the impact of increasing concentrations of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and TDS in groundwater in the watershed. Formation of the Task Force was in response to concerns by the Regional Board that water quality objectives for nitrogen and TDS were being exceeded in some groundwater basins in the watershed. The over 20 water and waste water agencies and local governments on the Task Force worked with RWQCB staff to develop an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) that was adopted in 2004. This nearly ten-year effort involved collecting and analyzing data in twenty-five groundwater management zones in the watershed to recalculate nitrogen and TDS levels and to establish new Water Quality Objectives to protect Beneficial Uses. An important component in this effort was the recognition by stakeholders that groundwater basins are interconnected and that water quality in one basin impacts other basins and the quality of the water in the Santa Ana River. The Basin Plan amendment charges the Task Force with implementing a watershed -wide TDS/Nitrogen groundwater monitoring program. Task Force members agreed to fund and participate in a process to recalculate ambient water quality every three years in each of the twenty-five groundwater management zones and to compare water quality to the water quality objectives in order to measure compliance with the Basin Plan. The latest recalculation, the second since adoption of the amendment, was published in August 2008 (Wildermuth, 2008). Salinity Management and Imported Water Recharge Plenary Workgroup: This workgroup, in cooperation with the Regional Board, implements a Cooperative Agreement signed by water agencies that use imported water for groundwater recharge. The workgroup is analyzing water quality data and estimating future conditions to evaluate the impact of recharging imported water. Emerging Constituents Workgroup: This workgroup is developing a monitoring program for emerging constituents in water that is intentionally recharged to local aquifers. The group will develop a SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE water quality monitoring program aimed at protecting surface water quality and groundwater supplies. Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Team: Meeting monthly since 1998, a group of concerned public agencies from throughout the Santa Ana River watershed have been working to determine the reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and to devise strategies for recovering the species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) are part of this effort. One Water One Watershed Initiative: A large and diverse group of interested citizens and organizations is participating in developing an updated Santa Ana Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. 6.2.2 WATER QUALITY AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION IN THE PRADO BASIN The water quality of the Santa Ana River and its tributary creeks has a direct impact on the quality of water that flows into Orange County. The operation of the Prado Wetlands, as described in Section 5.3.3, improves water quality through the removal of nitrates and other pollutants before the water reaches OCWD's groundwater recharge basins. The Prado Basin contains the single largest stand of forested riparian habitat remaining in coastal southern California. The basin provides a variety of fish and bird habitats including several rare and endangered species. OCWD manages a large portion of this property and has undertaken numerous habitat restoration and species recovery projects. As part of a cooperative agreement with the ACOE and the USFWS, OCWD has created more than 800 acres of habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher and has funded more than $3 million in mitigation and monitoring measures for the vireo program. Through these restoration activities, OCWD has made significant contributions towards the recovery of vireo. In the mid -eighties, the vireo population had dropped to less than 20 breeding pairs. A 2007 survey identified 420 vireo territories, 237 of which contained pairs. Plans are underway to create additional river edge habitat, the preferred habitat of the flycatcher, in order to increase the population of this endangered bird. A significant amount of the Prado Basin is infested with exotic vegetation, including the Giant Reed (Arundo donax), shown in Figure 6-1. Arundo grows rapidly, obstructs flood flows, has no value for wildlife habitat, and consumes nearly three times the water of native vegetation. Arundo consumes an estimated 56,200 of of water annually from the Santa Ana River. OCWD has invested over $3 million in Arundo removal efforts. These efforts are coordinated by the Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA). The SAWA, of which OCWD is a founding member, is dedicated to improving environmental quality and habitat within the watershed. Other members of SAWA include the CDFG, Riverside SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE County Flood Control District, Riverside County Parks and Recreation, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, SAWPA, the RWQCB, the ACOE, the USFWS, and the U.S. Forest Service. Approximately 3,100 acres of river bottom lands formerly infested by Arundo and other invasive weeds are now under management. It is estimated that by 2025, an annual minimum of 36,000 of of additional water will be available in the Santa Ana River as a result of removing Arundo (based on a minimum of 3.6 of of additional water per acre of Arundo removed). FIGURE 6-1 ARUNDO REMOVAL Arundo Control Begins with Removal by Hand or Machine Followed by Treatment of Re -growth with a Systemic Herbicide 6.2.3 CHINO BASIN INTEGRATED PLANNING Chino Creek and Mill Creek are major tributaries that flow into the Santa Ana River in the Prado Basin. OCWD staff attends monthly meetings of stakeholders from this region to discuss and act upon issues of common concern. In 2006, the group, led by the IEUA and OCWD produced the Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance the Lower Chino Creek Watershed. 6.2.4 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN ORANGE COUNTY OCWD supports the watershed planning efforts of the County of Orange. The county created three watershed management areas in order to localize the development and implementation of integrated regional watershed plans. Two of the management areas are within the OCWD service area. The North Orange County Management Area covers the areas within the county that are located within the Santa Ana River Watershed and the coastal watersheds west of the Santa Ana River. The Central Orange County Management Area covers the Newport Bay Watershed and the Newport Coast area. OCWD participates in the development and implementation of the North Orange County and Central Orange County watershed plans. Okl' i l'k� F z dr M Y�ij�}'�J^ Arundo Control Begins with Removal by Hand or Machine Followed by Treatment of Re -growth with a Systemic Herbicide 6.2.3 CHINO BASIN INTEGRATED PLANNING Chino Creek and Mill Creek are major tributaries that flow into the Santa Ana River in the Prado Basin. OCWD staff attends monthly meetings of stakeholders from this region to discuss and act upon issues of common concern. In 2006, the group, led by the IEUA and OCWD produced the Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance the Lower Chino Creek Watershed. 6.2.4 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN ORANGE COUNTY OCWD supports the watershed planning efforts of the County of Orange. The county created three watershed management areas in order to localize the development and implementation of integrated regional watershed plans. Two of the management areas are within the OCWD service area. The North Orange County Management Area covers the areas within the county that are located within the Santa Ana River Watershed and the coastal watersheds west of the Santa Ana River. The Central Orange County Management Area covers the Newport Bay Watershed and the Newport Coast area. OCWD participates in the development and implementation of the North Orange County and Central Orange County watershed plans. SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE 6.2.5 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN OCWD SERVICE AREA OCWD participates in a variety of cooperative efforts with water retailers and cities within the OCWD service area as well as wastewater and flood control agencies, as described below. Groundwater Producers The Producers, the retail water agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin, meet with OCWD staff on a monthly basis to discuss issues related to management of the groundwater basin. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) MWDOC, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, provides imported water to 28 retail water agencies and cities in Orange County. MWDOC also supplies untreated imported water to OCWD when it is available for use as a supplemental source of water to recharge the groundwater basin. OCWD and MWDOC meet on a monthly basis and jointly plan for the maximum flexibility in the overall water supply, including: • Coordinating mutual water resources planning, supply availability, and water use efficiency (conservation) programs for the benefit of the basin area in Orange County. • Conducting and developing an Orange County Water Reliability Program to improve the overall water and emergency supply to Orange County. • Evaluating ocean water desalination, water recycling, and other means to increase the supply and system reliability for the basin area. • Evaluating water transfers and exchanges that would make surplus supplies from other areas available to the District. Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) WACO is a group of elected officials and water managers who meet on a monthly basis to provide advice to OCWD and MWDOC on water supply issues. Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee The GWR System is a joint project of the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. Directors of the two districts meet on a monthly basis to coordinate joint operations. Orange County Flood Control District Three of the recharge basins used by OCWD for groundwater recharge are owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD also owns a six -mile section of the Santa Ana River that is used for conveyance of flood water. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss joint operations and planning. SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE 6.3 Supply Management Strategies One of OCWD's management objectives is to maximize the amount of water recharged into the basin. This is achieved through maximizing the efficiency of and expanding the District's recharge facilities and increasing the supply of recharge water. The District constructed the GWR System to increase the supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional District supply management programs include encouraging and using recycled water for irrigation and other non -potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, participating in efforts to manage water and other natural resources in the upper watershed, and working with MWDOC in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. 6.3.1 USE OF RECYCLED WATER OCWD's Green Acres Project is a non -potable water supply project that utilizes a dedicated set of pipelines to deliver irrigation and industrial water to users. Most of the recycled water is used on golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries. The Green Acres Project, in operation since 1991, reduces demands on the basin by providing non -potable water for non -potable uses. Secondary wastewater effluent from the OCSD is filtered and disinfected with chlorine to produce approximately seven mgd of irrigation and industrial water. 6.3.2 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Water conservation plays an important role in meeting future water demands. By implementing conservation programs, future water demand can be reduced, and less imported water will be necessary to meet the area's water requirements. The District cooperated with MWDOC, OCSD, and other agencies in a low -flush toilet program that subsidized the replacement of old high-volume toilets with modern low - flow toilets. The District also supports MWDOC and Metropolitan in a Hotel/Motel Water Conservation Program to save water through minimizing water use at hotels. This program, active in over 30,000 hotel/motel rooms, offers free laminated towel rack hangers or bed cards that encourage guests to consider using their towels and bed linens more than once during their stay. OCWD supports MWDOC and other local agencies in a similar program aimed at restaurant water conservation. Free laminated cards are provided for restaurants to place on their tables. The cards inform patrons that water will be served only upon request. This encourages environmental awareness and water and energy conservation. 6.3.3 CONJUNCTIVE USE AND WATER TRANSFERS The existing Metropolitan storage program provides for Metropolitan to store 66,000 of of water in the basin in exchange for Metropolitan's contribution to improvements in basin management facilities. This water can be withdrawn over a three-year time period. The improvements contributed by Metropolitan included the construction of eight new extraction wells and new injection wells for the Talbert Barrier Expansion. SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE The District reviews opportunities for additional conjunctive use projects that would store water in the basin and could potentially store water in other groundwater basins. Additionally, the District reviews opportunities for water transfers that could provide additional sources of recharge water. Such projects are evaluated carefully with respect to their impact on available storage and their reliability and cost effectiveness. 6.4 Water Demands Numerous factors influence water demands such as population growth, economic conditions, conservation programs, and hydrologic conditions. Estimates of future demands are therefore subject to some uncertainty and are updated on a periodic basis. Total water demand within the District's boundary for water year 2007-08 (July 1 - June 30) was 480,303 af. Total demand is met with a combination of groundwater, imported water, local surface water in Irvine Lake and Santiago Creek, and recycled water used for irrigation and industrial purposes. Figure 6-2 provides historical water demands in the District. 400,000 Acre -Feet 300,000 200,000 0 FIGURE 6-2 HISTORICAL TOTAL DISTRICT WATER DEMANDS 19' 4' (bA IJ5 9Q' Q'p �� cgl CP �� 0 0 C'1 �' CP 00 O'' & On' O' & OHO 6 O� �` �� �`C �'`, �� �C �� �� �I �a5 �� �� �( �'A �� �C o� oN o� o, o� o� 11b, oA, �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� 'P ti� ti� 'P 'I ti� 'I ti� Water Year SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Demand estimates are based on a number of factors including projected population increases. Population within OCWD's service area is expected to increase from 2.5 million currently to 2.7 million by the year 2035 as shown in Table 6-1. This population growth is expected to increase water demands from the current approximately 480,000 afy to 558,000 afy in 2035 as shown in Table 6-2. Future annual water demands will fluctuate, primarily due to factors such as the effectiveness of future water conservations programs, economic conditions, and hydrologic conditions. TABLE 6-1 ESTIMATED POPULATION WITHIN OCWD BOUNDARY 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2,550,000 2,620,000 2,659,000 2,685,000 2,703,000 2,722,000 Source: MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2008) TABLE 6-2 ESTIMATED FUTURE WATER DEMANDS IN OCWD BOUNDARY (AFY) 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 490,000 500,000 519,000 538,000 548,000 553,000 558,000 Projections based on annual MWDOC survey completed by each Producer - Spring 2008 Expansion of the District's boundary through annexing additional land into the District has been a major factor in the growth of OCWD. From 1933 to now, the District's area has grown from 162,676 acres to over 229,000 acres (OCWD, 2006). Annexation requests by the City of Anaheim, Irvine Ranch Water District, and Yorba Linda Water District, if approved, could expand the District's boundary and increase water demands by approximately 48,000 afy. 6.5 Basin Operating Range OCWD does not regulate pumping from the groundwater basin. Instead, total pumping is managed by a process that uses financial incentives to encourage Producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable over the long term. The process that determines a sustainable level of pumping considers the basin's safe operating range and the amount of recharge water available to the District. The basin operating range refers to the upper and lower levels of groundwater storage in the basin that can be reached without causing negative or adverse impacts. The basin is in the upper (higher) end of the operating range when groundwater levels are high. Conversely, the basin is near the low end of the operating range when groundwater levels are lower. Figure 6-3 schematically illustrates the impacts of changing the amount of groundwater in storage. SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE The storage level is quantified based on a benchmark defined as the full basin condition. The groundwater basin rarely, if ever, reaches the full basin condition. The degree to which the storage is below the full basin condition is defined as "accumulated overdraft." Based on this definition of accumulated overdraft, it is anticipated that the accumulated overdraft would increase or decrease from year to year in response to hydrological variations. Provided that the accumulated overdraft is within the safe operating range, this approach is sustainable. FIGURE 6-3 SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF IMPACTS OF CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE Land Surface Ocean Decreased overdraft (increased water in storage) Increased overdraft (decreased water in storage) Effects of Increased Overdraft: • Less water available in storage to be pumped during drought • Decreased loss of water to LA County • Increased available storage capacity if large amounts recharge water becomes available • Increased potential for seawater intrusion (if exceed barrier threshold) • Increased pumping costs • Increased potential for inflow of colored water into clear water aquifers • Increased potential for land subsidence (if exceed threshold) • May need to increase budget for replenishment water to reduce overdraft • Some shallow production wells may become inoperable due to low groundwater levels Effects of Decreased Overdraft: • More water available in storage to be pumped during drought • Increased loss of water to LA County • Decreased opportunity to recharge basin if large amounts recharge water becomes available • Beneficial in controlling seawater intrusion • Decreased pumping costs Each year the District determines the optimum level of storage for the following year. For example, at small amounts of overdraft (greater total amount of water in storage), the amount of energy required to pump groundwater is less and groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County is greater. On the other hand, larger amounts of overdraft increase the potential for seawater intrusion. Factors that are considered in determining the optimum level of storage are shown in Table 6-3. The accumulated overdraft is calculated and published in the annual District's Engineer's Report. Since 2007, the determination of accumulated overdraft is based on a full basin benchmark defined for each of the three aquifer layers as described in Section 2. The shallow aquifer, the principal aquifer, and the aquitard between the shallow and principal aquifer stores approximately 66,000,000 of of water at the full condition. When the accumulated overdraft is 200,000 af, the Basin is approximately 99.7 percent full. When the overdraft increases from 200,000 to 400,000 af, the basin changes from 99.7 to 99.4 percent full. From a classical surface water reservoir perspective, the basin is SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE almost always nearly "full." In spite of the large amount of water stored in the basin, there is a narrow operating range within which the Basin can safely operate, as illustrated in Figure 6-4, which is largely dictated by water quality issues and the need to prevent land subsidence. TABLE 6-3 BENEFITS AND DETRIMENTS OF DIFFERENT STORAGE LEVELS ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT BENEFITS DETRIMENTS (AF) 5 Less than • Beneficial to controlling seawater • Increased loss of groundwater to Los 200,000 intrusion Angeles County • Lower pumping energy costs for • Possible localized high groundwater levels if producers near full condition • Easier to maintain stable BPP • Decreased opportunity to recharge Basin if • Water available to be pumped large amount of low cost recharge water from storage in shortage condition becomes available • Potential to temporarily increase • Possible decrease in recharge capacity due BPP to high groundwater levels (not observed at • Decreased potential for vertical current recharge rates, but may be an issue migration of poor quality water with higher rates in future) • Opportunity to operate Basin to build reserves 200,000 to • Minimal to no problems with high 350,000 groundwater levels • Increased available storage capacity if large amount of recharge water becomes available • Decreased groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County 350,000 to 0 Minimal to no problems with high 500,000 groundwater levels • Increased available storage capacity if large amount of recharge water becomes available • Further decrease in groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County • Limited amount of water in storage that can be pumped during drought or other shortage condition • Risk of seawater intrusion increases as overdraft increases from 200,000 to 350,000 of • Option for Metropolitan to call 20,000 afy from storage would further increase overdraft • Little to no water in storage that can be i pumped during drought or other shortage condition • Increased pumping energy costs • Further increased risk of seawater intrusion • Coastal pumping reductions potentially needed • Option for Metropolitan to call 20,000 afy from storage further worsens overdraft • Increased number of production wells inoperable due to low groundwater levels below 400,000 of overdraft • Potential risk of increased land subsidence • Potential increased risk of vertical migration of poor quality water. • Need to increase budget for replenishment water to reduce overdraft • More difficult to maintain stable BPP SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE FIGURE 6-4 STRATEGIC BASIN OPERATING LEVELS AND OPTIMAL TARGET 0 AF Full Condition Overdraft Storage capacity for one wet year - 100,000 AF I Optimal Target OCWD Operating Range Provides at least three years of drought supply when at top of range -434,000 AF ----------------- 66,000 AF MWD storage - 500,000 AF LLowest Acceptable Level Groundwater levels must be carefully managed to properly control seawater intrusion. With the water available for injection from the GWR System, seawater intrusion may be controlled in the Talbert Gap with a maximum overdraft of 500,000 af. Improvements to the Talbert Barrier may allow greater overdraft but the impact of greater withdrawals on the other gaps, Bolsa, Sunset and Alamitos, must also be evaluated. Additional issues that would need to be evaluated prior to increasing the amount of overdraft, assuming an effective seawater barrier was operating, would include the risk of land subsidence, inflow of colored water or poor quality groundwater into the principal aquifer from underlying or overlying aquifers, and the number of shallow production wells that would become inoperable due to lower groundwater levels. 6.6 Balancing Production and Recharge Over the long term, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In one particular year, water withdrawals may exceed water recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE balanced by years where water recharged exceeds withdrawals. Levels of basin production and water recharged since water year 1991-92 are shown in Figure 6-5. 600,000 500,000 400,000 AFY 300,000 200,000 100,000 FIGURE 6-5 BASIN PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE SOURCES 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 Water Year Water Year SAR Baseflow Natural Incidental Recharge Captured SAR Stormflow Imported Water/GWR System Groundwater Production Captured SAR 91-92 105,000 2,000 65,000 109,000 _ 311,000 92-93 127,000 107,000 111,000 82,000 312,000 93-94 114,000 78,000 41,000 144,000 312,000 94-95 120,000 70,000 117,000 44,000 314,000 95-96 128,000 58,000 70,000 32,000 329,000 96-97 138,000 74,000 51,000 56,000 339,000 97-98 146,000 101,000 74,000 55,000 329,000 98-99 161,000 36,000 50,000 35,000 356,000 99-00 150,000 82,000 33,000 84,000 384,000 00-01 153,000 50,000 27,000 95,000 369,000 01-02 150,000 38,000 21,000 _ 73,0_00 374,000 02-03 143,000 58,000 52,000 109,000 359,000 03-04 146,000 59,000 39,000 84,000 337,000 04-05 149,000 159,000 85,000 87,000 314,000 05-06 153,000 39,000 84,000 104,000 318,000 06-07 133,000 15,000 19,000 103,000 350,000 07-08 132,000 52,000 46,000 30,000 368,000 SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE 6.7 Managing Basin Pumping The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). Section 31.5 of the District Act empowers the Board to annually establish the BPP, defined as: "the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies with the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the District from supplemental sources as well as from groundwater within the District. " In other words, the BPP is a percentage of each Producer's water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the RA. Any production above the BPP is charged the RA plus the BEA. The BEA is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production above the BPP is higher than purchasing imported potable supplies. This approach serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP. The BEA can be increased as needed to discourage production above the BPP. In simplified terms, the BPP is calculated by dividing groundwater production by total water demands. The BPP is set after evaluating groundwater conditions, availability of recharge water supplies, and basin management objectives. The BPP is also a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production for that year. OCWD's goal is to set the BPP as high as possible to allow Producers to maximize pumping and reduce their overall water supply cost. Figure 6-6 shows the history of the BPP along with the actual BPP that was achieved by the Producers. 100% 80% 60% Achieved Production Percentage 40% 20% 0% FIGURE 6-6 BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE HISTORY OCWD Assigned Basin Production Percentage 0 In -Lieu 0 Groundwater ------------------ ----------------------------- V In 0 I- W M O N M W W W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V In (O M M M O N M V In 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOONOOOOOOO Water Year SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Raising or lowering the BPP allows the District to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. The BPP is lowered when basin conditions necessitate a decrease in pumping. A lower BPP results in the need for Producers to purchase additional, more expensive imported water from Metropolitan. One example of a condition that could require a lowering of the BPP is to protect the basin from seawater intrusion. In this case, reduced pumping would allow groundwater levels to recover and seawater intrusion to be reduced. A change in the BPP affects the District's budget as less pumping reduces collected revenues. 6.7.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING THE BASIN PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE The formula used to estimate the BPP is shown in Figure 6-7. The formula is used as a guideline and the District's Board of Directors sets the BPP after considering the relevant information and input from the Producers and the public. To determine the BPP for a given year the amount of water available for basin recharge must be estimated. The supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: • Santa Ana River stormflow • Natural incidental recharge • Santa Ana River baseflow • GWR System supplies • Other supplies such as Metropolitan and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. FIGURE 6-7 BPP CALCULATION SAR Natural Incidental Stormflows + Recharge using + using Rainfall Rainfall Probability Probability SAR Expected Baseflows + GWR System (5 -yr Avg) Supplies Other expected Expected Planned supplies such as Expected MWD WQ Basin Refill + Alamitos Barrier and + Replenishment - pumping - (from table) Arlington Desalter Water above BPP Total Water Demands Expected Reclaimed & Local (5 -yr Avg.) - Supplies MWD = Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Probability factors are used to estimate recharge into the groundwater basin from Santa Ana River stormflow and natural incidental recharge. The probability percentages are based on over 100 years of rainfall data and represent the probability that the upcoming year will not be drier than the predicted rainfall amount. As the accumulated overdraft increases, a higher level of certainty or probability is used in the BPP calculation to ensure that the basin recharge estimates are attained or exceeded. For example, if the accumulated overdraft is 500,000 af, then a 90 percent rainfall probability would be used to conservatively estimate that the upcoming year's rainfall will only be nine inches even though there is a 90 percent chance that it will be greater. With this methodology, there is 90 percent likelihood that the upcoming year's estimate of rainfall will be exceeded. When the basin is nearly full, the ten percent probability of expected rainfall would be used. In other words, it would be determined that there is only a ten percent chance of having an upcoming year that is wetter than assumed, or conversely, a 90 percent chance that the upcoming year will be drier. For the San Bernardino rainfall station, the ten percent rainfall exceedance probability is 27 inches of rainfall. Therefore, assuming 27 inches of rainfall for the upcoming year's BPP calculation would ensure with 90 percent likelihood that it would actually be drier, less water would be recharged into the basin, and the accumulated overdraft would be increased so as to prevent overfilling the basin and losing water to the ocean. When the basin is within the optimal range of 100,000 to 150,000 of of accumulated overdraft, the 50 percent probability of rainfall is suggested to be used. In other words, there would be an equal chance (50/50) of having either a wetter or drier year than assumed. In this case, the 50 percent rainfall exceedance probability is very similar to assuming average hydrology for the upcoming year. This methodology provides a guideline for the upcoming year's recommended amount of basin refill, dependent of the level of accumulated overdraft. For each increasing level of accumulated overdraft, an increasing amount of basin refill is suggested, ranging from approximately five to ten percent of the accumulated overdraft. For example, at an accumulated overdraft level of 400,000 af, the suggested amount of basin refill or overdraft reduction for the upcoming year would range from 20,000 to 40,000 af. Therefore, at this assumed basin refill rate, it would take approximately 10 to 20 years to completely fill the basin and eliminate the overdraft. Table 6-4 shows the established amount or range for the planned basin refill water (reduction to the basin's accumulated overdraft) that is used in the formula based upon the basin's accumulated overdraft. The range is based upon provisions in the District Act which call for refilling the groundwater basin in not less than 10 years and not greater than 20 years. For example; if the accumulated overdraft is 400,000 af, refilling the basin over a 20 -year period would yield a value of 20,000 afy while refilling the basin over a 10 -year period yields a value of 40,000 afy. SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE TABLE 6-4 ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT, BASIN REFILL, PROBABILITY FACTOR & RAINFALL AMOUNT Accumulated Planned Basin San Bernardino Rainfall Probability Overdraft (af) Refill Amount (af) Projection (inches) Factor 0 -20,000 27 10% 100,000 0 15 50% 200,000 10,000 to 20,000 _ 300,000 15,000 to 30,000 _ 400,000 20,000 to 40,000 14 60% 13 70% 11 80% 500,000 25,000 to 50,000 9 90% For the 2008-09 water year, the estimated supply of recharge water is summarized in Table 6-5. TABLE 6-5 RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES ESTIMATED FOR 2008-09 Source Santa Ana River Baseflows Captured Santa Ana River Stormflows Natural Net Incidental Recharge Expected Groundwater Replenishment Supplies Other S es Total 6.7.2 BASIN PRODUCTION LIMITATION Amount (afy) 146,300 50,000 60,000 61,000 11,000 328,300 Another management tool that enables OCWD to sustainably manage the basin is the Basin Production Limitation. Section 31.5(g) (7) of the District Act authorizes limitations on production and the setting of surcharges when those limits are exceeded. This provision can be used when it is necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. An example of this was the Temporary Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifted approximately 20,000 afy of pumping from the coastal area to inland to minimize seawater intrusion. 6.8 Drought Management Drought is an extended period of below-average precipitation. There is no single, official definition of the time period associated with a drought. The magnitude of a drought depends on the extent of the deviation from average precipitation, the areal extent of the below-average precipitation, and other factors. During a drought, flexibility to increase pumping from the basin becomes increasingly important. To the extent that the basin has water in storage that can be pumped out, the basin provides a valuable water supply asset during drought conditions. Ensuring that the basin can provide a buffer against drought conditions requires: SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE • Maintaining sufficient water in storage that can be pumped out in time of need; • Operating the basin at the lower water storage in a safe manner; and • Possessing a plan to refill the basin. The San Bernardino precipitation station data, shown in Figure 4-11, is used to evaluate the extent of droughts in the Santa Ana River watershed. This station is selected because it is used in the Santa Ana River Watermaster reports (Santa Ana River Watermaster Report, 2008) and has a relatively long period of record. During drought conditions, the District experiences a decline in the supply of recharge water. Replenishment water from Metropolitan is only available to OCWD when Metropolitan has excess supplies. In addition, the local supply of Santa Ana River recharge water and net incidental recharge water could decline up to 55,000 afy or more during drought years as shown in Table 6-6. TABLE 6-6 IMPACT OF DROUGHTS ON RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY ESTIMATED DECREASE IN SUPPLY DUE TO DROUGHT (AF/YR) Santa Ana River Baseflow 15,000 Santa Ana River Stormflow Net Incidental Recharge 20,000 or more 20,000 or more Total 55,000 or more Note: does not include potential decline in Metropolitan replenishment supplies 6.8.1 MAINTAINING WATER IN STORAGE FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS For the basin to serve as a safe, reliable buffer, sufficient groundwater must be stored before a drought occurs. As an example, assume the basin has an accumulated overdraft of 150,000 of and can be drawn down to 500,000 of without irreparable seawater intrusion. The basin has 350,000 of of water in storage. In a hypothetical five- year drought, recharge water supplies can decrease 55,000 afy without jeopardizing the long-term health of the basin. Since recharge water supplies are likely to decline during drought years, the water stored at the beginning of the drought is critical. If water is stored in Metropolitan's conjunctive use storage program, this stored water must also be accounted for. 6.8.2 BASIN OPERATION DURING DROUGHT When the basin overdraft is intentionally increased, the basin must be operated in a safe manner, considering the potential for land subsidence and seawater intrusion, the availability of sufficient excess recharge capacity to eventually refill the basin, the impact of low groundwater levels on shallow production wells, and a potential for SECTION 6 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE colored water to flow into clear water aquifers. Approaches for refilling the Basin are described in Table 6-7. TABLE 6-7 APPROACHES TO REFILLING THE BASIN APPROACH DISCUSSION Decrease Total Water . Increase water conservation measures (note this does not Demands result in a 1:1 decrease in groundwater pumping because some of the increased conservation reduces Metropolitan demands); this decreases pumping from the basin if the BPP is held constant and all other factors remain the same. Decrease BPP . Allows groundwater levels to recover rapidly • Decreases revenue to the District • Increases water cost for producers • Does not require additional recharge facilities • Dependent upon other sources of water (e.g., water from Metropolitan) being available to substitute for reduced groundwater pumping Increase Recharge . Dependent on increased supply of recharge water • Water transfers and exchanges could be utilized to provide the increased supply of recharge water • Dependent on building and maintaining excess recharge capacity (which would be under-utilized in non -drought years) Combination of the Above . A combination of the approaches provides flexibility and a range of options for refilling the basin SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OCWD strives to improve the efficiency of all aspects of its operations in its continuing efforts to increase the water quality and reliability of Orange County's local water resources at the lowest possible cost. The District manages its finances to provide long-term fiscal stability. To achieve this objective OCWD: • Manages finances to maintain high credit ratings. • Manages District operations efficiently and effectively. • Maintains reserves for purchase of supplemental water supplies when available. • Recovers contamination clean up costs from responsible parties when possible. • Sets the Basin Production Percentage to optimize sustainable use of groundwater. 7.1 Background Financial Information The District's fiscal year (FY) begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The annual operating budget for 2008-09 was approximately $116.3 million; District revenues are expected to be approximately $116.3 million. A significant increase in the budget to fund the operation of the GWR System was approved by the Board in 2007. 7.2 Operating Expenses The District's budgeted operating expenses for FY 2008-09 are summarized in Table 7-1 and described below. TABLE 7-1 FY 2008-09 BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSES General Fund EXPENSES AMOUNT (in millions) $57.2 Total Debt Service 28.3 Water Purchases 19.1 New Equipment/ Small Projects 2.2 Increase to Reserves 0.9 Refurbishment and Replacement Expenditures 8.6 Total $116.3 SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 7.2.1 GENERAL FUND The District's general fund account primarily allows the District to operate the recharge facilities in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, GWR System, the Talbert and Alamitos Injection Barriers, the Green Acres Project, and the Prado Wetlands. In addition, the District's Water Quality Laboratory, groundwater monitoring programs, watershed management, planning, and other miscellaneous activities are funded by this account. 7.2.2 DEBT SERVICE The debt service budget provides for repayment of the District's debt from issues of previous bonds. OCWD has a comprehensive long-range debt program, which provides for the funding of projects necessary to increase basin production and protect water quality, while providing predictable impacts to the RA. The annual project -related debt expense is approximately $28.3 million. The District holds very high credit ratings of AAA credit from Standard & Poor's, AAA from Fitch, along with an Aa2 rating from Moody's. Because of these excellent credit ratings, OCWD is able to borrow money at a substantially reduced cost. 7.2.3 WATER PURCHASES The District Act authorizes OCWD to purchase supplemental water for groundwater recharge to reduce overdraft of the basin. As described in Section 4, replenishment water is primarily purchased from Metropolitan, either as direct or in -lieu replenishment. This fund provides the flexibility to take advantage of surplus Metropolitan replenishment water or other surplus supplies when such supplies are available. During times of drought when replenishment water is unavailable for purchase, OCWD may budget funds for placement in reserve for future years. The District anticipates that surplus imported water will not be available for the next few years. A significant portion of the $19.1 million in the FY 2008-09 budget to purchase replenishment water will be placed in reserve. Funds in this account are also used to purchase treated full service supplies from MWDOC to blend with GWR System purified water for injection into the seawater barrier. 7.2.4 NEW CAPITAL EQUIPMENT This category includes equipment items such as laboratory equipment, vehicles, fax machines, tools, computers, and software. These items are expensed and funded using current revenues. 7.2.5 REFURBISHMENT AND REPLACEMENT FUND OCWD has over $700 million in existing plant and fixed assets. These facilities were constructed to provide a safe and reliable water supply. The Replacement and Refurbishment Fund was established to ensure that sufficient funds are available to repair and replace existing District infrastructure, such as pumps, heavy equipment, wells and water recycling facilities. SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 7.3 Operating Revenues Expected operating revenues for FY 2008-09 are shown in Table 7-2 and described below. Table 7-2 FY 2008-09 Operating Revenues REVENUES AMOUNT (in millions) Replenishment Assessments $84.5 Basin Equity Assessment Property Taxes 1.0 18.1 Other Miscellaneous Revenue 12.7 Total $116.3 7.3.1 REPLENISHMENT ASSESSMENTS RAs are paid for all water pumped out of the basin. The District invoices Producers for their production in July and January. The amount of revenue generated by the RA is directly related to the amount of groundwater production. The RA is anticipated to generate $84.5 million in FY 2008-09 based on 341,058 of of total anticipated basin production. The BEA is assessed annually for all groundwater production above the BPP. The BEA rate is calculated for each agency and is currently approximately $381/af. Anticipated BEA revenues are budgeted at $1.0 million for FY 2008-09. 7.3.2 PROPERTY TAXES The District receives a small percentage of the property taxes, also referred to as ad valorem taxes, collected in the service area. For 2008-09, the District expects to receive approximately $18.1 million from property taxes. The County of Orange assesses and collects the property taxes and transmits them to the District at various times during the year. This revenue source has been dedicated to the District's annual debt service expense. 7.3.3 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Cash reserves generate interest revenues. The majority of cash reserves are invested in short-term securities. Yields on cash reserves are anticipated to be low and have been estimated at three percent for 2008-09, for anticipated revenue of $4.2 million. Miscellaneous revenues are primarily comprised of water sales from the Green Acres Project and loan repayments. The loan repayments originate from the Conjunctive Use Well Program in which the District loaned Producers money at low interest rates for construction of new production wells and related facilities. In addition, numerous small items such as rents, subsidies, and minor fees are grouped in this account. Approximately $8.7 million is expected to be received in 2008-09. SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 7.4 Reserves The District maintains cash reserves to ensure its financial integrity so that the basin can be successfully managed and protected. Cash reserves ensure that: • OCWD has sufficient funds for cash flow purposes; • Funds are available for unexpected events such as contamination issues; • Funds are available to make necessary replacements and repairs to infrastructure; • OCWD has access to debt programs with low interest cost; • A financial hedge is available to manage variable rate debt; and • Funds are available to purchase Metropolitan replenishment water when available. 7.4.1 RESERVE POLICIES The District has reserve policies, which establish reserves in the following categories: • Operating reserves • The Replacement and Refurbishment Program • The Toxic Cleanup Reserve • Contingencies required by the District Act • Bond reserve covenants 7.4.1.1 Operating Reserves This reserve category helps the District maintain sufficient funds for cash flow purposes and helps sustain the District's excellent credit rating. Maintaining this reserve, which is set at 15 percent of the operating budget, is particularly important because the principal source of revenue, the RA, is only collected twice a year. Payments for significant activities, such as replenishment water purchases, are typically required on a monthly basis. The reserve provides the financial "bridge" to meet the District's financial obligations on a monthly basis. 7.4.1.2 Replacement and Refurbishment Program The District maintains a Replacement and Refurbishment Fund to provide the financial resources for replacement and/or repair of the District capital assets. These assets include treatment facilities, monitoring and injection wells, and treatment facilities. The fund balance at the end of FY 2008-09 was projected to be approximately $41.2 million. 7.4.1.3 Toxic Cleanup Reserve Funds are reserved in this account to be used in the event that a portion of the basin becomes threatened by contamination. Over two million residents in the District rely on the basin as their primary source of water. Approximately $7 million is projected to be available in this reserve fund at the end of FY 2008-09 to allow the District to respond immediately to contamination threats in the basin. SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 7.4.1.4 General Contingencies Section 17.1 of the District Act requires the allocation of funds to cover annual expenditures that have not been provided for or that have been insufficiently provided for and for unappropriated requirements. This reserve amount is $3 million. 7.4.2 DEBT SERVICE ACCOUNT Restricted funds in this account have been set aside by the bonding institutions as a requirement to ensure financial solvency and to help guarantee repayment of any debt issuances. These funds cannot be used for any other purpose. The requirement varies from year to year depending on the District's debt issuance and outstanding state loans. The account currently has approximately $5.5 million. 7.5 Capital Improvement Projects The District prepares a Capital Improvements Project budget to support basin production by increasing recharge capacity and operational flexibility, protect the coastal portion of the basin, and provide water quality improvements. The FY 2008-09 budget includes $20.5 million for this account. SECTION 7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT This page left blank intentionally SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 8 RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides recommendations for the District to consider as part of ongoing management of the basin. The District's programs to protect and increase the basin's sustainable yield in a cost- effective manner continue to evolve due to increasing water demands and changes in the availability of recharge water supplies. The occurrence of wet and dry periods, the future availability and cost of imported water for groundwater recharge, and changing water management practices of agencies in the watershed will continue to affect the District's management of the basin. The District's programs to protect and enhance water quality will also continue to change due to new regulations and requirements. Recommendations for the District to continue its proactive management of the basin are summarized in Table 8-1. The table organizes these recommendations by general program area and also links the recommendations to the three management objectives of protecting and enhancing water quality, protecting and increasing the basin's sustainable yield, and increasing the efficiency of OCWD's operations. Specific projects that may be developed as a result of these recommendations would be reviewed and approved by the District's Board of Directors and processed for environmental review prior to project implementation. TABLE 8-1 RECOMMENDATIONS PROTECT PROTECT AND AND INCREASE PROGRAM/ACTIVITY ENHANCE INCREASE EFFICIENCY WATER SUSTAINABLE QUALITY YIELD REPORTING AND MONITORING Continue to monitor groundwater elevations and the amount of water in storage to provide information to ✓ ✓ manage pumping in the basin within safe and sustainable levels Continue to monitor groundwater quality and the ✓ quality of recharge water sources Update the Groundwater Management Plan ✓ ✓ ✓ periodically Update the Long Term Facilities Plan periodically ✓ ✓ ✓ SECTION S RECOMMENDATIONS Increase storage of storm flows behind Prado Dam ✓ ✓ through cooperative efforts with the ACOE Monitor water management and recycling plans in the watershed for their potential impact upon OCWD ✓ ✓ recharge operations Complete a feasibility study on reducing sediment ✓ ✓ loads in recharge water Complete construction of the Initial Expansion of the ✓ ✓ GWR System Increase drought preparedness through utilization of ✓ the full capacity of the GWR System Develop improved tools to evaluate the efficiency of potential new recharge basins and proposed ✓ ✓ changes to existing recharge operations Evaluate new approaches to groundwater recharge and approaches to increasing the efficiency of the ✓ ✓ District's recharge facilities Maintain and expand efforts to remove non-native vegetation and plant native vegetation in the ✓ ✓ watershed. Promote incidental recharge to the extent feasible ✓ without negatively impacting groundwater quality PROTECT PROTECT AND AND INCREASE PROGRAM/ACTIVITY ENHANCE INCREASE EFFICIENCY WATER SUSTAINABLE QUALITY YIELD Continue annual publication of the Santa Ana River ✓ Water Quality Report; the Engineer's Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin ✓ ✓ Utilization; the Santa Ana River Watermaster Report; and the Groundwater Replenishment System Operations Annual Report Begin in 2009 periodic publication of the Report on Managed Aquifer Recharge in the Orange County ✓ Groundwater Basin RECHARGE WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Increase storage of storm flows behind Prado Dam ✓ ✓ through cooperative efforts with the ACOE Monitor water management and recycling plans in the watershed for their potential impact upon OCWD ✓ ✓ recharge operations Complete a feasibility study on reducing sediment ✓ ✓ loads in recharge water Complete construction of the Initial Expansion of the ✓ ✓ GWR System Increase drought preparedness through utilization of ✓ the full capacity of the GWR System Develop improved tools to evaluate the efficiency of potential new recharge basins and proposed ✓ ✓ changes to existing recharge operations Evaluate new approaches to groundwater recharge and approaches to increasing the efficiency of the ✓ ✓ District's recharge facilities Maintain and expand efforts to remove non-native vegetation and plant native vegetation in the ✓ ✓ watershed. Promote incidental recharge to the extent feasible ✓ without negatively impacting groundwater quality SECTION S RECOMMENDATIONS PROTECT PROTECT AND AND INCREASE PROGRAM/ACTIVITY ENHANCE INCREASE EFFICIENCY WATER SUSTAINABLE QUALITY YIELD WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Manage recharge water supplies so that water recharged through District facilities meets or is better ✓ than Department of Public Health MCLs and Notification Levels Continue operation of Prado Wetlands in order to ✓ reduce nitrogen loads in Santa Ana River water Complete and publish, in cooperation with Metropolitan and the NWRI, a research study on ✓ emerging constituents. Prevent future contamination through coordinated efforts with regulatory agencies and watershed ✓ stakeholders Complete construction and begin operation of the ✓ North Basin Groundwater Protection Project Complete remedial investigation and begin construction of the South Basin Groundwater ✓ Protection Project Address MTBE contamination ✓ Open and begin operations of a new water quality ✓ laboratory in Fountain Valley Maintain control of seawater intrusion in the Talbert ✓ ✓ Gap Improve the performance of the Alamitos Seawater Barrier through evaluating need for additional ✓ ✓ injection wells and to construct necessary facilities INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Continue to participate in cooperative efforts with ✓ ✓ watershed stakeholders Operate the basin within a safe and sustainable ✓ operating range SECTION S RECOMMENDATIONS PROTECT PROTECT AND AND INCREASE PROGRAM/ACTIVITY ENHANCE INCREASE EFFICIENCY WATER SUSTAINABLE QUALITY YIELD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Set the Basin Production Percentage to optimize ✓ sustainable use of the groundwater Manage finances to maintain high credit ratings ✓ Maintain reserves for purchase of supplemental ✓ water supplies when available SECTION 9 REFERENCES 9 References Alley, William M., 1984, Another Water Budget Myth: The Significance of Recoverable Ground Water in Storage, Ground Water, National Ground Water Association, 2006. Banks, Harvey O., Consulting Engineer, Groundwater Management, Irvine Area, Orange County, California, prepared for the Orange County Water District. Bawden, Gerald W., Wayne Thatcher, Ross S. Stein, Ken W. Hudnut, and Gilles Peltzer Tectonic Contraction Across Los Angeles After Removal of Groundwater Pumping Effects, Nature, Vol. 412, pp. 812-815, 2001. Blomquist, William, 1992, Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Southern California, Center for Self -Governance, San Francisco. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994 and June 1996, Lindsay Avenue Well Treatment Study and Amendment — Laguna Beach County Water District. ***** Membrane Softening Design Consideration for Meeting Changing Standards,. May 1995 ***** Cape Hatteras, March 1997, Pilot Plant Study — Shallow Groundwater, Dare County, North Carolina. Boyle Engineering Corporation and Orange County Water District, 1997, Coastal Groundwater Management Investigation. California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, 1934, South Coastal Basin Investigation, Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill, Bulletin No. 45. California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Ground Water Basin Protection Project: Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, Bulletin No. 147-1. ***** 1967, Progress Report on the Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. ***** 1968, Sea -Water Intrusion: Bolsa -Sunset Area, Orange County, Bulletin No. 63-2, pp. 186. California Department of Water Resources, 1989, Southern District, Analysis of Aquifer - System Compaction in the Orange County Ground Water Basin, prepared for Orange County Water District. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., 2000, Groundwater Replenishment System, Project Development Phase — Development Information Memorandum No. 9A, Barrier System Modeling/Design Criteria, 100% Submittal, prepared for Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. ***** 2003, Talbert Gap Model Refinement Report, prepared for Orange County Water District. SECTION 9 REFERENCES CH2MHill, 2006, Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance the Lower Chino Creek Watershed, prepared for Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Clark, J. F., Hudson G.B, Davisson, M.L., Woodside, G., and Roy Herndon, 2004, Geochemical Imaging of Flow Near an Artificial Recharge Facility, Orange County, California. Ground Water. Vol 42, 2, 167-174. Dasgupta. P.K., et al. 2005. The origin of naturally occurring perchlorate: The role of atmospheric processes. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 1569- 1575. Foubister, Vida. 2006. Analytical Chemistry, December 1, 2006, pages 7914-7915. Happel, A. M., Beckenback, E. H., and Halden, R. U., 1998, An evaluation of MTBE impacts to California groundwater resources (UCRL-AR-130897), Livermore, CA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Hardt, William F. and E. H. Cordes, 1971, Analysis of Ground -Water System in Orange County, California by Use of an Electrical Analog Model, USGS Open -File Report. Harley, et al, 1999, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. ***** 2001, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. 2005. Perchlorate: Overview of Issues, Status, and Remedial Options. Perchlorate -1. Washington D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Perchlorate Team. Available on the internet at http-//www.itrcweb.org Irvine Ranch Water District, May 1994, Organic Removal Testing Pilot Program. Kolpin, et al, 2002, Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance, Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 1202-1211. McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988, Techniques of Water -Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 6, A Modular Three -Dimensional Finite - Difference Ground -Water Flow Model. McGillicuddy, Kevin B., 1989, Ground Water Underflow Beneath Los Angeles -Orange County Line, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Mesa Consolidated Water District and Orange County Water District, July 1997, Operating Data — Mesa Well No. 6 Pilot Plant — Mesa Consolidated Water District and Reed Corporation, January 1994, Process Design Report — Colored Water Treatment Plant — Well No. 6. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salinity Management Study, 1999. SECTION 9 REFERENCES Mills, William R. and Associates, Hydrogeology of the Yorba Linda Subarea and Impacts from Proposed Class 111 Landfills, prepared for the Orange County Water District, 1987. Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1974, Bolsa Chica Mesa Water Quality Study, prepared for Orange County Water District. ***** 1977, La Habra Basin Ground Water Study, prepared for City of La Habra, California. National Research Council. Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion. 2005. National Water Research Institute, 2000, Treatment Technologies for Removal of MTBE from Drinking Water: Air Stripping, Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, Synthetic Resin Sorbents, Second Edition. ***** 2004, Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel, OCWD's Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2009. http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/perchlorate05.htm. Accessed on July 7, 2009. Orange County Water District, 1994, Hydrogeology and Groundwater Production Potential in the Vicinity of Brea Creek at Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, California. ***** September 1996, Evaluation of the Orange County Colored Water Groundwater Resource: Hydrology, Water Quality and Treatment. ***** June 1997, Issues Paper— Development of the Colored Water Zone. **** 1999, 2020 Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District. ***** 1970 to 2008, Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization. ***** 2003, Orange County Water District Recharge Study. December 2003. ***** 2006, OCWD Application to Appropriate Santa Ana River Water. March 2006 ***** 2007, Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy. February 2007 ***** 2009, Orange County Water District Long -Term Facilities Plan. Philip H.S. Kim, James M. Symons, December 1991, Using Anion Exchange Resins to Remove THM Precursors, AWWA Journal Poland, J. F. et al., 1956, Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach - Santa Ana Area, California, USGS Water Supply Paper 1109. Ramsey, Robert H., 1980, Hydrogeology of La Habra Ground Water Basin, California, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Rong, Yue, 2002, Groundwater Data Analysis for MTBE Relative to Other Oxygenates at Gasoline -Impacted Sites, Environmental Geosciences 9 (4), 184-190. SECTION 9 REFERENCES Santa Ana River Watermaster, 2003, Thirty -Second Annual Report, Orange County Water District vs. City of Chino et al, Case No. 117628 — County of Orange. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 2002, Integrated Watershed Plan. Spangenberg, Carl, et al, February 1997, Selection, Evaluation and Optimization of Organic Selective Membranes for Color and DBP Precursor Removal, AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Singer, John A., 1973, Geohydrology and Artificial -Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area, Orange County, California, USGS Open -File Report 73-264. Tan, Lo and R. G. Sudak, January 1992, Removing Color From a Groundwater Source, AWWA Journal. Urbansky, E.T., et al. 2001. Environmental Pollution: 112, pages 299-302. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1994, Water Control Manual for the Prado Dam and Reservoir, Santa Ana River. U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Land Subsidence in the United States, Circular 1182. Wildermuth Environmental, August 2008, Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in the Santa Ana Watershed for the Period 1987-2006, Final Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the Basin Monitoring Task Force. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPENDIX B REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS APPENDIX C GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION APPENDIX D REPORT ON EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY, OCWD, FEBRUARY 2007 APPENDIX E OCWD MONITORING WELLS APPENDIX F ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIXA DOCUMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MINUTES, JANUARY 14, 2009 WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE AGENDA, MAY 13, 2009 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MINUTES, MAY 13, 2009 OCWD WEBSITE NOTICE, MAY 13, 2009 OC REGISTER NOTICE, MAY 19, 2009 WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE AGENDA, JUNE 10, 2009 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MINUTES, JUNE 10, 2009 OCWD BOARD AGENDA, JUNE 17, 2009 COMMENTS FROM CITY OF ANAHEIM, JUNE 26, 2009 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NOTICE OF EXEMPTION CERTIFICATION OF BOARD ACTION APPROVING GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2009 UPDATE MINUTES GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MEETING Sponsored by the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Field Headquarters, Anaheim Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 10 AM 1. MTBE Sampling Update Roy Herndon informed the group that the latest round of sampling and low level testing had been completed with the lab hired by the District. And that low levels of MTBE had been detected in about 1/3 of the major production wells in the basin. The Producers were told to contact Roy if they wanted specific information on their individual wells. 2. Long -Term Facilities Plan Report The Producers were asked to get any comment letters they may have on the final draft report to OCWD by January 21, 2009. OCWD will then respond to those letters. The LTFP final review will occur at the next Producers meeting on February 11, 2009 and could then go to the OCWD Board on February 18, 2009. The recent Golden State Water Company letter on the LTFP was distributed. 3. Groundwater Management Plan — 5 Year Update Greg Woodside informed everyone of the need to update the GWMP to comply with state guidelines. The District is working to provide a draft of the updated document in late February and to take it to the OCWD Board in April. Greg reviewed potential basin management goals for the document. 4. Santiago Pump Station Project The same presentation on this project provided to the Water Issues Committee was given to the Producers. It was suggested that OCWD should show the financial savings and the additional recharge created by the project. 5. FY09-10 Budget process update John Kennedy provided an update on several budget related issues including: • OCWD is working to provide FY09-10 RA and BPP projections by January 21. • The District will also provide the draft FY09-10 Work Plans for each of the cost centers on January 21. OCWD Staff was also asked to provide a BEA estimate and an estimate of what the Accumulated Overdraft would be at the end of FY09-10 6. Follow-up on Producer letter regarding modeling for the Talbert Barrier and Basin Storage OCWD's response letter to the Producers regarding this issue was provided. Bob McVicker provided comments on the need to better understand color water upwelling in their part of the groundwater basin. 7. Other 2 AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: May 13, 2009 Budgeted: N/A Budgeted Amount: N/A To: Water Issues Committee Cost Estimate: N/A Board of Directors Funding Source: N/A Program/Line Item No.: N/A a TOT, 11' = LTA nzaLTA Staff Contact: G. Woodside/C. Miller General Counsel Approval: N/A Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A CEQA Compliance: Exemption to be filed upon Board receipt of final plan Subject: REVIEW OF UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Staff has prepared a draft updated Groundwater Management Plan (Plan). The Plan was last updated in 2004. Staff will distribute the draft updated Plan for review by the Board and Producers. The Plan will also be posted on the District's web site. RECOMMENDATION Informational BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The District prepared its first Groundwater Management Plan in 1989. The Plan was last updated in 2004. The Plan needs to be updated to remain consistent with guidelines established by the California Department of Water Resources. The California Water Code sets forth the process for adopting and updating a Groundwater Management Plan. The Water Code lists components that must be included and requires the completion of plans in order for the state to grant public funds for construction of certain groundwater projects. The 2009 Draft Update proposes the District's overall goals in managing the basin as follows.. • To protect and enhance groundwater quality, To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and 0 To increase the efficiency of OCWD's operations. The updated Plan will be made available for public review. Staff will respond to comments from the Board, Producers, and the public and will prepare a revised version that addresses the comments received. Staff will then recommend that the Plan be adopted by the Board. The proposed schedule is: May 13, 2009 Post Draft Updated Plan on OCWD website May 14, 2009 Post public notice in Orange County Register June 10, 2009 Workshop at Water Issues Committee and Producers Meeting June 17, 2009 Public Hearing at OCWD Board meeting June 24, 2009 Deadline for public comment July 15, 2009 Consideration of adoption by Board of Directors According to the Department of Water Resources, plan updates should provide a historical record of progress, including projects completed and how those projects improved resource management. The 2009 Update explains how OCWD manages the groundwater basin in order to accomplish the stated management objectives. Major accomplishments since the adoption of the 2004 plan are listed and completed projects are described, examples of which are listed below: • Analysis of 14,000 water quality samples in 2008. • Completion of the Groundwater Replenishment System in 2008. • Development of the three -layer method of determining maximum accumulated overdraft and publication of the Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy in 2007. • Improvements to recharge operations such as completion of the La Jolla Recharge Basin, the Kraemer -Miller pipeline improvements, and the Santiago Creek Recharge Enhancement Project. • Completion of water quality improvement projects such as the Irvine Desalter and the initiation of the North and South Basin Groundwater Protection Projects. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) None Minutes GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MEETING Sponsored by the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley (714) 378-3200 Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 10 AM 1. Groundwater Management Plan Update Greg Woodside gave an overview of the updated GWMP and how it would be processed this summer. A draft report was distributed. Greg reviewed the report recommendations. 2. Review FY09-10 BPP/BEA/Pumping Limitation and Surcharge John Kennedy reviewed the new rates and charges for FY09-10 3. Annexation Update John Kennedy provided a summary of how the District plans to terminate the 2004 annexation MOU with IRWD and the City of Anaheim. After responses are provided on the draft January 2006 Program EIR the District will formally inform IRWD and Anaheim of the termination as allowed for in Section 7 of the MOU. Future annexations could still be considered but under a different process from what was provided for in the 2004 MOU. Other comments included that Producers interested in annexing may be required to submit new applications. Additionally if annexations are considered individually, there is still a need to review the cumulative potential annexations. With the MOU terminated the District can receive and file the Long -Term Facilities Plan Report. The LTFP will be reviewed with the Producers in June and taken to the OCWD Board in July. 4. GWR System Update a. Expansion Mike Markus gave an update on the process to select a design consultant for the expansion and some of the issues that need to be resolved. It was mentioned that OCWD should reassess the projects viability at key milestones prior to 100% design. b. Existing plant water supply unit cost for FY08-09 A handout was provided which shows the existing unit cost at $582/af after the first nine months of FY08-09 5. Other Bob McVicker asked that OCWD provide BPP projections for future years. Discussion on AB1100 also incurred regarding legislation that would allow OCWD to bottle a small amount of GWR System water. Information: OCWD May 20, 2009 Board meeting moved to May 27th Public Notices Page 1 of 1 � � EMPLOYMENT • SITE MAP • CONTACT • SEARCH Keyword(s) GO Orange County treater District :3rankw- C:cisrity's Gr,our�d vater Authority ABOUT BOARD S AGENDAS CONSERVATION & EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS & PROJECTS GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NEWS OCWD Public Notices May 13, 2009 - June 24, 2009 The Orange County Water District Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update is available for public review at www.ocwd.co_m under "News & Publications." Written comments will be accepted until June 24, 2009 at: Orange County Water District Attn: Marsha Westropp P.O. Box 8300 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 Or via e-mail at mw_es_tropp_@ocwd_com A copy of the draft plan maybe obtained by submitting a written request to OCWD at the above post office or e-mail address. The public is invited to comment on the plan at the public hearing to be held at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors at 5 p.m., June 17, 2009 in the Boardroom at OCWD's office at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. The Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update is scheduled to be considered for adoption at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors at 5 p.m., July 15, 2009. Any change to the schedule for the Board of Directors to adopt the updated plan will be posted on www.ocwd.com under "Board Agendas." Cr72008 Orange County Water District • RelatedLinks 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708 • Ph: (714) 378-3200 • Fx: (714) 378-3373 • info@ocwd corn Check your OCWD e-mat_WERE • Direct_ions & Map http://www.ocwd.com/Public-Notices/ca-175.aspx 5/13/2009 Publications & Newsletters Page 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT SITE MAP CONTACT SEARCH Keyword(s) GO Fr^lg{_uty Kjtep L':irhority ABOUT BOARD & AGENDAS CONSERVATION & EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS & PROJECTS GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NEWS Publications & Newsletters Directions + Map For easy viewing of our publications in the manner in which they were intended, we have converted our publications .,,. into Adobe® Acrobat PDF documents. If you do not already have the FREE Adobe Reader, please dick the following button to get the latest version of Adobe® Reader from Adobe® before you attempt to download the files WaUw Cormervatlo l Tip: listed below. �a�•ar�i� � � � t��i OCWD Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Cover your spa or swlrmmng pool to red" evaporation. Update (11.5 MB) The Orange County Water District Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update is available for public review by downloading the linked document above. Written comments will be accepted until June 24, 2009 at OCWD, Attn: Marsha Westropp. P.O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300, or via e-mail at mwestropp@ocwd.com. A copy of the draft plan may also be obtained by submitting a written request to OCWD at the above office or email post Bea address. qk The public is invited to comment on the plan at the public hearing held at the regularly C.C. Water scheduled meeting of the OCWD Board of Directors at 5 p.m.. June 17, 2009. TheHero! Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update is scheduled to be. considered for adoption at the regularly scheduled meeting of the OCWD Board of Directors at 5 p_m., July 15, 2009. Any change to the schedule for the Board of Directors to adopt the updated plan will be posted on www.ocwci.com under "Board Agendas." Notice of Basin Equity Assesment.July 1 2009 to June 30 2010 Children's S Notice of Levy of Replenishment Assesments.July 1 2009 to June 30 2010 Water Education Board Resolution to Adopt Ticket Distribution Policy Board Resolution Authorizing Payment for Meals t Festival �. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY Ended 6-30-2008 OCWO 2006-2007 Engineer's Report; Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin - Utilization � `4:iiK OCWD 2005-2006 Engineer's Report; Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization (5.43 MB) OCWD Budget Report for Fiscal Year 07-08 (3.47 MB) 2004 - Santa Ana River Quality Health Study MB) - } A Groundwater -Water and (25.6 2004 - Santa Ana River Quality Health Study Final Report Appendices (2.64 MB) ��er7ishment�5��ste 2006 - 07 Fiscal Year Final Budget Report (3.33 MB) ep 1 2004 Groundwater Management Plan (7.87 MB) t APum SO A04I*OrMwye0SWakr OCWD Fact Sheet -May 2008 The 1933 OCWD District Act (223 kb) OCWD 75th Anniversary supplement Newsletters: NEW-- Hydrospectives - Monthly E -Newsletter 2008 Year In Review November 2008 E-Hydrospectives October 2008 E-Hydrospectives September 2008 E-Hydrospectives August 2008 E-Hydrospectives July 2008 E-Hydrospectives June 2008 E-Hydrospectives Hydrospectives - Quarterly Groundwater News ■ Vol. V, Issue 2 - Fall 2007 ■ Vol. V, Issue 1 - Spring 2007 ■ Vol. IV, Issue 3 - Winter 2006 • Vol. IV, Issue 1 - Summer 2005 ■ Vol. III, Issue 3 - Fall 2004 http://www.ocwd.com/Publications---Newsletters/ca-43.aspx 5/13/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, } I Svc- COLIWV� of Orange I am LL cit[zeii ul'ilw Uil itt!d States aTid a rcsii-Joit of the Coamy aforesaid. I alp over the atw of eitijitcen ycars, and oct[ ii party to or imercsucd in thy: above entitled Tnalwr. I &n the principal clork or The Orange County RegiAM a MW5papeT Of geum] 6rcL11-.k1iLP0- published in the city of Sama Ana- Counly of Omme• and which rww�paper lass ken `rad Jvd,-,L!J (0 be Ek jjC'W5pa.pU Of goneral circi&ition bj 1he Saperior Loan ofthe Count,, of Ormigre. `Mate of Califomk mider flic dale of 9118,152. Caw No. A-21046, that tho of ,A I i 1c h the annexed is a true p ri n Li. d copy habeen published in each rcm-kilar anti cretin` issue of said newspaper and not in any suppternent thereof oll the [il[owing dates, to wil: May 19, 26, 2009 "I certify' (or deflaTv) undor tho rienalty of pellilil�- ttilder the laws E)I' the Shale of California dial the foregoing is true and correct": Exemled at SaWR Ana, Oronge Count%, C;ilifartiia, oil Datu: May 1-6, 2009 1-0 liture JP� — — The Orange Colonty Register 625 N. Crand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 796-7000 ext. 2209 PROOF OF PUBLICAMN Prwf apubh=tkiv) of Fla. Ma RNAFP000 to Upf;MU 611=10111" fteffft "*a 'j C"a"J'aLl 9#0wWwas.-V MAnagamem pomp mom NOW* o htcejbv n�%f M -P CRON10 Qllmt� MOW Of- wrft Irw romir" f.* MwDha Tmkuwv On W*1MA". jum 1 901149 5 p M pr 4w ww owmiow ow I" 4MIN WLftod,L IN "M &5WI*aW" 1111 ff* ofte Q# B&O du , W&d Sevot r"imm WiMmy r,011cm," k& tht wplAkA *0 40 ww 1w of pw .W. 40 UPE64M thp =Vp "A11w*Wr 'Ile 1-1-711W r .. . U" hpvkn U M. Mom amd MF 0A.T.*q D41W wmnmwft I'm 1*=(kwf4dW0W MM619MMAINI at" UPEULIU D� 10 &OAWI*M IMP OW O*n I. ="wmvp 14PnW DiGbit. v 0 W* FWD kwimn V". CA 09MMUG AM MAW�m Wiwi "& T�m tart W * swod Liu ~d t . to, MWM malt cmm mwo m W14 SMO*' WT~ m�rdzl r" 6 mubtWt- ma Rey AW4 G&mr�ft Gon to MA*ftod no ah* dww post 6a4AdUMM& Allm Witiom WOWRTW Qr TR� gq,fvLjray"r Mmnwwom Pisa -AQW U to fwA"td~ far mdWim- eq IPm D11wpri4 at tHeSCMAftAw- It"WOW12 & RM am*" U, flq�ftm IV *0 H d" My 16 'Armw] 4; Fm Am Owvw Ka " jmmtqj6W i& Wa &wig ol Omwt@� ja mdopi 1he Gnaumdwmw ltwl"fw 4.6r=)4 =pww NSI to oWed Lei bkb Glahpicl ftwwl '3pbwa Gq"mtv fiwgww may IS '6' mm "JIM AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: June 10, 2009 Budgeted: N/A Budgeted Amount: N/A To: Water Issues Committee Cost Estimate: N/A Board of Directors Funding Source: N/A Program/Line Item No.: N/A From: Mike Markus General Counsel Approval: N/A Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A Staff Contact: G. Woodside/C. Miller CEQA Compliance: Exemption to be filed upon Board adoption of updated plan Subject: UPDATE: 2009 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY Staff distributed draft copies of the updated Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) to the Board and Producers on May 13, 2009. Public notices were published in the Orange County Register and the draft plan was posted on the District's web site. A public hearing on the draft Plan will be held at the June 17 Board of Directors Meeting. RECOMMENDATION Informational BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The District prepared its first Groundwater Management Plan in 1989. The Plan has been updated periodically to incorporate new information, and was last updated in 2004. The Plan needs to be periodically updated to remain consistent with guidelines established by the California Department of Water Resources. The California Water Code lists components that must be included and requires the completion of plans in order for the state to grant public funds for construction of certain groundwater projects. The 2009 Plan discusses the District's overall goals in managing the basin as follows: • To protect and enhance groundwater quality, • To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and • To increase the efficiency of OCWD's operations. The comment period for the Plan is now open. Staff will respond to comments from the Board, Producers, and the public and will prepare a revised version that addresses comments received. The proposed schedule for adopting the plan is as follows: June 10, 2009 Workshop at Water Issues Committee and Producers Meeting June 17, 2009 Public Hearing at OCWD Board meeting June 24, 2009 Deadline for public comment July 15, 2009 Consideration of Plan adoption by Board of Directors According to the Department of Water Resources, plan updates should provide a historical record of progress, including projects completed and how those projects improved resource management. The 2009 Update explains how OCWD manages the groundwater basin in order to accomplish the stated management objectives. Major accomplishments since the adoption of the 2004 Plan are listed and completed projects are described, examples of which are listed below: • Analysis of 14,000 water quality samples in 2008. • Completion of the Groundwater Replenishment System in 2008. • Development of the three -layer method of determining maximum accumulated overdraft and publication of the Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy in 2007. • Improvements to recharge operations such as completion of the La Jolla Recharge Basin, the Kraemer -Miller pipeline improvements, and the Santiago Creek Recharge Enhancement Project. • Completion of water quality improvement projects such as the Irvine Desalter and the initiation of the North and South Basin Groundwater Protection Projects. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) None Minutes GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MEETING Sponsored by the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley (714) 378-3200 Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 10 AM 1. Water Quality Issues None 2. Review Groundwater Management Plan Greg Woodside updated everyone on the processing of the GWMP. The Producers were provided a copy of the GWMP last month. 3. Review Long -Term Facilities Plan Greg Woodside reviewed the LTFP and the schedule for completing the document. The document will be mailed and emailed to everyone this week. 4. Update on Warner Basin Hopkins Development Study Mike Markus updated the group on the preliminary development work occurring with the Hopkins group and the District's likely plans to continuing exploring this idea for the next six months. Hopkins is looking at ideas to place retail development around Warner Basin but would need to compensate OCWD for any lost percolation. 5. FY10-11 BPP Projections John Kennedy distributed some preliminary FY10-11 BPP projections for planning purposes. OCWD was asked to provide an RA projection also at next months meeting. 6. Potential loss of Ad Valorem property tax — Prop 1A The District is closely monitoring the Sacramento budget discussions and the potential loss of a portion of our $19 million in property tax income. We are unsure if the state plans to take or borrow some of these revenues. Eleanor Torres informed everyone that the District may have discussions with some local City Councils on this issue and would coordinate such with the Producers. 7. OCWD Long -Term Variable Rate Debt Program Mike Markus explained how the District's variable rate debt cost has increased due to a downgrading of the German Landesbank (who provides the letter of credit for the deal). OCWD may convert the debt to fixed rate debt. 8. Garden Grove Well 28 & Laguna Beach potential program The Producers were informed that the District, Garden Grove and Laguna Beach have met to discuss a possible option to pump and treat the GG Well 28 which has high nitrates. The potential deal would incorporate an agreement the District has with LB to pump 2,025 afy of ground water. When additional details are developed they will be brought back to a future Producers meeting. 9. Select a Vice Chair for the Producers Group in FY09-10 Rick Shintaku of Anaheim was elected to be the Vice Chairman 10. Other Mike Markus updated everyone on the GWR System flows and the plans to hire a design consultant to expand the plant from 70 mgd to 100 mgd. Agenda Item # J AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: June 17, 2009 Budgeted: NIA Budgeted Amount: NIA To: Board of Directors Cost Estimate: NIA Funding Source: NIA Program/Line Item No.: NIA From: Mike Markus General Counsel Approval: NIA Engineers/Feasibility Report:N1A Staff Contact: G. Woodside/C. Miller CEQA Compliance: NIA Subject: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DRAFT UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY The draft updated Groundwater Management Plan has been provided on the District's website and also to the Board and the Groundwater Producers. A Public Hearing has been noticed for 5 pm on June 17, 2009 to provide an opportunity for public input on the draft updated Plan. RECOMMENDATION Open Public Hearing and receive comments. DISCUSSION The District prepared its first Groundwater Management Plan in 1989. The Plan has been updated periodically to incorporate new information, and was last updated in 2004. The Plan needs to be periodically updated to remain consistent with guidelines established by the California Department of Water Resources. The California Water Code lists components that must be included and requires the completion of plans in order for the state to grant public funds for construction of certain groundwater projects. The 2009 Plan discusses the District's overall goals in managing the basin as follows: • To protect and enhance groundwater quality, • To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and • To increase the efficiency of OCW D's operations. 1 The comment period for the draft updated Plan is now open. After the public comment period is closed, staff will respond to comments from the Board, Producers, and the public and will prepare a revised version that addresses comments received. The proposed schedule for adopting the plan is as follows: ,tune 17, 2009 Public Hearing at OCWD Board meeting ,tune 24, 2009 Deadline for public comment July 15, 2009 Consideration of Plan Adoption by Board of Directors According to the Department of Water Resources, plan updates should provide a historical record of progress, including projects completed and how those projects improved resource management. The 2009 Update Groundwater Management Plan explains how OCWD manages the groundwater basin in order to accomplish the stated management objectives. Major accomplishments since the adoption of the 2004 Plan are listed and completed projects are described, examples of which are listed below: • Analysis of 14,000 water quality samples in 2008. • Completion of the Groundwater Replenishment System in 2008. • Development of the three -layer method of determining maximum accumulated overdraft and publication of the Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy in 2007. • Improvements to recharge operations such as completion of the La Jolla Recharge Basin, the Kraemer -Miller pipeline improvements, and the Santiago Creek Recharge Enhancement Project. • Completion of water quality improvement projects such as the Irvine Desalter and the initiation of the North and South Basin Groundwater Protection Projects. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) NIA 2 From: Dick Wilson [mailto:DWilson@anaheim.net] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 11:40 AM To: Woodside, Greg Cc: Rick Shintaku; Don Calkins Subject: Draft Groundwater Mgmt Plan Greg, here are my comments on the Draft GWMP: 1. 1 would like to see an objective such as, "Promote incidental recharge to the extent feasible without impacting groundwater quality." This could be added to Section 1.8.2 and Section 8 and generally included throughout the document. 2. Section 4 should include a discussion of ways to increase incidental recharge. According to the document, incidental recharge accounts for about 20% of the total recharge, and this is with the vast majority of storm flows escaping over streets and into concrete storm drains. There's a huge volume of water that could be captured for future use via "dry wells," swales, wetlands, etc. If we are to sustain our groundwater basin, we will need to take advantage of this resource. 3. Section 5 should include a discussion of perchlorate contamination including where it came from, how its dispersing in the groundwater basin and how long before it is "gone." 4. Several of the figures are too small of scale. For example, on Figure ES -5, you cannot distinguish between monitoring wells and production wells. The figures should be larger, or less information provided on them. I concur that we should not disclose exact locations of production wells, but it's very important to know exactly where the monitoring wells are located. 5. In several cases it may be better to provide data in tables rather than graphs. For example, Figure ES -10 would be much easier to comprehend if the data were provided in a table. It is very difficult to assess trends for data in stacked bar graphs. 6. Overall, it's an excellent document and will be a valuable resource. OCWD should recognize that all water producers in the Basin will need to include this document in State and Federal grant applications and the Plan should include a broad spectrum of concepts for improving groundwater sustainability. If you'd like to talk about any of these issues, please feel free to contact me. Dick Wilson Environmental Services Manager Anaheim Public Utilities Department 714-765-4277 dwilson(o-)anaheim.net THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you. Response to Comments received June 26, 2009 from Dick Wilson, Environmental Services Manager, Anaheim Public Utilities Department No. Comment Response to Comment 1 Add objective related to promoting A new objective promoting incidental incidental recharge such as recharge has been added to Section "Promote incidental recharge to 1.8.2. This new objective was added to the extent feasible without Section 8. impacting groundwater quality." 2 Discuss ways to increase A discussion of incidental recharge was incidental recharge. added in Section 4.2.2.1. 3 Add a discussion of perchlorate A new section on perchlorate, Section contamination to Section 5. 5.6, was added. 4 The scale of several figures is too Several of the figures throughout the small. In Figure ES -5, it is difficult document were enlarged for improved to distinguish between monitoring readability. The clarity of Figure ES -5 and production wells. was improved to enable the reader to distinguish between the production and monitoring wells. Please note that in Section 3, the production wells and monitoring wells appear in separate figures (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). 5 In some cases, data should be Figure ES -10 appears also as Figure 6-5 provided in tables rather than in Section 6. A table with the data used graphs. Figure ES -10 would be to create Figure 6-5 was added in easier to comprehend if data were Section 6.6. provided in a table. It is difficult to assess trends for data in stacked bar graphs. 6 Since water producers will need to Comment noted. include this document in state and federal grant applications, the plan should include a broad spectrum of concepts for improving groundwater sustainability. V e rw; Orange County Water DIsInct 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 378-3200 Re- ottled in Official Recorkl04,111ge t-00TItY Toad Lmly Cle(k React lder z1oo9a5000650 08 Dam 08110109 1166 201 ID 00 0 00 0 00 0 (h) 0 00 L) 00 () 00 0 01) NOTICE OF EXEMPTION From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CE A) TO: COUNTY CLERKJCounty of Orange P 0. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM- Orange County Water District Planning & Watershed Mar)agemen, 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley. CA 92708 PROJECT TITLE OrangeCounty Water District Groundwater Management Plan APPROVAL DATE: July 15, 2009 FILED AUG 10 2009 PROJECT LOCATIOk Orange County Groundwater Basin tOM OALY, GTK -PE-WHOER CITY Various COUNTY: Orange mpur,f DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT- The OCWD Groundwater Management Plan discusses the groundwater basin's physicat features, OCWD facilities and monitoring and operating programs. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Malley CA 92708 NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT Orange County Water District P 0 ST ED EXEMPT STATUS: :1 Ministerial (Ser- 15268) AUG 10 20 :1 Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269 (a)) El Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(a)&(b) TCA4 DALY. CLERX-AKORDEq El General Mule (Sec. 15061(b)(3) ) X Statutory Exemption: Section 15.262 X Categorical Exemption Class.6 Section 15306 Class 7 Section 15307 Class 8 Section 15308 REASON(S) WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA- The Groundwater Management Plan is an information document that discusses the Orange County round water Bdsirt acid OCWD facilities and programs The Grcun(mater Management Plan does nol bind, commit or predispose OCWD to further consideration, approval or implementation of any potential project Approvall of the Groundwater Management Plan would not cause either a direcl physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect phySiCal Change to the environment. CONTACT PERSON- Greg Woodside SIGNITURE TITLE11A C Tlolv V - TELEPHONE 4378-3275 DATE Lf." CERTIFICATION OF BOARD ACTION I do hereby certify that at its meeting held July 15, 2009, the Orange County Water District -Board of Directors approved the following action. - MOTION NO, 09-80 APPROVING GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2009 UPDATE AND AUTHORIZING FILIN6 OF NOTICE OF EXEMPTION The Groundwour Management Plan 2009 Update 15 approved and filing of Notice of Exemption is authorized. IN 9TWESS MHERE OF, I have executed this Certificaie on August 20, 200R ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Judy -Rae Karlsen Assistant district Secretwy APPENDIX B REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Management Plan No. Mandatory Components of a GWMP Water Code OCWD Plan Section Section 10753.7(x)(1) 1.8, 5.1.1, 1 Basin management objectives for the .1.2, 5.2.3, 5 5.3 groundwater basin that is subject to the plan 10753.7(x)(1) 1.8.2, 2.2, 2 Monitoring and management of groundwater 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, levels within the groundwater basin 2.7 3 Monitoring protocols that are designed to 10753.7(x)(4) 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, detect changes in groundwater levels 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4. Groundwater quality degradation 10753.7(x)(1) 1.8.1, 3.5, 5 5. Monitoring protocols that are designed to 10753.7(x)(4) 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, detect groundwater quality 3.5, 3.6, 5 6. Inelastic land surface subsidence 10753.7(x)(1) 2.7 Monitoring protocols that are designed to 10753.7(x)(4) 2.7 7 detect inelastic land surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a potential problem Changes in surface flow and surface water 10753.7(x)(1) 3.7, 4, 6.7 8 quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin Monitoring protocols that are designed to 10753.7(x)(4) 3.7, 4, .6.5, detect flow and quality of surface water that 6.7 9. directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping at the basin A plan to involve other agencies that enables 10753.7(x)(2) 1.2, 6.2 10. the local agency to work cooperatively with other public entities whose service area or boundary overlies the groundwater basin A map that details the area of the 10753.7(x)(3) Figures 1-1, groundwater basin, as defined in the 1-5,2-1 department's Bulletin No. 118, and the area 11. of the local agency, that will be subject to the plan, as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin in which the agency is developing a groundwater management plan Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Manaqement Plan Item Optional Components of a GWMP Water Code OCWD Plan Section Section 12. The control of saline water intrusion 10753.8(x) 3.6, 5.2 13. Identification and management of wellhead 10753.8(b) 4, 5.1.5, 6.2 protection areas and recharge areas 14. Regulation of the migration of contaminated 10753.8(c) 5 groundwater 15. The administration of a well abandonment and 10753.8(d) 5.1.6, 5.1.7 well destruction program 16. Mitigation of conditions of overdraft 10753.8(e) 2.5, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 7.2.3 17. Replenishment of groundwater extracted by 10753.8(f) 4,6 water producers 18. Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage 10753.8(g) 1.8.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8 19. Facilitating conjunctive use operations 10753.8(h) 3.7.4, 6.3.3, 6.7, 6.8 20. Identification of well construction policies 10753.8(1) Figures 3-4, 3-5, 5.1.5, 5.1.6 21. The construction and operation by the local 10753.80) 4,5.2.5, agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, 5.3.3, 5.8,5.9, recharge, storage, conservation, water 6 recycling and extraction projects 22. The development of relationships with state 10753.8(k) 5.1.3, 6.2 and federal regulatory agencies 23. The review of land use plans and coordination 10753.8(1) 5.1.4, 5.1.5 with land use planning agencies to assess activities which create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination APPENDIX C GOALS AND BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Appendix C Goals and Basin Management Objectives Description and Location Location of Basin Management How Meeting BMO will Contribute to Description of Objective (BMO) More Reliable Supply of Planned Groundwater Management Actions General Basin Management Objectives to Accomplish All Goals Update the Groundwater Sections 1.4, 3.8 Management Plan periodically Regular publication of reports enables Update the Long -Term Sections 1.4 and 4.5 Facilities Plan periodically the District to plan for and manage the groundwater basin responsibly and Continue annual publication of efficiently, assure the timely the Santa Ana River Water construction of necessary projects to Quality Report; the Engineer's accomplish stated basin management Report on the Groundwater objectives, and monitor the water Conditions, Water Supply and quality of the basin and recharge water Sections 1.5, 2.8, Basin Utilization; the Santa supplies. 3.8, and 6.5 Ana River Watermaster Report; and the Groundwater Replenishment System Operations Annual Report. Goal: Protect and Enhance Groundwater Quality Conduct monitoring programs Section 3 Comprehensive monitoring of ground Monitor and manage quality of recharge water supplies so and surface water quality enables that water recharged through OCWD to discover contamination at an District facilities meets or is early stage and begin remediation Section 4 and 5 better than primary drinking efforts at the earliest feasible time and water levels and notification assures that operations are in levels compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Monitor quality of Santa Ana Section 3.7 River water R Appendix C Goals and Basin Management Objectives Description and Location Location of Basin Management How Meeting BMO will Contribute to Description of Objective (BMO) More Reliable Supply of Planned Groundwater Management Actions The Groundwater Protection Policy Implement the District's proactively protects the water quality of Section 5 Groundwater Protection Policy the basin and enables the District to work to clean up contaminated areas. Water quality treatment projects clean Construct and manage water up contamination in order to protect the Section 5.8 quality treatment projects long-term quality of groundwater in the basin. Operate seawater intrusion Barriers prevent intrusion of high Section 3.6 barriers salinity water into the basin. Improvement of natural resources in Support natural resource the watershed contributes to higher Section 6.2.2 programs in the watershed quality source water for OCWD recharge operations. Participate in cooperative Working with stakeholders in the efforts with regulators and watershed helps to protect the quality Section 3.7, 5.2.5, stakeholders within the Santa of source water used to recharge the and 6.2 Ana River Watershed groundwater basin. Appendix C Goals and Basin Management Objectives Description and Location Location of Basin Management How Meeting BMO will Contribute to Description of Objective (BMO) More Reliable Supply of Planned Groundwater Management Actions Goal: Protect and Increase the Basin's Sustainable Yield in a Cost Effective Manner 3 Proper monitoring and operation of the groundwater basin improves Monitor groundwater levels, groundwater management by recharge rates, and production establishing safe and sustainable levels rates of groundwater production, determines that extent of seawater intrusion so Section 2 and 3 improvements to seawater barriers can be made, and allows for management Operate the basin in of the basin for maximum pumping of accordance with the groundwater at levels that assure Groundwater Basin Storage sustainable supplies over the long - and Operational Strategy term. Manage recharge operations Proper and efficient management of to maximize recharge of the recharge operations sustains maximum Section 4 groundwater basin pumping of groundwater supplies. Research and implement new New strategies and programs increase strategies and programs to the amount of groundwater available Section 4.3 and 4.4 increase recharge capacity for pumping from the basin. Promote incidental recharge to Increasing incidental recharge the extent feasible without increases the amount of water naturally negatively impacting percolating into the groundwater basin, Section 4.2.2.1 groundwater quality. which increases the amount of water available for pumping from the basin. Plan and conduct programs that maximize the capacity of Increases the amount of water the Section 6.8 the basin to respond to and basin can provide during a drought. recover from droughts 3 Appendix C Goals and Basin Management Objectives Description and Location Location of Basin Management How Meeting BMO will Contribute to Description of Objective (BMO) More Reliable Supply of Planned Groundwater Management Actions Support natural resource Natural resource programs, such as Sections 5.3.3 and programs in the watershed removal of Arundo, augment available 6.2.2 supplies of recharge water. Goal: Increase Operational Efficiency Manage the District's finances to provide long-term fiscal stability and to maintain Fiscal stability is essential for the financial resources to District to effectively manage the implement District programs groundwater basin. Maintenance of Section 7 reserves allows for the purchase of Operate District programs in a supplemental water supplies when they cost-effective and efficient are available. manner. Removal of excessive nitrate levels through the operation of Prado Manage natural resource Wetlands saves the cost of more programs in the Santa Ana expensive treatment plan construction Sections 5.3.3 River watershed in an efficient and operation. and 6.2.2 manner. Removal of Arundo increases water supply availability. Implement efficient Replacing a portion of the District's use environmental management of electricity with generation of solar Section 4.5 programs, such as use of solar power will reduce costs in the long run. power where feasible. 12 APPENDIX D REPORT ON EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY, OCWD, FEBRUARY 2007 Gi le SINCE 13 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT r Z 9 REPORT ON O,TCN of 10 EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY Coastal Area pressure Area ; Forebay AnahCfm _ I Unconfined� W7 Shallaw (�r�nflneU 5--� 01�a Aquifer Seiiq -C-oo it od S-0.01 Principal Confined :S-0.002:: Aquifer :Confined::.S 1001 Deep: Canfinetl S-0.001 `,Agkiifer. . 77M FULLBASIN SHAL d G wndwIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations.if.r The $eel Aw AeM 5 11 Gael A¢ove Mean Sea Level) _25 0 1 i y E N o Pm0 won Nhl IMwve Plod I Nhll W,11 M.M Mo nwl p W.0 Mullpori MonlwMp Wcll R �4 SFESSjolk S {80 Prepared By: 05 Timothy J. Sovich, PE — Principal Engineer - Roy L. Herndon, PG, CHg — Chief Hydrogeologist CNIVI Rte FEBRUARY, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 1 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 4 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN..................................................................... 8 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY ........................................... 8 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept......................................................................................... 8 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers....................................................................... 9 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method ............................................ 10 Water Level Change Method................................................................................... 10 WaterBudget Method............................................................................................... 11 Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method ....................................... 11 3.4 New Three -Layer Storage Change Approach ................................................... 13 Methodology............................................................................................................... 13 GIS Application for Three -Layer Storage Change Calculation .......................... 17 Testing the Three -Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method ............................. 18 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK................................................................................... 21 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology............................................................................... 22 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map ........................................................ 23 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map ...................................................... 29 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map............................................................. 32 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION .............................. 34 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 ......................................................... 34 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 ......................................................... 35 5.3 Historical vs. New Overdraft Estimates................................................................. 36 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method ........................ 37 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY........................................................... 38 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target......................................................... 39 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy.............................................................. 41 7. FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................43 8. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................... 45 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................. 45 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three -Layer Storage Change Results Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 Figure 4-3. Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 Figure 4-7. Principal Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 5-1. Three -Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target Figure 6-2. BPP Formula Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: "Randall" Specific Yield Values from Traditional Storage Change Method APPENDIX 2: Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values for Three -Layer Storage Change Method APPENDIX 3: Water Level Change Maps for June 2006 to the New Full Condition APPENDIX 4: GIS Application for Three -Layer Storage Change Calculation Acknowledgment Much assistance was provided by District GIS staff Dan Lee and Linda Koki, specifically with implementation and automation of the new three -layer storage change algorithm, GIS programming, mapping, and graphical support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The need for this study was largely driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which an unprecedented storage increase of 170,000 of was estimated by OCWD staff. This led to a preliminary reassessment of the traditional storage calculation which, due to cumulative uncertainty over tens of year s, could not be sufficiently rectified back to the traditional full -basin benchmark of 1969. A new methodology has been developed, tested, and documented herein for calculating accumulated overdraft and storage change based on a three aquifer layer approach, as opposed to the previous single -layer met hod. Als o, for calculating accumulated overdraft, a new full -basin benchmark was developed for ea ch of the thr ee aquifer layers, thereby replacing the traditional single -layer full benchmark of 1969. Also in this report, a basin management oper ational strategy is proposed that sets guidelines for planned refill or storage decrease amounts based on the level of accumulated overdraft. The new t hree-layer storage change approach utiliz es aquifer storage parameters supported by calibration of the D istrict's basin -wide groundwater model ("basin model") along with actual measured water level data fo r each of the three aquifer sys tems that correspond to the three aquifer layers in th e basin m odel: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep (colored water) aquifer sy stems. Traditionally, the storage change calculation was based solely on groundwater levels for the Principal aquifer, from which approximately 90 percent of basin pumping occurs. The findings of this study are enumerated below. 1. The new three -layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single -layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three -layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unc onfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumu lated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water leve I measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively sparse in outlying For ebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full -basin benchmark. A new full -basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins 1 The new full -basin water levels in the For ebay area are essentially at or very near the bottom of the District's deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 hav e shown t hat this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water le vels slightly higher than this new full condition may be physically achievable in the F orebay area but no t recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three-laye r storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 of was calculated representing Ju ne 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three -layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 of for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year's water leve I conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 of r epresents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower limit of 500,0 00 of ass umes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In -Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to drought conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin managem ent target of 100,000 of of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 9. The proposed operational st rategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and con sidering storage goals based o n current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refi II or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to pr ovide a gener al guideline fo r the District's Board of Directors. 2 Based on the above findings, recommendations stemming from this study are a follows.. Adopt the new three -layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full -basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three -layer storage change calculation. s 3 1. INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology, fi ndings, and recommendations of the basi n storage and overdraft evaluation completed by District staff between May 2006 and January 2007. Prior to this study, an unusua Ily large annual in crease in basin s torage of 170,000 of was estimated for WY 2004-05, which was a re cord -setting wet year. During that year, water levels throughout the basin rose approximately 30 feet overall, and as much as 60 feet in the Santiago recharge a rea which receives significant st orm runoff from Villa Park Dam releases during extremely wet years. The estimated storage increase for WY 2004-05 was so large that it caus ed staff to re- examine the storage calculation. Also, the large water level rise during that year raised concern that the basin could be approac hing a near -full condition, leading staff to compare 2005 water levels throughout the basin to 1969 in which the basin was historically considered full. This analys is showed th at the basin may hav e had only 40,000 of less groundwater in storage in No vember 2005 as compared to the 1969 benchmark. However, the traditional method of cumulatively adding the annual storage change each year to the previo us year's accumulated overdraft led to an accumulated overdraft of approximately 190,000 of for November 2005. The discrepancy of 150,000 of in the two diffe rent 2005 overdraft calculations indicated that the current condition c ould not be properly rectified bac k to the 1969 b enchmark. This dilemma provided the main impetus for the study documented herein and brought to light two important discoveries: • The traditional storage change calculation contains considerable uncertainty that, when cumulatively added over tens of ye ars, led to a large discrepancy in the accumulated overdraft relative to 1969. • 1969 water level conditions no longer repr esent a full basin, primarily because of the different pumping and recharge conditions that exist today. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of gr oundwater production for WY 1968-69 (upper map) and WY 2004-05 (lower map). Each circle or "dot" represents an active production well for that year, with the size of each dot being proporti oval to each well's annual production. Total bas in production for WY 2004-05 wa s only 179,000 of , whereas by WY 2004-05 it had increased to 244,000 of and would have been 70,000 of greater if not for supplement al imported water taken in -lieu of groundwater. B y comparing the two production dot maps, heavy increases in pumping are evident in the coastal area since 1969, primarily due to MCWD and IRWD's Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF). 4 Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 WY 1968-69 , "6"' GW Production: 179,000 of J° °u "'fin-• , (IC(D) ,a O J°°m°,'`"'"Annual Groundwater °° °� �' Production (af) 0i° =� 100 . °� " CC Size of circle 0 500 is proportional to Volume 0 o CQ 0 1,000 og �i?L:s. A869 @ n 00 0 O C, v E� - a �, G o Oy O\(\ o WY 2004-05 _� �! GW Production: 244,000 of 0 100 " :: l 0 (4 `o Annual Groundwater 0 a r.1r Production (af) c 0 C� ° ¢ 0[] , d 100 ( Size of circle o °`, c7 �- 500 is proportional JO � �� to Volume ~ � a 0 D CD CJ 1,000 Q 9 . � @ o O / I 0 In addition to changes in the amount and di stribution of pumping since 1969, OCWD managed recharge operations have increased substantially such that much more water is recharged today as compared to 1969. In addition to increased Santa Ana Riv er flows and new recharge basins being put into service in the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, new and improved c leaning methods hav e been implemented to enhance percolation rates, thus increasing the annual volume of water that is recharged annually. Table 1-1 below summarizes the major pumping and recharge differences between WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05. Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 Since 1969, the largest pumping increases have been in the coastal area while the largest recharge increases have been in the in land Forebay area. Therefore, this redistribution along wit h increased utilization of the groundwater basin has led to a steeper groundwater gradient or "tilt" from the inland Fore bay down to the coast Because of this increased bas in tilt under pr esent conditions, water levels higher than 1969 can be maintained in the Forebay area without exceeding 1969 water levels in the coastal area. Because higher F orebay water levels translate into more basin storage, 1969 no longer represents a full basin condition by today's standards. In other words, a modern-day full condition could likely accommodate higher water levels than 1969 in the Forebay area, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1-2. A review of historical water level data indicates that many wells in the Anaheim area experienced higher water levels in 1994 than in 1969. Figure 1-3 shows historical water levels for City of Anaheim Well A-27, indicating that in 1994 water levels at that location (adjacent to the south side of Anaheim Lake) were 5-10 feet higher than in 1969. G WY 1968-69 WY 2004-05 Pumping Total Pumping: 179,000 of Total Pumping: 244,000 of Agricultural Pumping: 34,000 of Agricultural Pumping: 3,400 of No DRWF In -Lieu: 70,000 of No MCWD municipal wells Increased coastal pumping No Newport Beach wells Less Irvine pumping Recharge No Talbert Barrier Enhanced Talbert Barrier No Santiago Pits or Creek Enhanced percolation rates No Kraemer or Miller Basins Basin Cleaning Vehicle No Burris Pit or Five Coves Riverview Basin Since 1969, the largest pumping increases have been in the coastal area while the largest recharge increases have been in the in land Forebay area. Therefore, this redistribution along wit h increased utilization of the groundwater basin has led to a steeper groundwater gradient or "tilt" from the inland Fore bay down to the coast Because of this increased bas in tilt under pr esent conditions, water levels higher than 1969 can be maintained in the Forebay area without exceeding 1969 water levels in the coastal area. Because higher F orebay water levels translate into more basin storage, 1969 no longer represents a full basin condition by today's standards. In other words, a modern-day full condition could likely accommodate higher water levels than 1969 in the Forebay area, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1-2. A review of historical water level data indicates that many wells in the Anaheim area experienced higher water levels in 1994 than in 1969. Figure 1-3 shows historical water levels for City of Anaheim Well A-27, indicating that in 1994 water levels at that location (adjacent to the south side of Anaheim Lake) were 5-10 feet higher than in 1969. G ELEV (Feel 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin SW NE Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 200 0 L.. 1930 Well A-27 .............. ,........... ; ................ .....,......... w 5 ft Ground Surface Elev: 231 ft msl Screened Interval: 212 — 287 ft bgs 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN Objectives of this study were three -fold: 1. Reassess and recommend modifications as necessary to staff's traditional method for calculating the annual storage change and the accumulated overdraft. 2. Develop a technically -sound full basin wate r level condition that takes into account current basin managem ent practices. This new fu II condition would replace 1969 and become the new full benchmark used to calculate the accumulated overdraft or available storage in current and upcoming years. 3. Determine an appropriate basin storage operating range and management goal for long-term basin management purposes. The District Board of Directors approved st aff's work plan in April 20 06, and work commenced shortly thereafter. All work wa s completed by the District's Hydrogeology Department, with oversight, direction, and review provided by District management. At the request of the Board, m onthly project updates were gi ven at the Water Issues Committee meetings as well as the mont hly groundwater produc ers meetings to facilitate the producers' involvement in the process. The scope of work laid out in the work plan was generally followed. In itially, it wa s considered that conducting bas in model s imulations may be benef icial in validating project results. However, after making significant progress in developing a new storage change methodology and new full bas in benchmark, it became evident that it was more appropriate to use aquifer parameters and specific knowledge gained from development of the basin model rather than running new model simulations per se. As such, findings enumerated in this report were based on actual water levels observed in the field coupled with a methodology based on aqui fer structure and by draulic parameters defined during development of the basin model. 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In this section, the District's traditional storage change calculation is described along with its inherent limitations, followed by a discussion of the development of a new storage change calculation approach and comparison with the traditional method. But first, a conceptual explanation of aquifer storage is explained below. 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept Aquifers not only transmit groundwater but also provide storage volume, sometimes being referred to as "underground reservoirs Howev er, unlike surface water reservoirs, approximately 70 to 80 percent of the aquifer's volume is occupied by the porous medium, typically consisting of various gradations of sand and gravel as well as 9 silts and clays. This leaves only 20 to 30 percent of the aquifer's total volume remaining as void space that groundwater can occupy. This percentage of void or pore space is referred to as porosity. Over large areas and depths, the void space within aquifers can occupy huge amounts of water. Within the Or ange County groundwater bas in, which spans over 300 square miles and is over 2, 000 feet deep in som a areas, Dist rict staff have estimated that approximately 66 million acre-feet of water lies in storage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this water cannot be feasibly drained from the bas in without incurring detrimental impacts. Excessive long-term pumping of basin aquifers without continual replenis hment would lead to a lowering of water levels and a reduction in pore pressure, which would lead to seawater intrusion and irreversible compaction of the aquifer, resulting in subsidence of the land surface. The recommended "drainabl e" storage volume of the basin (without requiring concurrent replenishment) is 500,000 of acre-feet as discussed in Section 6. The parameter used to define the storage capacity of an aquifer is known as the storage coefficient (S). Unlik e the porosity whic h is a measure of the entire void spac e regardless of whether or not it contains water, the storage coefficient is a measure of how much water can effectively be drained or squeezed out of the saturated pore space. The storage coefficient is defined as the volume of water yielded per unit horizontal area and per unit drop of water table (unconfi ned aquifers) or piez ometric surface (confined aquifers). 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers A confined aquifer is an aquifer that is confined between two aquitards, which are typically clay or silt layers with low permeability. The water in a confined aquifer cannot freely rise above the overlying c lay layer and is under confining pressure. When a we II is drilled through the overlying clay layer down into the aquifer, the pressure in the confined aquifer caus es the wat er to rise inside the well (see Fi gure 3-1) to a level higher than the overlying aquita rd. Therefore, water leve Is measured in wells within confined aquifers — referred to as piezometric levels — may rise and fall but the confined aquifer remains saturated. In a confined aquifer, water is added to or removed from storage primarily through the rearrangement of the uncons olidated sediments via compression or decompression; the compressibi Iity of water c ontributes significantly less to the storage process. A r elatively large piezometric level change in a confine d aquifer represents very little change in storage within that aquifer. Storage coefficients for a confined aquifer typically range from 0.01 to as low as 0.00005. An unconfined aquifer is an a quifer in which the water table forms the upper boundary and there is no confining lay er above it (see Fi gure 3-1). That is, the water table can freely rise or fall. Pore spac a is either filled or drained when the water table rises or falls. Therefore, a unit rise or decline in the water table in an unconfined aquifer represents a relatively large storage volume . For an equivalent water level rise, an I unconfined aquifer would exhibit at least 100 times greater storage increase than a confined aquifer. Storage coefficients for unconfined aquifers typically range from 0.01 to 0.3, also referred to as specific yield. In the Orange County groundwater basin, the Shallow aquifer is confined in the coastal and mid -basin areas , commonly referred to as the Pressure Area. The overlying aquitard in the Pressure area thi ns further inland until it is generally gone. This inland area is referred to as the Forebay area. Since few continuous aquitards exist between the water table and ground surface, it is t he "intake" area of the basin where surface water can percolate down to the water table and recharge the aquifers (see Figure 3-1). ELE\ (Feel 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile SW NE 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method Water Level Change Method Traditionally, the storage chang e calculation was based solely on the water level changes occurring in the Princi pal aquifer, which is the main production zone in the basin from which approximat ely 90 percent of basin pumping oc curs. Dating back to the 1940s, District staff have prepared a No vember groundwater contour map of Principal aquifer water levels. By comparing the November contour map to that of the previous year, the annual water level c hange was then determined. The water level change was then multiplied by a set of storage coefficient values and by the area of the basin to obtain the resulting groundwater storage change for that year. Then, the annual storage change was added to the accumulated overdraft from the previous year to obtain the current accumulated overdraft. 10 Over the years, the overall approach has remained relatively the same, but several refinements were made along the way. In the 1970s, a FORTRAN computer program was developed, referred to as the "Randall Model," which partially aut omated the storage change calculation by s ubdividing the basin into quarter -mile grid cells. The Randall Model computed the storage change calculation grid cell by grid cell. Although this process was somewhat automated, t he water level maps had to be manually interpolated to obtain the average water Ie vel change for each quarter -mile grid cell. The storage coefficient values for each quar ter -mile grid cell were referred to as "Randall" coefficients and are shown in Appendix 1. No documentation exists as to how these storage coefficient values were developed, but they we re likely based on review of old well logs throughout the basin. In the early 1990s, with improvements in com puter hardware and software, District staff were able to further automate the traditi onal storage change calculation by using geographical information system (GIS ) software to subdivide the basin into smaller, more refined grid cells. By digitizing the hand -drawn water level contour maps into the computer, the water level change at each re fined grid cell could be comput ed without any manual interpolation. However, the overall approach remained the same and still used the same Randall storage coefficient values. Over the last two years, an additional refinement incl uded preparing an end -of -June water level contour map in addition to the annual November contour map. Although the November maps provide a good midpoint between the summer -high and winter -low water level conditions, the June maps coincided better with the District's water year and fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for the annual storage change calculation. Water Budget Method For the past 10 to 15 years, the annual stor age change calculated using the traditional water level method has been c hecked using a water budget method (inflows minus outflows equal the c hange in storage). T herefore, the water budget method uses measured groundwater production and rec harge data along with a rainfall -based estimate of incidental recharge (unmeasured recharge less underflow to LA County). The water budget method provides a good check of the stor age change estimate from the water level method but is based on an assumed (unmeasured) amount of incidental recharge. In most years, the two methods agree rather closely, and the storage change value from the water level method is generally used. The incid ental recharge is then adjusted in the water budget method to exactly match the chosen storage change. Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method Although the traditional water level and wa ter budget methods yield similar storage change results in most year s, there are some anomalous years in which the two estimates are significantly different. In such years, typically very wet or very dry years, 11 professional judgment must be exercised in determining the offi cial change in storage. This can introduce significant uncertainty in to the annual storage change a stimate for those years, causing a cumulative effect a fter several years, which is why t he current accumulated overdraft cannot be rectified back to 1969 as discussed in Section 1. The biggest limitation of the traditional method is that it only uses the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Al though most groundwater production is from the Princ ipal aquifer, most of the storage change occurs in the Shallow aquifer where it is unconfined in the Forebay area of the basin. Where the Shallow aqu fifer is unconfined, large storage changes can occur due to the rising or falling of the water table which respectively fills or drains empty pore space, as was discussed in Section 3.2. The Randall storage coefficients used in the traditional method are consistent with those of an unc onfined aquifer in the Forebay area and thus are considered as being representative of the Shallow aquifer. Therefore, the traditional method uses Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer, assuming that these two aquifers behave identically in the Forebay area. This is largely true in the Anaheim Lake area near the District's fa cilities, but in other portions of the Forebay, the Sha How and Principal aquifers often behave differently from one another, as shown in Figure 3- 2. This indicates t hat these two aquifers are partially by draulically separated by aquitards in portions of the Forebay and behave d ifferently rather than as a s ingle unconfined aquifer as the traditional method had assumed. It should be pointed out that in earlier years, depth -specific water level data such as that presented in Figure 3-2 was simply not av ailable to discern hydraulic difference s between various aquifer zones, and ins ome areas of the Forebay, there are no noticeable vertical hydraulic differences. It has only been in the last few years through the use of the District's m onitoring well network and development of the basin model that a better understanding of the basin has been gained. Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 100 50 01 - 2004 Well SAR-2 (near Burris Pit) 2005 @---O MPI: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) 4--9 MPG: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) 2006 2007 12 3.4 New Three -Layer Storage Change Approach The new t hree-layer storage change approach uses all three aquifer sys tems of the basin: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifer systems (see Figure 3-3). The Shallow aquifer generally ranges no dee per than approximately 250 f eet below ground surface and overlies the Principal aquifer , which is generally over 1,000 f eet thick throughout much of the basin and supports over 90 per cent of basin pumping. The Deep aquifer contains colored water in the coastal area and is more than 2, 000 feet deep throughout much of the basin. These three aquifer systems, from shallow to deep, are also referred to as aquifer layers 1, 2, and 3. Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Seal Depth Beach (feet) 0 1,000 2,000- 3,000- 0 ,0003,0000 miles Methodology Ground Surface Pressure Area Forebay 6• PRINCIPAL AQUIFER (Layer 2) DEEP AQUIFER (Layer 3) 10 Yorba Linda NON-WATERBEARING FORMATION 15 20 The new three -layer storage change appr oach is based largely on t he aquifer configuration, structure, and storage coefficient param eter values defined during development of the basin model. Unlike the traditional met hod, all three of the basin's aquifer systems are included in this new methodology. Furthermore, the storage coefficient values used in this new method are specific to each aquifer lay er and were refined during dynamic or transient calibrat ion of the basin model until the resulting model -generated water levels achieved a close match with observed water level data throughout the basin. The basic formula used to calculate the c hange in storage is very s imilar to the traditional method, but now must be carried out for each of the three aquifer layers. The storage change equation is defined as Storage Change = (Water Level Change) x (storage coefficient) x (horizontal area) 13 The storage change for each of the three aquifer layer s is thereby calculated and the results of all three summed to get the total storage change in the basin. Figure 3-4 shows a s chematic cross-section illustrating the three aquifer layers of the basin and how they differ in terms of their respective storage coefficient (S) values. Whereas the traditional method had presumed that the Foreba y area behaved entirely as one large unconfined aquif er without any intervening c lay layers, our current understanding of the basin is th at only the Shallow aquifer in the Forebay area is truly unconfined. As was discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the majo rity of the storage change in the bas in occurs specifically in the Shallow aqui fer within the For ebay area where the rising or falling unconf ined water table respectively fills or drains empty pore space. Shallow aquifer storage coeffici ent values in the Forebay area ar e approximately 0.1, but in some specific Forebay locations can be as high as 0.25, which is approximately equivalent to the porosity of the sediments at the water table/vados e zone interface. Figure 3-4 illustrates how the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area of the basin. By definition, the Pressure area ends where the water level drops below the elevation of the overl ying aquitard and/or where the aquitard no longer exists. In the Pressure area, the Shallow aquifer storage coefficient values are approximately 0.004, or approximately 25 times smaller than in the unconfined Forebay area. This means that for a given water level change in the Pressure area, the resulting change in storage would be 25 times less than f or that sa me water level change obsery ed in the unconfined Forebay area. As shown in F igure 3-4, the Principal aquifer is large ly separated from the overlying Shallow aquifer by an extens ive aquitard in the coastal and mid -basin areas. In the inland Forebay area, this intervening aquitard becomes intermittent but does not vanish completely, causing s ome hydraulic separat ion from the Shallow aquifer while still allowing large amounts of water to migrate downward into the Principal aquifer. As schematically shown in Figure 3- 4, Principal aquifer water levels frequently differ from those in the Shallow aquifer du e to the hydraulic separati on, as was also shown i n Figure 3-2 for multi -depth monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin, where observed water levels in the Principal aquifer are not iceably lower than in the Shallow aquifer. The Principal aquifer is thus considered to be semi -confined in the Forebay area, wit h storage coefficient values of app roximately 0.01, which is at least 10 times less than in the unconfined Shallow aquifer. The Deep aquifer is generally confined throughout the ent ire basin and is separated from the overlying Principal aquifer by an extensive aquit and that thins somewhat in the Forebay area but remains laterally extens ive. Therefore, since water level changes i r the Deep aquifer rep resent pressure respons es and thus do not invo Ive filling or draining of pore space, storage coefficient values are typically small at approximately 0.001 throughout the entire basin. 14 The storage coefficient values shown in Figure 3-4 and discussed abov a are typical values for each of the three aquifer layers. The actual storage co efficients used in the storage change calculation not only vary for eac h aquifer layer but also vary spatially across the basin in both the Pressure and Forebay areas. From the basin model calibration, the different storage coefficien t values within each aquifer layer are subdivided into detailed zones. For reference, these zonal storage coefficient maps are included in Appendix 2. Thes e storage coefficient values in the Forebay area of the Shallow aquifer are generally consistent with the Randall coefficients traditionally used. Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values Coastal Area Pressure Area ; Forebay Anaheim ...... .... ::::::::::: ..., :::::: : EJiacoiifirletf - ... ...: ` ...... . .:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ha I±c>wi:::: r fined 0 .. ......... ................................ :7.7.7.7.....:...... -:,.............. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ................. .................. ......... : a. uifer::77 q.. ::::::::::::::::::::::77`.` . ......................7777 ,........................... .. .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .:.......:............ ........ ::: demi=Ctini:red :S:waQ1::: .P.r............ :.: ::::: Confi ned ..S . 0.002 : ; . ....::::: : ► uifer q. - . ................ ::::::::::: ::: . ........ ..........7.: :::::::: 0:001 : e :P uifer ................. : : : ; , n .................. 7 7 7 7 ...............:::::: Depth (Feet) 200 1,000 1,500 The other component of the storage change formula not yet discussed is the water level change. T o obtain the water level change involves c onstructing water lev el contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers, both for the previous and current year. Preparation of the water le vel contour maps for each aquif er layer requires a considerable level of interpretation of the actual data points as well as interpolation between data points. The reported water level data is not always 100 percent accurate and must be reviewed on a well -by -well bas is as the contour map is being constructed. Reasons for disqualifying or adjusting observed water level data during the contouring process may include: • A static water level from a producti on well may have been measured only minutes after shutting off the well pump; • Erroneous water level field measurement (e.g., bad equipment); 15 • Water level measurement taken too early or too late (for t he June and November contour maps, attempt to measure all water levels within a two-week window); • Wells are screened at different depths and some wells are screened across multiple aquifers such that water level data not entirely representative of any one aquifer layer being contoured. In addition to the above reasons for screeni ng the observed water level data points, extreme care and consistency must be ex ercised from one year to the next when contouring and interpolating between data point s, especially in s parse areas lacking sufficient data to definitively define the shape of the contours. Barring any new we IIs or data, water levels s hould be similarly interpreted in these areas from year to year so that false storage changes are not artificia Ily created. Knowledge of the aquifer's characteristics, presence of geologic faults, regional flow regime, and vertical relationship with the other aquifers have pr oven useful in det ermining the contour patterns in a given area. Of the three aquifer layers, the Principal aquifer has the best water level dat a coverage thanks to more than 200 large system producti on wells monitored by eac h respective groundwater producer, as well as District monitoring wells throughout the basin. Historically, this predominance of available water level data for the Principal aquifer and lack thereof for the S hallow and Deep aquifers is a likely reason that the traditiona I storage change method only considered the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Much more water level data exists today for the Shallow a quifer than in the past, primarily due to the District' s network of monitoring we IIs, many of which monitor multiple aquifer zones at one well site, helping to deciphe r the vertical relations hip between the Shallow and deeper aquifers and t heir degree of hydraulic c onnection. Since the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs in the unconfined portion of the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area, the constructed water level contours are of utmost importance in those inland areas. Unfortunately, data is sparse in a few of these outlying areas of the basin. Therefore, to increase the accuracy of the Shallow aquifer contour maps and thus the accuracy of the storage calculation, approximately six new shallow monitoring wells are recommended to fill data gaps in the areas of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Orange, Irvine, and Yorba Linda. Figure 3-5 shows the approximate desired locations for these six proposed wells. Figure 3-5 also shows the water level contou rs for the Shallow aquifer for June 2006 Just as for the other two aquifer layers , these contours where hand drawn based on observed water level data from wells screened in the Shallo w aquifer (shown in light gray in Figure 3-5). The hand -drawn contours were then digitized into the computer for calculation purposes. Note that the contours were drawn out t o the boundary of the basin model layer 1 which extends into LA County, but during the storage calculation process the LA County portion is excluded. Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells a ~�2QQ- 200�zzo a�•0 �6 0_ a, JUNE 206 i.Fo reQ 2 qo SHALLOW AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater eElevations Within The Shallow Aquifer i` (Feet Above Mean Sea. Level) �0 25 is r �a, 1-360 Il41 + Active Production Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well 'F0 Monitoring Well { 4 I Sp Multiport Monitoring Well Basial Model Boundary \4 p o N y r<Pp: 1- Proposed Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well GIS Aaalication for Three -Laver Storaae Chanae Calculation A new GIS applic ation was developed and programmed to automate the new three - layer storage change calculation utilizing the digitized water level contour maps for each aquifer layer as well as the storage coefficient values from the basin model. The new GIS application consists of a series of steps governed by programs written in the AML scripting language within the Arc/Info environment. A detailed des cription of these steps, along with all the AML codes written for this application, is inclu ded in Appendix 4. The digitized water level contours are converted into GIS compatible files (grids) at the same refined resolution as the basin model input parameters, essentially subdividing the entire basin into 500 -foot square grid cells. The GIS application then carries out the storage change formula one grid cell at a time for each aq uifer layer, calculating the water level change between the two years in question and multiply ing by the storage 17 coefficient and horizontal area of the grid cell. Then, the storage change of all grid cells is summed for each layer. The total change in storage is then the corresponding sum of all three aquifer layers. When calculating the storage change at each grid cell, the GIS application must check to determine if the conditions are confined or unconfined. Generally, the Principal and Deep aquifers are typically confined, but the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area and unconfined in the Forebay area, with the dividing line between these two areas being dependent upon the actual water level elevations at that time. If the water level is above the top of the aquifer layer (per the basin model layer elevations), then a confined storage coefficient is used for that grid cell; otherwise, if the water level is below the top of that aquifer layer, then a larger unconfined storage coeffi cient is used. To further complicate matters, the water level change in question from Year 1 to Year 2 may cause a given grid cell in t he Shallow aquifer to sw itch from confined under Year 1 conditions to unconfined under the Year 2 conditions, or vice versa. The GIS application handles this type of condition by subdividing the water level change into two components: a confined por tion and an unconfined portion. This is illustrated in the sketch and "pseudo -code" algorithm that was written for this application prior to formal programming of the GIS application (Appendix 4). The new G IS application for the three -layer storage change calculation was thoroughly tested and necessary refinements were made to the AML codes. Water level change and storage change calculations were hand checked and verified at individual grid cells having both confined and unconfined conditions. Also, the storage change r esults for each aquifer layer were verified to be identic al in magnitude but op posite in s ign if switching the order of what is predefined as Year 1 or Year 2. For example, if the storage change from Year 1 to Y ear 2 was calculated to be 10,000 af, then the storage change from Year 2 to Year 1 calculates to be exactly -10,000 af. Testing the Three -Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method Test Case 1 compared the new three -layer storage change calculation to the traditional method using the annual period November 2004 to November 2005. This first test case represented an extremely wet year with re cord -setting rainfall and a huge storage change of +187,000 of using the traditional method with the existing November contour maps of the Principal aquifer. Using t he new three -layer appr oach led to a storage change of +147,000 of for the same period. The rather large dis crepancy of 40,000 of in Test Case 1 is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the traditional method presum ption that Principal aquifer water levels behave identically to Shallow aquifer water levels in the Forebay area. As was shown in previous sections, this is not always the case and was especially not the case during 2004-05 when the Principal aquifer rose much more than the Shallow aquifer in most Forebay locations. 18 Figure 3-6 shows water levels for multi -dept h monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin in the Anaheim Forebay area. Notice that the water level change from November 2004 to November 2005 in the Prin cipal aquifer zone was more than doub le that for the Shallow aquifer zone at that location. Since this was t he case throughout m uch of the Forebay area, the tradition al method overestimated t he storage change by using Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer. Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 120 100 as as 80 0 60 LU 0 0 40 J L 20 01 2004 OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 (near Burris Basin) 2005 18 ft 44 ft (�O� MP1: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) MP6: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) 2006 2007 Test Case 2 compared the ne w three -layer method to t he traditional method for the most recent water year, June 2005 through J une 2006. This water year was chosen because it not only represented the most recent conditions but it was also an approximately average rainfall year in contrast to the extremely wet year in Test Case 1. As was mentioned in previous sections, care was exercised to maintain c onsistency of how the water level data was interpreted and hand contoured for both of these years to prevent any false or "manufactured" water level changes between the two conditions. For Test Case 2, the traditional met hod yielded a storage change of +52,000 af, whereas the new three -layer method yielded a slightly higher storage change of +66,000 af. The two methods yielded much cl oser results for this av erage hydrology year, indicating that the traditional method is at least "in the ballpark" during more typical years when water levels are not as drastica Ily rising or falling. In these closer -to - average years, the traditional method presumption that Prin cipal aquifer water levels behave similarly to the Shallow aquifer is not grossly inaccurate. However, since the new three -layer approach is more comprehensive and utilizes all three aquif er layers, it 19 represents a technical improvement upon t he traditional method and is the preferred approach. Figure 3-7 summarizes the results from bot h test cases 1 and 2 and sc hematically shows the storage change per aquifer layer fo r the three -layer method. As expected and as was discussed in earlier sections, the majority of the storage change occurred in the Shallow aquifer. The majority of basin pumping (over 200,000 of y) occurs from the Principal aquifer, which is continuously being fed by the Shallow aquifer, which in turn is being fed by the Dis trict's recharge activities (typically over 200,000 afy). If basin pumping exceeds total recharge over a giv en year, then the Prin cipal aquifer draws more water out of the Shallow aquifer than what is coming in from recharge, resulting in an annual storage decrease in t he Shallow aquifer. Conversely , if recharge exc eeds basin pumping over the course of a year (especially in a wet year), then more recharge is entering the Shallow aquifer than what is flowing down into the Princ ipal aquifer, causing Shallow aquifer water levels to rise and a resulting storage increase. Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three -Layer Storage Change Results +187.000 of +147.000 of 115,000 21,000 11,000 Test Case 1 (Nov -04 to Nov -05) Traditional Method Shallow Aquifer Principal Aquifer Three -Layer Method Deep Aquifer +52,000 of +66,000 of 57,000 Test Case 2 (Jun -05 to Jun -06) 20 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK Since a new three -layer method was developed and tested for calculating the change in storage, a new full basin benchm ark must be defined for all three aquifer layers so that the accumulated overdraft can ultimately be calculated. In Section 1, it was shown that 1969 water levels no longer represented a full bas in given the significantly different pumping and rechar ge conditions that exist today. In fact comparing the November 1969 water Ie vel contour map to the recent June 2006 Principal aquifer contour map shows that in much of the Forebay area, Principal aquifer water levels are already higher in June 2006 than they were in November 1969 when the basin had historically been considered full (see Figure 4-1). The Ir vine Forebay area was over 80 feet higher in June 2006 than 1969 due to reduced agricultur al pumping over the years. As was discussed in Secti on 1, because of increase d utilization of the gr oundwater basin, i.e., increase d pumping and recharge, higher Forebay water levels can be achieved while coastal water levels remain lower, resulting in a steeper basin gradient. Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 1969 data not available in this area Groundwater Level Change (feet) -100 - -40 - -40 to -20 -20 to -10 -10 to o o to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 s `•,e 40 to 80 r' 80 to 160 INN Nov 69 to Jun 21 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology A water level contour map r epresenting a reasonable full condition was developed for the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifers. The resulting full water levels represent a "snapshot" of a peak high water level conditi on throughout the basin that could possibly be exceeded but with potentially detrimental impacts. Defining how high basin water levels can r ise before being considered full was largely based on a comprehensive review of relatively recent histor ical high basin conditions that occurred approximately in 1994 and 2006. The high bas in conditions that occurred in 1969 and 1983 were briefly reviewed but were deemed of less direct value s ince basin pumping and recharge patterns were significantly different then. Much of the groundwater basin achieved hi storical highs during 1994, with the coastal area peaking in the winter and t he Forebay area in late spri ng or early summer. A similar lag in the seasonal timing of the coastal and Fo rebay area water level peak was observed during the recent high condition of 2006. Typicall y after a very wet winter, surplus storm runoff impounded behind Prado Dam is still bein g released for OCWD recharge operations well into the summer m onths, thus increasing Forebay recharge amounts, which in turn raise Forebay water le vels at a time when coastal water levels are already beginning to decline in response to summer pumping. However, also during wet years, MWD has surplus water; thus, taking additional im ported water in -lieu of groundwater pumping can extend into the su mmer months, w hich would prevent or delay coastal water levels from declining. Therefore, for the purposes here of defining a basin -wide full condition, it is assumed that wa ter levels can concurrently peak to a full condition throughout the basin. The full condition that was developed for all th ree aquifer layers represents the highest achievable water levels throughout the bas in under realistic present-day operating conditions without incurring any regional -scale detrimental impacts. In general, coastal water levels were as sumed to be at or very near the 1994 a nd 2006 winter highs, whereas the Forebay area was assumed to be at or slig htly above the 1994 and June 2006 highs. In so doing, the full basin co astal water levels were high enough to be protective against s eawater intrusion but not unnec essarily high to where shallow groundwater seepage could become an issue. In the Forebay area, full basin wat er levels were generally well below ground surface and at or near the bottom of deep recharge basins (as occurred in June 1994). Therefore, in the Forebay area, water levels any higher than this full condition may be physically possible but would likely impact recharge operations and lead to considerable mounding problems. Other assumptions that define the new full basin condition are enumerated below. 1. Full basin flow patterns (shape of the wa ter level contours) are representative of present-day pumping and recharge conditions (except where specifically noted) and thus are largely bas ed on and consistent with actual water level contour maps constructed for the recent high conditions of January 2006 and June 2006. 22 2. Water levels in the Irvine Sub -basin were at historical highs during 2006 because of the extremely wet year 2004- 05 and reduced Irvine Company agricultural pumping. The new full condition in the Irvine Sub -ba sin is thus based on this recent high condition, which inherently then excludes the Irvine Desalter Project (IDP). The IDP will significantly lower Irvine are a water levels for many years to come, but the regional drawdown and resulting water levels in that area are uncertain and ma y take several years to stabiliz e. Previous basin mo del scenarios including IDP pumping estimated that approximately 50,000 of of storage decline in the Irvine Sub - basin could occur after 20 years of full-scale IDP pumping. With this in mind, the new full condition will not likely be achievabl e in the Irvine Sub -basin after the IDP goes on-line. 3. Based on the earlier assump tion that this new full co ndition is protective against seawater intrusion, full basin water leve Is in the MCWD area were based on the historical high of 1994 rather than the somewhat lower water levels during the 2006 high condition. The 1994 water levels in the MCWD area were higher than in 2006 because the MCWD colored water project was not yet active in 1994. Therefore, the new full basin water levels in t hat immediate area inherently assume no MCWD colored water project (i.e., no pumping fr om Well M CWD-6) in order to define a condition sufficiently protective against seawater intrusion. 4. Full basin water levels in the immediat a area of the Talbert Barrier were adjusted slightly higher than recent high c onditions to account for the GWR Phase 1 barrier expansion soon to be on-line. Some of thes e new injection wells, including the four wells along the Santa Ana River just north of Adams Avenue, ar a already on-line and thus the observed water level rise due to these wells was used in the full basin condition. 5. Full basin water levels were raised slightly higher than either of the historical highs of 1994 or 2006 in areas where other near-term recharge projects are already planned, including La Jolla Basin and Santiago Creek recharge enhancements. H owever, especially in the case of Santiago Creek, full basin water levels were kept sufficiently below ground surface and known landfill elevations. 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map Full basin water levels for the Shallow aquife r were based largely on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. On ly wells with a screened interval generally in the range from 100 to 250 feet below ground surface (depending on the specific area) were used to ensure that these wells were representative of the Shallow aquifer. This depth restriction excludes most large system production wells. Therefore, the majority of wells used to construct the Shallow aqui fer full bas in water level map were District monitoring wells, along with some small system and domestic wells having sufficient water level histories. Fortunately, the majo rity of the District's monitoring wells were constructed early enough so as to catch the 1994 high -basin condition. 23 Prior to this study, Shallow aquifer water levels were not regularly c ontoured, but Shallow aquifer contour maps (basin model layer 1) had been constructed during basin model development and much was learned about the hydraulic characteristics and flow patterns of the Shallow aquifer . Subsequently for testi ng the new three -lay er storage change method described in Sec tion 3, water level contour maps were cons tructed for all three aquifer lay ers using observed da to for both June 2005 and J une 2006. Fortunately, June 2006 also represented a high -basin condition from which to use as a base for making adjustments up to the new full condition. In the coastal and mid -basin areas, high water levels that peaked in January 2006 were generally adhered to and used f or the full condition in those areas. This represented a condition high enough to be prot ective of seawater intrusion, but anything appreciably higher could potentially result in shallo w groundwater seepage probl ems in low-ly ing areas. In the immediate area surrounding por tions of the Talbert Barrier, the observed January 2006 water levels were adjusted upwar d approximately 5 feet to account for increased injection from new GWRS Phas e 1 injection wells. In the area surrounding the GWRS treatment plant site where considerable construction dewatering was occurring during January 2006, f ull water leve Is were based on earlier historical high s that were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in this immediate area. In the Forebay area, full basin water levels were generally s et from 0 to 15 f eet above the higher of the two histor ical peaks that occurred in June 1994 and June 2006. The magnitude of the upward adjustment between 0 and 15 f eet depended on conditions at each well location and was most significantly influenced by the relative depth of the water table from ground surface. Since relatively little pumping occurs from the Shallow aquifer, the unconfined water table in the Fo rebay area is largely considered to be a subdued reflection of topography, with the exception of directly beneath recharge basins where the Shallow aquifer wate r table tends to rise in re sponse to percolation. From analysis of the Forebay historical highs (J une 1994 and/or June 2006), Shallow aquifer water levels generally peak at an elevation that corresponds to a depth of approximately 50 to 60 feet below ground surf ace. Therefore, when setti ng the full bas in water level elevations at various well points and espec ially in areas where little or no data existed, the 50- to 60 -foot depth to water rule of thumb was generally maintained. Since the majority of the storage change in the bas in occurs in the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay ar ea, the full basin water level condition in this area is crucial. A discussion of the full basin Shal low aquifer water level adjustments for specific regions of the Forebay is described below. At Anaheim Lake and Kraemer Ba sin, full basin water levels were set at June 1994 observed levels with no upward adjustment sinc a these levels were essentially at or even a couple feet above the deepest portion of Anaheim Lake, which is approximately 50 to 60 feet deep (s ee Figure 4-2), which is consistent with the depth to water rule of thumb mentioned above. Water levels any higher at this location, if even achievable, would likely impede percolation from these basins and thus would not be desirable. 24 250 E 200 C 0 150 C9 CD w 100 CD J L � 50 0 1930 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 50-60 ft Anaheim Lake "Full" Water Level = Jun. -94 ............. .......... ....... ........... Well A-27 (adjacent to Anaheim Lake) Screened Interval: 212-287 ft bgs 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 At Santiago Pits, full basin water levels were set at the historical high of March 1993 (just slightly higher than J une 1994) with no upwar d adjustment. This same identic al high was reached but not exceeded more recently in June 2005 after the extremely wet winter of 2004-05. Having the observed water levels peak at the same exact same level in 1993 and 2005 ma y likely indicate that this repeatab le historical high may represent the highest physically achievable water level for this area. In the Anaheim/Fullerton area west of the District's spreadi ng grounds, full basin water levels were set 10 to 15 feet higher than the new hist orical high of June 2006. Water levels in June 2006 exceeded the previous historical high of June 1994 and appear to still be on an upward trend. The upward adjustment of 10 to 15 feet from the June 2006 observed condition once again brought the wa ter table up to approximately 50-60 feet from ground surface. Along the Santa Ana River downstream of Lincoln Avenue, full basin water levels were set 5 to 10 feet higher than the new historic al high of June 2006, which exc eeded the previous high of June 1994 in this area as we II. The upward adjustm ent of 5 to 10 feet above the historical high once a gain brought the full conditio n up as shallow as 40-50 feet from ground surface, lik ely being influenced by the re charge from the Santa Ana River and Burris Basin. This full lev el also corresponds approximately to the bottom elevation of Burris Basin, analogous to the full level adjacent to Anaheim Lake. 25 In the Irvine Forebay area, full basin water leve Is were set within 5 f eet of the historical high, which either occurred in 1994, 1999, or 2006 d epending on the exact location within this general area. Recall from the previous section that this new fu II condition is prior to full-scale IDP pumping. Although t he majority of IDP pum ping will be from the Principal aquifer, Shallow aquifer water levels will likely also decline. Finally, in the mid -basin Press ure area, full condition water levels were modestly adjusted upward 5 to 10 feet from the new historical hi gh of June 2006, which again significantly exceeded the previous high of June 1994. This slight upward adjustment maintains a reasonable gradient from the c oast to the upwardly adjusted full water levels in the Anaheim Forebay area. After making all the full condition water level adjustments at monitoring well points in the various areas described, the resulting full water levels were plotted on a map and hand contoured similarly to the observed water le vels of June 2006. In fact, the June 2006 contour map was used as a guide or backdrop on the light table while contouring the full condition to ensure consistency, especially in outlying areas lacking data. Figure 4-3 shows the resulting full water level contour map constructed for the Shallow aquifer. Also shown for reference is the June 2006 Shallow aquifer contour map directly below it. Note the similarity in the shape of the contours between the two maps. The various well points screened in the Shallow aquifer that were used for constructing these contour maps are show n in light gr ay. The r ed boundary represents the basin model layer 1 boundary which represents the ex tent of the Shallow aquifer along the mountain fronts where the aquifer terminat es and on the western boundary represents an arbitrary cutoff 5 miles into LA County. Contouring the wate r levels slightly into LA County adds confidence to the shape of t he contours in west Orange County and at least qualitatively indicates the direction of flow across the county line. Figure 4-4 shows the same tw o Shallow aquifer water leve I conditions (Full and Jun e 2006), but in units of depth to water below ground surface rather than elevation. As was discussed above, notice that mu ch of the Forebay ar ea is within the 40 feet belo w ground surface or greater range si nce the Shallow aquifer wate r levels generally follow ground surface topography wher e the aquifer is unc onfined (Forebay), except n ear recharge facilities where the depth to water is more shallow due to percolation raising the water table. The depth to water also becomes shallower in the Pressure area of the basin where the Shallow aquifer is confined. However, these "water levels " are actually pressure or piezometric levels since the water is conf ined or trapped below the overlying aquitard. Water can only rise to this elevation if a well is drilled through the aquitard down into this aquifer or if the aquitard is thin or disconti nuous. Notice that there is a large area in Irvine where the piezometric level is actually above ground surface in both the observed June 2006 and Full condition. This area has historically experienced artesian conditions when basin levels are relatively high. M Fiaure 4-3. Shallow Aauifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 W --- �a °2 r8a aso FULL BASIN SHALLOW AQUIFER was 3 � Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Shallow Aquifer t I (Feet Above Mean Sea LeveC% F ., 0 Vo i 1-366 y +? - Acute Production Well Inar.We Production 1Ne41 Injection Welt Idolo l Monitoring Well =L ;- � �'° •tea 4```'•,-�, e Mu tiport Monitoring Well Basin Madel Boundary Layer 1 .�If Vir r �5 1 Y f •p JUNE 2006 SHALLOW AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Shallow Aquifer Feet Above Mean Sea Level) --25--2 6 1-360 Active Production Well Inactive Production We9l Infection Well Monitoring Well Multiport Monitoring Well ® 'Basin Modet Boundary Layer 4 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 200 �+_..� Wim..._ -� •�,�_.., 4 yP.u4nr� Bu 1 I N � ” Depth To Water ca (ft ngs) -30 -30 - -20 _ sraWa � r � � •70. 0 010-2D 026-4D ti R 40 - 60 emach � = Founka7n f "'•. �r � 1 e •l F June 2006 allow Aquifer ;�`�..^, ' W. Gcldan �' 1, ._•.. %' Depth To Water C. •` - uc (ft 1 6gs) M > -30 -30--20 -20 - -10 Grnur".. er -10 - 0 rieslr.dns�u �— Deaf r z `` i.i• '3•„• � o - 1c) ®1(3.20 s a [] 20 - 40 40 - 60 i fie�tli � _ i3 uvYrm l ... w.se• Full Basinallow F Aquifer .. ' �+_..� Wim..._ -� •�,�_.., 4 yP.u4nr� Bu 1 I N � ” Depth To Water ca (ft ngs) -30 -30 - -20 _ sraWa � r � � •70. 0 010-2D 026-4D ti R 40 - 60 emach � = Founka7n f "'•. �r � 1 e •l F June 2006 allow Aquifer ;�`�..^, ' W. 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map As with the Shallow aquifer, fu II basin water levels for t he Principal aquifer were also based on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. Wells with a screened interval generally within a rang e between 300 to 1,000 feet below ground surface (depending on the spec ific area) were used to represent the Principal aq uifer. This depth interval includes m ost large system production wells, which along with District monitoring we IIs, were used to construct the Principal aquifer full basin water level map. Prior to developing the full basin condition for the Principal aquifer, the high -basin water level condition of January 2006 was anal yzed and contoured to determi ne the flow patterns and contour shapes for a most rec ent, near -full, actual condition. In subsequent months, observed water levels in the Forebay area increased further to a new historical high in June 2006, whereas in the coastal area January 2006 remained a historical high. In the coastal area, full bas in water levels we re generally set at or within 5 feet of the observed peak January 2006 water levels, as was also done for the Shallow aquifer. In fact, this was the case for the majority of the Pressure area, where January 2006 water levels were noticeably higher than the previous high of 1994 (see Figure 4-5). M 60 U) E 40 V_ C 20 c� w 0 L 3 -20 o -40 L 0 -60 -80 " 1965 Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 Ground Su "Full" Basin Water Level = Jan 06 Production Well SA -21 Screened Interval: 400-960 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 29 The exception to using January 2006 water levels for the full condition in the Pressure area was in the MCWD area where the high cond ition of April 1994 wa s used. At this location, January 2006 water levels were 15 to 20 feet lower than April 1994 because of current pumping from the MCWD colored wate r project that did not exist in 1994. As was mentioned in the Section 4.1 assumpti ons, since the full condition must be sufficiently high in the coastal area to be protec tive of seawater intrusion, the older but higher April 1994 water levels were used in this area for the full condition even though it is not representative of present-day pumping in this immediate area (see Figure 4-6). Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 40 20 N E 0 o -20 cc W -40 L d 3 -60 V c -80 L V -100 ce "Full" Basin Water Level = April 94 ........................................................ -120 1980 Production Well MCWD-2 Screened Interval: 300-650 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Throughout most of the Irvi ne Sub -basin, January 2006 represented a historical high similar to the rest of the Pressure area. Th us, full basin water levels in Irvine were als o set within 5 feet of observed January 2006 Ie vels. However, in north Irvi ne near the Santa Ana mountain front, 1999 water levels we re used since they were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in that immediate area. In the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, full basin water levels were generally set at or within 5 feet of the historical high that occurr ed during March through June of 1994 depending on the exact loc ation. For the ma jority of the Forebay area, 1994 still represented a historical high for the Principal aquifer, higher than January or June 2006. Although the full water levels were based on diffe rent historical highs in different areas of the basin (coastal vs. inland), resulting gradients and flow patterns were reasonable and similar to those contoured for the observed data of June 2006 (see Figure 4.7). 30 Fiaure 4-7. Principal Aauifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 12a3 g s° +ti tBm.?� 2�3q°': FULL BASIN - t� r— = PRINCIPAL AQUIFER r y, f" Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The rt - Principal Aquifer >7 (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) a 0 t 0- 309 k ,dory ` Active Prodvc6an Well .D Inactive Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well 0 Multipart Monitaring Well Basin Madel Boundary p� e ° '`� s. L '`- \.� �� moo•. _ 31 JUNE 2006 °o PRINCIPAL AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The M. Principal Aquifer (Feat Above Mean Sea Level; •� �-Bs-•lo �r>�ir�"�' '! 19-300 Active Pnaductian Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well Multlport Monitoring Woll t Basin Model Bmndary. Layer 31 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map For the Deep aquifer, the main data source for developing the f ull basin condition was water level data from the District's deep mult i -port monitoring (Westbay) well network. Approximately two-thirds of these 56 wells were sufficiently deep and in appropriat e locations overlying the Deep aquifer. Depending on the specific location, the monitoring ports of these wells that tap the Deep a quifer generally range from approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet below ground surface. In addition to the District's dee p monitoring wells, a few other scattered well points that tap the Deep aquifer were used, such as two deep monitoring wells owned by the Water Replenishment District in LA County (very close to the county line). The new full condition for the D eep aquifer was predominantly based on the historical high that occurred in 1994. Throughout the basin, the recent June 2006 Deep aqu fifer water levels were still we II below the historical high of 1994, like ly due to the IRW D Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS) Pr oject which began pumping approximately 8,000 afy of colored water in December 2001 from this otherwise little -used zone. Also, there was no MCWD colored water project yet in 1994. Fortunately, most of the District's deep monitoring wells are old enough to have captured the historical high condition of 1994. It is somewhat speculative as to how high the piezometric level of the Deep aquifer can rise. Therefore, full water levels were c onservatively adjusted only 0 to 5 feet hig her than the observed historical peak that occurr ed April to June of 1994. In so doing, the observed vertical piezometric head difference between the overlying Pr incipal aquifer and the Deep aquifer was maintained. T hroughout most of the basin, Deep aquifer piezometric levels typically ranged from 10 to 30 feet higher than the more heavily pumped Principal aquifer, except in the furthest inland locations near the mountain front and near recharge facilities where the Deep aquifer levels are actually lower than the Principal aquifer due to being more vertically removed from surficial recharge. While contouring the resulting Deep aquifer full basin piezometric levels (also referred to as water levels for simplicity), the Princ ipal aquifer full condition contour map was used as a backdrop on the light table to ensure that the Deep aquifer full contours maintained the vertical head difference discussed abov e. Also, in areas lacking data, the contours were drawn with similar patterns as those predicted during basin model calibration. Figure 4-8 shows the resulti ng contour maps for both the new full condition and also June 2006 for comparison. T he contour shapes are quite si milar for both maps except in the area near the aforem entioned DATS wells. The Fu II map assumes no DAT S pumping since it was based on the historical h igh water levels of 1994, whereas the June 2006 map shows a relatively deep pumping depression in that immediate area. However, due to the confined nature of the Deep aquifer, the storage coefficients of this zone are very small (see App endix 2) and thus ev en a re latively large water level difference leads to a small storage change. 32 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 I T- Irl ' quaeaiu .g FULL BASIN •' tau ,o CIEEPAQUIFER h� r Estimated Groundwater . r' to Elevations Within The r - 'o Gawp Aquifer 120 (Feet Above Mean See Level) i 5-200 r i Active Production Well Inactive Production VMI Injection Well Monitoring Weil `• _ Y3� i Multipart Monitoring Well Basin Model Boundary Laver 3 L � T, it �y� 'L w ewN�'..�_.y.% aY �.J.� •_g r'. .. A "•Pro rxa \TQ'°a`y JUNE 2006 DEEPAQIUIFER Estimated Groundwater t Elevations Within The Deep Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Levelp 7U'p--70--5 , o A A 0 5-160 Active Production Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well i> �. — �• Mmitoring Well Multipart Monitoring Well Basin Model Boundary Layer 3 P r'v 33 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION The accumulated overdraft is the amount of storage capacity below full, sometimes referred to as dewatered storage or available storage capacity. In various literature, overdraft often has a negative c onnotation implying that a basin is in a steady state of decline or has been drawn -do wn below some critical threshold to where negative impacts such as subsidence and seawater intrusion begin to occur. In this report, use of the term "accumulated overdraft," which is defined in the District Act, is not intended to have any negative connotation and is strictly used as a m easure of available bas in storage below the new full benchmark or zero -overdraft condition established in Section 4. 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 The new three -layer storage change met hodology was used to calculate the accumulated overdraft for June 2006. Three groundwater contour maps (one for each aquifer layer) representing June 30, 2006 had already been constructed for testing the new three -layer approach described in Sec tion 3. For the storage change c alculation, Year 1 was set to the new full water level condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2006 water level condition. The resulting c hange in storage from the new full c ondition to June 2006 was -135,000 af, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft as of June 30, 2006 was 135,000 of below the new full benchmark. The breakdown per aquifer layer is schematically shown below in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1. Three -Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 0 AF Shallow Aquifer: 110,000 AF Principal Aquifer: 20,000 AF Full -135,000 AF �. Deep Aquifer: 5,000 AF V Jun -06 34 To put the Shallow aquifer storage change fr om the full condit ion (110,000 af) into perspective, Shallow aquifer water levels in most of the Forebay area wer e approximately 15 feet higher in the full condition as compared to June 2006 (Figure 5- 2). In the coastal area, full water levels were only about 5 feet hi gher than June 2006. And since much more storage change occurs in the Forebay than the Pressure area per foot of water level change, near Iy all of the Shallow aquifer storage change f rom full to June 2006 occurred in the Forebay area. Therefore, in general, a 15 -foot Shallo w aquifer water level change throughout the For ebay caused approximately 100,000 of of storage change. Detailed water level change maps for June 2006 to the new full conditio n for all three aquifer layers are shown in Appendix 3. Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full two �= Forebay �{ +1 �C id r.,r.i.t p PA f qr" •' Poi �'i,�R.w..}� .•' Pressure` . t Area +5 or less �• '''6 v w .st Shallow Aquifer Water Level Increase (ft) from Jun 2006 to Full Condition: 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 Using the new three- layer storage change method, the accumulated overdraft was calculated for June 2005 by dir ectly comparing to the new full benchmark once again. In the storage change calculatio n, Year 1 was set to the new full water lev el condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2005 water level cond ition. The resulting total change in storage from the new full to June 2005 was -201,000 a f, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft was 201,000 of below the new full benchmark. 35 The June 30, 2005 accumulated overdraft for each aquifer layer was as follows: Shallow aquifer: 166,000 of Principal aquifer: 25,000 of Deep aquifer: 10,000 of Total: 201,000 of The difference between the June 2005 and June 2006 accumulated overdraft w as 66,000 af, which represents t he annual increase in storage fr om July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 (see figure 5-3). As a check, this storage change of 66,000 of was exactly the same as that calculated directly using the new three -layer method with Year 1 as June 2005 and Year 2 as June 2006 (see previous Figur e 3-7). Therefore, this confirmed that the new thr ee-layer approach yields exactly the s ame results summing the annual storage change over multiple years or calculat ing the storage change us ing the start and end of the multip le year period. In addition, the new metho d has been shown to yield the same identical storage change, but opposite in sign, when reversing the order of Year 1 vs. Year 2. Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 IS 5.3 Historical vs. New Accumulated Overdraft Estimates Benchmark 2006 2005 The new accumulated overdraft estimate of 201,000 of for June 2005 is 29, 000 of less than the traditional m ethod estimate of 230,000 of publis hed in the 2004- 05 OCWD Engineer's Report. This discrepancy is rela tively minor when considering the major differences between t he traditional singl e -layer and new three -layer storage change methods and also their two corresponding diffe rent full basin benc hmarks. Since the historical accumulated overdraft levels are all relative to the 1969 condition as being the zero -overdraft benchmark, the two new accumulated overdraft estimates for June 20 05 and June 2006 are plotted on the same fami liar historical overdraft graph in F igure 5-4. However, this graph has been divided at the June 2005 line due to the two different zero -overdraft benchmarks of 1969 water levels and the new full condition. Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft Three -Layer Single -Layer Traditional Full (1969) 1 New Full 0 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method To prevent or minimize any ac cumulation of potential discrepancy from year to year when implementing this new storage change method, it is important to follow the steps enumerated below. 1. Hand -contour water levels collected on or about June 30 for each of the three aquifer layers, maintaining consistency with how the water level data is interpreted from year to year, unless new well data in a specific area causes a different interpretation. 2. Use the GIS to calculate the water level change and corresponding storage chang e from the three -layer full benchmark to the cu rrent June condition. The resulting storage change below the full condition represents the accumulated overdraft for June of that year. 37 New Jun -06 ILL 135,000 AF 100,000 `-' Old Jun -05 L 230,000 AF 200,000 " New Jun -05 V d 201,000 AF iq 300,000 3 3 V a 400,000 0 c 500,000 coo ado aoo ami aoi o 0 c c c c c c c c c 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method To prevent or minimize any ac cumulation of potential discrepancy from year to year when implementing this new storage change method, it is important to follow the steps enumerated below. 1. Hand -contour water levels collected on or about June 30 for each of the three aquifer layers, maintaining consistency with how the water level data is interpreted from year to year, unless new well data in a specific area causes a different interpretation. 2. Use the GIS to calculate the water level change and corresponding storage chang e from the three -layer full benchmark to the cu rrent June condition. The resulting storage change below the full condition represents the accumulated overdraft for June of that year. 37 3. Subtract the previ ous year's accumulated overdraft from the current year to obtain the annual change in storage for that water year. 4. This step is a quality control check. Use the three-laye r storage change method once again to calculate the water level c hange and storage change fr om the previous June (Year 1) to the current June (Year 2) . This storage change should e xactly equal the storage change calculated in Step 3. 5. Calculate incident al recharge for that water year by inputti ng the annual storage change estimate from Step 3 or 4 (if they ar e the same) into the water budget method described in Section 3.3. The resulting incidental recharge should be reasonable given the annual rainfall for the year i n question; otherwise, additional error checking shou Id be done for the water budget ter ms as well as the input data for the storage change calculation. It should be poin ted out though that inc idental recharge is not solely a function of rainfall because the flow acro ss the LA County line — along with all other unknown inflows and outflows — is lumped into the incidental recharge term. That being said, incidental recharge for a somewhat typi cal year with average rainfall is thought to be approximately 60,000 afy but could vary by upwards of 20,000 of based on changes in outflow to LA County, which unfortunately is difficult to quantify. 6. The water budget method should not be used to determine or adjust the official storage change estimate calculated using t he new three -layer method. It can be used to calculate preliminary monthly storage change estimates (using assumed inc idental recharge) prior to performing the annual three -layer storage calculation. However, the annual storage change and accumulated overdraft official record for that year should be the exact value from the three -layer storage method steps above. This will prevent an accumulation of unknown discrepancy when rectifying back to previous years. 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY The level of accumulated overdraft in the basin, both for the current and upcoming year, affects important basin m anagement decisions, including deter mining imported water needs and setting the Basin Pumping Pe rcentage (BPP), both of which have major financial effects on the District and groundwater pr oducers. Therefore, it is crucial to have an operational stra tegy to ensure that the basin is managed within acceptable overdraft limits to prevent det rimental impacts to the bas in while also striving to maximize water reliability and financial efficiency. In the discussion that follows, all storage and overdraft conditions are defined for June 30 of a given year, which is the ending dat e of the water year (July 1 through June 30) and thus the date represented by the June annual contour maps used for the storage change calculation. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels and basin storage occur throughout the water year and are tracked monthly for reporting purposes, and are used, along with the end -of -year accumulated over draft, in making m anagement decisions. 38 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target The operating range of the bas in is considered to be t he maximum allowable storag e range without incurring detrimental impacts. The upper limit of th e operating range is defined by the new full basin condition, which represents the zero -overdraft benchmark. Although it may be physically possible to fill t he basin higher than this full condition, it could lead to detrimental impact s such as per colation reductions in recharge facilitie s and increased risk of shallow groundwater seepage in low-lying coastal areas. The lower limit of the operat ing range is considered to be 500,000 of overdraft and represents the lowest acceptabl a level in the basin, not the lowest achievable. This level also assumes that all MWD water stored in the basin (e.g., Conjuctive Use Storage Project and Super In -Lieu) has already been withdrawn. Although it is considered to be generally acceptable to allow the basin to decline to 500,000 of overdraft for brief periods due to severe drought conditions and lack of supplemental imported water supplies, it is not considered to be an acce ptable management practice to intentionally manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer Of course, detrimental impacts like those listed above do not suddenly happen when the overdraft gets down t o exactly 500,000 of ; rather, they occur incrementally, or the potential for their occurrence grows as the bas in declines to lower levels. Howev er, basin model computer simulations indic ate that many of these detrimental impacts become evident at an overdraft of approximately 500,000 af. For example, at 500,000 of overdraft, model -simulated water levels in the Talbert Gap area were marginally low and not protective of seawater intrusion, even with the increased injection from GWRS Phase 1. Furthermore, worst case basin m odel runs at 700,000 of overdraft indicated seawater intrusion becoming even worse and considerably more production wells being impacted by low pumping levels . Thus, an accumulated overdraft level of 700,000 of did not appear to be acceptab le, not even for short durations. At overdraft levels significantly below 500,000 of overdraft, the potential for land subsidenc a could also become an issue. Based on historical hydrology and recharge water availability, an accumulated overdraft of 100,000 of best represents an optimal basin management target. This optimal target level provides sufficient storage space to accommodate anticipated recharge from a single wet year while also prov iding water in storage for at least 2 or 3 consecutiv e years of drought. 39 Table 6-1 shows that basin storage could increase by as much as 100,000 of in a somewhat typical wet year based on predicted increased supplies. The Captured Santa Ana River Flows and Natural Incidental Recharge terms were both based on an average of four historical wet years: 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, and 2004-05. Based on historical rainfall records for the Or ange County area, wet years typically do not occur back-to-back. Therefore, the optimal overdraft tar get of 100,000 of provides the storage capacity to capture the increased supplies from this one typically wet year. Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Increased Supplies (Above Average Annual Amounts) 1 Year (AF) Captured Santa Ana River Flows * 50,000 Natural Incidental Recharge * 30,000 Reduced Demand (Pumping) 20,000 Potential Storage Increase ** 100,000 * Average of four wet years: 92-93, 94-95, 97-98, 04-05 ** Assumes no mid -year BPP change Table 6-2 shows that basin storage could decrease by approximately 90,000 of in a dry year based on reduced supplies. However, unlike wet years, historical rainfall records for this area show that dry years often occu r for 2 or 3 consecutiv e years. Therefore, the 90,000 of of reduced supplies in a dry year could result in a 270,000 of decrease in basin storage after 3 consecutiv e years of drought. Assuming t he basin to be at the optimal target of 100,000 of go ing into a three-year drought, the accumulated overdraft at the end of the dr ought would be 370, 000 af, which is still within the acceptable operating range. Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years Reduced Supplies (From Average Annual Amounts) 1 Year (AF) 3 Years (AF) MWD Replenishment Water -30,000 -90,000 Santa Ana River Flows -40,000 -120,000 Natural Incidental Recharge -20,000 -60,000 Total Potential Storage Change* -90,000 -270,000 * Assumes no mid -year BPP change 40 Figure 6-1 schematically illu strates the various overdraft levels discussed above in relation to one another; namely, the new full benchmark, the optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af, and the lower limit of the oper ating range at 500,000 of accumulated overdraft. Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target 0 AF - 100,000 AF Available storage for one wet year OCWD Operating Range Provides at least 3 years of drought supply above MWD storage -418,000 AF �-- — — — — —- - 500,000 AF 82,000 of MWD storage x66,000 AF CUP Storage) 116,000 AF Super In -Lieu, `- Lowest Acceptable Level * Current maximum approved volume 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy The primary "tool" for managing the basin is the Bas in Production Percentage (BPP). Each year in April, the District's Board of Directors sets the BPP for the upcoming wate r year. In addition to purchasing replenis hment water, adjusting the BPP allows t he District to effectively increase or decrease basin storage. Figure 6-2 shows the formula used to calculate the BPP each year. Only t he two terms highlighted in blue and red in the BPP formula are adjustable at the District's discretion, namely the planned amount of recharge (including replenishment water purchases) and the planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year. The amount of recharge pl anned and budgeted for the coming year may be limited by factors outside the District's control, such as the availability of imported water for either direct replenishment or In -Lieu. For example, following statewide wet years, MWD may 41 offer incentives (financial or of herwise) for local water agencies to take additional amounts of surplus imported water, whereas during a long-term statewide drought the surplus imported water may simply not be available. Figure 6-2. BPP Formula Basin Water Quality Water Refill or Improvement Projects Recharged — Decrease — (Pumping Above BPP) Last Calendar Year's _ Reclaimed & Total Water Demand I Local Supplies The planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year is within the District's control but is also considered within the context of financial impacts to both the District and the groundwater producers. Therefore, unless the basin is near the bottom of the acceptable operating range or clos e to being full, a moder ate amount of basin refill or decrease would typically be proposed that aims to move toward the optimal overdraft target. If the basin is already at or near the 100,000 of overdraft target, then a neutral stance can be taken that attempts to balance basin production and recharge with no planned storage change. Figure 6-3 schematic ally illustrates the generalized basin refill or storage decreas e strategy based on t he accumulated overdraft. When the basin is higher than the optimal overdraft target and nearly full, the amount of planned storage decrease of up to 50,000 of for the coming year may be recomm ended. This may be accomplished by a combination of raising the BPP and reducing replenishment purchases. The proposed operational strategy illustrated in Figure 6-3 pr ovides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of bas in refill or s torage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based o n current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District's Board of Directors. 42 Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy 0 AF Reduce up to 50,000 AFY -100,000 AFL OPTIMAL "Neutral" -150,000 AF More active management of basin in conjunction with Use BPP availability of imported water Formula and basin condition -418,OOOAF ———————— — — — — — e 82,000 of MWD storage - 500,000 AF 7. FINDINGS Findings of this study are enumerated below. 1. The new three -layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single -layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three -layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unc onfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumu lated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water level measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively spars e in outly ing Forebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. 43 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full -basin benchmark. A new full -basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins The new full -basin water levels in the Forebay area are essentially at or ver y near the bottom of the District's deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 hav e shown t hat this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water levels slightly higher than this new fu II condition may be physically achievable in the Forebay area but not recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three -layer storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 of was calculated representing Ju ne 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three -layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 of for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year's water leve I conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 of r epresents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower lim it of 500,0 00 of assumes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In -Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to droug ht conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin managem ent target of 100,000 of of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 44 9. The proposed operational st rategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and con sidering storage goals based o n current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refi II or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to pr ovide a gener al guideline fo r the District's Board of Directors. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study are the following recommendations: 1. Adopt the new three -layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full -basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three -layer storage change calculation. 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill, New York, 569 pp. Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 480 pp. California State Department of Water Resources. 1934. "Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill." Bulletin No. 45. California State Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. June, 1945. "Present Overdraft on and Safe Yield from The Groundwater of the Coastal Plain of Orange County." Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604 pp. Phraner, R. W., B. Harley, E. G. Reichard, and B. Stollar. 2001. Letter from OCWD Basin Model Advisory Panel to OCWD: "Findi ngs of Model Advisory Panel —Transient Calibration of Multi -layer Basin Flow Model," 7pp. 45 APPENDIX 1 "Randall" Specific Yield Values From Traditional Storage Change Method U W J N v (6 U -0 N 0 O d) LL CL o M (13 th �-- In } Oman -.. = - - . ..W, y, O Cc; R Z,-.516-0 Oo 0 d o co o d0-41�d� a a B w 0 c d d d c C4 m 0 d o 0 `r' d 0 8 d c c d d 0 d d r a c m o o d p d d c r c O T N d d Lf, r r d d O a d O d d o a RT o $ o r r o 0 d c d 0 r r c o d O r r r d a o &14 aa>a d mo dd r d O O d O p 0 CO d Or a M a d d ar o o N O d d W O 8 O O 'N d d a ' N p d a d r d d co, o c d d d N $ 0 d a d d d r d d dd o m p o CR d d O a •a d m �� r a a o o a w T d m o o c c o o a fa a d c d o d d T d d d d d r r d d d a r d c r d d d d L d d r0 r r a 0 o an d as r C5 O d a o O m p a d p 0 O O d o d o o d a d d d m e r d d c c d d d an d p a to O O R R O O d O O Ln�r r d O O�P! d O R r �■ d a o r S o a Vu�o d O R R r O a d a N O d dv�o d APPENDIX 2 Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values For Three -Layer Storage Change Method L i . p rr♦ �� o Q p U co fn O v a� +Mp� o10 r 0 J o NO O O N C y ' O Ci O N 10 O O r 'FSI. O CO O 't p O - '+> N m C11LaO y O N O N O N E. O O = O O O. O OO o r Cl LD CA O o 0 o N o 0 ■ o o aooal d k m N R o_ 6 CD o O C2, o 0 o m o �o o R o o o co 0 0 0 R o r o' o o 7 r M o 00 o P r co R o 0 0 0 0 • O O ® O r O r � p � O G T O O O r 0O O O co O O C O O O O �" O r O � O O �.A* O O 1. O T r O O N e R c r o t O „ O N O O Q O ' O Q O O O co O O O G i.y L R R o 6po 0 C2 cam.' a R o o 0 o r o O o o 0 o ; 0 0 O 17 0 CD o o � o 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 o r 0 m .0 o O 0 co co _ I r C — N A, r L E co W O �� O " O 0 2 L �r N .— Q co p O N L co Co N L M N O C 0 o N — p •� L C .--� m 0) U) 7 .� Q A, O '� � � �' Y � i��sh • ou a o N o 0 cn U . [ O G p O O l o 0 o O o No G G N O O G M O O Q Q O N K7 R o C3 R 0 R 0 R 0 0 R N 0 c Lo o 0 R 0 R 0 N is O O �Y O G O O M O R r` O f M 7' O A' O M y o N <D o R o0 o im o 7=uI%, . o u oil N 0 c O m o N.S. ,dao � L co M r.� s ._ 91 7 07 cu ca `� Q a� r > L m 0 � � C o N = N a� ca c a> H =U) ovd O d O O M O � � O O O O O d <L O O O d d :0 N O.Y 0)0 co >� O) co O O N ).QC v) :'ZN '— N a� co O 0 a� � •Q- c � L := .C.) ov to L C C C O d O 7 0 AS o 12 4 0 ,0 cn A- 0 LD 0 C3. ci C3. 0 ci o C3. C3. c C; C3. 0 ci CD, C4 C3. C3. WEI 0 C', (D qC3. (D C3. C3. 0 Q D -I% q q A% C3. Q AMR CD. CD APPENDIX 3 Water Level Change Maps For June 2006 to the New Full Condition d] LL ++ ice+ tL1 Lo r Cj 0 V C � CD � Q N 0 L r N O J = RAS Y' F 00 �* _ LL t ,r ate. y di' r t4� y}y.MP`�i� � �♦ ,.ia �I CD C:) M Q o -1--, 4- -1--, 0 0 0 Lf) C*4 0 "tT CID ,.ia �I 0 J C7" O I 0 O 0 D C] C) O C) LO CN qzT L y_ ID APPENDIX E OCWD MONITORING WELLS APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) ABS -2 SINGLE CASING 1 175 155 165 AM -1 SINGLE CASING 1 137 97 115 AM -2 SINGLE CASING 1 156 87 100 AM -3 SINGLE CASING 1 112 91 107 AM -4 SINGLE CASING 1 296 187 205 AM -5 SINGLE CASING 1 247 230 245 AM -5A SINGLE CASING 1 180 168 175 AM -6 SINGLE CASING 1 296 232 250 AM -7 SINGLE CASING 1 297 210 225 AM -8 SINGLE CASING 1 297 268 285 AM -9 SINGLE CASING 1 317 285 303 AM -10 SINGLE CASING 1 298 217 235 AM -11 SINGLE CASING 1 276 218 240 AM -12 SINGLE CASING 1 294 210 225 AM -13 SINGLE CASING 1 275 252 270 AM -14 SINGLE CASING 1 317 297 315 AM -15 SINGLE CASING 1 318 300 317 AM -15A SINGLE CASING 1 231 214 220 AM -16 SINGLE CASING 1 320 300 315 AM -16A SINGLE CASING 1 227 215 222 AM -17 SINGLE CASING 1 318 290 308 AM -18 SINGLE CASING 1 316 291 309 AM -18A SINGLE CASING 1 234 208 215 AM -19 SINGLE CASING 1 237 217 225 AM -19A SINGLE CASING 1 126 115 123 AM -20 SINGLE CASING 1 397 361 379 AM -20A SINGLE CASING 1 268 250 258 AM -21 SINGLE CASING 1 269 250 258 AM -21A SINGLE CASING 1 179 157 165 AM -22 SINGLE CASING 1 356 339 353 AM -22A SINGLE CASING 1 239 216 224 AM -23 SINGLE CASING 1 351 330 347 AM -24 SINGLE CASING 1 378 335 350 AM -24A SINGLE CASING 1 306 279 294 AM -25 SINGLE CASING 1 362 340 358 AM -25A SINGLE CASING 1 219 188 195 AM -26 SINGLE CASING 1 388 377 383 AM -27 SINGLE CASING 1 336 287 305 AM -28 SINGLE CASING 1 398 358 376 AM -29 SINGLE CASING 1 367 340 358 AM -29A SINGLE CASING 1 95 75 95 AM -30 SINGLE CASING 1 375 349 367 AM -30A SINGLE CASING 1 398 152 159 AM -31 SINGLE CASING 1 358 335 353 AM -31A SINGLE CASING 1 360 162 170 AM -32 SINGLE CASING 1 398 335 353 AM -33 SINGLE CASING 1 378 354 372 AM -33A SINGLE CASING 1 238 206 221 AM -34 ISINGLE CASING 1 354 317 335 AM -34A ISINGLE CASING 1 271 252 260 AM -35 ISINGLE CASING 1 400 332 350 NA: Not Available 1 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) AM -36 SINGLE CASING 1 398 369 387 AM -37 SINGLE CASING 1 378 349 367 AM -38 SINGLE CASING 1 358 316 334 AM -39 SINGLE CASING 1 188 168 188 AM -39A SINGLE CASING 1 135 115 135 AM -40 SINGLE CASING 1 191 175 190 AM -40A SINGLE CASING 1 166 145 165 AM -41 SINGLE CASING 1 200 190 200 AM -41A SINGLE CASING 1 166 156 166 AM -42 SINGLE CASING 1 190 180 190 AM -42A SINGLE CASING 1 130 115 130 AM -43 SINGLE CASING 1 100 80 100 AM -44 SINGLE CASING 1 160 140 160 AM -44A SINGLE CASING 1 88 78 88 AM -45 SINGLE CASING 1 132 102 132 AM -46 SINGLE CASING 1 124 94 124 AM -47 SINGLE CASING 1 247 227 242 AM -47A SINGLE CASING 1 170 160 170 AM -48 SINGLE CASING 1 305 270 300 AM -48A SINGLE CASING 1 151 116 146 AM -49 SINGLE CASING 1 155 120 150 AMD -9 NESTED 1 230 200 220 AMD -9 NESTED 2 480 450 470 AMD -9 NESTED 3 610 580 600 AMD -9 NESTED 4 926 896 916 AMD -10 NESTED 1 322 292 312 AMD -10 NESTED 2 470 440 460 AMD -10 NESTED 3 580 550 570 AMD -10 NESTED 4 804 774 794 AMD -10 NESTED 5 964 934 954 AMD -11 NESTED 1 328 298 318 AMD -11 NESTED 2 426 396 416 AMD -11 NESTED 3 630 600 620 AMD -11 NESTED 4 716 686 706 AMD -11 NESTED 5 936 906 926 AMD -12 NESTED 1 360 330 350 AMD -12 NESTED 2 530 490 520 AMD -12 NESTED 3 625 595 615 AMD -12 NESTED 4 755 725 745 AMD -12 NESTED 5 970 940 960 FM -1 SINGLE CASING 1 359 348 356 FM -1A SINGLE CASING 1 197 164 172 FM -2 SINGLE CASING 1 352 320 338 FM -2A SINGLE CASING 1 237 226 234 FM -3 SINGLE CASING 1 298 257 263 FM -4 SINGLE CASING 1 355 327 345 FM -4A SINGLE CASING 1 170 142 160 FM -5 SINGLE CASING 1 141 121 141 FM -6 ISINGLE CASING 1 320 150 310 FM -7 ISINGLE CASING 1 197 187 197 FM -7A ISINGLE CASING 1 170 160 170 NA: Not Available 2 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) FM -8 SINGLE CASING 1 139 114 134 FM -9 SINGLE CASING 1 245 220 240 FM -9A SINGLE CASING 1 191 166 186 FM -10 SINGLE CASING 1 240 215 235 FM -10A SINGLE CASING 1 176 151 171 FM -11 SINGLE CASING 1 261 236 256 FM -11A SINGLE CASING 1 159 134 154 FM -12 SINGLE CASING 1 231 206 226 FM -12A SINGLE CASING 1 160 135 155 FM -13 SINGLE CASING 1 235 210 230 FM -13A SINGLE CASING 1 165 140 160 FM -14 SINGLE CASING 1 259 234 254 FM -14A SINGLE CASING 1 172 147 167 FM -15 SINGLE CASING 1 243 218 238 FM -15A SINGLE CASING 1 145 120 140 FM -16 SINGLE CASING 1 273 248 268 FM -16A SINGLE CASING 1 150 125 145 FM -17 SINGLE CASING 1 275 250 270 FM -18 SINGLE CASING 1 254 224 244 FM -18A SINGLE CASING 1 156 121 151 FM -19A SINGLE CASING 1 140 115 135 FM -1913 SINGLE CASING 1 265 230 260 FM -19C SINGLE CASING 1 390 365 385 FM -20 SINGLE CASING 1 246 221 241 FM -20A SINGLE CASING 1 155 130 150 FM -21 SINGLE CASING 1 275 260 270 FM -21A SINGLE CASING 1 165 140 160 FM -22 SINGLE CASING 1 267 242 265 FM -22A SINGLE CASING 1 175 150 170 FM -23 SINGLE CASING 1 253 234 249 FM -23A SINGLE CASING 1 149 128 143 FM -24 SINGLE CASING 1 295 271 291 FM -24A SINGLE CASING 1 184 154 174 FM -25 SINGLE CASING 1 152 132 152 FM -26 SINGLE CASING 1 155 145 155 FM -27 SINGLE CASING 1 125 105 125 IDM -3 NESTED 1 214 174 194 IDM -3 NESTED 2 330 290 310 IDM -3 NESTED 3 682 652 672 IDM -4 NESTED 1 166 136 156 IDM -4 NESTED 2 302 272 292 IDM -4 NESTED 3 684 654 674 IDP -2R NESTED 1 205 155 195 IDP -2R NESTED 2 350 300 340 IDP -3 SINGLE CASING 1 525 125 505 IDP -4 SINGLE CASING 1 430 125 410 KBS -1 SINGLE CASING 1 230 209 219 KBS -3 SINGLE CASING 1 90 80 90 KBS -4 ISINGLE CASING 1 158 138 158 KBS -4A ISINGLE CASING 1 90 80 90 MCAS -4 ISINGLE CASING 1 275 181 238 NA: Not Available 3 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name MCAS -5A MCAS -6 MCAS -8 MCAS -9 MCAS -10 MSP -10P MSP -10T OCWD-7 OCWD-33Z11 OCWD-33Z11 OCWD-34F10 OCWD-34F10 OCWD-34F10 OCWD-34F10 OCWD-34H25 OCWD-34H25 OCWD-34H5 OCWD-34H5 OC WD -341-10 OC WD -341-10 OC WD -341-10 OC WD -341-10 OCWD-34N21 OCWD-34N21 OCWD-34U8 OCWD-34U8 OCWD-34U8 OCWD-34U8 OCWD-34V20 OCWD-34V20 OCWD-35F20 OCWD-35F20 OCWD-35F20 OCWD-35F20 OCWD-35H11 OCWD-35H11 OCWD-35H11 OCWD-35H12 OCWD-35J1 OCWD-35J1 OCWD-35K1 OCWD-35K1 OCWD-35N01 OCWD-35N01 OCWD-35T9 OCWD-36FP1Z OCWD-36FP14Z1 OCWD-AIR1 OCWD-AIR1 OCWD-AIR1 OCWD-AIR1 Well Type SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED SINGLE CASING NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING SINGLE CASING NESTED NESTED NESTED NESTED Casing Sequence No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 Cased Depth (ft.) 133 285 435 450 389 50 140 48 384 490 231 291 346 465 356 470 360 475 191 266 371 455 NA NA 180 240 325 389 313 422 NA NA NA NA 225 163 82 159 260 190 263 190 90 80 432 NA 135 255 515 855 1485 TopI Bottom Perforation (ft.) Perforation (ft.) 120 167 392 372 347 40 70 28 338 435 215 270 315 420 300 410 300 405 165 225 311 405 329 424 149 224 279 359 235 387 70 115 145 235 200 125 44 137 190 130 193 130 80 39 390 504 115 200 410 675 1375 130 222 410 445 377 50 140 48 379 485 225 285 340 460 350 465 340 455 185 260 365 450 366 464 174 234 319 384 307 417 95 125 180 265 220 158 77 147 240 170 243 170 85 79 411 514 125 250 510 850 1460 NA: Not Available 4 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) OCWD-AN1 SINGLE CASING 1 115 35 115 OCWD-AN2 SINGLE CASING 1 115 35 115 OCWD-BP1 SINGLE CASING 1 40 20 40 OCWD-BP2 SINGLE CASING 1 70 50 70 OCWD-BP3 SINGLE CASING 1 205 185 205 OCWD-BP4 SINGLE CASING 1 180 140 180 OCWD-BP5 NESTED 1 75 55 75 OCWD-BP5 NESTED 2 167 147 167 OCWD-BP6 SINGLE CASING 1 168 148 168 OCWD-BP7 NESTED 1 57 47 57 OCWD-BP7 NESTED 2 168 148 168 OCWD-BS15 SINGLE CASING 1 75 60 70 OCWD-BS16 SINGLE CASING 1 85 60 80 OCWD-BS18 SINGLE CASING 1 87 72 82 OCWD-BS19 SINGLE CASING 1 88 63 83 OCWD-CTG1 NESTED 1 265 160 260 OCWD-CTG1 NESTED 2 725 420 720 OCWD-CTG1 NESTED 3 1025 800 1025 OCWD-CTG1 NESTED 4 1225 1060 1220 OCWD-CTG5 NESTED 1 620 420 620 OCWD-CTG5 NESTED 2 1000 880 1000 OCWD-CTG5 NESTED 3 1120 1040 1120 OCWD-CTK1 NESTED 1 660 410 655 OCWD-CTK1 NESTED 2 1020 780 1015 OCWD-CTK1 NESTED 3 1320 1260 1315 OCWD-FBM1 SINGLE CASING 1 140 38 138 OCWD-FBM2 SINGLE CASING 1 140 39 139 OCWD-FC1 SINGLE CASING 1 185 165 185 OCWD-FC2 SINGLE CASING 1 115 95 115 OCWD-FH1 SINGLE CASING 1 140 120 140 0CWD-GA1 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA2 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA3 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA4 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA5 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA6 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA7 SINGLE CASING 1 40 30 40 OCWD-GA9 SINGLE CASING 1 29 19 29 OCWD-127M1 SINGLE CASING 1 22 17 22 OCWD-128M1 SINGLE CASING 1 24 19 24 OCWD-KB1 SINGLE CASING 1 200 180 200 OCWD-KR2 SINGLE CASING 1 394 NA NA OCWD-LB1 NESTED 1 35 25 35 OCWD-LB1 NESTED 2 168 148 168 OCWD-LB2 SINGLE CASING 1 30 15 30 OCWD-LB3 NESTED 1 46 36 46 OCWD-LB3 NESTED 2 165 145 165 OCWD-LV1 SINGLE CASING 1 155 135 155 OCWD-M1 ISINGLE CASING 1 115 75 110 OCWD-M2 ISINGLE CASING 1 155 85 150 OCWD-M4 INESTED 1 125 80 120 NA: Not Available 5 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) OCWD-M4 NESTED 2 180 145 175 OCWD-M4 NESTED 3 275 235 270 OCWD-M4 NESTED 4 335 295 330 OCWD-M5 NESTED 1 100 65 95 OCWD-M5 NESTED 2 165 115 160 OCWD-M5 NESTED 3 265 215 260 OCWD-M5 NESTED 4 310 285 305 OCWD-M6A NESTED 1 130 65 125 OCWD-M6A NESTED 2 170 150 165 OCWD-M6A NESTED 3 290 260 285 OCWD-M6B SINGLE CASING 1 240 185 235 OCWD-M7A NESTED 1 140 70 135 OCWD-M7A NESTED 2 175 155 170 OCWD-M7A NESTED 3 225 190 220 OCWD-M7B SINGLE CASING 1 265 240 260 OCWD-M8 NESTED 1 155 50 150 OCWD-M8 NESTED 2 210 185 205 OCWD-M8 NESTED 3 255 225 250 OCWD-M8 NESTED 4 315 275 310 OCWD-M9 NESTED 1 120 90 115 OCWD-M9 NESTED 2 160 135 155 OCWD-M9 NESTED 3 230 185 225 OCWD-M9 NESTED 4 300 250 295 0CWD-M10 NESTED 1 165 80 160 0CWD-M10 NESTED 2 200 175 195 0CWD-M10 NESTED 3 245 215 240 0CWD-M10 NESTED 4 310 280 305 0CWD-M11 NESTED 1 110 70 105 0CWD-M11 NESTED 2 155 125 150 0CWD-M11 NESTED 3 230 170 225 0CWD-M11 NESTED 4 295 260 290 0CWD-M12 NESTED 1 115 70 110 0CWD-M12 NESTED 2 225 130 220 0CWD-M12 NESTED 3 265 240 260 0CWD-M12 NESTED 4 355 330 350 0CWD-M13 NESTED 1 100 65 95 0CWD-M13 NESTED 2 205 140 200 0CWD-M13 NESTED 3 300 230 295 0CWD-M13 NESTED 4 400 360 395 0CWD-M14A NESTED 1 95 60 90 0CWD-M14A NESTED 2 185 120 180 0CWD-M14A NESTED 3 305 200 300 OCWD-M1413 SINGLE CASING 1 345 320 340 0CWD-M15A NESTED 1 90 60 85 0CWD-M15A NESTED 2 180 115 175 0CWD-M15A NESTED 3 295 195 290 0CWD-M15B SINGLE CASING 1 340 310 335 0CWD-M16 NESTED 1 95 65 90 0CWD-M16 INESTED 2 1 165 115 160 0CWD-M16 INESTED 3 1 275 180 270 0CWD-M16 INESTED 4 1 320 295 315 NA: Not Available 6 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) 0CWD-M17A NESTED 1 100 60 95 0CWD-M17A NESTED 2 190 130 185 0CWD-M17A NESTED 3 350 330 345 0CWD-M17B SINGLE CASING 1 310 210 305 0CWD-M18 NESTED 1 95 65 90 0CWD-M18 NESTED 2 180 110 175 0CWD-M18 NESTED 3 295 195 290 0CWD-M18 NESTED 4 340 310 335 0CWD-M19 NESTED 1 115 60 110 0CWD-M19 NESTED 2 200 130 195 0CWD-M19 NESTED 3 270 215 265 OCWD-M20 NESTED 1 110 60 105 OCWD-M20 NESTED 2 200 170 195 OCWD-M20 NESTED 3 275 255 270 OCWD-M21 NESTED 1 105 65 100 OCWD-M21 NESTED 2 190 150 185 OCWD-M21 NESTED 3 265 205 260 OCWD-M21 NESTED 4 345 320 340 OCWD-M22 NESTED 1 110 70 105 OCWD-M22 NESTED 2 215 140 210 OCWD-M22 NESTED 3 275 230 270 OCWD-M23A NESTED 1 95 65 90 OCWD-M23A NESTED 2 170 110 165 OCWD-M23A NESTED 3 265 190 260 OCWD-M23B SINGLE CASING 1 325 295 320 OCWD-M24 NESTED 1 100 70 95 OCWD-M24 NESTED 2 170 115 165 OCWD-M24 NESTED 3 235 185 230 OCWD-M24 NESTED 4 315 290 310 OCWD-M25 SINGLE CASING 1 195 65 185 OCWD-M26 SINGLE CASING 1 145 70 135 OCWD-M27 SINGLE CASING 1 120 60 110 OCWD-M28 SINGLE CASING 1 155 80 145 OCWD-M30 SINGLE CASING 1 120 90 110 OCWD-M31 SINGLE CASING 1 172 82 162 OCWD-M36 NESTED 1 95 80 90 OCWD-M36 NESTED 2 180 165 175 OCWD-M36 NESTED 3 255 240 250 OCWD-M36 NESTED 4 305 290 300 OCWD-M37 NESTED 1 135 120 130 OCWD-M37 NESTED 2 195 180 190 OCWD-M37 NESTED 3 245 230 240 OCWD-M37 NESTED 4 312 297 307 OCWD-M37 NESTED 5 353 338 348 OCWD-M38 NESTED 1 114 94 104 OCWD-M38 NESTED 2 176 156 166 OCWD-M38 NESTED 3 254 234 244 OCWD-M38 NESTED 4 356 336 346 OCWD-M38 INESTED 5 1 536 516 526 OCWD-M39 INESTED 1 1 90 1 70 80 OCWD-M39 INESTED 2 1 130 1 100 120 NA: Not Available 7 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) OCWD-M39 NESTED 3 180 150 170 OCWD-M39 NESTED 4 220 200 210 OCWD-M39 NESTED 5 280 250 270 OCWD-M40 NESTED 1 115 85 105 OCWD-M40 NESTED 2 190 160 180 OCWD-M40 NESTED 3 235 205 225 OCWD-M40 NESTED 4 530 330 520 OCWD-M41 NESTED 1 86 66 76 OCWD-M41 NESTED 2 115 95 105 OCWD-M41 NESTED 3 220 200 210 OCWD-M41 NESTED 4 256 236 246 OCWD-M41 NESTED 5 400 370 390 OCWD-M42 NESTED 1 130 100 120 OCWD-M42 NESTED 2 157 137 147 OCWD-M42 NESTED 3 230 210 220 OCWD-M42 NESTED 4 290 260 280 OCWD-M42 NESTED 5 530 500 520 OCWD-M42 NESTED 6 638 608 628 OCWD-M43 NESTED 1 156 136 146 OCWD-M43 NESTED 2 320 290 310 OCWD-M43 NESTED 3 360 340 350 OCWD-M43 NESTED 4 410 380 400 OCWD-M43 NESTED 5 550 520 540 OCWD-M44 NESTED 1 65 50 60 OCWD-M44 NESTED 2 125 100 120 OCWD-M44 NESTED 3 155 140 150 OCWD-M44 NESTED 4 280 245 275 OCWD-M44 NESTED 5 310 295 305 OCWD-M44A SINGLE CASING 1 125 100 125 OCWD-M44 NESTED 1 65 50 60 OCWD-M44 NESTED 2 125 100 120 OCWD-M44 NESTED 3 155 140 150 OCWD-M44 NESTED 4 280 245 275 OCWD-M44 NESTED 5 310 295 305 OCWD-M45 NESTED 1 215 195 205 OCWD-M45 NESTED 2 270 250 260 OCWD-M45 NESTED 3 355 335 345 OCWD-M45 NESTED 4 400 380 390 OCWD-M45 NESTED 5 800 780 790 OCWD-M46 NESTED 1 380 350 370 OCWD-M46 NESTED 2 440 420 430 OCWD-M46 NESTED 3 545 515 535 OCWD-M46 NESTED 4 670 640 660 OCWD-M46 NESTED 5 920 890 910 OCWD-M46A SINGLE CASING 1 380 350 370 OCWD-M46 NESTED 1 380 350 370 OCWD-M46 NESTED 2 440 420 430 OCWD-M46 NESTED 3 545 515 535 OCWD-M46 INESTED 4 1 670 640 660 OCWD-M46 INESTED 5 1 920 890 910 OCWD-M47 INESTED 1 1 385 355 375 NA: Not Available 8 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD ACTIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (Excluding Westbay Multiport Wells) Well Name Well Type Casing Sequence No. Cased Depth (ft.) Top Perforation (ft.) Bottom Perforation (ft.) OCWD-M47 NESTED 2 490 470 480 OCWD-M47 NESTED 3 610 580 600 OCWD-M47 NESTED 4 775 745 765 OCWD-M47 NESTED 5 970 940 960 OCWD-M48 NESTED 1 110 80 100 OCWD-M48 NESTED 2 205 175 195 OCWD-M48 NESTED 3 490 470 480 OCWD-MOOR SINGLE CASING 1 470 NA NA OCWD-RVW1 SINGLE CASING 1 78 67 77 OCWD-RVW1A SINGLE CASING 1 49 39 49 OCWD-T2 NESTED 1 33 20 30 OCWD-T2 NESTED 2 180 70 170 OCWD-T2 NESTED 3 370 300 360 OCWD-T3 NESTED 1 95 65 85 OCWD-T3 NESTED 2 180 110 170 OCWD-T4 SINGLE CASING 1 176 68 168 OCWD-T5 NESTED 1 200 110 190 OCWD-T5 NESTED 2 305 285 295 0CWD-W1 SINGLE CASING 1 398 NA NA OCWD-YLR1 SINGLE CASING 1 40 35 40 OCWD-YLR2 SINGLE CASING 1 37 32 37 OCWD-YLR3 SINGLE CASING 1 36 31 36 OM -1 SINGLE CASING 1 245 217 235 OM -2 SINGLE CASING 1 250 211 219 OM -2A SINGLE CASING 1 130 118 125 OM -4 SINGLE CASING 1 237 221 230 OM -4A SINGLE CASING 1 119 112 117 OM -6 SINGLE CASING 1 249 196 204 OM -8 SINGLE CASING 1 319 285 293 OM -8A SINGLE CASING 1 178 156 164 SCS -3 SINGLE CASING 1 42 31 42 SCS -4 SINGLE CASING 1 32 21 32 SCS -5 SINGLE CASING 1 43 22 43 SCS -6 NESTED 1 29 23 29 SCS -6 NESTED 2 153 147 153 SCS -7 NESTED 1 36 20 36 SCS -7 NESTED 2 141 125 141 SCS -8 SINGLE CASING 1 129 108 129 SCS -9 SINGLE CASING 1 178 153 173 SCS -10 SINGLE CASING 1 221 206 216 SCS -131 NESTED 1 43 18 43 SCS -132 NESTED 1 10 5 10 SCS -132 NESTED 2 29 19 29 SCS -133 NESTED 1 10 5 10 SCS -133 NESTED 2 25 16 26 TIC -67 SINGLE CASING 1 902 245 900 W-14659 SINGLE CASING 1 27 12 27 W-15061 SINGLE CASING 1 NA NA NA NA: Not Available 9 of 9 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name ABS -1 /1 /WB 1 /MP1 ABS-1/1/WB1/MP2 ABS-1/1/WB1/MP3 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP1 AMD -1 /1 /WB1 /MP2 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP3 AMD -1 /1 /WB1 /MP4 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP5 AMD -1 /1 /WB1 /MP6 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP7 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP8 AMD -1 /1 /WB1 /MP9 AMD-1/1/WB1/MP10 AMD -2/1 /WB1 /MPI AMD -2/1 /WB1 /MP2 AMD -2/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD-2/1/WB1/MP4 AMD-2/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-2/1/WB1/MP6 AMD-2/1/WB1/MP7 AMD -2/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD-2/1/WB1/MP9 AMD -2/1 /WB1 /MP10 AMD-3/1/WB1/MPI AMD -3/1 /WB1 /MP2 AMD -3/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD -3/1 /WB1 /MP4 AMD-3/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-3/1/WB1/MP6 AMD -3/1 /WB1 /MP7 AMD -3/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD-3/1/WB1/MP9 AMD-3/1/WB1/MP10 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP1 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP2 AMD -4/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD -4/1 /WB1 /MP4 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP6 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP7 AMD -4/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD -4/1 /WB1 /MP9 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP10 AMD-4/1/WB1/MP11 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP1 AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP2 AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP4 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP6 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP7 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 1 27 25 35 2 77 75 85 3 257 255 265 1 105 104 114 2 135 135 145 3 180 180 190 4 245 246 256 5 329 330 340 6 383 384 394 7 523 524 534 8 762 760 770 9 1037 1038 1048 10 1392 1390 1400 1 157 156 166 2 262 260 270 3 387 384 394 4 512 510 520 5 659 658 668 6 824 820 830 7 1014 1012 1022 8 1154 1150 1160 9 1294 1290 1300 10 1444 1440 1450 1 65 66 76 2 135 134 144 3 210 210 220 4 360 360 370 5 480 480 490 6 569 570 580 7 823 820 830 8 923 920 930 9 1173 1170 1180 10 1283 1282 1292 1 206 204 214 2 296 295 305 3 381 380 390 4 561 560 570 5 702 700 710 6 794 790 800 7 939 935 945 8 1059 1055 1065 9 1124 1120 1130 10 1269 1265 1275 11 1409 1405 1415 1 101 100 110 2 201 200 210 3 301 300 310 4 415 414 424 5 497 495 505 6 642 640 650 7 754 750 760 1 of 11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP9 AMD -5/1 /WB1 /MP 10 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP11 AMD-5/1/WB1/MP12 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP1 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP2 AMD -6/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD -6/1 /WB 1 /MP4 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP6 AMD -6/1 /WB1 /MP7 AMD -6/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD -6/1 /WB1 /MP9 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP10 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP11 AMD -6/1 /WB1 /MP12 AMD-6/1/WB1/MP13 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP1 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP2 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP3 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP4 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP5 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP6 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP7 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP9 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP10 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP 11 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP12 AMD -7/1 /WB1 /MP13 AMD-7/1/WB1/MP14 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MPI AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP2 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP3 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP4 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP5 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP6 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP7 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP8 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP9 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP10 AMD-8/1/WB1/MP11 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP12 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP 13 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP 14 AMD -8/1 /WB1 /MP15 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP1 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP2 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP3 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP4 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 8 924 920 930 9 1029 1025 1035 10 1214 1210 1220 11 1324 1320 1330 12 1424 1420 1430 1 112 110 120 2 152 150 160 3 222 220 230 4 277 275 285 5 372 370 380 6 497 495 505 7 622 620 630 8 714 710 720 9 794 790 800 10 904 900 910 11 1094 1090 1100 12 1264 1260 1270 13 1409 1405 1415 1 121 120 130 2 221 220 230 3 271 270 280 4 311 310 320 5 371 370 380 6 471 470 480 7 580 578 588 8 694 690 700 9 809 805 815 10 934 930 940 11 1074 1070 1080 12 1169 1165 1175 13 1299 1295 1305 14 1424 1420 1430 1 80 78 88 2 180 178 188 3 315 314 324 4 525 524 534 5 662 660 670 6 764 760 770 7 859 856 866 8 1004 1000 1010 9 1164 1160 1170 10 1289 1286 1296 11 1454 1450 1460 12 1569 1564 1574 13 1764 1760 1770 14 1949 1944 1954 15 2014 2010 2020 1 129 128 138 2 249 248 258 3 458 456 466 4 613 612 622 2of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name BPM -1 /1 /WB1 /MP5 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP6 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP7 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP8 BPM -1 /1 /WB1 /MP9 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP10 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP11 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP12 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP13 BPM-1/1/WB1/MP14 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP1 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP2 BPM -2/1 /WB1 /MP3 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP4 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP5 BPM -2/1 /WB1 /MP6 BPM -2/1 /WB1 /MP7 BPM -2/1 /WB1 /MP8 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP9 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP10 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP11 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP12 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP13 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP14 BPM-2/1/WB1/MP15 CB -1 /1 /WB2/MP1 CB-1/1/WB2/MP2 CB-1/1/WB2/MP3 CB -1 /1 /WB2/MP4 CB-1/1/WB2/MP5 CB -1 /1 /WB2/MP6 CB -1 /1 /WB2/MP7 CB-1/1/WB2/MP8 CB-1/1/WB2/MP9 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP1 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP2 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP3 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP4 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP5 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP6 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP7 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP8 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP9 COSM-1/1/WB1/MP10 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP11 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP12 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP13 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP14 C0SM-1/1/WB1/MP15 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP1 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP2 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 5 780 776 786 6 890 886 896 7 1040 1036 1046 8 1267 1264 1274 9 1392 1388 1398 10 1502 1498 1508 11 1687 1684 1694 12 1804 1800 1810 13 1934 1930 1940 14 2109 2105 2115 1 181 180 190 2 336 336 346 3 496 494 504 4 581 580 590 5 778 774 784 6 903 900 910 7 1028 1024 1034 8 1243 1240 1250 9 1367 1364 1374 10 1494 1490 1500 11 1614 1610 1620 12 1764 1760 1770 13 1931 1928 1938 14 2073 2070 2080 15 2173 2170 2180 1 78 76 86 2 143 140 150 3 443 440 450 4 663 659 669 5 873 870 880 6 1053 1050 1060 7 1193 1190 1200 8 1333 1329 1339 9 1463 1460 1470 1 92 90 100 2 154 152 162 3 271 270 280 4 351 350 360 5 451 450 460 6 541 540 550 7 621 620 630 8 723 720 730 9 853 850 860 10 983 980 990 11 1103 1100 1110 12 1215 1212 1222 13 1435 1432 1442 14 1599 1594 1604 15 1764 1760 1770 1 60 58 68 2 115 113 123 3of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name COSM-2/1/WB1/MP3 C0SM-2/1/WB1 /MP4 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP5 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP6 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP7 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP8 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP9 C0SM-2/1/WB1/MP10 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP1 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP2 FFS-1 /1 /WB2/MP3 FFS-1 /1 /WB2/MP4 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP5 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP6 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP7 FFS-1/1/WB2/MP8 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP1 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP2 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP3 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP4 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP5 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP6 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP7 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP8 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP9 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP10 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP11 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP12 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP13 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP14 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP15 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP16 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP17 FVM-1/1/WB2/MP18 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP1 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP2 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP3 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP4 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP5 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP6 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP7 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP8 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP9 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP10 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP11 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP12 GGM-1/1/WB1/MP13 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP1 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP2 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP3 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP4 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 3 202 198 208 4 309 307 317 5 409 406 416 6 541 540 550 7 651 649 659 8 763 757 767 9 890 886 896 10 1055 1051 1061 1 181 180 190 2 361 360 370 3 530 529 539 4 820 819 829 5 1060 1059 1069 6 1160 1159 1169 7 1300 1299 1309 8 1420 1419 1429 1 136 134 145 2 173 172 182 3 223 220 230 4 360 360 370 5 450 450 460 6 500 500 510 7 560 560 570 8 632 630 640 9 814 810 820 10 896 894 904 11 1003 1000 1010 12 1123 1120 1130 13 1178 1175 1185 14 1233 1230 1240 15 1323 1320 1330 16 1497 1492 1502 17 1587 1582 1592 18 1837 1834 1844 1 150 150 160 2 300 300 310 3 465 464 474 4 552 550 560 5 744 740 750 6 829 825 835 7 954 950 960 8 1074 1070 1080 9 1264 1260 1270 10 1519 1515 1525 11 1654 1650 1660 12 1771 1768 1778 13 2011 2008 2018 1 213 212 222 2 295 294 304 3 462 460 470 4 719 715 725 4of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP5 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP6 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP7 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP8 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP9 GGM-2/1/WB1/MP10 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP 11 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP 12 GGM-2/1 /WB 1 /MP 13 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP1 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP2 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP3 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP4 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP5 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP6 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP7 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP8 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP9 GGM-3/1 /WB 1 /MP10 GG M-3/1 /WB 1 /MP 11 GGM-3/1/WB1/MP12 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP1 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP2 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP3 HBM-1 /1 /WB1 /MP4 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP5 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP6 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP7 HBM-1 /1 /WB1 /MP8 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP9 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP10 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP11 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP12 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP13 HBM-1/1/WB1/MP14 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP1 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP2 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP3 HBM-2/1 /WB1 /MP4 HBM-2/1 /WB1 /MP5 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP6 HBM-2/1 /WB1 /MP7 HBM-2/1 /WB1 /MP8 HBM-2/1 /WB1 /MP9 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP10 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP11 HBM-2/1/WB1/MP12 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP1 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP2 HBM-4/1 /WB1 /MP3 HBM-4/1 /WB1 /MP4 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 5 954 950 960 6 1049 1045 1055 7 1149 1145 1155 8 1254 1250 1260 9 1489 1485 1495 10 1629 1625 1635 11 1744 1740 1750 12 1904 1900 1910 13 1994 1990 2000 1 197 195 205 2 312 310 320 3 547 545 555 4 642 640 650 5 842 837 847 6 1007 1004 1014 7 1107 1104 1114 8 1279 1274 1284 9 1544 1539 1549 10 1684 1680 1690 11 1784 1780 1790 12 1954 1950 1960 1 91 90 100 2 191 190 200 3 321 320 330 4 483 482 492 5 562 560 570 6 702 700 710 7 924 920 930 8 1038 1034 1044 9 1130 1126 1136 10 1352 1348 1358 11 1464 1460 1470 12 1544 1540 1550 13 1644 1640 1650 14 1934 1930 1940 1 112 110 120 2 162 160 170 3 247 245 255 4 307 305 315 5 362 360 370 6 447 445 455 7 522 520 530 8 572 570 580 9 677 675 685 10 739 735 745 11 849 845 855 12 929 925 935 1 75 75 85 2 120 120 130 3 179 180 190 4 231 230 240 5of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name HBM-4/1/WB1/MP5 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP6 HBM-4/1 /WB1 /MP7 HBM-4/1 /WB1 /MP8 HBM-4/1/WB1/MP9 HBM-5/1/WB1/MP3 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP1 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP2 HBM-5/1/WB1/MP4 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP5 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP6 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP7 HBM-5/1 /WB1 /MP8 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP1 HBM-6/1 /WB1 /MP2 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP3 HBM-6/1 /WB1 /MP4 HBM-6/1 /WB1 /MP5 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP6 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP7 HBM-6/1/WB1/MP8 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP1 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP2 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP3 1 DM -1 /1 /WB2/MP4 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP5 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP6 IDM-1/1/WB2/MP7 1 DM -1 /1 /WB2/MP8 1 DM -1 /1 /WB2/MP9 1 DM -1 /1 /WB2/MP10 1 DM -2/1 /WB 1 /MP1 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP2 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP3 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP4 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP5 1 DM -2/1 /WB 1 /MP6 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP7 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP8 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP9 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP10 1 DM -2/1 /WB1 /MP11 IDM-2/1/WB1/MP12 KBS-2/1/WB1 /MP1 KBS-2/1/WB1/MP2 LAM -1 /1 /WB1 /MP 1 LAM -1 /1/WB1 /MP2 LAM -1 /1/WB1 /MP3 LAM -1 /1 /WB 1 /MP4 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP5 LAM -1 /1/WB1 /MP6 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 5 296 295 305 6 351 350 360 7 416 415 425 8 551 550 560 9 691 690 700 3 86 70 90 1 71 70 90 2 76 70 90 4 126 125 135 5 171 170 180 6 216 215 225 7 248 245 255 8 273 270 280 1 53 52 62 2 85 84 94 3 110 108 118 4 215 214 224 5 264 263 273 6 296 294 304 7 508 506 516 8 578 576 586 1 86 85 95 2 271 270 280 3 336 335 345 4 436 435 445 5 631 630 640 6 703 700 710 7 763 760 770 8 878 875 885 9 993 990 1000 10 1053 1050 1060 1 129 126 136 2 236 234 244 3 286 284 294 4 353 352 362 5 493 492 502 6 613 612 622 7 713 710 720 8 890 886 896 9 1055 1050 1060 10 1182 1178 1188 11 1259 1256 1266 12 1404 1400 1410 1 99 96 106 2 214 210 220 1 72 70 80 2 222 220 230 3 272 270 280 4 472 470 480 5 572 570 580 6 834 830 840 6of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name LAM-1/1/WB1/MP7 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP8 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP9 LAM -1 /1 /WB 1 /MP 10 LAM -1 /1/WB1 /MP11 LAM-1/1/WB1/MP12 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP1 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP2 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP3 MCAS -1/1 /WB2/MP4 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP5 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP6 MCAS-1/1/WB2/MP7 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP 1 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP2 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP3 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP4 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP5 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP6 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP7 MCAS -2/1 /WB2/MP8 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP1 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP2 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP3 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP4 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP5 MCAS -3/1 /WB2/MP6 MCAS-7/1/WB3/MP1 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP2 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP3 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP4 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP5 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP6 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP7 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP8 MCAS -7/1 /WB3/MP9 SAR-1 /1/WB2/MP1 SAR-1 /1/WB2/MP2 SAR-1 /1 /WB2/MP3 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP4 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP5 SAR-1 /1/WB2/MP6 SAR-1 /1/WB2/MP7 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP8 SAR-1 /1 /WB2/MP9 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP10 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP11 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP12 SAR-1/1/WB2/MP13 SAR-1 /1 /WB2/MP14 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP1 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 7 996 992 1002 8 1073 1070 1080 9 1153 1150 1160 10 1253 1250 1260 11 1498 1494 1504 12 1613 1610 1620 1 65 60 70 2 155 150 160 3 215 210 220 4 275 270 280 5 335 330 340 6 455 450 460 7 545 540 550 1 45 40 50 2 135 130 140 3 205 200 210 4 375 370 380 5 425 420 430 6 495 490 500 7 555 550 560 8 625 620 630 1 91 80 90 2 166 160 170 3 226 220 230 4 346 340 350 5 426 420 430 6 496 490 500 1 92 90 100 2 192 190 200 3 352 350 360 4 442 440 450 5 512 510 520 6 802 800 810 7 912 910 920 8 982 980 990 9 1082 1100 1110 1 162 150 170 2 297 290 300 3 327 320 330 4 367 360 370 5 519 510 530 6 584 580 590 7 829 820 840 8 894 890 900 9 914 910 920 10 1014 1010 1020 11 1114 1110 1120 12 1284 1280 1290 13 1374 1370 1380 14 1446 1441 1451 1 141 140 150 7of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP2 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP3 SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP4 SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP5 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP6 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP7 SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP8 SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP9 SAR-2/1 /WB2/MP 10 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP11 SAR-2/1/WB2/MP12 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP1 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP2 SAR-3/1 /WB2/MP3 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP4 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP5 SAR-3/1 /WB2/MP6 SAR-3/1 /WB2/MP7 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP8 SAR-3/1 /WB2/MP9 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP10 SAR-3/1/WB2/MP11 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP1 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP2 SAR-4/1 /WB2/MP3 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP4 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP5 SAR-4/1 /WB2/MP6 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP7 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP8 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP9 SAR-4/1/WB2/MP10 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP1 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP2 SAR-5/1 /WB2/MP3 SAR-5/1 /WB2/MP4 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP5 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP6 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP7 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP8 SAR-5/1 /WB2/MP9 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP10 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP11 SAR-5/1/WB2/MP12 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP1 SAR-6/1 /WB2/MP2 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP3 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP4 SAR-6/1 /WB2/MP5 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP6 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP7 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 2 271 270 280 3 311 310 320 4 417 470 480 5 611 610 620 6 741 740 750 7 881 880 890 8 981 980 990 9 1021 1020 1030 10 1101 1100 1110 11 1231 1230 1240 12 1351 1350 1360 1 164 160 170 2 234 230 240 3 414 410 420 4 514 510 520 5 644 640 650 6 774 770 780 7 954 950 960 8 1074 1070 1080 9 1199 1195 1205 10 1269 1265 1275 11 1393 1390 1400 1 123 115 125 2 328 320 330 3 478 470 480 4 598 590 600 5 738 730 740 6 868 860 870 7 978 970 980 8 1068 1060 1070 9 1168 1160 1170 10 1398 1395 1405 1 80 80 90 2 170 170 180 3 360 360 370 4 617 616 626 5 764 760 770 6 944 940 950 7 1084 1080 1090 8 1193 1190 1200 9 1293 1290 1300 10 1543 1540 1550 11 1733 1730 1740 12 1823 1820 1830 1 206 200 210 2 366 360 370 3 476 470 480 4 581 574 584 5 706 700 710 6 786 780 790 7 1086 1080 1090 8of11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name SAR-6/1 /WB2/MP8 SAR-6/1/WB2/MP9 SAR-6/1 /WB2/MP 10 SAR-7/1 /WB2/MP 1 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP2 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP3 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP4 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP5 SAR-7/1 /WB2/MP6 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP7 SAR-7/1/WB2/MP8 SAR-7/1 /WB2/MP9 SAR-8/1 /WB1 /MP1 SAR-8/1 /WB1 /MP2 SAR-8/1/WB1 /MP3 SAR-9/1/WB1 /MP1 SAR-9/1 /WB 1 /MP2 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP3 SAR-9/1/WB1 /MP4 SAR-9/1 /WB 1 /MP5 SAR-9/1/WB1 /MP6 SAR-9/1/WB 1 /MP7 SAR-9/1 /WB1 /MP8 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP9 SAR-9/1 /WB 1 /MP 10 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP11 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP12 SAR-9/1/WB1 /MP13 SAR-9/1/WB1/MP14 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP1 SBM -1 /1 /WB 1 /MP2 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP3 SBM -1 /1 /WB1 /MP4 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP5 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP6 SBM -1 /1 /WB1 /MP7 SBM-1/1/WB1/MP8 SC-1/1/WB1/MP1 SC-1/1/WB1/MP2 SC-1/1/WB1/MP3 SC-1/1/WB1/MP4 SC-1/1/WB1/MP5 SC-1/1/WB1/MP6 SC-2/1/WB2/MP1 SC -2/1 /WB2/MP2 SC -2/1 /WB2/MP3 SC -2/1 /WB2/MP4 SC -2/1 /WB2/MP5 SC -2/1 /WB2/MP6 SC-3/1/WB2/MP1 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP2 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 8 1186 1180 1190 9 1276 1270 1280 10 1501 1500 1510 1 111 110 120 2 171 170 180 3 310 310 320 4 440 440 450 5 605 604 614 6 742 740 750 7 862 856 866 8 1194 1190 1200 9 1354 1350 1360 1 44 34 44 2 94 84 94 3 159 150 160 1 150 148 160 2 239 236 248 3 409 406 418 4 491 488 500 5 606 604 616 6 730 724 736 7 877 872 884 8 1072 1068 1080 9 1262 1258 1270 10 1477 1473 1484 11 1572 1567 1578 12 1724 1719 1730 13 1821 1815 1826 14 1893 1889 1900 1 79 74 84 2 149 144 154 3 244 240 250 4 374 370 380 5 514 510 520 6 706 696 706 7 916 910 920 8 1256 1250 1260 1 48 44 54 2 93 90 100 3 153 150 160 4 197 194 204 5 299 294 304 6 394 390 400 1 49 46 56 2 96 94 104 3 148 146 156 4 192 190 200 5 251 248 258 6 303 300 310 1 227 224 234 2 412 410 420 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name SC-3/1/WB2/MP3 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP4 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP5 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP6 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP7 SC -3/1 /WB2/MP8 SC-3/1/WB2/MP9 SC-4/1/WB1/MP1 SC-4/1/WB1/MP2 SC -4/1 /WB 1 /MP3 SC -4/1 /WB 1 /MP4 SC -4/1 /WB1 /MP5 SC -4/1 /WB 1 /MP6 SC-4/1/WB1/MP7 SC -4/1 /WB1 /MP8 SC-4/1/WB1/MP9 SC -5/1 /WB1 /MP 1 SC-5/1/WB1/MP2 SC-5/1/WB1 /MP3 SC -5/1 /WB 1 /MP4 SC -5/1 /WB1 /MP5 SC-5/1/WB1/MP6 SC -5/1 /WB1 /MP7 SC -5/1 /WB 1 /MP8 SC-5/1/WB1/MP9 SC -5/1 /WB1 /MP10 SC -6/1 /WB 1 /MP 1 SC -6/1 /WB1 /MP2 SC-6/1/WB1/MP3 SC-6/1/WB1 /MP4 SC -6/1 /WB 1 /MP5 SC -6/1 /WB1 /MP6 SC -6/1 /WB1 /MP7 SC -6/1 /WB1 /MP8 SC-6/1/WB1/MP9 SC-6/1/WB1/MP10 SC-6/1/WB1/MP11 SC -6/1 /WB 1 /MP 12 SC-6/1/WB1/MP13 SC-6/1/WB1/MP14 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP1 SCS -1 /1/WB1 /MP2 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP3 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP4 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP5 SCS-1/1/WB1/MP6 SCS-2/1/WB1/MP1 SCS-2/1/WB1 /MP2 SCS-2/1/WB1/MP3 SCS-2/1/WB1/MP4 SCS-2/1/WB1 /MP5 Well Type WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT WESTBAY MULTIPORT Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) 3 577 576 586 4 712 710 720 5 1022 1018 1028 6 1154 1150 1160 7 1234 1230 1240 8 1374 1370 1380 9 1459 1460 1470 1 102 100 111 2 201 198 209 3 271 268 279 4 393 391 402 5 483 482 493 6 573 572 583 7 660 658 669 8 830 827 838 9 1082 1078 1089 1 124 123 133 2 196 196 206 3 291 290 300 4 470 468 478 5 670 667 677 6 807 804 814 7 937 932 942 8 1024 1020 1030 9 1238 1234 1244 10 1430 1426 1436 1 92 90 100 2 202 200 210 3 302 300 310 4 542 540 550 5 789 785 795 6 964 960 970 7 1124 1120 1130 8 1329 1325 1335 9 1464 1460 1470 10 1544 1540 1550 11 1684 1680 1690 12 1894 1890 1900 13 2029 2025 2035 14 2119 2115 2125 1 29 24 34 2 94 90 100 3 146 142 152 4 183 178 188 5 223 220 230 6 298 295 305 1 139 134 145 2 179 174 185 3 218 212 223 4 265 260 270 5 330 325 335 10 of 11 APPENDIX E - OCWD WESTBAY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS MONITORING PORT INFORMATION Westbay Monitoring Port Name Well Type Monitoring Port No. Westbay Port Depth (ft.) Top of Zone (ft.) Bottom of Zone (ft.) WBS-2A/1/WB1/MP1 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 1 54 50 60 WBS-2A/1/WB1/MP2 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 2 94 90 100 WBS-2A/1/WB1/MP3 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 3 139 135 145 WBS-3/1/WB1/MP1 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 1 79 75 85 WBS-3/1/WB1/MP2 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 2 219 215 225 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP1 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 1 111 109 119 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP2 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 2 361 359 369 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP3 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 3 483 480 490 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP4 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 4 603 600 610 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP5 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 5 745 740 750 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP6 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 6 815 810 820 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP7 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 7 895 889 899 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP8 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 8 985 980 990 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP9 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 9 1065 1060 1070 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP10 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 10 1215 1210 1220 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP11 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 11 1315 1309 1319 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP12 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 12 1370 1364 1374 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP13 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 13 1435 1430 1440 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP14 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 14 1570 1565 1575 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP15 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 15 1625 1619 1629 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP16 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 16 1745 1740 1750 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP17 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 17 1805 1800 1810 WMM-1/1/WB2/MP18 WESTBAY MULTIPORT 18 1945 1940 1950 11 of 11 APPENDIX F ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report: ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of acre-feet afy acre-feet per year AOC assimiable organic carbon AOP advanced oxidation processes AWT advanced water treatment basin Orange County groundwater basin Basin Model OCWD groundwater model BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CDFG California Department of Fish & Game CDPH California Department of Public Health cfs cubic feet per second CWTF Colored Water Treatment Facility DATS Deep Aquifer Treatment System District Orange County Water District DOC dissolved organic compound DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Compounds EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY fiscal year GAC granular activated carbon GIS geographic information system GWR Groundwater Replenishment H202 hydrogen peroxide IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District K model layer hydraulic conductivity LACDWP Los Angeles County Department of Power & Water maf million acre feet MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCL maximum contaminant level MCWD Mesa Consolidated Water District MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County MF microfiltration MODFLOW Computer program developed by USGS mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MTBE methyl tertiary-butylether Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update Abbreviations and Acronyms MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA n-Nitrosodimethylamine NF nanofiltration ng/L nanograms per liter NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program NO2 nitrite NO3- Nitrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWRI National Water Research Institute O&M operations and maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District PCE perch loroethylene Plan Groundwater Management Plan ppb less than one microgram per liter PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products Producers Orange County groundwater producers RA replenishment assessment REWG Recharge Enhancement Working Group RO reverse osmosis RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor SARWQH Santa Ana Regional Water Quality and Health SAWA Santa Ana Watershed Association SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBGPP South Basin Groundwater Protection Project SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOCs synthetic organic chemicals SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TCE trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids TIN total inorganic nitrogen pg/L micrograms per liter USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UV ultraviolet light VOCs volatile organic compounds WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County WF -21 Water Factory 21 WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRMS Water Resources Management System Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update Appendix C Bump Calculation Methodology Demand "Bump" Factors for 2010 UWMP Description of Methodology DRAFT Water agencies must develop estimates of the impacts of single dry years (Single -Dry) and multiple consecutive dry years (Multiple -Dry) on both supplies and demands in future years. In these cases, demands increase somewhat above the normal or average level. The increase can be expressed as a percent "bump" up from the normal level. For example, if dry year demand was 105 percent of normal, this would be a 5% "bump". As the methodology to estimate the Single -Dry and Multiple -Dry "bumps" was developed, several issues needed to be decided, as follows: 1. The methodology used existing data from MWDOC records for each agency, to allow the estimates to reflect the characteristics and differences of demands relative to the makeup of each retail entity. The overall MWDOC estimate was developed from a weighted sum of all of OC's agencies. 2. Total potable demands, including agricultural demands, were used to derive the "bumps" because Orange County agencies have opted to have water that is used for agricultural uses be considered as full service demands. Non -potable demands are included; these demands will be met with non -potable supplies. 3. The methodology focused on per -capita usage (in units of AF/capita) because this removes the influence of growth from the analysis. Overall population growth in Orange County has been about 1% per year over the past two decades, creating about a 20% increase in demand over two decades. Some of the agencies have had even higher growth. 4. The period that was used for the analysis was limited to FY 1992-93 thru FY 2008-09 because fiscal years 1991- 92 and 2009-10 were years of extraordinary conservation-- pricing disincentives for using over the allocated amounts were implemented in order to curtail demands-- and so these years were not considered. The Orange County total per -capita water usage in the period FY 1992-93 thru FY 2008-09 is plotted in Figure 1. Per -capita water use in Orange County has been on a decreasing trend in recent years as shown by the trend line in Figure 1. The downward trend is likely due to water use efficiency efforts, principally the plumbing codes since 1992 that have required low -flush toilets in all new construction and prohibited the sale of high -flush toilets for replacement purposes. Because of this drop in per -capita usage over time, the more recent data is a better predictor of future usage than the earlier data. Therefore, we narrowed the focus to the period FY 2001-02 thru FY 2008-09. 5. Single -Dry "Bump" Methodology: Per -capita usage for each participant agency from FY 2001-02 thru FY 2008- 09 is shown in Table 1. The Single -Dry Bump for each agency was derived using the highest per -capita usage in the period, divided by average per -capita usage for that period. Because of suspect data for Fountain Valley and Santa Ana, the highest year data was eliminated and the second-highest usage in the period was used (when data was suspect, it was also removed from the average for the agency). The resulting Single -Dry "bumps" are shown in Table 2. The OC -average Single -Dry "bump" came to 6.6% Multiple -Dry "Bump" Methodology: DWR guidelines recommend that "multiple" years is three years. There are various methods that can be used to derive demand "bumps" for those three years. The same "bump" can be used for all three years, or different "bumps" can be assumed for each of the three years. A pattern can be selected based on historical demand data or on historical water supply data or on another basis. MWDOC selected a Multiple -Dry Bump as the same as the Single -Dry Bump for each agency. This means having three highest -demand years in a row. This is conservative because it would be extremely unlikely for three driest years to occur in a row. However, it should be noted that future demand in any particular year depends on other factors in addition to rainfall, such as the economic situation, and cloudiness, windiness, etc. The OC - average Multiple -Dry "bump" came to 6.6%. Figure 1 Per -Capita Water Use in Orange County (AF/person) 0.30 0.25 0.20 Q 0.15 LZa a 0.10 0.05 0.00 Per Capita Water Use in Orange County 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Fiscal Year Ending 2004 2006 2008 2010 OC Actual Least Sq approx approx FY Ending AF/person AF/person high "bump" 1993 0.223327 0.233 0.250 7% 1994 0.223528 0.232 1995 0.221986 0.230 1996 0.235919 0.229 1997 0.244071 0.228 1998 0.217014 0.226 1999 0.228797 0.225 2000 0.242408 0.224 2001 0.223537 0.222 2002 0.228534 0.221 2003 0.214602 0.219 2004 0.222155 0.218 2005 0.204941 0.217 2006 0.207720 0.215 2007 0.223599 0.214 2008 0.211873 0.212 2009 0.202396 0.211 0.225 7% 0.30 0.25 0.20 Q 0.15 LZa a 0.10 0.05 0.00 Per Capita Water Use in Orange County 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Fiscal Year Ending 2004 2006 2008 2010 Table 1. Per -Capita Retail Water Usage by Retail Water Agency [1] [2] Fiscal Year-> 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Per Capita Retail Water Usage (AF/person) Tustin 0.21772 0.20203 0.20990 0.19717 0.19694 0.21117 [1] Retail water usage (includes recycled water and Agricultural usage) divided by population. [2] Population is for Jan. 1 of each fiscal year ending. Source: Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton. DRAFT Table 2 Demand Increase "Bump" Factors for Single Dry Years and Multiple Dry Years for OC Water Agencies participating in MWDOC's 2010 UWMP group effort Tustin Single Multiple 7.3% 7.3% weighted average of all OC water OC Average 6.6% 6.6% agencies FD�R A F T 2007-08 2008-09 0.19918 0.18841 Appendix D Resolution No. 10-57, No. 92-15; Ordinance No. 1060, No. 1063 Resolution No. 10-57 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: June 15, 2010 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER Agenda Item Reviewed.- City eviewed.City Manager Finance Director FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PAMELA ARENDS-KING, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RETAIL WATER RATES - PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION NO. 10-57 SUMMARY The Water Enterprise is currently operating at a loss and water rates need to be adjusted to cover the deficit. The proposed water rate increases will generate the necessary revenues to meet (1) ongoing operations and maintenance expenses; (2) existing debt service payments and bond covenants; (3) pay-as-you-go capital improvement; (4) major capital debt financing; (5) establish and maintain reserves; (6) assurance from unanticipated third party increases; (7) establishes Water Demand Reduction Stages (WDRS) that would enable the City to comply with wholesale water use restrictions in response to regional water shortage conditions if necessary; and (8) eliminate General Fund s ubsidy to the Water Enterprise Fund t o cover projected revenue shortfalls. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council conduct public hearings on the proposed water rate increases and adopt Resolution No. 10-57 if there is no majority protest. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed rate increases would be effective on July 1, 2010 for fiscal year 2010-2011 and in subsequent fiscal years. The typical residential customer (a residential user with a 5/8 * 3/4 inch meter and c onsuming about 40 uni ts) would experience an i ncrease of 17.8% in FY2010-11, 14.13% in FY2011-12, and 6.31% in FY 2012-13 through FY 2014-15. Additionally, the pass- through adjustment is restricted to -not -exceed 7% of the annual water charges. BACKGROUND The City of Tustin's water rates were last adjusted in January 2008. (See Attachment 1 for history of water rate increases since 1980) The current rate structure does not generate sufficient revenues to meet operational and capital needs and therefore, rate adjustment is necessary. In order to provide continued operation of a water system on a sound financial basis, revenues must be sufficient enough to meet the cash requirements of operation, maintenance, capital improvement needs, administrative, debt services payment and ensure necessary debt coverage ratios pursuant to the 2003 Water Refunding bond. In addition, healthy cash reserves need to be established in the event of emergencies and short term fluctuations in revenues. The Water Enterprise is currently operating at a loss. Attachment 2 shows the current financial status of the Water Enterprise fund and the projected financial status with the implementation of the proposed rate increases. The proposed water rates and charges will adequately generate Adoption of Retail Water Rates June 15, 2010 Page 2 revenues to cover operating expenses, necessary repairs, capital improvement programs, debt service payment and depreciation of water facilities and re-establish cash reserves. New seven consumption tiers were introduced to promote conversation (See Attachment 3) and capital charge was added to ensure sufficient revenues for capital improvement programs. The proposed water rate would enable the Water enterprise to obtain $30 million in debt financing for the construction of the Rawlings Reservoir, Tustin Avenue Well, Simon Ranch Reservoir and Booster Station and Beneta Well. The capital charge was previously included in the consumption charges but now has been separated to provide a dedicated funding source for capital projects. The pass-through charges have been included to offset the increasing third part costs. Imported water rates are established by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and additional fees are added to those rates by wholesale water purveyors, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and East Orange County Water District (EOCWD). Ground water rates are established by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and electricity rates are established by Southern California Edison. The proposed pass-through would allow the Water Enterprise to assess and recoup the costs of providing water beyond current budget appropriation in case of unexpected supply cost increase. The pass-through is restricted to -not -exceed 7% of the annual water charges to atypical residential user in any given fiscal year. All water customers would receive a notification prior to the assessment of these charges. The Water Demand Reduction Stages (WDRS) has been added to the proposed rate increase to enable the City to comply with wholesale water use restrictions in response to regional water shortage conditions, if necessary. T he WDRS would only be declared and put into action by explicit City Council direction. T he WDRS reduces the unit allocation of each tier at different stages. Stage 1 reduces the allocation by 10%, Stage 2 by 20%, Stage 3 by 30%, and Stage 4 by 40%. According to 2009 Water Rate Survey conducted by MWDOC, City's 2009 water rates were below the median rates at the time the survey was conducted. (See Attachment 4) The City's proposed rate for FY 2010-2011 would still be below the countywide median. Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Pamela Arends-King Director of Public Works/City Engineer Director of Finance Attachment(s): Attachment 1 - History of Water Rate Increases Attachment 2 - Water Enterprise's Financial Status Attachment 3 - Change in Tier Structure Attachment 4 - 2009 MWDOC Water Rate Survey Resolution No. 92-15 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 92-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF IIIE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TUSTIN WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ("City"), has heretofore undertaken proceedings to review the Tustin Water Shortage Contingency Plan ("Plan") pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 11 ("AB -11") of the State of California approved by the Governor on October 13, 1991; and, WHEREAS, said Plan is an amendment to the Urban Water Management Plan (AB -797), adopted by City Council on March 4, 1991 by Resolution No. 91-27; and, WHEREAS, said Plan was prepared in accordance with AB -11; and, WHEREAS, said proceedings provide for the adoption of the said Plan consisting of water shortage/conservation elements; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said Plan on February 3, 1992 pursuant to A13-11. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows: Section 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. Section 2. That it is hereby ordered that said Plan be filed with the State of California Department of Water Resources. Section., -3. the City Manager is hereby authorized t:o declare a Water Shortage Emergency, should such an emergency exist., and implement this Plan. Section 4. The City Manager shall make recommendations to the City Council regarding additional procedures, rules, and regulations to carry out effective and equitable allocation of water resources during a water shortage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Mustin at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of February, 1992. zqCharles C. Puckett, Mayor Mary F�jnn, City Clerk City of Tustin RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-15 Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five; that the above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of February, 1992, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Puckett, Ponti.ous, Edgar, Potts, Prescott COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None Mary E. I nn, CitLy Clerk Ordinance No. 1060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8' 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1060 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND 'DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ADOPTING A WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. California Water Code Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities which supply water at retail to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the people therein for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of such public entity. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby establishes a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines that a water shortage will exist upon the occurrence of one or more of the following: (A) A general water supply shortage due to limited supplies. (B) Distribution or storage facilities of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the East Orange County Water District, or the City of Tustin become inadequate. (C) A major failure of the supply, storage and distribution facilities of the Metropol.itan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the East Orange County -Water District, or of the City of Tustin occurs. The City Council of the City of Tustin also finds and determines that the conditions prevailing in State and in the Orange County area require that the water resources available be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented and that the conservation of such water encouraged with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the City of Tustin and for the public welfare. SECTION 3. CEOA Exemption. The City Council of the City of Tustin finds that this Ordinance and actions taken hereafter pursuant to this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (4) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15269(c). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1060, Page 2 The City Manager of the City of Tustin is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of Exemption as soon as possible following adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. Application. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all persons, customers, and property served by the City of Tustin water service. SECTION 5. Authorization. The City Manager or a designated representative is hereby authorized and directed to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Water Conservation Stages. No customer of the City shall knowingly make, cause, use, or permit the use of water supplied by the City for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, governmental or any other purpose in a manner in excess of the amounts authorized by this Ordinance, or during any period of time other than the periods of time specified in this Ordinance. AT NO TIME -SHALL WATER BE WASTED OR USED UNREASONABLY. The following stages shall take effect upon declaration as herein provided. (A) STAGE 1 .- VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE - WATER WATCH. STAGE 1 applies during periods when the possibility exists that the City will not be able to meet all of the demands of its customers. During STAGE 1, all elements of STAGE 2 shall apply on a voluntary basis only. (B) STAGE 2 - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER ALERT. STAGE.2 applies during periods .when the probability exists that the City will not be able to meet all of the water demands of its customers or when statewide shortages cause a need for local conservation measures to be implemented. During. STAGE 2, the following water conservation measures shall apply except when reclaimed or recycled.water is used. 1. Lawn watering and landscape irrigation, including construction meter irrigation, is not permitted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:OO p.m. any day. Watering is permitted at any time if a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle is used, a hand-held faucet -filled bucket of five (5) gallons or less is used, or a drip irrigation system is used. Watering shall be done as needed only. 2: Water shall not be used to wash down streets, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, pool decks, or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. 3. Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment shall be done with a hand-held bucket or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1060, Page 3 for quick rinses. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. Further, such washing is exempted from these regulations where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. 4. Watering.parks, school grounds, public facilities, and recreational fields is not permitted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 5. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested. 6. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited unless reclaimed water is used. 7. Agriculture users and commercial nurseries as defined in the Metropolitan Water District Code are exempt. from STAGE 2 irrigation restrictions, but will be required to curtail all non-essential water use. (C) STAGE 3 - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER WARNING. STAGE 3 applies during periods when the City will not be able to meet all the water demands of its customers. During STAGE 3, the following water conservation measures shall apply except when reclaimed or recycled water is used. . 1. Lawn watering and landscape irrigation, including construction meter irrigation, is permitted only on designated irrigation days and only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. A "designated irrigation day" is determined by the last digit in the street address. Properties with addresses ending in an even number may use water on even numbered days and addresses ending with an odd number may use water on odd numbered days. 2. Water shall not be used to wash down streets, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, pool decks, or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. 3. Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes not using partially reclaimed or recycled,water shall be reduced in volume by 20%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public, is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. V, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1060, Page 4 4. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, and recreational fields is permitted only after 6:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. 5. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities, or other activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public. 6. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 7. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested. 8. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited. 9. All water leaks shall be repaired immediately. 10. Construction water shall not be used for earthwork or road construction purposes unless authorized as a mitigation or erosion control, compaction or backfilling earthwork or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F-4. 11. Exceptions: The prohibited uses of water are not applicable to that use of water necessary for public health and safety or for essential governmental services such as police, fire and other similar emergency services. (D) STAGE 4 - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - WATER EMERGENCY. STAGE 4 applies when a major failure of any supply or distribution facility, whether temporary or permanent, occurs in the water distribution system of the State Water Project, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Municipal Water District of Orange County, East Orange County Water District or City facilities. During STAGE 4, the following water conservation measures shall apply except when reclaimed or recycled water is used: 1. All outdoor irrigation of vegetation is prohibited. 2. Water shall not be used to wash down streets, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, pool decks, or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. 3. Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time upon the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Further, such washings are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8I 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 23 24 25 26 27 01t Ordinance No. 1060, Page 5 exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to.transport food and perishables. 4. Filling, refilling or adding of water to swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes is prohibited. 5. Watering of parks, school grounds, public facilities and recreation fields is prohibited with the exception of plant materials classified to be rare, exceptionally valuable, or essential to the well being of rare animals. 6. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting or related activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public. 7. Use of water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes, except for livestock watering, is prohibited. 8. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested. 9. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited. 10. New construction meters or permits for unmetered service will not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes. 11. The use of water for commercial, manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. 12. No water shall be used for air conditioning purposes. 13. All water leaks shall be repaired immediately. 14. Exceptions: The prohibited uses of water are not applicable to that use of water necessary for public health and safety or for essential governmental services such as police, fire and other similar emergency services.. SECTION 7. Mandatory Conservation Phase Implementation. The City shall monitor the projected supply and demand for water by its customers on a daily basis. The City Manager shall determine the extent of the conservation required through the implementation and/or termination of particular conservation stages in order for the City to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. Thereafter, the City Manager may order that the appropriate stage of water conservation be implemented or terminated in accordance with the applicable provision of this Ordinance. The declaration of any stage beyond STAGE 1 shall be made by public announcement and notice shall be published a minimum of three (3) consecutive times in a newspaper of general circulation. The stage Ordinance No. 1060, Page 6 1 designated shall become effective immediately upon announcement. The declaration of any stage beyond STAGE 1 shall be reported to the City 2 Council at its next regular meeting. The City Council shall thereupon ratify the declaration, rescind the declaration, or direct the declaration 3 of a different stage. 4 SECTION 8. FAILURE TO COMPLY. 5 (A) Following a declaration of a Stage 1 condition as provided herein, upon the occurrence of violations of any of the provisions of this ordinance, City shall cause written notice 6 to be given to each violator. 7 (B) Following a declaration of a Stage 2 condition as provided herein, citations shall be issued to violators. The first 8 violation by any violator shall subject the violator to a fine of Twenty -Five dollars ($25.00). Upon a second violation, the 9 violator shall be subject to a fine of Thirty -Five dollars ($35.00). Upon a third violation, the violator shall be 10 subject to a fine of Forty -Five dollars ($45.00). Upon a fourth violation, the violator shall be subject to a fine of 11 Fifty -Five dollars ($55.00). 12 (C) For the fifth violation, the City may install a flow restricting device in the customer's water service line for a 13 period not less than 48 hours and until the customer satisfies the City that the failure to comply will not continue. The 14 charge for installing and removing the flow restricting devige shall be $65.00 and shall be paid by the customer prior to 15 .removal. 16 (D) For the sixth and each subsequent violation, the City may discontinue water service for a period of not less than 24 17 hours and until the customer satisfies the City that the failure to comply will not continue. The customer shall pay 18 $70.00 for restoration of water service. 19 SECTION 9. Appeal Procedure. A customer shall have the right to appeal by filing a written request for appeal within five days with the 20 City Manager or his designee. Within ten days after receipt of such a request, a written decision shall be issued. The City Council or their 21 designee shall be the final appeal body on all decisions. 22 SECTION 10. Severability. If any section, sub -section, clause or phrase in this Water Conservation Ordinance or the application thereof 23 to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Conservation Ordinance or the application 24 of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 141 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1060, Page 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the -18th day of March 1991. RICHARD DG ayor �7 MARY E. W61N, City erc STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF TUSTIN } CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1060 MARY E WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly read and introduced at a meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of March. , 1991, and was given its second reading and du -y passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of March ,1991, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Edgar, Puckett, Pontious, Potts, Prescott COUNCILMEMBER NOES: none COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None Mary E. Wy„ , city c Ordinance No. 1063 1I - I 21 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1063 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING. -A MANDATORY..WATER CONSERVATION•. AND RATIONING PROGRAM The City. Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Water Consumption Reduction. A., Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: the State of California is entering the fifth year of an unprecedented drought; water levels at many reservoirs are at an all time low; deliveries of water to the Southern California region from the State Water Project, Colorado River, Owens Valley and Mono County have declined due to the lack of rainfall and litigation regarding entitlement; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is the supplier of thirty percent (30%) of tbd water supplied to the Tustin Water Service and MWD has reduced the City's allocation of water by thirty.percent (30%) as of March 1, 1991 and advised that it will charge the City a premium -of at least 'Three Hundred Ninety -Four Dollars ($394) per acre foot for delivery of water in excess of new allocation. levels; the Mandatory Conservation Rate on the effective date of this ordinance is a collective fifteen percent (15%); this Conservation state corresponds with the recent decision of MWD to t allocate only seventy percent (70%) of the water used --.-by the City during comparable periods in 'the past; the failure `of Tustin Water Service consumers to collectively reduce water consumption may lead to even more drastic. cutbacks in allocations, deliveries, and -costs; the failure to reduce 'water consumption and a continuation of the drought may, in the long term, result in the inability of - the City to supply water at or above minimum levels required for health and sanitation; this ordinance will promote reductions in water. consumption and permit recovery of additional costs incurred with the purchase of water and the administration of water conservation measures. B. Definitions. 1. "Billing Period" means the time interval between two consecutive water- meter readings taken for billing purposes and will average sixty (60) days. 2. "Billing Unit" means one hundred (100) cubic feet of water (748 gallons)_ 3. "MWD" shall mean The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. JG R Jab: R6:3 -28 -91(o=1063 -jab) U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1063, Page 2 4. "Allowable Water Usage" means the amount of water delivered to a customer's premises which does not exceed .the .maximum. -amount. established pursuant to this ordinance and -by resolutions of the City Council made from time to time pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. 5. "Customer" means each person or entity who has contracted for water service from the City of Tustin. 6. "Penalty Amount" shall mean the additional charge, expressed in terms of cost per Billing Unit, imposed on water consumption in excess of the Allowable Water Usage. 7. "Water" means potable water and does not include reclaimed water. C. customer Responsibility. Each customer of the Tustin Water Service shall be, responsible for the use and -misuse. of all water pipes and facilities connected to the meter or -meters "which measure the amount of- water for which the customer is obligated to pay the City of Tustin. D. Water Usaae Limitation. All customers shall make all. reasonable efforts to not. receive,_use, consume or -permit to be delivered to the premises for which the customer. contracted `with the City for service, water in an amount in excess of the Allowalile- Water Usage. The Allowable Water Usage shall be as set forth below, effective at' 12:01 a.m,. on April 22, 1991: - Government unit 675 units 8415 235 units (including school districts, City, State) Landscape 161 units 2007 98 units (multi -family developments (including condominiums) served by Green Meter) * 1 unit equal 100 cubic feet and equals 748 gallons r Gallons Per Day 374 200 1309 1720 1359 2930 1221 Summer Winter - Allotment Gallons Allotment Water User May - Oct. Per Day Nov. - April Single Family 48 units * 598 30 units Residential Dwelling Multi -Family unit 18 units 224 16 units (including condominium unit) Commercial business. 138 units 1720 105 units Industrial business 278 units 3466 138 units Non -Profit establishment 186 units 2319 109 units (including church, boys and girls club, etc.) Government unit 675 units 8415 235 units (including school districts, City, State) Landscape 161 units 2007 98 units (multi -family developments (including condominiums) served by Green Meter) * 1 unit equal 100 cubic feet and equals 748 gallons r Gallons Per Day 374 200 1309 1720 1359 2930 1221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1063, Page 3 For purposes of this subsection, measurements of water consumption falling between full Billing Units shall be rounded up to the next full Billing. -Unit. E. Additional Charges and Penalties. In the event a. customer fails to comply with prescribed water usage limitations, an additional charge of ninety cents ($0.90) shall be imposed on each Billing Unit received over and above the Allowable Water Usage. If two consecutive billing periods show water usage exceeding the Allowable Water Usage, an additional surcharge of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total amount of the bill (including the additional ninety cents ($0.90) per Billing Unit prescribed above) will be imposed. After the third consecutive billing period where water usage exceeds the Allowable Water Usage a. surcharge of fifty percent (50%) of the total bill (including .the additional ninety cents ($0.90) per Billing. Unit prescribed above) will be imposed. For consecutive billing periods, four or more of which exceed the Allowable Water Usage, the City may install.a flow restricting device to reduce the amount of water supplied to the customer and a surcharge of seventy-five percent (75%) ..of the total charge shall be imposed will be-addedto the total bill '-(including the additional ninety cents. ($0.90) per Billing. Unit. prescribed above) for all periods exceeding the allowable usage. The device. shall not be removed until such time as the customer-has.provided proof satisfactory to the City that the customer will not exceed the Allowable Water Usage. A fee of Fifty Dollars ($50) shall be - charged for installing the flow restricting-- device. Penalties shall appear on the first billing statement for- that account:- immediately ccount=immediately after the Billing Period in -which the excess water usage occurred. The. penalty shall be paid -at the same time as. the payment for normal water service. Failure to pay the entire amount due shall incur the same penalties as those imposed for failure to pay for normal water service. Any excess revenues received by. the City from the additional charges and penalties prescribed in this ordinance greater.than.the additional charges and penalties. paid by the City to the MWD, shall be used by the City solely for capital improvement costs of water facilities. F. Changes in Allowable Water Usage, Charges, Penalties, etc. The City Council may by resolution adopted -from time to time set, revise, increase or decrease the Allowable Water Usage and the charges, surcharges and penalties as deemed necessary. to accommodate water allocations, charges and penalties imposed by MWD and other factors affecting the supply and cost of water to the City of Tustin. Such resolutions shall become effective as specified in such resolutions and shall within ten (10) days of their adoption be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City of Tustin. G. New Customers. The water billing section shall notify new customers of their Allowable Water Usage rate, charges, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1063, Page 4 penalties, etc., at the time application is made for new water service. H. Adiustments. The City Manager or designee upon application by a customer for relief, shall have the authority to modify the billing to a customer if the City Manager or designee determines that strict 'application of the provisions of this ordinance would create undue hardship to, or result in inequitable treatment of, the customer. I. , Relief from Compliance. 1. A customer may file an application for relief from the water usage reduction requirements of this ordinance. The application shall be on.a form provided by the City and shall specify the basis for the request -for relief. The application shall be filed with the City. Manager or designee.. An application seeking relief relative to a previously billed amount shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after the -date on which -the water bill was mailed to. the customer. In determining whether'to grant relief and the nature_of any relief, the City Manager.or designee may consider the following: (a) Whether mandated reduction in water. usage will . result in unemployment (b) Whether a larger number of persons than average: reside or are employed on the premises; (c) Whether a commercial. or industrial user has previously undertaken extensive water conservation activities and an additional reduction in allowable water usage would be a hardship; (d) Whether specific health' or safety considerations are present that require the use of water in excess of the Allowable Water Usage. 2. No relief shall be granted to any customer in the absence of a showing that the customer has achieved the maximum practical reduction in water consumption aside from those factors which would otherwise warrant an adjustment. No relief shall be granted to any customer who fails to provide the City Manager or designee with requested information relevant to a determination of the adequacy of the grounds of relief or a finding that maximum practical reduction and consumption has been achieved.' 3. The decision of the City Manager or designee shall be made after all material has been reviewed. 4. The City Manager or designee willmake a -determination no later than fourteen (14) days after.the appeal.is received. If an appeal is decided in full or partial favor of the customer, an immediate adjustment will be made to the customer's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1063, Page 5 account. If the appeal is rejected, customer must pay the'bill in full within five (5) business days to avoid service interruption. Provided, however, if the customer -files an -appeal with the Water Appeals Board., :to be appointed. by the City Council, payment need not be made until five (5) business days following decision of the Board. Appeals of decisions of the Water Appeals Board may be made to the City Council, provided, however, the customer must first make a deposit with the City of seventy-five percent (75%) of the disputed bill to avoid service interruption. J. Confirmation. A customer shall have the right to request confirmation of the amount of water used during a Billing Period for which the customer has been billed. K. Irriciation. Where an improperly maintained irrigation system results in a waste of water., e.g., causes excessive runoff, the City Manager or designee shall have the .authority to. discontinue water service. Notice of the termination of service shall be given by posting notice of the decision on the meter which measures.water flowing through -the system and by mailing written notice of .''the decision to the customer within twenty-four (24) hours after service was terminated_ The customer shall have the right to appeal the decision to .terminate service by filing a written request for hearing with the City 'Manager- or designee within fifteen (15) days after the date on which notice -was mailed. Appeals of the decision of the City Manager or designee may be made to the Water Appeals Board and thereafter to -the City Council._ SECTION 2. The City Council finds and declares that adoption of this ordinance as an emergency measure is necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and safety in that: A. California is currently experiencing. a drought of unprecedented magnitude with current water reserves throughout the State far below normal. . B. The City has initiated a voluntary water conservation program, but the program has not achieved the desired results. C. Metropolitan Water District, the supplier of imported water to the City of Tustin, has announced its intention to reduce the amount of water delivered to the City and to. 'iriipose a surcharge on all water sold to the City in excess of new allocation levels. The surcharge and reduced allocation levels were effective on February 1, 1991 and compliance with MWD directives cannot be achieved other than through the adoption of an emergency ordinance. D. The imposition of penalties on excess consumption of water will reduce water usage and allow the City to recover the additional costs it incurs relative to the .purchase of water from MWD. _ Ordinance No. 1063, Page 6 1 2 E. Failure to achieve_a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in water consumption will reduce available water supplies, lead to 3 further MWD mandated reductions,. and require imposition -of more stringent restrictions on water use in the future. In the Tong .4 term, the failure to conserve water combined with continued drought .could lead to the inability of the City to provide water in amounts 5 necessary for health and sanitation. 6 SECTION 3. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by a majority of 7 the members of the City Council pursuant to Water Code Section 375. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be g published pursuant to Government Code. Section 6061 within ten (10) days of its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, 9 printed, published and circulated in the City of Tustin. 10 SECTION 4. Severability.. The City Council of the City of. Tustin hereby declares that should any section, paragraph,. sentence 11 or word of this ordinance be declared, for any reason; -to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed 12 all other .portions of this ordinance independent of. -the portion declared invalid. 13 SECTION 5. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this 14 ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of the City shall, in any manner, affect the prosecution for violatiohd..of ordinances 15 committed prior to the effective date of the :adoption or .repeal, . nor be construed as a waiver of -any of the penalty or penal -7- 16 provisions applicable to such violation.- The provisions`of, this ordinance, to the extent they are substantially. the same as 17 ordinances previously adopted by the City and relating -to the same subject matter, shall , be construed. as restatements and I8 continuations, and not as new enactments. 19 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of.Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of April 20 1991. 21 22 ICHARD B. EDGAR, MA-yor 2.3 24 R E. WYNN, City Clerk 25 26! 27 28 City of Tustin ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1063 Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1063 was duly and regularly introduced, read, passed and adopted as an urgency ordinance at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of April, 1991, by the' following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Edgar, Puckett,-Pontious, Potts COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None _ COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Prescott V Valerie Whiteman for Mary -Wynn, City Clerk Appendix E 60 Day Notification Letters Department of Public Works Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director February 22, 2011 Mr. Jess A. Carbajal Director of public Works County of Orange 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Carbajal, Pursuant to the California Water Code, City of Tustin is updating its Urban Water Management Plan. It is required that "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purpose to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan with the California Department of Water Resource every five years. City of TUstin'S Urban Water Management Plan, which is due by July 1, 2011, is also being coordinated with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) for inclusion in its Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) supplies imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River to nearly 18 million people in six Southern Calil mia counties. MWDOC, a MWD member agency, is the water wholesaler and resource planning agency for Orange County. The result of these collaborative efforts will be all-inclusive plan that will assist in better management of water resources. California Water Code mandates all urban water purveyors to notify the city or county they serve of this planning effort and solicit any comments in updating the Urban Water Management Plan. Comments may include information on land use planning in the unincorporated area in City of Tustin's water service that may impact water consumption over the next 20 years. Should you have any comments or questions regarding Tustin's Urban Water Management Plan, you may contact Vicky Kim at (714) 573-3033. Sincerely, or gl ; S. Stack. P.E. i c of Public Works/City Engineer 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 R (714) 573-3150 • F: (714) 734-8991 0 www.tustinca.org Department of Public Works Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director February 22. 201 1 Ms. Lisa Ohlund General Manager East Orange County Water District 185 N. McPherson Road Orange, CA 92869 Dear Ms und, Pursuant to the California Water Code, City of Tustin is updating its Urban Water Management Plan. It is required that "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purpose to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan with the California Department of Water Resource every five years. City of Tustin's Urban Water Management Plan, which is due by July 1, 2011, is also being coordinated with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) for inclusion in its Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) supplies imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River to nearly 18 million people in six Southern California counties. MWDOC. a MWD member agency, is the water wholesaler and resource planning agency for Orange County. The result of these collaborative efforts will be all-inclusive plan that will assist in better management of water resources. California Water Code mandates all urban water purveyors to notify the city or county they serve of this planning effort and solicit any comments in updating the Urban Water Management Plan. Should you have any comments or questions regarding Tustin's Urban Water Management Plan, you may contact Vicky Kim at (714) 573-3033. ly, S ck, P.E. ublic Works/City Engineer 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3150 0 F: (714) 734-8991 0 www.tustinca.org Appendix F Public Hearing Notice To Be Provided At A Later Date Appendix G Copy of Plan Adoption To Be Provided At A Later Date ..� / © r > . ./ � ° v j ��. Q Q 8001 Irvine9618 2#,m IARCADIS m+G2ga ALCOLM 949.450.9901 k� 9»902 IIRNIE The Water Division of 4 RC A 2I;