HomeMy WebLinkAbout55A - RESO WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
JULY 2, 2019
APPROVED
TITLE:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WATER
❑ As Recommended
SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ELAN
❑ As Amended
❑ Ordinance on 1� Reading
MIXED -USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1660
❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading
EAST FIRST STREET
❑ Implementing Resolution
(STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 3 AND 5, 2)
❑ Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANA ER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Elan Mixed -Use
Project located at 1660 East First Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Approved Site Plan Review No. 2018-02 as conditioned by staff by a vote of 4-0 (Alderete,
Contreras -Leo. and Revna absent) at its meeting of October 22, 2018.
DISCUSSION
In June 2016, the City of Santa Ana filed its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Exhibit
1) with the California Department of Water Resources in accordance with California Water Code
Section 10610, et seq., which requires UWMPs be filed every five years. The UWMP, among its
several functions, estimates water supply sufficiency by forecasting the City's water supply capacity
and anticipated consumer water demand to ensure that available water supply will meet or exceed
demand.
UWMPs are point -in -time estimates that, by their nature, cannot fully capture future effects of large
changes not yet known at the time the plan is developed. For this reason, California Water Code
Section 10910 requires large projects be reviewed individually for water supply sufficiency via a
Water Supply Assessment. The City must concur that adequate water supply exists for residential
development projects consisting of 500 or more dwelling units before development may proceed.
The vacant site located at 1660 E. First Street is approved for development as a mixed -use project,
including 603 residential dwelling units, and, therefore, requires a Water Supply Assessment
(Exhibit 2). Staff has reviewed the project's Water Supply Assessment and has concluded that the
55A-1
Resolution Approving Water Supply Assessment for the Elan Mixed -Use Project Located at 1660 E. First
Street
July 2, 2019
Page 2
City has, adequate supply to service the project upon completion and recommends that Council
adopt a resolution approving this assessment (Exhibit 2).
This is the second Water Supply Assessment brought for Council's specific review and
consideration since the completion of the UWMP. City staff will evaluate future Water Supply
Assessments by adjusting the demand projections of the UWMP for the anticipated demand of this
project to determine the unutilized water supply available for additional development. When the
future revised 2020 UWMP is filed again, any current or projected water demand from this project
will be incorporated in the new baseline consumer water demand projections.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #3 — Economic Development Objective
#3 (promote a solutions -based customer focus in all efforts to facilitate development and investment
in the community); and, Goal #5 — Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability,
Objective #2 (expand opportunities for conservation and environmental sustainability).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action
Fuad Siss, PE, PL,
Executi4 Director
Public rks Agency
FS/NS/RR
Exhibits: 1. City of Santa Ana 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
2. Resolution Approving Water Supply Assessment for the Elan Project
55A-2
00 ARCAD IS I
Oe,=,,.'onsultaaq
for�utualand
huiQassets
2015
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
=m
V
ho 79 19
S 31 l
Sarina Sriboonlue, P.E.
Staff Environmental Engineer
2015 URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
City of Santa Ana
Prepared for:
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency
Water Resources Division
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Prepared by:
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
445 South Figueroa Street
Suite 3650
Los Angeles
California 90071
Tel 213 486 9884
Fax 213 486 9894
Our Ref.:
4109039.0000
Date:
June 2016
arcadis.com E55AT '�4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTENTS
Acronymsand Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................
vii
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Urban Water Management Plan Requirements...........................................................................1-1
1.2
Agency Overview.........................................................................................................................1-3
1.3
Service Area and Facilities..........................................................................................................1-6
1.3.1 City of Santa Ana Service Area........................................................................................1-6
1.3.2 City of Santa Ana Water Facilities....................................................................................1-7
2 Demands..............................................................................................................................................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..................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.3 Land Use..........................................................................................................................2-2
2.3
Water Use by Customer Type.....................................................................................................2-2
2.3.1 Overview...........................................................................................................................2-3
2.3.2 Non-Residential................................................................................................................2-3
2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies...................................................................................................2-4
2.3.4 Non -Revenue Water.........................................................................................................2-4
2.3.4.1 AWWA Water Audit Methodology...........................................................................2-4
2.4
Demand Projections.....................................................................................................................2-6
2.4.1 Demand Projection Methodology.....................................................................................2-6
2.4.2 Agency Refinement..........................................................................................................2-7
2.4.3 25 Year Projections..........................................................................................................2-7
2.4.4 Total Water Demand Projections.....................................................................................2-8
2.4.5 Water Use for Lower Income Households.......................................................................2-8
2.5
SBx7-7 Requirements................................................................................................................2-10
2.5.1 Baseline Water Use........................................................................................................2-10
2.5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD)...............................................2-11
2.5.1.2 Five -Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation)................................................2-11
amadis.mm 9VA5d i
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.5.1.3 Service Area Population.......................................................................................2-11
2.5.2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets............................................................................................2-12
2.5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods........................................................................................2-12
2.5.2.2 2015 and 2020 Targets........................................................................................2-12
2.5.3 Regional Alliance.......................................................... ..................................................
2-13
3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability..................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Overview ............... .......................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2
Imported Water............................................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Colorado River Supplies...................................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 State Water Project Supplies .......... ........... ......................................................................
3-4
3.2.3 Storage.............................................................................................................................3-8
3.3
Groundwater................................................................................................................................3-8
3.3.1 Basin Characteristics........................................................................................................3-8
3.3.2 Basin Production Percentage.........................................................................................3-10
3.3.2.1 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan.....................................................3-10
3.3.2.2 OCWD Engineer's Report ....................................................................................3-11
3.3.3 Groundwater Recharge Facilities...................................................................................3-12
3.3.4 Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program ......................................
................ 3-12
3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program.........................................................................3-13
3.3.6 Groundwater Historical Extraction..................................................................................3-13
3.3.7 Overdraft Conditions ............................................. ..........................................................
3-13
3.4
Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water................................................................3-13
3.5
Recycled Water................... .......................................................................................................
3-16
3.6
Supply Reliability........................................................................................................................3-16
3.6.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................3-16
3.6.2 Factors Impacting Reliability ......................................... .................................................
3-16
3.6.2.1 Environment..........................................................................................................3-16
3.6.2.2 Legal.....................................................................................................................3-16
3.6.2.3 Water Quality........................................................................................................3-17
3.6.2.3.1 Imported Water...........................................................................................3-17
3.6.2.3.2 Groundwater...............................................................................................3-17
arcadis.com ET t
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.6.2.4 Climate Change....................................................................................................3-19
3.6.3 Normal -Year Reliability Comparison..............................................................................3-19
3.6.4 Single -Dry Year Reliability Comparison.........................................................................3-20
3.6.5 Multiple -Dry Year Period Reliability Comparison...........................................................3-20
3.7
Supply and Demand Assessment..............................................................................................3-21
4 Demand Management Measures.........................................................................................................4-1
4.1
Water Waste Prevention Ordinances..........................................................................................4-1
4.2
Metering.......................................................................................................................................4-2
4.3
Conservation Pricing....................................................................................................................4-3
4.4
Public Education and Outreach...................................................................................................4-3
4.5
Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss..............................................4-5
4.6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support ...............................................4-5
5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.......................................................................................................5-1
5.1
Overview......................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2
Shortage Actions..........................................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Metropolitan Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan..........................................5-1
5.2.2 Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan......................................................................5-3
5.2.3 City of Santa Ana..............................................................................................................5-4
5.3
Three -Year Minimum Water Supply............................................................................................5-5
5.4
Catastrophic Supply Interruption.................................................................................................5-5
5.4.1 Metropolitan......................................................................................................................5-5
5.4.2 Water Emergency Response of Orange County..............................................................5-6
5.4.3 City of Santa Ana..............................................................................................................5-6
5.5
Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods....................................................5-7
5.5.1 Prohibitions.......................................................................................................................5-7
5.5.2 Penalties.........................................................................................................................5-11
5.5.3 Consumption Reduction Methods..................................................................................5-11
5.6
Impacts to Revenue...................................................................................................................5-12
5.7
Reduction Measuring Mechanism.............................................................................................5-14
6 Recycled Water....................................................................................................................................6-1
6.1
Agency Coordination...................................................................................................................6-1
amadis.com81�1 iii
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.1.1 OCWD Green Acres Project.............................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System..................................................................6-1
6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal.........................................................................................6-2
6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses.....................................................................................................6-4
6.4 Potential Recycled Water Uses...................................................................................................6-6
6.4.1 Direct Non -Potable Reuse................................................................................................6-6
6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse.....................................................................................................6-6
6.5 Optimization Plan.........................................................................................................................6-7
7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs......................................................................................7-1
7.1 Water Management Tools...........................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities............................................................................................7-1
7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs...........................................................................7-1
7.4 Desalination Opportunities...........................................................................................................7-1
7.4.1 Groundwater ................................. ..........................................
.......................................... 7-2
7.4.2 Ocean Water....................................................................................................................7-2
8 UWMP Adoption Process ....................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Public Participation.......................................................................................................................8-2
8.2 Agency Coordination .................................... ...............................................................................
8-2
8.3 UWMP Submittal ..........................................................................................................................8-2
8.3.1 Review of 2010 UWMP Implementation...........................................................................8-2
8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015 Actual Programs8-
3
8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP........................................................................................................8-3
References.................................................................................................................................................84
TABLES
Table1-1: Plan Identification......................................................................................................................1-2
Table1-2: Agency Identification.................................................................................................................1-3
Table1-3: Public Water Systems...............................................................................................................1-7
Table 14: Water Supplier Information Exchange......................................................................................1-8
arcadis.com EXWQjT iv
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 2-1: Population — Current and Projected..........................................................................................2-2
Table 2-2: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual (AF).................................................................2-3
Table 2-3: Water Loss Audit Summary (AF)..............................................................................................2-6
Table 24: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected(AF)............................................................2-7
Table 2-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections...........................................................................................2-8
Table 2-6: Total Water Demands(AF).......................................................................................................2-8
Table 2-7: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income..................................................2-9
Table 2-8: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AF)...............2-10
Table 2-9: Baselines and Targets Summary ............................................................................................2-13
Table2-10: 2015 Compliance..................................................................................................................2-13
Table 3-1: Metropolitan Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities..................................................3-6
Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped(AF)........................................................................................3-13
Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual(AF)....................................................................................................3-14
Table 34: Water Supplies, Projected(AF)...............................................................................................3-15
Table 3-5: Basis of Water Year Data........................................................................................................3-21
Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison(AF)..............................................................3-21
Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison(AF).........................................................3-22
Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)....................................................3-22
Table4-1: Water Waste Prohibition...........................................................................................................4-2
Table 4-2: Water Rates Effective July 1, 2015...........................................................................................4-3
Table 5-1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan .............................................
Table 5-2: Minimum Supply Next Three Years (AF)....................................................
Table 5-3: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses .................................................
..........5-5
.............................5-7
Table 5-4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods.................5-12
Table 5-5: Revenue Impact Analysis ...................... .................................................................................. 5-12
Table 6-1: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015(AF)..........................................................6-3
Table 6-2: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual(AF).........................6-5
Table 6-3: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual(AF).........................6-6
Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach.........................................................................................8-1
Table 8.2: Notification to Cities and Counties .......
.............8-2
arcadis.com MY v
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier............................................................................1-5
Figure 1-2: City of Santa Ana Service Area...............................................................................................1-6
Figure 3-1: Water Supply Sources in the City(AF)....................................................................................3-1
Figure 3-2: Map of the Orange County Groundwater Basin and its Major Aquifer Systems .....................3-9
Figure 5-1: Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, and Supply Declarations...........................................5-2
APPENDICES
A UWMP Checklist
B Standardized Tables
C Groundwater Management Plan
D City Ordinance
E Notification of Public and Service Area Suppliers
F Adopted UWMP Resolution
G Bump Methodology
H AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet
I Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report
amadis.com = T1 O VI
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
20x2020
20% water use reduction in GPCD by year 2020
Act
Urban Water Management Planning Act
AF
Acre -Feet
AFY
Acre -Feet per Year
AMI
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AWWA
American Water Works Association
BEA
Basin Equity Assessment
Biops
Biological Opinions
BMP
Best Management Practice
BPP
Basin Production Percentage
CARL
Current Annual Real Losses
CCC
California Coastal Commission
CDR
Center for Demographic Research
CEC
Constituents of Emerging Concern
CII
Commercial/Industrial/institutional
City
City of Santa Ana
CRA
Colorado River Aqueduct
CUP
Conjunctive Use Program
CVP
Central Valley Project
Delta
Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta
DMM
Demand Management Measure
DOF
Department of Finance
DWR
Department of Water Resources
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EOC
Emergency Operation Center
ERP
Emergency Response Plan
FY
Fiscal Year
GAP
Green Acres Project
GCM
General Circulation Model
GPCD
Gallons per Capita per Day
GPM
Gallons per Minute
GWRS
Groundwater Replenishment System
H2O2
Hydrogen Peroxide
HCF
Hundred Cubic Feet
ILI
Infrastructure Leakage Index
IPR
Indirect Potable Reuse
IRP
Integrated Water Resource Plan
IWA
International Water Association
LBCWD
Laguna Beach County Water District
aBj4 i vii
rcadis.com /�►
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
LRP
Local Resources Program
LTFP
Long -Term Facilities Plan
MAF
Million Acre -Feet
MARS
Member Agency Response System
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MEOC
Metropolitan Emergency Operations Center
Metropolitan
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MF
Microfiltration
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
MHI
Median Household Income
MTBE
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NDMA
N-nitrosodimethylamine
OC
Orange County
OC Basin
Orange County Groundwater Basin
OCWD
Orange County Water District
Poseidon
Poseidon Resources LLC
PPCP
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product
RA
Replenishment Assessment
RHNA
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RO
Reverse Osmosis
SBx7-7
Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session
SCAB
South Coast Air Basin
SCAG
Southern California Association of Governments
SCWD
South Coast Water District
SDCWA
San Diego County Water Authority
SDP
Seawater Desalination Program
Study
Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study
SWP
State Water Project
SWRCB
California State Water Resources Control Board
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
UARL
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
USBR
United States Bureau of Reclamation
UV
Ultraviolet
UWMP
Urban Water Management Plan
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
WEROC
Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
WF-21
Water Factory 21
WOC
Water Operations Center
WSAP
Water Supply Allocation Plan
WSDM
Water Surplus and Drought Management
arcadis.com JJ R Ti 2
viii
2015 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 service
connections or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) 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 the years ending in zero and five. The 2015 UWMP updates are due to DWR by July
1. 2016.
This 2015 UWMP provides a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands and
provides an assessment of the City of Santa Ana's (City) water resource needs. Specifically, the UWMP
provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five-year increments and identifies water
supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply
reliability under three hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single -dry year, and multiple -dry years. The
City's 2015 UWMP updates the 2010 UWMP in compliance with the requirements of the Act as amended
in 2009, and includes a discussion of:
• 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 Use
Since the original Act's passage in 1983, several amendments have been added. The most recent
changes affecting the 2015 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session
(SBx7-7) and SB 1087. SBx7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, is part of the Delta Action Plan
that stemmed from the Governor's goal to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita
water use by 2020 (20x2020). Reduction in water use is an important part of this plan that aims to
sustainably manage the Bay Delta and reduce conflicts between environmental conservation and water
supply; it is detailed in Section 3.2.2. SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban
water use targets to achieve the 20x2020 goal and the interim ten percent goal by 2015. Each urban retail
water supplier must include in its 2015 UWMPs the following information from its target -setting process:
• Baseline daily per capita water use
2020 Urban water use target
arcadis.wm &MU 1-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• 2015 Interim water use target compliance
• Compliance method being used along with calculation method and support data
• An implementation plan to meet the targets
The other recent amendment, made to the UWMP on September 19, 2014, is set forth by SB 1420,
Distribution System Water Losses. SB 1420 requires water purveyors to quantify distribution system
losses for the most recent 12-month period available. The water loss quantification is based on the water
system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association (AW WA).
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 in Appendix A. This is an individual UWMP for a retail agency, as shown in Tables 1-
1 and 1-2. Table 1-2 also indicates the units that will be used throughout this document.
Table 1.1: Plan Identification
IdentificationPlan
S e
Only;,
Z,t
€
�T eioflPlan ril
" VP Name of)RUWMP o Regional Alliances
Individual UWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of
El
a RUWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of
a Regional Alliance
Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
❑
(RUWMP)
NOTES:
amadis.com '90' XT 14
1-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 1-2: Agency Identification
Agency Identification
,- of Agency
❑ Agency is awholesaler
0
Agency is'a retailer
UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years
❑
UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years
If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Date that the Fiscal Year
Begins (mm/dd)
711
Unit
cl�!n UWMP
AF
NOTES:
1.2 Agency Overview
The City was, for many years, a ranching community with some farming. To serve this growing
agricultural and domestic community, a municipal water system was formed in 1886. The original source
of water supply for the City was from shallow irrigation wells. As the City continued to grow and change
from agriculture to an urban community, the need for additional sources of water was recognized if
economic development were to continue.
To tap into water sources from outside the area, the City joined with 12 other southern California cities to
form and be an original member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) on February 27, 1931. Metropolitan, as a regional wholesaler, supplies imported water to
southern California from the Colorado River and from the State Water Project from Northern California.
Metropolitan's primary purpose is to develop, store and distribute water at wholesale rates to its member
public agencies for domestic and municipal uses.
In 1933, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) was formed by a special act of the State Legislature
to manage Orange County's groundwater supply and protection of the County's rights to water in the
Santa Ana River. In 1953, the City became a member of OCWD.
The City is governed by a non -partisan seven -member City Council, elected to serve staggered four-year
terms, except for the Mayor, who serves a two-year term. The City Council appoints the City Manager and
various members of commissions, committees, and citizen advisory groups, all of which may weigh in on
water management issues and decisions for the City. The current Council members are
1-3
arcadis.com �� 56 5�
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Miguel Pulido, Mayor
• Vicente Sarmiento, Mayor Pro Tern (Ward 1)
• Michele Martinez (Ward 2)
• Angelica Amezcua (Ward 3)
• David Benavides (Ward 4)
• Roman A. Reyna (Ward 5)
• Sal Tinajero (Ward 6)
The City receives its water from two main sources, local well water from the Lower Santa Ana River
Groundwater Basin, also known as the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin), which is
managed by OCWD, and imported water from Metropolitan. The City is a member agency of
Metropolitan. The City's location is shown on Figure 1-1.
arcadis.com E LT 16 1-4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ba Irye VI Mq
iULLERiCW
eufw
nae
. ITa'YN D .
�Dw
oueen aROu£
Q
weannnarea
aFK IFIW
Na nN
WlfFll
WI
J!RIInt
� NNTNOnfNabCN
IWMIw
WLLfV
MVWf RLNCN
04T
dh
[ Tacs MI
Igyy:py l4aVEl raNn uieeuan
WIn.�O:�le 1 WItF D�SI.nC�
JN JU4V
WISMI O
OF n orange Candy ware Dl d(wndewM7 V
rme.sye and Toewaya A
Orrpe Candy Wow Dufid w E
O SaueiCoaet_WD_NRWA 5
O W DOC Re WI Apnwiet I1v
ONV~WAgency Bounday a
MWDOC Service Area
and Member Agencies
Figure 1-1 Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier
u+w.eo cep+o
arcadis.com 5 EX L `7 7� 1-5
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.3 Service Area and Facilities
1.3.1 City of Santa Ana Service Area
The City is in the heart of Orange County and rated eleventh largest in California. The City's Water Utility
provides water service within a 27-square mile service area. The service area includes the City of Santa
Ana and a small neighborhood in the City of Orange, near Tustin Avenue and Fairhaven by the northeast
corner of Santa Ana. A map of the City's service area is shown on Figure 1-2.
Citv of Santa An;;
0' GA II 15 lo,n
I
Figure 1-2: City of Santa Ana Service Area
arcadis.com 'W 18 1-6
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.3.2 City of Santa Ana Water Facilities
The City maintains 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, nine reservoirs with a storage
capacity of 49.3 million gallons, seven pumping stations, 20 wells, and seven import water connections.
Thirteen of the City wells pump into surface reservoirs with booster stations pumping the water into the
distribution system. The remaining wells pump directly into the City's distribution system. Water pumped
from these wells has been naturally filtered as it passes through underlying aquifers of sand, gravel, and
soil. This well water only requires disinfectant treatment for system distribution.
The City maintains seven imported water connections to receive water through Metropolitan's Orange
County and East Orange County Feeder pipelines. Seven metered connections with a total capacity of
60,580 gallons per minute (gpm) transfer water into the City's distribution system.
System Pressures — Reducing distribution system pressures will, to a certain degree, conserve water
and pumping energy by reducing leaking in water and plumbing systems, as well as reducing waste or
water when turning water fixtures on and off. The City continually reviews the pressure zones to
determine the feasibility of reducing system pressures by lowering settings on distribution system
pressure regulators. The reviews have indicated that potential fire protection requirement deficiencies
occur when pressures are reduced. Therefore, the City maintains safe yet efficient system pressures.
Peak Demand— Water system demand patterns are a result of climatological, land use, sociological, and
institutional factors, all of which affect the amount of water consumed. Reduction in peak demands can
reduce the need for construction of new water storage and conveyance facilities and, in certain instances,
the development of new water sources. The City's computerized telemetry system allows water system
operators to operate the system more efficiently through the ability to stage and prioritize water
production facilities usage to meet these ever changing demand patterns.
The system connections and total water volume supplied including non -potable are summarized in Table
1-3, and the wholesalers informed of this water use as required are displayed in Table 1-4.
Table 1-3: Public Water Systems
Public Water System Public Water System Number of Municipal Volume of
Number Name Connections2b15 Water Supplied
2015
CA3010038 City of Santa Ana 44,610 37,007
TOTAL 44,610 37,007
NOTES:
amadis.com 66vii b 1-7
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 1-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange
arcadis.com RX110
1-8
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2 DEMANDS
2.1 Overview
Since the last UWMP update, southern California's urban water demand has been largely shaped by the
efforts to comply with SBx7-7. This law requires all California retail urban water suppliers serving more
than 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) or 3,000 service connections to achieve a 20 percent water demand
reduction (from a historical baseline) by 2020. The City has been actively engaged in efforts to reduce
water use in its service area to meet the 2015 interim 10 percent reduction and the 2020 final water use
target. Meeting this target is critical to ensure the City's eligibility to receive future state water grants and
loans.
In April 2015 Governor Brown issued an Emergency Drought Mandate as a result of one of the most
severe droughts in California's history, requiring a collective reduction in statewide urban water use of 25
percent by February 2016, with each agency in the state given a specific reduction target by DWR. In
response to the Governor's mandate, the City is carrying out more aggressive conservation efforts. It is
also implementing higher (more restrictive) stages of its water conservation ordinance in order to achieve
its demand reduction target of 12 percent set for the City.
In addition to local water conservation ordinances, the City partnered with Metropolitan on educational
programs, indoor retrofits and training. The City has implemented turf removal, an art contest, pole
banners, lawn signs, and neighborhood association meetings to promote water conservation, as detailed
in Section 4.
These efforts have been part of statewide water conservation ordinances that require watering landscape
watering, serving water in restaurants and bars, and reducing the amount of laundry cleaned by hotels.
Further discussion on the City's water conservation ordinance is covered in Section 5 Water Supplies
Contingency Plan.
This section analyzes the City's current water demands by customer type, factors that influence those
demands, and projections of future water demands for the next 20 years. In addition, to satisfy SBx7-7
requirements, this section provides details of the City's SBx7-7 compliance method selection, baseline
water use calculation, and 2015 and 2020 water use targets.
2.2 Factors Affecting Demand
Water demands within the City's service area are dependent on many factors such as local climate
conditions and the evolving hydrology of the region, demographics, land use characteristics, and
economics. In addition to local factors, southern California's imported water sources are also
experiencing drought conditions that impact availability of current and future water supplies.
2.2.1 Climate Characteristics
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that encompasses all of Orange County, and
the urban areas of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The SCAB climate is
arwdis.wm &MB 2-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
characterized by southern California's "Mediterranean" climate: a semi -arid environment with mild winters,
warm summers and moderate rainfall.
Local rainfall has limited impacts on reducing demand for the City. Water that infiltrates into the soil may
enter groundwater supplies depending on the local geography. However, due to the large extent of
impervious cover in southern California, rainfall runoff quickly flows to a system of concrete storm drains
and channels that lead directly to the ocean. OCWD is one agency that has successfully captured
stormwater along the Santa Ana River and in recharge basins for years and used it as an additional
source of supply for groundwater recharge.
The City's imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct
(CRA) are influenced by climate conditions in northern California and the Colorado River Basin,
respectively. Both regions have been suffering from multi -year drought conditions with record low
precipitation which directly impact water supplies to southern California.
2.2.2 Demographics
The City has a 2015 population of 335,299 according to the California State University at Fullerton's
Center of Demographics Research (CDR). The City is almost completely built -out, and its population is
projected to increase only 0.9 percent by 2040, representing an average growth rate of 0.005 percent
every five years.
Growth projections have decreased slightly from the 2010 UWMP projections. Vacant land within the City
is very limited while existing housing is becoming denser and new residential units are multi -storied.
Table 2-1 shows the population projections in five-year increments out to 2040 within the City's service
area.
Table 2-1: Population — Current and Projected
2.2.3 Land Use
The City's service area can best be described as a predominately residential single and multi -family
community located in central Orange County.
2.3 Water Use by Customer Type
An agency's water consumption can be projected by understanding the type of use and customer type
creating the demand. Developing local water use profiles helps to identify quantity of water used as well
as when, where, how, and by whom water is used within the agency's service area. A comprehensive
arcadis.com RX-22 2-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
profile of the agency's service area enables the impacts of water conservation efforts to be assessed and
to project the future benefit of water conservation programs.
The following sections of this UWMP provide an overview of the City's water consumption by customer
account type as follows:
• Single-family Residential
• Multi -family Residential
• Commercial
• Institutional] Government
Other water uses including non -revenue water are also discussed in this section.
2.3.1 Overview
There are 44,551 current customer active and inactive service connections in the City's water distribution
system with all existing connections metered. Approximately 66.8 percent of the City's potable water
demand is residential; commercial, including dedicated landscape, accounts for the remaining 33.2
percent of the total potable demand.
Table 2-2 contains a summary of the City's total potable water demand in fiscal year (FY) of 2014-15.
Table 2-2: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual (AF)
D-
Use
.Potable
.-
and Raw Water - Actual
Additional Description
2015 'Actual
Level of Treatment
When Delivered
Volume
Single Family
Drinking Water
14,084
Multi -Family
Drinking Water
10,399
Other
(CII) Comm/Instit/Indust
Drinking Water
12,025
Landscape
Large
Drinking Water
147
TOTAL
36,656
NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Retail Tracking.
2.3.2 Non -Residential
Non-residential use includes commercial, industrial, institutional water demands. Institutional water use
accounts for 4 percent of total non-residential water demands and commercial accounts for 52.3 percent
of total non-residential water demand. The City has a mix of commercial uses (markets, restaurants, etc.),
public entities (schools, fire stations and government offices), office complexes, light industrial and
warehouses.
amadis.com EgrB � � 2-3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies
The City does not sell water to other agencies although it does maintain emergency interconnections with
neighboring cities and water districts.
2.3.4 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, firefighting, and
blow -off water from well start-ups), real losses (e.g. leakage in mains and service lines, and storage tank
overflows), and apparent losses (unauthorized consumption, customer metering inaccuracies and
systematic data handling errors).
A water loss audit was conducted per AWWA methodology for the City to understand the relationship
between water loss, operating costs and revenue losses. This audit was developed by the IWA Water
Loss Task Force as a universal methodology that could be applied to any water distribution system. This
audit meets the requirements of SB 1420 that was signed into law in September 2014. Understanding
and controlling water loss from a distribution system is an effective way for the City to achieve regulatory
standards and manage their existing resources.
2.3.4.1 AWWA Water Audit Methodology
There are five data categories that are part of the AWWA Water Audit: 1) Water Supplied 2) Authorized
Consumption 3) Water Losses 4) System Data and 5) Cost Data. Data was compiled from questionnaires,
invoices, meter test results, and discussion with the City. Each data value has a corresponding validation
score that evaluates the City's internal processes associated with that data entry. The scoring scale is 1-
10 with 10 representing best practice.
The Water Supplied section represents the volume of water the City delivered from its own sources,
purchased imported water, or water that was either exported or sold to another agency. Validation scores
for each supply source correspond to meter accuracy and how often the meters are calibrated. If the
calibration results of supply meters were provided, a weighted average of errors was calculated for
master meter adjustment. This adjustment factor was applied to reported supply volumes for meters that
were found to register either over or under the true volume. Validity scores for meter adjustment are
based on how often the meter is read and what method is used.
The Authorized Consumption section breaks down consumption of the volume of Water Supplied. Billed
metered water is billed and delivered to customers and makes up the majority of an agency's
consumption. Billed unmetered water is water that is delivered to a customer for a set fee but the actual
quantity of water is not metered. Customer accounts for this type of use are typically determined by utility
policy. Unbilled metered water is the volume used and recorded, but the customer is not charged. This
volume is typically used for City facilities per City policy. Unbilled unmetered water is authorized use that
is neither billed nor metered which typically includes activities such as firefighting, flushing of water mains
and sewers, street cleaning, and fire flow testing. The AWWA Water Audit recommends using the default
value of 1.25 percent to represent this use, as calculating an accurate volume is often tedious due to the
many different components involved and it represents a small portion of the City's overall use. For each
arcadis.com WXL 2 2-4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
consumption type listed above the associated validation score reflects utility policy for customer accounts,
frequency of meter testing and replacement, computer -based billing and transition to electronic metering
systems.
Water Losses are defined as the difference between the volume of water supplied and the volume of
authorized consumption. Water losses are further broken down into apparent and real losses. Apparent
losses include unauthorized consumption, customer meter inaccuracies and systematic data handling
errors. Default percentages were provided for the Audit by AWWA for unauthorized consumption and
systematic data handling error as this data is not often available. The corresponding default validation
score assigned is 5 out of 10. A discrete validation score was included for customer meter inaccuracies to
represent quality of meter testing records, testing procedures for meter accuracy, meter replacement
cycles, and inclusion of new meter technology.
System Data includes information about the City's physical distribution system and customer accounts.
The information included is: length of mains, number of active and inactive service connections, location
of customer meters in relation to the property line, and the average operating pressure of the system. The
number of service connections is automatically divided by the length of mains to find the service
connection density of the system. The calculated service connection density determines which
performance indicators best represent a water system's real loss performance. The validity scores in this
section relate to the water system's policies and procedures for calculating and documenting the required
system data, quality of records kept, integration with an electronic database including GIS and SCADA,
and how often this data is verified.
The final section is Cost Data and contains three important financial values related to system operation,
customer cost and water production. The total annual cost of operating the water system, customer retail
unit cost and the variable production cost per AF are included. The customer retail unit value is applied to
the apparent losses to determine lost revenue, while the variable production cost is typically applied to
real losses. In water systems with scarce water supplies, a case can be made for real losses to be valued
at the retail rate, as this volume of water could be sold to additional customers if it were not lost.] Validity
scores for these items consider how often audits of the financial data and supporting documents are
compiled and if third -party accounting professionals are part of the process.
Calculations based on the entered and sufficiently valid data produce a series of results that help the City
quantify the volume and financial impacts of water loss and facilitate comparison of the City's water loss
performance with that of other water systems who have also performed water loss audits using the
AWWA methodology. The City's Data Validity Score was 74 out of 100, with a total water loss volume of
677 AFY. The Non -Revenue Water volume represents 1.9 percent of the total water supplied by the City.
The value of non -revenue water is calculated to be $814,980 per year.
The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a performance indicator developed from the ratio of Current
Annual Real Losses (CARL) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). CARL was developed as
part of the workbook and explained as real losses above. UARL is developed on a per system basis with
an equation based on empirical data, developed by IWA that factors in the length of mains (including fire
hydrant laterals), number of service connections, average distance of customer service connection piping
between the curb stop and the customer meter and the total length of customer service piping, all
multiplied by average system pressure. The City received an ILI score of 0.15 which taken at face value is
a very high score and indicates that real losses are well managed. This value suggests that the City's real
arc dis.wrn 6%r�t 2-5
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
loss volume is beneath the technically achievable minimum, which is possible but unlikely. This requires
further field investigation of leakage if leakage detection and control practices are not extensively
implemented and/or, given the Data Validity Score for some components in the Audit, further
investigation/confirmation of entries such as water supplied/accuracy of supply meters, accuracy of
customer meters, systematic data handling errors, and applicability of the default percentages applied in
the audit.
Apparent losses make up a significant portion of the City's total water loss at 80 percent; most of this was
developed from default percentages provided by the AWWA Water Audit. Based on this information, the
City can improve water loss by taking a closer look at apparent losses and developing a strategy to better
quantify this data in the future. The overall Water Audit score can also be improved by meeting the
standards AWWA has developed for each data point through clear City procedures and reliable data.
The result of the AWWA Water Audit completed for the City as required by the 2015 UWMP is
summarized in Table 2-4. The water loss summary was calculated over a one-year period from available
data and the methodology explained above.
Table 2-3: Water Loss Audit Summary (AF)
IT, r i. r -I k I NQr r
Reporting Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss
(mm/my)
07/2014 677
NOTES:
2.4 Demand Projections
Demand projections were developed by MWDOC for each agency within the Regional Alliance based on
available data as well as land use, population and economic growth. Three trajectories were developed
representing three levels of conservation: 1) continued with existing levels of conservation (lowest
conservation), 2) addition of future passive measures and active measures (baseline conservation), and
3) aggressive turf removal program - 20 percent removal by 2040 (aggressive conservation). The
baseline demand projection was selected for the 2015 UWMP. The baseline scenario assumes the
implementation of future passive measures affecting new developments, including the Model Water
Efficient Landscape, plumbing code efficiencies for toilets, and expected plumbing code for high -
efficiency clothes washers. It also assumes the implementation of future active measures, assuming the
implementation of Metropolitan incentive programs at historical annual levels seen in Orange County.
2.4.1 Demand Projection Methodology
The water demand projections were an outcome of the Orange County (OC) Reliability Study led by
MWDOC where demand projections were divided into three regions within Orange County: Brea/La
Habra, OC Basin, and South County. The demand projections were obtained based on multiplying a unit
water use factor and a demographic factor for three water use sectors, including single-family and multi-
family residential (in gallons per day per household), and non-residential (in gallons per day per
employee). The unit water use factors were based on the survey of Orange County water agencies (FY
arcadis.com MR116 2-6
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2013-14) and represent a normal weather, normal economy, and non -drought condition. The
demographic factors are future demographic projections, including the number of housing units for single
and multi -family residential sectors and the total employment (number of employees) for the non-
residential sector, as provided by CDR.
The OC Reliability Study accounted for drought impacts on 2016 demands by applying the assumption
that water demands will bounce back to 85 percent of 2014 levels (i.e. pre -drought levels) by 2020 and 90
percent by 2025 without future conservation, and continue at 90 percent of unit water use through 2040.
The unit water use factor multiplied by a demographic factor yields demand projections without new
conservation. To account for new implementation of conservation, projected savings from new passive
and active conservation as a result of plumbing codes, water model efficiency landscape ordinance, and
rebates from Metropolitan were excluded from these demands.
As described above, the OC Reliability Study provided demand projections for three regions within
Orange County: Brea/La Habra, OC Basin, and South County. The City's water demand represents a
portion of the OC Basin region total demand. The City's portion was estimated as the percentage of the
City's five-year (FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15) average usage compared to the OC Basin region total
demand for the same period.
2.4.2 Agency Refinement
Demand projections were developed by MWDOC for the City as part of the OC Reliability Study. The
future demand projections were reviewed and accepted by the City as a basis for the 2015 UW MP.
2.4.3 25 Year Projections
A key component of the 2015 UWMP is to provide insight into the City's future water demand outlook.
The City's current total water demand is 36,655 AFY, met through locally pumped groundwater and
purchased imported water from Metropolitan. Table 2-4 is a projection of the City's water demand for the
next 25 years.
Table 2.4: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected (AF)
LRetail: Demands for P.otable
-and Raw Water - projected
Use s
ProjectedWater
Use
Additional Description
2020
2025 2030
2035 2040
Single Family
14,093
15,138
15,242
15,238 15,260
Multi -Family
10,406
11,177
11,254
11,251 11,267
Other
(CII)
Comm/Instit/Indust
12,033
12,925
13,014
13,010 13,029
Landscape
I Large
147
158
159
159 159
TOTAL
1 36,678
39,397
1 39,669
1 39,658 1 39,716
NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Retail Tracking.
arcadis.wrn i� �J 2-7
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The above demand values were provided by MWDOC and reviewed by the City as part of the UWMP
effort. The City will aim to decrease its reliance on imported water by pursuing a variety of water
conservation strategies, the City's per capita water use is projected to decrease as detailed in section 2.5
below.
Table 2.5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections
The demand data presented in this section accounts for passive savings in the future. Passive savings
are water savings as a result of Codes, Standards, Ordinances, or Transportation and Land Use Plans as
well as public outreach on water conservation and higher efficiency fixtures. Passive savings are
anticipated to continue for the next 25 years and will result in continued water saving and reduced
consumption levels.
2.4.4 Total Water Demand Projections
Based on the information provided above, the total demand for potable water is listed below in Table 2-6
below. Recycled water demand is projected to remain constant through the planning horizon.
Table 2-6: Total Water Demands (AF)
DemandsRetail: Total Water
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Potable and Raw Water
36,655
36,678
39,397
39,669
39,658
39,716
Recycled Water Demand
352
320
320
320
320
320
TOTAL WATER DEMAND
37,007
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
NOTES:
2.4.5 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Since 2010, the UWMP Act has required retail water suppliers to include water use projections for single-
family and multi -family residential housing for lower income and affordable households. This will assist the
City in complying with the requirement under Government Code Section 65689.7 granting priority for
providing water service to lower income households. A lower income household is defined as a
household earning below 80 percent of the median household income (MHI).
amadis.com RK12 Q 2-8
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DWR recommends retail suppliers rely on the housing elements of city or county general plans to quantify
planned lower income housing with the City's service area (DWR, 2015 UWMP Guidebook, February
2016). The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assists jurisdictions in updating general plan's
housing elements section. The RHNA identifies housing needs and assesses households by income level
for the City through 2010 decennial Census and 2005-2009 American Community Survey data. The fifth
cycle of the RHNA covers the planning period of October 2013 to October 2021. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the RHNA Allocation Plan for this cycle on October 4, 2012
requiring housing elements updates by October 15, 2013. The California Department of Housing and
Community Development reviewed the housing elements data submitted by jurisdictions in the SCAG
region and concluded the data meets statutory requirements for the assessment of current housing
needs.
The housing elements from the RHNA includes low income housing broken down into three categories:
extremely low (less than 30 percent MHI), very low (31 percent - 50 percent MHI), and lower income (51
percent - 80 percent MHI). The report gives the household distribution for all households of various
income levels in the City which can be seen in Table 2-7. Altogether the City has 54.18 percent low
income housing (SCAG, RHNA, November 2013).
Table 2-7: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income
Number of Households
Extremely Low Income
11,370
Very Low Income
12,486
Lower Income
16,919
Moderate Income
15,657
Above Income
18,827
Total Households
75,259
Table 2-8 provides the projected water needs for low income single family and multifamily units. The
projected water demands shown here represent 54.18 percent of the projected water demand for the
single-family and multifamily categories provided in Table 2-4 above. For example, the total low income
single family residential demand is projected to be 7,441 AFY in 2020 and 8,052 AFY in 2040.
arcadis.com OM§ 2-9
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 2-8: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AF)
2.5 SBx7-7 Requirements
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, SBx7-7, signed into law on February 3, 2010, requires the State of
California to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. The City must determine baseline
water use during their baseline period and water use targets for the years 2015 and 2020 to meet the
state's water reduction goal. The City may choose to comply with SBx7-7 individually or as a region in
collaboration with other retail water suppliers. Under the regional compliance option, the City is still
required to report its individual water use targets. The City is required to be in compliance with SBx7-7
either individually or as part of the alliance, or demonstrate they have a plan or have secured funding to
be in compliance, in order to be eligible for water related state grants and loans on and after July 16,
2016.
For the 2015 UWMP, the City must demonstrate compliance with its 2015 water use target to indicate
whether or not they are on track to meeting the 2020 water use target. The City also revised their
baseline per capita water use calculations using 2010 U.S. Census data. Changes in the baseline
calculations also result in updated per capita water use targets.
DWR also requires the submittal of SBx7-7 Verification Forms, a set of standardized tables to
demonstrate compliance with the Water Conservation Act in this 2015 UWMP.
2.5.1 Baseline Water Use
The baseline water use is the City's gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in
gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Gross water use is a measure of water that enters the distribution
system of the supplier over a 12-month period with certain allowable exclusions. These exclusions are:
• Recycled water delivered within the service area
• Indirect recycled water
• Water placed in long term storage
• Water conveyed to another urban supplier
• Water delivered for agricultural use
arcadis.com OXT 0 2-10
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Process water
Water suppliers within the OC Basin, including the City, have the option of choosing to deduct recycled
water used for indirect potable reuse from their gross water use to account for the recharge of recycled
water into the OC Basin by OCWD, historically through Water Factory 21, and now by the Groundwater
Replenishment System (GW RS).
Water suppliers must report baseline water use for two baseline periods, the 10- to 15-year baseline
(baseline GPCD) and the five-year baseline (target confirmation) as described below.
2.5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD)
The first step to calculating the City's water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use
(baseline water use). This baseline water use is essentially the City's gross water use divided by its
service area population, reported in GPCD. The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous (rolling)
10-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than
December 31, 2010. Water suppliers whose recycled water made up 10 percent or more of their 2008
retail water delivery can use up to a 15-year average for the calculation. The City did not have recycled
water use in 2008; therefore, a 10-year baseline period is used.
The City's baseline water use is 130 GPCD, obtained from the 10-year period July 1, 1995 to June 30,
2005.
2.5.1.2 Five -Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation)
Water suppliers are required to calculate water use, in GPCD, for a five-year baseline period. This
number is used to confirm that the selected 2020 target meets the minimum water use reduction
requirements. Regardless of the compliance option adopted by the City, it will need to meet a minimum
water use target of 5 percent reduction from the five-year baseline water use. This five-year baseline
water use is calculated as a continuous five-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than
December 31, 2007 and no later than December 31, 2010. The City's five-year baseline water use is 122
GPCD, obtained from the five-year period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008.
2.5.1.3 Service Area Population
The City's service area boundaries correspond with the boundaries for a city or census designated place.
This allows the City to use service area population estimates prepared by the Department of Finance
(DOF). The CDR at California State University, Fullerton is the entity which compiles population data for
Orange County based on DOF data. The calculation of the City's baseline water use and water use
targets in the 2010 UWMP was based on the 2000 U.S. Census population numbers obtained from CDR.
The baseline water use and water use targets in this 2015 UWMP have been revised based on the 2010
U.S. Census population obtained from CDR in 2012.
arwdis.wm 5"B'% 2-11
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.5.2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets
In the 2015 UWMP, the City may update its 2020 water use target by selecting a different target method
than what was used in 2010. The target methods and determination of the 2015 and 2020 targets are
described below.
2.5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods
DWR has established four target calculation methods for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. The
City is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options
include:
• Option f requires a simple 20 percent 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 commensurate with the Model Landscape Ordinance
o 10 percent reduction in baseline Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (CII) water use
• Option 3 is to achieve 95 percent 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 baseline GPCD:
Total savings includes indoor residential savings, meter savings, CII savings, and landscape and
water loss savings.
With MWDOC's assistance in the calculation of the City's base daily per capita use and water use targets,
the City selected to comply with Option 3 consistent with the option selected in 2010.
2.5.2.2 2015 and 2020 Targets
Under Compliance Option 3, to achieve 95 percent of the South Coast Hydrologic Region target as set
forth in the State's 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the City's 2015 target is 123 GPCD and the 2020
target is 116 GPCD as summarized in Table 2-9. The 2015 target is the midway value between the 10-
year baseline and the confirmed 2020 target. In addition, the confirmed 2020 target needs to meet a
minimum of five percent reduction from the five-year baseline water use. In this case, the confirmed 2020
target is the five percent reduction from the five-year baseline.
amadis.com WK112 2-12
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 2-9: Baselines and Targets Summary
Table 2-10 compares the City's 2015 water use target to its actual 2015 consumption. Based on this
comparison, the City is in compliance with its 2015 interim target and has also already met the 2020
water use target.
Table 2-10: 2015 Compliance
2.5.3 Regional Alliance
A retail supplier may choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or it may form a regional alliance with
other retail suppliers to meet the water use target as a region. Within a Regional Alliance, each retail
water supplier will have an additional opportunity to achieve compliance under both an individual target
and a regional target.
• If the Regional Alliance meets its water use target on a regional basis, all agencies in the alliance are
deemed compliant.
• If the Regional Alliance fails to meet its water use target, each individual supplier will have an
opportunity to meet their water use targets individually.
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 2015 UWMP.
MWDOC provides assistance in the calculation of each retail agency's baseline water use and water use
targets.
arradis.wm 50 B%� 2-13
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
In 2015, the regional baseline and targets were revised to account for any revisions made by the retail
agencies to their individual 2015 and 2020 targets. The regional water use target is the weighted average
of the individual retail agencies' targets (by population). The Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance
weighted 2015 target is 176 GPCD and 2020 target is 158 GPCD. The actual 2015 water use in the
region is 125 GPCD, i.e. the region has already met its 2020 GPCD goal.
ar disxom FdWaIT % w 2-14
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3 WATER SOURCES AND SUPPLY RELIABILITY
3.1 Overview
The City relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its
water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan and OCW D to ensure a
safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and
shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the SWP
provided by Metropolitan.
The City's main source of water supply is groundwater from the OC Basin. Imported water and recycled
water make up the rest of the City s water supply portfolio. Currently, the City relies on approximately 71
percent groundwater, 28 percent imported water, and 1 percent recycled water. The City's water supply
portfolio is expected to change slightly to 70 percent groundwater, 29 percent imported water, and 0.7
percent recycled water by the year 2040. The sources of imported water supply include the CRA and the
SWP. The City's projected water supply portfolio is shown on Figure 3-1.
100%
90% r
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
■Groundwater ■Imported ■Recycled Water
Figure 3-1: Water Supply Sources in the City (AF)
The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the City's water sources as well as the 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.
arcadis.com OI�t 3-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.2 Imported Water
The City supplements its water supply with imported water purchased from Metropolitan. Metropolitan's
principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the CRA and the Lake Oroville watershed in
Northern California through the SW P. The water obtained from these sources is treated at the Robert B.
Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a
blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the Metropolitan Lower Feeder and SWP
water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The City currently maintains seven imported water connections to
the Metropolitan system.
3.2.1 Colorado River Supplies
The Colorado River was Metropolitan's original source of water after Metropolitan's establishment in
1928. The CRA, which is owned and operated by Metropolitan, transports water from the Colorado River
to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The actual amount of water per year that may be
conveyed through the CRA to Metropolitan's member agencies is subject to the availability of Colorado
River water for delivery.
The CRA includes supplies from the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and
related agreements to transfer water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. The 2003 Quantification
Settlement Agreement enabled California to implement major Colorado River water conservation and
transfer programs, stabilizing water supplies for 75 years and reducing the state's demand on the river to
its 4.4 MAF entitlement. Colorado River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water
up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 million acre-feet (MAF) on an as -needed basis. Water from the Colorado
River or its tributaries is available to users in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming, as well as to Mexico. California is apportioned the use of 4.4 MAF of water from the
Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively in
Arizona, California, and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use Colorado
River water apportioned to but not used by Arizona or Nevada. Metropolitan has a basic entitlement of
550,000 AFY of Colorado River water, plus surplus water up to an additional 662,000 AFY when the
following conditions exists (Metropolitan, 2015 UWMP, June 2016):
• Water unused by the California holders of priorities 1 through 3
• Water saved by the Palo Verde land management, crop rotation, and water supply program
• When the U.S. Secretary of the Interior makes available either one or both:
o Surplus water is available
o Colorado River water is apportioned to but unused by Arizona and/or Nevada
Unfortunately, Metropolitan has not received surplus water for a number of years. The Colorado River
supply faces current and future imbalances between water supply and demand in the Colorado River
Basin due to long term drought conditions. Over the past 16 years (2000-2015), there have only been
three years when the Colorado River flow has been above average (Metropolitan, 2015 UWMP, June
2016). The long-term imbalance in future supply and demand is projected to be approximately 3.2 MAF
by the year 2060.
arc dis.wm &VK T36 3-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Approximately 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its tributaries for water with 5.5 million
acres of land using Colorado River water for irrigation. Climate change will affect future supply and
demand as increasing temperatures may increase evapotranspiration from vegetation along with an
increase in water loss due to evaporation in reservoirs, therefore reducing the available amount of supply
from the Colorado River and exacerbating imbalances between increasing demands from rapid growth
and decreasing supplies.
Four water supply scenarios were developed around these uncertainties, each representing possible
water supply conditions. These four scenarios are as follow:
• Observed Resampled: future hydrologic trends and variability are similar to the past approximately
100 years.
• Paleo Resampled: future hydrologic trends and variability are represented by reconstructions of
streamflow for a much longer period in the past (approximately 1,250 years) that show expanded
variability.
• Paleo Conditioned: future hydrologic trends and variability are represented by a blend of the wet -dry
states of the longer paleo-reconstructed period.
• Downscaled General Circulation Model (GCM) Projected: future climate will continue to warm,
with regional precipitation and temperature trends represented through an ensemble of future
downscaled GCM projections.
The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Study) assessed the historical water supply
in the Colorado River Basin through two historical streamflow data sets, from the year 1906 through 2007
and the paleo-reconstructed record from 762 through 2005. The following are findings from the study:
• Increased temperatures in both the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins since the 1970s has
been observed.
• Loss of springtime snowpack was observed with consistent results across the lower elevation
northern latitudes of the western United States. The large loss of snow at lower elevations strongly
suggest the cause is due to shifts in temperature.
• The deficit between the two year running average flow and the long-term mean annual flow that
started in the year 2000 is more severe than any other deficit in the observed period, at nine years
and 28 MAF deficit.
• There are deficits of greater severity from the longer paleo record compared to the period from 1906
through 2005. One deficit amounted to 35 MAF through a span of 16 years.
• A summary of the trends from the observed period suggest declining stream flows, increases in
variability, and seasonal shifts in streamflow that may be related to shifts in temperature.
Findings concerning the future projected supply were obtained from the Downscaled GCM Projected
scenario as the other methods did not consider the impacts of a changing climate beyond what has
occurred historically. These findings include:
ar dis.wm § IJy 3-3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Increased temperatures are projected across the Colorado River Basin with larger changes in the
Upper Basin than in the Lower Basin. Annual Basin -wide average temperature is projected to
increase by 1.3 degrees Celsius over the period through 2040.
Projected seasonal trends toward drying are significant in certain regions. A general trend towards
drying is present in the Colorado River Basin, although increases in precipitation are projected for
some higher elevation and hydrologically productive regions. Consistent and expansive drying
conditions are projected for the spring and summer months throughout the Colorado River Basin,
although some areas in the Lower Basin are projected to experience slight increases in precipitation,
which is thought to be attributed to monsoonal influence in the region. Upper Basin precipitation is
projected to increase in the fall and winter, and Lower Basin precipitation is projected to decrease.
Snowpack is projected to decrease due to precipitation falling as rain rather than snow and warmer
temperatures melting the snowpack earlier. Areas where precipitation does not change or increase is
projected to have decreased snowpack in the fall and early winter. Substantial decreases in spring
snowpack are projected to be widespread due to earlier melt or sublimation of snowpack.
• Runoff (both direct and base flow) is spatially diverse, but is generally projected to decrease, except
in the northern Rockies. Runoff is projected to increase significantly in the higher elevation Upper
Basin during winter but is projected to decrease during spring and summer.
The following future actions must be taken to implement solutions and help resolve the imbalance
between water supply and demand in areas that use Colorado River water (U.S. Department of the
Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, December
2012):
• Resolution of significant uncertainties related to water conservation, reuse, water banking, and
weather modification concepts.
• Costs, permitting issues, and energy availability issues relating to large -capacity augmentation
projects need to be identified and investigated.
• Opportunities to advance and improve the resolution of future climate projections should be pursued.
• Consideration should be given to projects, policies, and programs that provide a wide -range of
benefits to water users and healthy rivers for all users.
3.2.2 State Water Project Supplies
The SWP consists of a series of pump stations, reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, and power plants
operated by DWR and is an integral part of the effort to ensure that business and industry, urban and
suburban residents, and farmers throughout much of California have sufficient water. The SWP is the
largest state -built, multipurpose, user -financed water project in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of
residents in California receive at least part of their water from the SWP with approximately 70 percent of
SW P's contracted water supply going to urban users and 30 percent to agricultural users. The primary
purpose of the SWP is to divert and store water during wet periods in Northern and Central California and
distribute it to areas of need in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley,
the Central Coast, and southern California.
arcadis.com €%OA-3'8 3-0
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The availability of water supplies from the SWP can be highly variable. A wet water year may be followed
by a dry or critically dry year and fisheries issues can restrict the operations of the export pumps even
when water supplies are available.
The Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is key to the SWP's ability to deliver water to its
agricultural and urban contractors. All but five of the 29 SWP contractors receive water deliveries below
the Delta (pumped via the Harvey O. Banks or Barker Slough pumping plants). However, the Delta faces
many challenges concerning its long-term sustainability such as climate change posing a threat of
increased variability in floods and droughts. Sea level rise complicates efforts in managing salinity levels
and preserving water quality in the Delta to ensure a suitable water supply for urban and agricultural use.
Furthermore, other challenges include continued subsidence of Delta islands, many of which are below
sea level, and the related threat of a catastrophic levee failure as the water pressure increases, or as a
result of a major seismic event.
Ongoing regulatory restrictions, such as those imposed by federal biological opinions (Biops) on the
effects of SWP and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) operations on certain marine life, also
contributes to the challenge of determining the SW P's water delivery reliability. In dry, below -normal
conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies delivered through the California Aqueduct by
developing flexible CVP/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 Harvey O. Banks
pumping plant capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic
conditions and regulatory restrictions. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) has set water quality objectives that must be met by the SWP including minimum Delta
outflows, limits on SWP and CVP Delta exports, and maximum allowable salinity level.
Metropolitan's Board approved a Delta Action Plan in June 2007 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 stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid-term
steps to maintain the Delta while a long-term solution is implemented. Currently, Metropolitan is working
towards addressing three basin elements: Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, and
flood control protection and storage development.
"Table A" water is the maximum entitlement of SWP water for each water contracting agency. Currently,
the combined maximum Table A amount is 4.17 million AFY. Of this amount, 4.13 million AFY is the
maximum Table A water available for delivery from the Delta pumps as stated in the State Water
Contract. However, deliveries commonly are less than 50 percent of the Table A.
SWP contractors may receive Article 21 water on a short-term basis in addition to Table A water if
requested. Article 21 of SWP contracts allows contractors to receive additional water deliveries only
under specific conditions, generally during wet months of the year (December through March). Because
an SWP contractor must have an immediate use for Article 21 supply or a place to store it outside of the
SWP, there are few contractors like Metropolitan that can access such supplies. .
Carryover water is SWP water allocated to an SWP contractor and approved for delivery to the contractor
in a given year but not used by the end of the year. The unused water is stored in the SW P's share of
San Luis Reservoir, when space is available, for the contractor to use in the following year.
arcadis.comB IZ 3-5
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Turnback pool water is Table A water that has been allocated to SWP contractors that has exceeded their
demands. This water can then be purchased by another contractor depending on its availability.
SWP Delta exports are the water supplies that are transferred directly to SWP contractors or to San Luis
Reservoir storage south of the Delta via the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant. Estimated average annual
Delta exports and SWP Table A water deliveries have generally decreased since 2005, when Delta
export regulations affecting SWP pumping operations became more restrictive due to the Biops. A
summary of SWP water deliveries from the years 2005 and 2013 is summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Metropolitan Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities
The following factors affect the ability to estimate existing and future water delivery reliability:
Water availability at the source: Availability depends on the amount and timing of rain and snow that
fall in any given year. Generally, during a single dry year or two, surface and groundwater storage
can supply most water deliveries, but multiple dry years can result in critically low water reserves.
• Water rights with priority over the SWP: Water users with prior water rights are assigned higher
priority in DWR's modeling of the SWP's water delivery reliability, even ahead of SWP Table A water.
Climate change: mean temperatures are predicted to vary more significantly than previously
expected. This change in climate is anticipated to bring warmer winter stones that result in less
snowfall at lower elevations, reducing total snowpack. From historical data, DWR projects that by
2050, the Sierra snowpack will be reduced from its historical average by 25 to 40 percent. Increased
precipitation as rain could result in a larger number of "rain -on -snow" events, causing snow to melt
earlier in the year and over fewer days than historically, affecting the availability of water for pumping
by the SWP during summer.
Regulatory restrictions on SWP Delta exports due to the Biops to protect special -status species such
as delta smelt and spring- and winter -run Chinook salmon. Restrictions on SWP operations imposed
by state and federal agencies contribute substantially to the challenge of accurately determining the
SWP's water delivery reliability in any given year.
• Ongoing environmental and policy planning efforts: the California WaterFix involves water delivery
improvements that could reduce salinity levels by diverting a greater amount of lower salinity
Sacramento water to the South Delta export pumps. The EcoRestore Program aims to restore at
least 30,000 acres of Delta habitat, and plans to be well on the way to meeting that goal by the year
2020.
arrzdis.com A OA-40 3-6
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Delta levee failure: The levees are vulnerable to failure because most original levees were simply
built with soils dredged from nearby channels and were not engineered. A breach of one or more
levees and island flooding could affect Delta water quality and SWP operations for several months.
When islands are flooded, DWR may need to drastically decrease or even cease SWP Delta exports
to evaluate damage caused by salinity in the Delta.
The Delta Risk Management Strategy addresses the problem of Delta levee failure and evaluates
alternatives to reduce the risk to the Delta. Four scenarios were developed to represent a range of
possible risk reduction strategies (Department of Water Resources, The State Water Project Final
Delivery Capability Report 2015, July 2015). They are:
• Trial Scenario 1 Improved Levees: This scenario looks at improving the reliability of Delta levees
against flood -induced failures by providing up to 100-year flood protection. The report found that
improved levees would not reduce the risk of potential water export interruptions, nor would it change
the seismic risk of most levees.
• Trial Scenario 2 Armored Pathway. This scenario looks at improving the reliability of water
conveyance by creating a route through the Delta that has high reliability and the ability to minimize
saltwater intrusion into the south Delta. The report found that this scenario would have the joint
benefit of reducing the likelihood of levee failures from flood events and earthquakes, and of
significantly reducing the likelihood of export disruptions.
• Trial Scenario 3Isolated Conveyance: This scenario looks to provide high reliability for conveyance
of export water by building an isolated conveyance facility on the east side of the Delta. The effects of
this scenario are similar to those for Trial Scenario 2 but with the added consequence of seismic risk
of levee failure on islands that are not part of the isolated conveyance facility.
• Trial Scenario 4 Dual Conveyance: This scenario is a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3 as it looks
to improve reliability and flexibility for conveyance of export water by constructing an isolated
conveyance facility and through -Delta conveyance. It would mitigate the vulnerability of water exports
associated with Delta levee failure and offer flexibility in water exports from the Delta and the isolated
conveyance facility. However, seismic risk would not be reduced on islands not part of the export
conveyance system or infrastructure pathway.
DWR has altered the SWP operations to accommodate species of fish listed under the Biops, and these
changes have adversely impacted SWP deliveries. DWR's Water Allocation Analysis indicated that export
restrictions are currently reducing deliveries to Metropolitan as much as 150 TAF to 200 TAF under
median hydrologic conditions.
Operational constraints likely will continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay -Delta is
identified and implemented. New biological opinions for listed species under the Federal ESA or by the
California Department of Fish and Game's issuance of incidental take authorizations under the Federal
ESA and California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and CVP operations. Additionally, new
litigation, listings of additional species or new regulatory requirements could further adversely affect SWP
operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from
storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations.
arcadis.com AX4
1 3-7
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.2.3 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.
Lake Oroville is the SWP's largest storage facility, with a capacity of about 3.5 MAF. The water is
released from Oroville Dam into the Feather River as needed, which converges with the Sacramento
River while some of the water at Bethany Reservoir is diverted from the California Aqueduct into the
South Bay Aqueduct. The primary pumping plant, the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant, pumps Delta
water into the California Aqueduct, which is the longest water conveyance system in California.
3.3 Groundwater
Historically, local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for the City. The
City draws water from the OC Basin. This source of water meets approximately 71 percent of the Citys
total annual demand.
3.3.1 Basin Characteristics
The OC Basin underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The OC Basin
managed by OCWD 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 OC Basin boundary extends to the Orange County -Los Angeles Line to the northwest,
where groundwater flows across the county line into the Central Groundwater Basin of Los Angeles
County. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the OC Basin is over 20,000 feet, with only the upper
2,000 to 4,000 feet containing fresh water. The Pleistocene or younger aquifers comprising this OC Basin
are over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The OC
Basin's full volume is approximately 66 MAF.
There are three major aquifer systems that have been subdivided by OCWD, the Shallow Aquifer System,
the Principal Aquifer System, and the Deep Aquifer System. These three aquifer systems are
hydraulically connected as groundwater is able to flow between each other through intervening aquitards
or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shall Aquifer system occurs from the surface to approximately 250
feet below ground surface. Most of the groundwater from this aquifer system is pumped by small water
systems for industrial and agricultural use. The Principal Aquifer system occurs at depths between 200
and 1,300 feet below ground surface. Over 90 percent of groundwater production is from wells that are
screened within the Principal Aquifer system. Only a minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the
Deep Aquifer system, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the
center of the OC Basin. The three major aquifer systems are shown on Figure 3-2.
aroadis.com WA T42 3-8
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
•fir°� _ �/
J
La Habra.. -.
Brea
KTIDS
`poi • � - A `
/ 1
EARRIER
i
TALBERT
m
a \"4o yS
` 9
FARRIER f afj(j�
10
rya
ouw Fa.a� ir. ..l Pion �WM ane �.rr
N OWOCGmunEwacn4rFaain L.H .a 0. Car
W 3 E r.pua- Hmmon- Ino� pocHv nxnuye racilies
• —ira.m � �i
p a 6
s Fula. a�
�niwLM.6+ gNMawu�.M I C
Figure 3-2: Map of the Orange County Groundwater Basin and its Major Aquifer Systems
The OCWD was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the California State Legislature to protect
and manage the County's vast, natural, groundwater supply using the best available technology and
arcadis.com & U 3-9
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
defend its water rights to the OC Basin. This legislation is found in the State of California Statutes, Water
— Uncodified Acts, Act 5683, as amended. The OC Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which
functions as a statutorily -imposed physical solution.
Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term
sustainability of the OC Basin and to protect against land subsidence. OCWD regulates groundwater
levels in the OC Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping (OCWD, Groundwater Management
Plan 2015 Update, June 2015).
3.3.2 Basin Production Percentage
The OC Basin is not adjudicated and as such, pumping from the OC Basin is managed through a process
that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump a sustainable amount of
water. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing the basin production
percentage (BPP), the percentage of each Producer's total water supply that comes from groundwater
pumped from the OC Basin. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed a Replenishment
Assessment (RA). While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency pumps from the OC Basin,
there is a financial disincentive to pump above the BPP. Agencies that pump above the BPP are charged
the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA), which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater
production is greater than MW DOC's full service rate. The BEA can be increased to discourage
production above the BPP. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers by OCWD on an annual basis.
The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and basin
management objectives. The supplies available for recharge must be estimated for a given year. The
supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: 1) Santa Ana River stormflow, 2) Natural incidental
recharge, 3) Santa Ana River baseflow, 4) GWRS supplies, and 5) other supplies such as imported water
and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. The BPP is a major factor in determining the cost
of groundwater production from the OC Basin for that year.
In some cases, OCWD encourages treating and pumping 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 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 (OCWD, Groundwater
Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015).
3.3.2.1 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan
OCWD was formed in 1933 by the California legislature to manage and operate the OC Basin in order to
protect and increase the OC Basin's sustainable yield in a cost-effective manner. As previously
mentioned, the BPP is the primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping in the OC Basin. In
2013, OCWD's Board of Directors adopted a policy to establish a stable BPP with the intention to work
toward achieving and maintaining a 75 percent BPP by FY 2015-16. Although BPP is set at 75 percent,
arcadis.com =4 w 3-10
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
based on discussions with OCWD a conservative BPP of 70 percent is assumed through 2040. Principles
of this policy include:
• OCWD's goal is to achieve a stable 75 percent BPP, while maintaining the same process of setting
the BPP on an annual basis, with the BPP set in April of each year after a public hearing has been
held and based upon the public hearing testimony, presented data, and reports provided at that time.
• OCWD would endeavor to transition to the 75 percent BPP between 2013 and 2015 as construction
of the GWRS Initial Expansion Project is completed. This expansion will provide an additional 31,000
AFY of water for recharging the groundwater basin.
• OCWD must manage the OC Basin in a sustainable manner for future generations. The BPP will be
reduced if future conditions warrant the change.
• Each project and program to achieve the 75 percent BPP goal will be reviewed individually and
assessed for their economic viability.
The OC Basin's storage levels would be managed in accordance to the 75 percent BPP policy. It is
presumed that the BPP will not decrease as long as the storage levels are between 100,000 and 300,000
AF from full capacity. If the OC Basin is less than 100,000 AF below full capacity, the BPP will be raised.
If the OC Basin is over 350,000 AF below full capacity, additional supplies will be sought after to refill the
OC Basin and the BPP will be lowered.
The OC Basin is managed to maintain water storage levels of not more than 500,000 AF below full
condition to avoid permanent and significant negative or adverse impacts. Operating the OC Basin in this
manner enables OCWD to encourage reduced pumping during wet years when surface water supplies
are plentiful and increase pumping during dry years to provide additional local water supplies during
droughts.
OCWD determines the optimum level of storage for the following year when it sets the BPP each year.
Factors that affect this determination include the current storage level, regional water availability, and
hydrologic conditions. When the OC Basin's storage approaches the lower end of the operating range,
immediate issues that must be addressed include seawater intrusion, increased risk of land subsidence,
and potential for shallow wells to become inoperable due to lower water levels (OCWD, Groundwater
Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015).
3.3.2.2 OCWD Engineer's Report
The OCWD Engineer's Report reports on the groundwater conditions and investigates information related
to water supply and OC Basin usage within OCWD's service area.
The overall BPP achieved in the 2013 to 2014 water year within OCWD for non -irrigation use was 75.2
percent. However, a BPP level above 75 percent may be difficult to achieve. Therefore, a BPP ranging
from 65 percent to 70 percent is currently being proposed for the ensuing FY 2015-16. Analysis of the OC
Basin's projected accumulated overdraft, the available supplies to the OC Basin (assuming average
hydrology) and the projected pumping demands indicate that this level of pumping can be sustained for
2015-16 without harming the OC Basin.
amadis.com fli4k 3-11
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A BPP of 70 percent corresponds to approximately 320,000 AF of groundwater production including
22,000 AF of groundwater production above the BPP to account for several groundwater quality
enhancement projects discussed earlier.
In FY 2015-16 additional production of approximately 22,000 AF above the BPP will be undertaken by the
City of Tustin, City of Garden Grove, Mesa Water District, and Irvine Ranch Water District. These
agencies use the additional pumping allowance in order to accommodate groundwater quality
improvement projects. As in prior years, production above the BPP from these projects would be partially
or fully exempt from the BEA as a result of the benefit provided to the OC Basin by removing poor -quality
groundwater and treating it for beneficial use (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer's Report, February 2015).
3.3.3 Groundwater Recharge Facilities
Recharging water into the OC Basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping
from the OC Basin. Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown
of the OC Basin and consequently the threat of seawater intrusion. The OC Basin's primary source of
recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River, which is diverted into recharge basins and its main Orange
County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration, recycled
water, and imported water. Natural recharge consists of subsurface inflow from local hills and mountains,
infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater
underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean.
Recycled water for the OC Basin is from two sources. The main source of recycled water is from the
GWRS and is recharged in the surface water system and the Talbert Seawater Barrier. The second
source of recycled water is the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility which supplies water to the
Alamitos Seawater Barrier. Injection of recycled water into these barriers is an effort by OCWD to control
seawater intrusion into the OC Basin. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to
seawater intrusion.
Untreated imported water can be used to recharge the OC Basin through the surface water recharge
system in multiple locations, such as Anaheim Lake, Santa Ana River, Irvine Lake, and San Antonio
Creek. Treated imported water can be used for in -lieu recharge, as was performed extensively from 1977
to 2007 (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015).
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 OC 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 surface
water is available. This program indirectly replenishes the OC 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.
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 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.
arcadis.com 95A-4'6 3-12
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program
Since 2004, OCWD and certain groundwater producers have participated in Metropolitan's Conjunctive
Use Program (CUP). This program allows for the storage of Metropolitan water in the OC Basin. The
existing Metropolitan program provides storage up to 66,000 AF of water in the OC Basin in exchange for
Metropolitan's contribution to improvements in basin management facilities. These improvements include
eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the seawater intrusion barrier, and construction
of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline. The water is accounted for via the CUP program administered by the
wholesale agencies and is controlled by Metropolitan such that it can be withdrawn over a three-year time
period (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer's Report, February 2015).
3.3.6 Groundwater Historical Extraction
The City pumps groundwater through its twenty operating groundwater wells. A summary of the
groundwater volume pumped by the City is shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF)
3.3.7 Overdraft Conditions
Annual groundwater basin overdraft, as defined in OCWD's Act, is the quantity by which production of
groundwater supplies exceeds natural replenishment of groundwater supplies during a water year. This
difference between extraction and replenishment can be estimated by determining the change in volume
of groundwater in storage that would have occurred had supplemental water not been used for any
groundwater recharge purpose, including seawater intrusion protection, advanced water reclamation, and
the in -Lieu Program.
The annual analysis of basin storage change and accumulated overdraft for water year 2013-14 has been
completed. Based on the three -layer methodology, an accumulated overdraft of 342,000 AF was
calculated for the water year ending June 30, 2014. The accumulated overdraft for the water year ending
June 30, 2013 was 242,000 AF, which was also calculated using the three -layer storage method.
Therefore, an annual decrease of 100,000 AF in stored groundwater was calculated as the difference
between the June 2013 and June 2014 accumulated overdrafts (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer's Report,
February 2015).
3.4 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
The actual sources and volume of water for the year 2015 is displayed in Table 3-3.
arr dis.mrn M4 3-13
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual (AF)
SuppliesY&tail: Water
Water Su
Additional Detail on
2015
Water Supply
Actual Volume
Water
Quality
Groundwater
Orange County
26,351
Drinking
Groundwater Basin
Water
Purchased or Imported Water
Metropolitan
10,305
Drinking
Water
Recycled Water
Green Acres Project
352
Recycled
(OCWD)
Water
Total
37,007
NOTES:
arradis.com OA)T4t 3-14
z
a
z
W
2
W
(7
z
w
W
Q
z
m
Of
D
p
N
T
cu
"E
m
m
o
a
m a
c '° 6
N
O
tea
O
N
N
m
Q �
d'
T
Ln
� v
Ln
m
00
m
e 0
m
IR
N
m
N
> j
ry
m
m
N
E
N
O1
n
n
p
al
00
m
C m J
0
b
N
a
N
N> 0
N
'-I
m
tUY)I
O! Q
C'
� (U 01
N
C.. m E
O
M
00
VI
ry
m
n
N
N, > 0
N
' -I
al
Q
T
0
N U
m
00
C
N
C
m
W
N
N
m
O
m
0
p
Q 7
In
N
N
m
C
0
C
ii
m
0
v m
Tm
a
�
m
�
a
0
3O
u
0 m
m y
a
Q p
to
0
c�
Q
i 0
y
N U
Ol7
�C7O
m
00
a
E
Y
y
�
N
�
�
3
v
�
v
J
L
`
U
T
W
O`
J
N
z
O
o_
z
z
LO
A
0
a
U
a
55A-49
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.5 Recycled Water
The City receives recycled water from the Green Acres Project (GAP) that is used for non -potable
applications. More information concerning the City's recycled water usage can be found in Section 6.
3.6 Supply Reliability
3.6.1 Overview
Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of their 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 ensure it has adequate supplies.
Development of numerous local augment 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 2015 UWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet, full -service demands of its member
agencies starting 2020 through 2040 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years.
Metropolitan's 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resources
that will be used to meet full -service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic
conditions from 2020 through 2040. 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.
3.6.2 Factors Impacting Reliability
The Act requires a description of water supply reliability and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage.
The City's ability to meet supply demands is contingent upon its ability to maintain its water production
assets in proper working order. In addition, the following are some of the factors identified by Metropolitan
that may have an impact on the reliability of Metropolitan supplies.
3.6.2.1 Environment
Endangered species protection needs in the Delta have resulted in operational constraints to the SWP
system, as mentioned previously in the State Water Project Supplies section.
3.6.2.2 Legal
The addition of more 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.
arcadis.com
ETdo 3-16
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.6.2.3 Water Quality
3.6.2.3.1 Imported Water
Metropolitan is responsible for providing high quality potable water throughout its service area. Over
300,000 water quality tests are performed per year on Metropolitan's water to test for regulated
contaminants and additional contaminants of concern to ensure the safety of its waters. Metropolitan's
supplies originate primarily from the CRA and from the 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 water sources face individual water quality issues of concern. The CRA water
source contains higher total dissolved solids (TDS) and the SWP contains higher levels of organic matter,
lending to the formation of disinfection byproducts. To remediate the CRA's high level of salinity and the
SWP's high level of organic matter, Metropolitan blends CRA and SWP supplies and has upgraded all of
its treatment facilities to include ozone treatment processes. 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 (PPCP). While
unforeseeable water quality issues could alter reliability, Metropolitan's current strategies ensure the
deliverability of high quality water.
The presence of Quagga Mussels in water sources is a water quality concern. Quagga Mussels are an
invasive species that was first discovered in 2007 at Lake Mead, on the Colorado River. This species of
mussels form massive colonies in short periods of time, disrupting ecosystems and blocking water
intakes. They are capable of causing significant disruption and damage to water distribution systems.
Controlling the spread and impacts of this invasive species within the CRA requires extensive
maintenance and results in reduced operational flexibility. It also resulted in Metropolitan eliminating
deliveries of CRA water into Diamond Valley Lake to keep the reservoir free from Quagga Mussels.
3.6.2.3.2 Groundwater
OCWD is responsible for managing the OC Basin. To maintain groundwater quality, OCWD conducts an
extensive monitoring program that serves to manage the OC Basin's groundwater production, control
groundwater contamination, and comply with all required laws and regulations. A network of nearly 700
wells provides OCWD a source for samples, which are tested for a variety of purposes. OCWD collects
600 to 1,700 samples each month to monitor OC Basin water quality. These samples are collected and
tested according to approved federal and state procedures as well as industry -recognized quality
assurance and control protocols.
Salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of southern California, including Orange
County. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water including both TDS and nitrates.
OCWD continuously monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the OC Basin. TDS currently has a
California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 500 mg/L. The portions of the OC Basin with
the highest levels are generally located in the Cites of Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and
Fullerton. There is also a broad area in the central portion of the OC Basin where TDS ranges from 500 to
700 mg/L. Sources of TDS include the water supplies used to recharge the OC Basin and from onsite
amadis.com �-1J�
� M 3-17
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
wastewater treatment systems, also known as septic systems. The TDS concentration in the OC Basin is
expected to decrease over time as the TDS concentration of GWRS water used to recharge the OC Basin
is approximately 50 mg/L.
Nitrates are one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies, originating
from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. The MCL for nitrate
in drinking water is set at 10 mg/L. OCWD regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with
producers to treat wells that have exceeded safe levels of nitrate concentrations. OCWD manages the
nitrate concentration of water recharged by its facilities to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater.
This includes the operation of the Prado Wetlands, which was designed to remove nitrogen and other
pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted to be percolated into OCWD's surface
water recharge system.
Although water from the Deep Aquifer System is of very high quality, it is amber -colored and contains a
sulfuric odor due to buried natural organic material. These negative aesthetic qualities require treatment
before use as a source of drinking water. The total volume of the amber -colored groundwater is estimated
to be approximately 1 MAF.
Other contaminants that OCWD monitors within the OC Basin include:
• Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) — MTBE is an additive to gasoline that increases octane ratings
but became a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. The greatest source of MTBE
contamination comes from underground fuel tank releases. The primary MCL for MTBE in drinking
water is 13 pg/L.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) — VOCs come from a variety of sources including industrial
degreasers, paint thinners, and dry cleaning solvents. Locations of VOC contamination within the OC
Basin include the former El Toro marine Corps Air Station, the Shall Aquifer System, and portions of
the Principal Aquifer System in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim.
• NDMA— NDMA is a compound that can occur in wastewater that contains its precursors and is
disinfected via chlorination and/or chloramination. It is also found in food products such as cured
meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 ng/L and
the Response Level is 300 ng/L. In the past, NDMA has been found in groundwater near the Talbert
Barrier, which was traced to industrial wastewater dischargers.
• 1,4-Dioxane — 1,4-Dioxane is a suspected human carcinogen. It is used as a solvent in various
industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes.
• Perchlorate — Perchlorate enters groundwater through application of fertilizer containing perchlorate,
water imported from the Colorado River, industrial or military sites that have perchlorate, and natural
occurrence. Perchlorate was not detected in 84 percent of the 219 production wells tested between
the years 2010 through 2014.
• Selenium — Selenium is a naturally occurring micronutrient found in soils and groundwater in the
Newport Bay watershed. The bio-accumulation of selenium in the food chain may result in
deformities, stunted growth, reduced hatching success, and suppression of immune systems in fish
and wildlife. Management of selenium is difficult as there is no off -the -shelf treatment technology
available.
arcadis.com
vff,Vk 3-18
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Constituents of Emerging Concern (CEC) — CECs are either synthetic or naturally occurring
substances that are not currently regulated in water supplies or wastewater discharged but can be
detected using very sensitive analytical techniques. The newest group of CECs include
pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors. OCWD's laboratory is one of a
few in the state of California that continuously develops capabilities to analyze for new compounds
(OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015).
3.6.2.4 Climate Change
Changing climate patterns are expected to shift precipitation patterns and affect water supply.
Unpredictable weather patterns will make water supply planning more challenging. The areas of concern
for California include a reduction in Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack, increased intensity and frequency
of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels causing increased risk of Delta levee failure, seawater
intrusion of coastal groundwater basins, and potential cutbacks on the SWP and CVP. The major impact
in California is that without additional surface storage, the earlier and heavier runoff (rather than
snowpack retaining water in storage in the mountains), will result in more water being lost to the oceans.
A heavy emphases on storage is needed in the State of California.
In addition, the Colorado River Basin supplies have been inconsistent since about the year 2000,
resulting in 13 of the last 16 years of the upper basin runoff being below normal. Climate models are
predicting a continuation of this pattern whereby hotter and drier weather conditions will result in
continuing lower runoff.
Legal, environmental, and water quality issues may have impacts on Metropolitan supplies. It is felt,
however, that climatic factors would have more of an impact than legal, water quality, and environmental
factors. Climatic conditions have been projected based on historical patterns but severe pattern changes
are still a possibility in the future.
3.6.3 Normal -Year Reliability Comparison
The water demand forecasting model developed for the OC Reliability Study (described in Section 2.4.1),
to project the 25-year demand for Orange County water agencies, also isolated the impacts that weather
and future climate can have on water demand through the use of a statistical model. The explanatory
variables of population, temperature, precipitation, unemployment rate, drought restrictions, and
conservation measures were used to create the statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather
condition are reflected as a percentage increase in water demands from the average condition. The
average (normal) demand is represented by the average water demand of 1990 to 2014 (CDM Smith,
Final Technical Memorandum #1 of Orange County Reliability Study, April 2016).
The City is 100 percent reliable for normal year demands from 2020 through 2040. The City has
entitlements to receive imported water from Metropolitan via the regional distribution system. Although
pipeline and connection 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 are assumed available to the City from existing water transmission facilities. The
demand and supplies listed below also include local groundwater supplies that are available to the City
through OCWD by a pre -determined pumping percentage.
arcadis.com d�/"��:l'��
' 3-19
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.6.4 Single -Dry Year Reliability Comparison
A single -dry year is defined as a single year of no to minimal rainfall within a period that average
precipitation is expected to occur. The water demand forecasting model developed for the OC Reliability
Study (described in Section 2.4.1) isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water
demand through the use of a statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a
percentage increase in water demands from the average condition (1990-2014). For a single dry year
condition (FY2013-14), the model projects a six percent increase in demand for the OC Basin area where
the City's service area is located (CDM Smith, Final Technical Memorandum #1 of Orange County
Reliability Study, April 2016). Detailed information of the model is included in Appendix G.
The City has documented that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2020 through
2040 with a demand increase of six percent from normal demand with significant reserves held by
Metropolitan, local groundwater supplies, and conservation.
3.6.5 Multiple -Dry Year Period Reliability Comparison
Multiple -dry years are defined as three or more consecutive years with minimal rainfall within a period of
average precipitation. The water demand forecasting model developed for the OC Reliability Study
(described in Section 2.4.1) isolated the impacts that weather and future climate can have on water
demand through the use of a statistical model. The impacts of hot/dry weather condition are reflected as a
percentage increase in water demands from the average condition (1990-2014). For a single dry year
condition (FY2013-14), the model projects a six percent increase in demand for the OC Basin area where
the City's service area is located (CDM Smith, Final Technical Memorandum #1 of Orange County
Reliability Study, April 2016). It is conservatively assumed that a three-year multi dry year scenario is a
repeat of the single dry year over three consecutive years (FY 2011-12 through FY 2013-14).
The City is capable of meeting all customers' demands with significant reserves held by Metropolitan,
local groundwater supplies, and conservation in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040 with a
demand increase of six percent from normal demand with significant reserves held by Metropolitan, local
groundwater supplies, and conservation. The basis of the water year is displayed in Table 3-5.
arcadis.com
RXIV 3-20
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 3-5: Basis of Water Year Data
Retail: 6asts
Xvailable
Year
Supplies if
Type, Repeats
Quantification of available
supplies is not compatible with
this table and is provided
elsewhere in the UWMP.
El
Year Type
Base Year
Location
Quantification of available
supplies is provided in this
❑d
table as either volume only,
percent only, or both.
Volume Available
% of Average Supply
Average Year
1990-2014
100%
Single -Dry Year
2014
106%
Multiple -Dry Years 1st Year
2012
106%
Multiple -Dry Years 2nd Year
2013
106%
Multiple -Dry Years 3rd Year
2014
106%
NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology
3.7 Supply and Demand Assessment
A comparison between the supply and the demand for projected years between 2020 and 2040 is shown
in Table 3-6. As stated above, the available supply will meet projected demand due to diversified supply
and conservation measures.
Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)
NormalRetalk
e and
2020
Demand Comparison
2025 1 2030
2035
2040
Supply totals
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
Demand totals
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
Difference
0
0
0
0
0
NOTES:
A comparison between the supply and the demand in a single dry year and multiple dry years are shown
in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 respectively. As stated above, the available supply will meet projected demand due
to diversified supply and conservation measures.
arcadis.com
Mribb 3-21
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)
Single Dry
SupplyRetail:
-Year
2020
. Demand Comparison
1 2025 1 2030
2035
2040
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Demand totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,37
442,438
Difference
0
0
0
0
0
NOTES: Developed
by MWDOC as 2015
Bump Methodology
Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)
Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply
and-D�emancl
2020
Cornpaei.son,
2025
2030
2035
2040
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
First year
Demand totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Difference
0
0
0
0
0
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Second year
Demand totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Difference
0
0
0
0
0
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Third year
Demand totals
39,218
42,1OD
42,388
42,377
42,438
Difference 1
0
0 1
0
0
0
NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology
armclis,com
Mitt 3-22
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The Demand Management Measures (DMM) section provides a comprehensive description of the water
conservation programs that a supplier has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans to
implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets. The reporting requirements for DMM
were significantly modified and streamlined in 2014 by Assembly Bill 2067. For a retail agency such as
the City the requirements changed from having 14 specific measures to six more general requirements
plus an "other" category.
4.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
The City Council adopted the Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program Ordinance No. NS-2877
on May 19, 2015. Ordinance No. NS-2877 establishes permanent water conservation requirements and
prohibition against waste that are effective at all times and is not dependent upon a water shortage for
implementation, as follows:
• No washing down hard or paved surfaces
• Limit on watering hours
• Re -circulating water required for water fountains and decorative water features
• Drinking water served upon request only
• Limits on washing vehicles
• Commercial lodging establishments must provide guests option to decline daily linen services
• Restaurants required to use water conserving dish wash spray valves
• Obligation to fix leaks, break, or malfunctions
• No installation of single pass cooling systems
• Commercial car wash systems
• No excessive water flow or runoff
• No installation of non -recirculating water systems in commercial car wash and laundry systems
• No watering during or within 48 hours of measurable rainfall
No irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians with potable water
• Limit on irrigation with potable water of landscapes outside of new construction
In an event of a water supply shortage, the ordinance further establishes three levels of water supply
shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage or declared water
shortage emergency, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought or
emergency conditions and decreasing supplies. The provisions and water conservation measures to be
implemented in response to each shortage level are described in Section 5 of the UW MP. The City's
Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program Ordinance is included in Appendix D.
arcadis.com
gIb� 4-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 4-1 summarizes the City's water waste prohibition efforts in the past five years and the projected
number of sit visits and expenditures related to the Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program.
Table 4-1: Water Waste Prohibition
The City maintains active water wasting prohibition measures at all times and has the ability to implement
additional measures as water conservation needs dictate (see Table 5.3 in Section 5-5). In 2015, as a
result of the Governor's drought mandates, the City began to track its water wasting prohibition
enforcement activities. On June 2, 2015 the City declared a Phase 2 water supply shortage in Resolution
No. 2015-025 by formally requiring all water consumers to reduce use by 12 percent relative to their 2013
consumption. Additionally, on August 4, 2015, a water wasting penalty rate was established by Resolution
No. 2015-047. This new penalty rate permits City staff to penalize those users not meeting their water use
reduction targets of 12 percent. The City of Santa Ana as a whole has been meeting its State mandated
target; as a result the City has yet to impose any monetary penalties on any of its users.
The City has communicated the water wasting prohibitions and water conservation measures via various
communication outlets available including messaging on water bills, bill inserts, bill envelopes, the City
website, bus shelter advertisements, City newsletters, pole banners across the City, and a water
conservation booth at community events. As a result, in 2015 the City received 1,064 water waster
complaints: a dramatic increase from prior years. The City intends to continue both its water waste
enforcement efforts and water conservation messaging in the future; however, the intensity of both
activities will be directly related to the level of water conservation required to meet stated use reductions.
4.2 Metering
The City requires individual metering for all new connections and bills by volume -of -use. All existing
connections are metered.
arr disxom U
9�AIOv 4-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has a meter replacement and calibration program in place. The program is focused on replacing
aging meters and those with high use. The City's meter calibration program is customer driven and is
focused on testing meters at the request of customers. The City plans to expand the meter replacement
and calibration program in the next five years by the implementing and deploying Automated Meter
Infrastructure (AMI) and a proactive calibration and testing program focused on periodically testing high
use meters.
In accordance with the City's municipal code, all new development with over 1,000 square feet of
landscape requires the installation of dedicated landscape meters. The City has also adopted a policy
requiring individual metering of all users such as individual tenants of commercial plazas, residential
condominiums, and apartments.
4.3 Conservation Pricing
There are two parts to the City's water service charges: a fixed Basic Service Charge and a variable
Commodity Charge. The Basic Service Charge is a fixed amount based on the connection's meter size
and is billed bi-monthly. The Commodity Charge is determined by the amount of water served to the
property and is measured in hundred cubic feet (HCF). The City also provides private fire water service
and recycled water to specific customers and also has a Private Fire Service Charge and a Recycled
Water Commodity Charge.
The City's current Commodity Charge rates, effective from July 1, 2015 until July 1, 2016, were approved
on February 17, 2015 and are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Water Rates Effective July 1, 2015
4.4 Public Education and Outreach
Part of the City's public education and outreach program is administered by MWDOC, although the City is
not one of its retail agencies. MWDOC has established an extensive public education and outreach
program to assist retail agencies in Orange County to promote water use efficiency awareness within
their service areas. MWDOC's public education and outreach programs consist of five primary activities
as described below.
In addition to the primary programs it administers, MWDOC also maintains a vibrant public website
(www.mwdoc.com) as well as a social media presence on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. MWDOC's
Facebook page has more than 1,200 followers. The social media channels are used to educate the public
about water -efficiency, rates and other water -related issues.
arradisxom :' B
dam! 1 Ibb 4-3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
MWDOC's public education and outreach programs are described below:
School Education Programs
MWDOC school education programs reach more than 100,000 students per year. The program is broken
into elementary and high school components.
• Elementary School Program reaches 60,000 students throughout Orange County through assemblies
hosted by the Discovery Science Center. MWDOC holds a $220,000 contract with the Discovery
Science Center, funded proportionally by the participating MWDOC retail agencies.
• High School Program is new in 2015-16 and will reach students in 20 high schools in Orange County.
The program is administered by MWDOC and operated by two contractors, the OC Department of
Education and the Ecology Center. Through the three-year contract, those agencies will train more
than 100 county teachers on water education on topics such as, water sources, water conservation,
water recycling, watersheds, and ecological solutions for the benefit of their current and future
students. Teachers will learn a variety of water conservation methods, such as irrigation technology,
rainwater harvesting, water recycling, and water foot -printing through a tour at the Ecology Center
facility. These trainings allow teachers to support student -led conservation efforts. The program will
reach a minimum of 25,000 students by providing in -classroom water education and helping students
plan and implement campus wide "Water Expos" that will allow peer -to -peer instruction on water
issues. The $80,000 program is funded by participating agencies.
Value of Water Communication Program
MWDOC administers this program on behalf of 14 agencies. The $190,000 program involves the water
agencies developing 30 full news pages that will appear weekly in the Orange County Register, the
largest newspaper in the county, with a Sunday readership of 798,000. The campaign will educate OC
residents and business leaders on water infrastructure issues and water efficiency measures, as well as
advertise water related events and other pertinent information.
Quarterly Water Policy Dinners
The Water Policy Dinner events attract 225 to 300 water and civic leaders every quarter. The programs
host speakers topical to the OC water industry, with recent addresses from Felicia Marcus of the state
water board and Dr. Lucy Jones, a noted expert on earthquakes and their potential impact on
infrastructure.
Annual Water Summit
The annual Water Summit brings together 300 Orange County water and civic leaders with state and
national experts on water infrastructure and governance issues. The half -day event has a budget of
$80,000 per year. Portions of the cost are covered by attendance and sponsorships, while MWDOC splits
a portion with its event partner, OCWD.
Water Inspection Trips
Water Inspection trips take stakeholders on tours of the CRA, California Delta and other key water
infrastructure sites. The public trips are required under Metropolitan's regulations. Metropolitan covers the
cost of the trips. In the past years, the City participated in trips, each taking an average of 30 residents.
armdis.com
MR5dU 4-4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Organized Community Events
The City participates in many organized community events including the farmer's market, neighborhood
association meetings and various cultural and holiday celebrations such as the Cinco de Mayo and
Independence Day festivals. The City promotes water quality and conservation efforts via the City's Water
Conservation Booth. Staff from the City's water resources division interacts with community members and
provides educational and promotional materials that both promote the high quality of the City's drinking
water and conservation measures.
4.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
Senate Bill 1420 signed into law in September 2014 requires urban water suppliers that submit UWMPs
to calculate annual system water losses using the water audit methodology developed by the AWWA. SB
1420 requires the water loss audit be submitted to DWR every five years as part of the urban water
supplier's UWMP. Water auditing is the basis for effective water loss control. DWR's UWMP Guidebook
include a water audit manual intended to help water utilities complete the AWWA Water Audit on an
annual basis. A Water Loss Audit was completed for the City which identified areas for improvement and
quantified total loss. Based on the data presented, the three priority areas identified were water imported,
billed metered, and unauthorized consumption. Multiple criteria are a part of each validity score and a
system wide approach will need to be implemented for the City's improvement. Quantified water loss for
the FY 2014-15 was 677 AF which is a significant volume and presents opportunities for improvement.
The City completes a system water audit to calculate water losses on an annual basis.
The City's leak prevention and repair program includes an annual commitment to replace aging water
main infrastructure. Leak detection will be a part of the AMI project.
4.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
The City's Water Service Quality Coordinator, a position created in 1991, acts as the water conservation
coordinator. The conservation coordinator is responsible for conservation program activities and acts as a
liaison with MWDOC, Metropolitan, California Urban Water Conservation Council, and others.
The City's conservation coordinator's duties include the following:
• Administer the contracts that the City has with Metropolitan and MWDOC regarding rebate programs.
• Conduct surveys at the request of residential and business customers (or designate a staff member
to do so).
• Coordinate with other agencies and public groups' displays on conservation information and provide
free water conservation materials to the public.
• Monitor the recycled water program for the City.
• Administer the City's education program using contractors or staff to educate children of City schools
or other locations.
The City's water conservation programs are funded by the water ratepayers. The conservation program
efforts are factored into the City's existing and future water rates as currently adopted.
arwdis.com I U
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
5.1 Overview
In connection with recent water supply challenges, the State Water Resources Control Board found that
California has been subject to multi -year droughts in the past, and the Southwest is becoming drier,
increasing the probability of prolonged droughts in the future. Due to current and potential future water
supply shortages, Governor Brown issued a drought emergency proclamation on January 2014 and
signed the 2014 Executive Order that directs urban water suppliers to implement drought response plans
to limit outdoor irrigation and wasteful water practices if they are not already in place. Pursuant to
California Water Code Section 106, it is the declared policy of the state that domestic water use is the
highest use of water and the next highest use is irrigation. This section describes the water supply
shortage policies Metropolitan and the City have in place to respond to events including catastrophic
interruption and reduction in water supply.
5.2 Shortage Actions
5.2.1 Metropolitan Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan
Metropolitan evaluates the level of supplies available and existing levels of water in storage to determine
the appropriate management stage annually. Each stage is associated with specific resource
management actions to avoid extreme shortages to the extent possible and minimize adverse impacts to
retail customers should an extreme shortage occur. The sequencing outlined in the Water Surplus and
Drought Management (WSDM) Plan reflects anticipated responses towards Metropolitan's existing and
expected resource mix.
Surplus stages occur when net annual deliveries can be made to water storage programs. Under the
WSDM Plan, there are four surplus management stages that provides a framework for actions to take for
surplus supplies. Deliveries in DVL and in SW P terminal reservoirs continue through each surplus stage
provided there is available storage capacity. Withdrawals from DVL for regulatory purposes or to meet
seasonal demands may occur in any stage.
The WSDM Plan distinguishes between shortages, severe shortages, and extreme shortages. The
differences between each term is listed below.
• Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full -service demands and partially meet or fully meet interruptible
demands using stored water or water transfers as necessary.
• Severe Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full -service demands only by using stored water, transfers,
and possibly calling for extraordinary conservation.
• Extreme Shortage: Metropolitan must allocate available supply to full -service customers.
There are six shortage management stages to guide resource management activities. These stages are
defined by shortfalls in imported supply and water balances in Metropolitan's storage programs. When
Metropolitan must make net withdrawals from storage to meet demands, it is considered to be in a
shortage condition. Figure 5-1 gives a summary of actions under each surplus and shortage stages when
arcadis.com }� T�
�F1I V 2 5 1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
an allocation plan is necessary to enforce mandatory cutbacks. The goal of the WSDM Plan is to avoid
Stage 6, an extreme shortage.
Figure 5-1: Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, and Supply Declarations
Metropolitan's Board of Directors adopted a Water Supply Condition Framework in June 2008 in order to
communicate the urgency of the region's water supply situation and the need for further water
conservation practices. The framework has four conditions, each calling increasing levels of conservation.
Descriptions for each of the four conditions are listed below:
• Baseline Water Use Efficiency: Ongoing conservation, outreach, and recycling programs to achieve
permanent reductions in water use and build storage reserves.
• Condition 1 Water Supply Watch: Local agency voluntary dry -year conservation measures and use of
regional storage reserves.
• Condition 2 Water Supply Alert: Regional call for cities, counties, member agencies, and retail water
agencies to implement extraordinary conservation through drought ordinances and other measures to
mitigate use of storage reserves.
• Condition 3 Water Supply Allocation: Implement Metropolitan's WSAP
As noted in Condition 3, should supplies become limited to the point where imported water demands
cannot be met, Metropolitan will allocate water through the WSAP (Metropolitan, 2015 UW MP, June
2016).
armdis.com
5-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.2.2 Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan
Metropolitan's imported supplies have been impacted by a number of water supply challenges as noted
earlier. In case of extreme water shortage within the Metropolitan service area is the implementation of its
WSAP.
Metropolitan's Board of Directors adopted the WSAP in February 2008 to fairly distribute a limited amount
of water supply and applies it through a detailed methodology to reflect a range of local conditions and
needs of the region's retail water consumers.
The WSAP includes the specific formula for calculating member agency supply allocations and the key
implementation elements needed for administering an allocation. 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 2015 UWMP.
Metropolitan's WSAP was developed in consideration of the principles and guidelines in Metropolitan's
1999 WSDM Plan with the core objective of creating an equitable "needs -based allocation". The WSAP'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
a number of factors, such as the impact on retail customers, growth in population, changes in supply
conditions, investments in local resources, demand hardening aspects of water conservation savings,
recycled water, extraordinary storage and transfer actions, and groundwater imported water needs.
The formula is calculated in three steps: 1) based period calculations, 2) allocation year calculations, and
3) supply allocation calculations. The first two steps involve standard computations, while the third step
contains specific methodology developed for the WSAP.
Step 1: Base Period Calculations — The first step in calculating a member agency's water supply
allocation is to estimate their 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 supply and
demand is calculated using data from the two most recent non -shortage fiscal years ending 2013 and
2014.
Step 2: Allocation Year Calculations — The next step in calculating the member agency's 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 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.
In order to implement the WSAP, Metropolitan's Board of Directors makes a determination on the level of
the regional shortage, based on specific criteria, typically in April. The criteria used by Metropolitan
includes, current levels of storage, estimated water supplies conditions, and projected imported water
demands. The allocations, if deemed necessary, go into effect in July of the same year and remain in
effect for a 12-month period. The schedule is made at the discretion of the Board of Directors.
Although Metropolitan's 2015 UWMP forecasts that Metropolitan will be able to meet projected imported
demands throughout the projected period from 2020 to 2040, uncertainty in supply conditions can result
arc dis.com j�
9V IV4 5 3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
in Metropolitan needing to implement its WSAP to preserve dry -year storage and curtail demands
(Metropolitan, 2015 UWMP, June 2016).
5.2.3 City of Santa Ana
The City's Water Conservation Ordinance No. NS-2877 was passed by the City on May 19, 2015. The
purpose of the Water Conservation Ordinance is to encourage reduced water consumption within the City
through conservation, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of
water, prevent waste of water, and maximize the efficient use of water within the City. It provides
procedures, rules, and regulations for mandatory water conservation that gain results while minimizing
the effect of a water shortage on the City's water customers.
The City is fully dependent on Metropolitan and OCWD for its water supply. Confirmation of an extended
water shortage emergency would generally be received from one or both of these agencies. An actual
shortage does not have to exist; merely the threat of a shortage is sufficient cause to impose sanctions.
When a water shortage appears imminent, the City Manager notifies the City Council and recommends
holding a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a water shortage emergency exists. If the
City Council determines that a water shortage exists, it then makes the decision as to the appropriate
phase of the Ordinance to implement. There are three Water Shortage Stages that the City can
implement. A summary of the stages of water shortage is displayed in Table 5-1 (Santa Ana, City
Ordinance No. NS-2877, May 2015). The City does not have a set percent supply reduction for each
stage but will determine the percent reduction as it enters into each stage.
Table 5.1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Retail Stages of
WaterShortage Contingency
Plan
Stage
Percent Supply
Water Supply Condition
Reduction
A Phase 1 Water Shortage applies during times of regional
1
U to 10%
p
drought when, in the spirit of cooperation, the City desires
to assist in overall water conservation and water
consumption reduction
A Phase 2 Water Shortage applies during times of regional
2
Up to 20%
drought when, in the spirit of cooperation, the City desires
to assist in overall water conservation and water
consumption reduction
A Phase 3 Water Shortage Emergency applies during times
3
U to 50%
p
of regional drought when, in the spirit of cooperation, the
City desires to assist in overall water conservation and
water consumption reduction
NOTES:
arcadis.mm �+
9mitt 5-4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
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 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 captured in its 2015 UWMP, 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 will be able to maintain the identified
supply amounts throughout the three-year period.
Metropolitan projects reliability for full service demands through the year 2040. 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 Metropolitan's WSAP, the City is
expected to fully meet demands for the next three years assuming Metropolitan is not in shortage, a BPP
of 70 percent for Local Supplies, and zero allocations are imposed for Imported Supplies. The Three Year
Estimated Minimum Water Supply is listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Minimum Supply Next Three Years (AF)
Retail: Minimum Supply Next
Three Years
2016
1 2017 2018
Available Water
38,642
Supply
38,642 38,642
NOTES:
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, the infrastructure in place to deliver supplies are
susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other disasters.
5.4.1 Metropolitan
Metropolitan has comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address a catastrophic
interruption in water supplies through its WSDM Plan and WSAP. 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
arcadis.com CEy��I•//tt���� T,,1
JJA falb 5 5
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
improvement plan to address catastrophic occurrences 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 2015 UWMP.
5.4.2 Water Emergency Response 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, including the City.
5.4.3 City of Santa Ana
The Water Utility's Emergency Response Plan (ERP) identifies the immediate actions that the City will
take to respond, in coordination with the City's Emergency Response Plan, to a declared water shortage.
The City will work in close cooperation with Metropolitan and the Metropolitan Area Radio System
(MARS) Network, an organization of water utilities within the service area of Metropolitan to immediately
contact its customer agencies during an emergency about potential interruption of services. MARS is an
emergency communications system to facilitate the flow of information, control, and exchange of
materials and mutual aid within Metropolitan's service area. Metropolitan and its member agencies
formed MARS to improve emergency response, provide alternate means of communication in
emergencies, and expedite mutual aid. In the case that the Metropolitan Emergency Operations Center
(MEOC) is activated, the MEOC will direct all coordination with member agencies.
The Water Utility's ERP describes the organizational and operational policies and procedures required to
meet the needs of sufficient water for firefighting operations and safe drinking water and provide 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 Water Utility will operate under normal operating procedures until a situation is beyond its control.
This includes implementation of any allocation plan passed on by Metropolitan, and water shortage
contingency plans of OCWD.
If the situation is the Water Utility's control, the Water Operations Center (WOC) may be activated to
better manage the situation. If the situation warrants, the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may
be activated at which time a water representative will be sent to the EOC to coordinate water emergency
response with all other City department's emergency response.
arc disxom
8 !V7 5-6
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.5 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods
5.5.1 Prohibitions
The City's Water Conservation Ordinance No. NS-2877 lists water conservation requirements that will
take effect upon implementation by the City Council. These prohibitions will promote the efficient use of
water, reduce or eliminate water waste, and enable implementation of the City's Water Shortage
Contingency Measures.
Water conservation measures become more restrictive per each progressive stage in order to address
the increasing differential between water supply and demand.
A list of restrictions and prohibitions that are applicable to each stage is shown in Table 5-3 (Santa Ana,
City Ordinance No. NS-2877, May 2015).
Table 5-3: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses
Retail Only: Restridions and Prohibitions
on End Uses
Restrictions and
Penalty,
Stage Prohibitions on
Additional Explanation or Reference
Charge, or
End Users
Other
Enforcement?
This restriction does not apply to situations
Other - Prohibit
where it is necessary to dispose of
Permanent
use of potable
dangerous liquids or alleviate safety or
Year -Round
water for washing
sanitary hazards. Only then may this be
No
hard surfaces
performed by use of a hand-held bucket or a
hand-held hose equipped with a positive
self -closing water shut-off device.
Watering of lawn, landscape or other turf
Landscape - Limit
areas except between the hours of 6:00 p.m.
Permanent
landscape
and 9:00 a.m. is prohibited, except by use of
Year -Round
irrigation to
a hand -water shut-off nozzle or device, or
No
specific times
for very short periods of time for the express
purpose of adjusting or repairing an
irrigation system.
Other water
The use of water to clean, fill or maintain
Permanent
feature or
levels in decorative fountains, ponds, lakes
Year -Round
swimming pool
or other similar aesthetic structures unless
No
such water is part of a recirculating system is
restriction
prohibited.
CII - Restaurants
Permanent
may only serve
Year -Round
water upon
No
request
arcadis.com }�
8� 13a 5 7
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Only:Retail
Penalty ,
Restrictions and
Charge, or
Stage Prohibitions on
Additional Explanation or Reference
Other
End Users
Enforcement?
Other - Prohibit
vehicle washing
Permanent
except at facilities
No
Year -Round
using recycled or
recirculating
water
CII - Lodging
Permanent
establishment
-
No
Year -Round
must offer opt out
of linen service
CII - Commercial
Permanent
kitchens required
No
Year -Round
to use pre -rinse
spray valves
Other - Customers
All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in
must repair leaks,
the water user's plumbing or distribution
Permanent
breaks, and
system must be repaired within seventy-two
No
Year -Round
malfunctions in a
(72) hours of notification by the City, unless
timely manner
other arrangements are made with the City.
Installation of single pass cooling systems is
Permanent
Other
prohibited in buildings requesting new
No
Year -Round
water service.
All commercial conveyor car wash systems
Permanent
Other
must have installed operational recirculating
No
Year -Round
water systems, or must have secured a
waiver of this requirement from the City.
Landscape -
Permanent
Restrict or
Year -Round
Prohibit runoff
No
from landscape
irrigation
Installation of non -re- circulating water
Permanent
Other
systems is prohibited in new commercial
No
Year -Round
conveyor car wash and new commercial
laundry systems.
armdis.com fl 4F
Ibb 5_8
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Retail Only: Restrictions
and Prohibitions
on End Uses
Restrictions and
Penalty,
Stage
Prohibitions on
Additional Explanation or Reference
Charge, or
End Users
Other
Enforcement?
Landscape - Other
The use of water to irrigate outdoor
Permanent
landscape
Year -Round
restriction or
landscapes during or within 48 hours after
No
prohibition
measurable rainfall is prohibited.
Landscape - Other
The irrigation of ornamental turf on public
Permanent
landscape
Year -Round
restriction or
street medians with potable water is
No
prohibition
prohibited.
Irrigation of newly constructed homes and
Landscape- Other
buildings must be performed in a manner
Permanent
landscape
consistent with regulations or other
Year -Round
restriction or
requirements established by the California
No
prohibition
Building Standards Commission and the
Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Watering of lawn, landscape or other turf
Landscape - Limit
areas is prohibited except between the
1
landscape
hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the days
irrigation to
of Monday, Thursday and Saturday. This
Yes
specific days
does not apply to commercial nurseries and
golf courses.
The watering of lawn, landscape or other
Landscape - Other
turf areas of commercial nurseries or golf
1
landscape
courses shall be allowed between the hours
restriction or
of 6: 00 p. m. and 6: 00 a. m. There shall be
Yes
prohibition
no restriction on watering utilizing reclaimed
water.
Other - Customers
All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in
must repair leaks,
the water user's plumbing or distribution
1
breaks, and
system must be repaired within seventy-two
Yes
malfunctions in a
(72) hours of notification by the City, unless
timely manner
other arrangements are made with the City.
Watering of lawn, landscape or other turf
Landscape - Limit
areas is prohibited except between the
2
landscape
hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the days
irrigation to
of Monday and Thursday. This provision
Yes
specific days
does not apply to commercial nurseries and
golf courses.
arcadis.com
dMb 59
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions
on End Uses
Restrictions and
Penalty,
Charge, or
Stage Prohibitions on
Additional Explanation or Reference
Other
End Users
Enforcement?
The watering of lawn, landscape or other
Landscape- Other
turf areas of commercial nurseries or golf
2
landscape
courses shall be allowed every other day and
Yes
restriction or
between the hours of 6: 00 p.m. and 6:00
prohibition
a.m. There shall be no restriction on
watering utilizing reclaimed water.
It is prohibited to use water from fire
hydrants except for firefighting and related
2
Other
activities. Other uses of water for municipal
Yes
purposes shall be limited to activities
necessary to maintain the public health,
safety and welfare.
Other - Customers
All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in
must repair leaks,
the water user's plumbing or distribution
2
breaks, and
system must be repaired with forty -eight
Yes
malfunctions in a
(48) hours of notification by the City, unless
timely manner
other arrangements are made with the City.
Other water
Refilling of more than one foot and initial
2
feature or
filling of residential swimming pools or
Yes
swimming pool
outdoor spas with potable water is
restriction
prohibited.
This does not apply towards the following
circumstances: 1) maintenance of
vegetation that are watered using a hand-
held bucket or similar container or a hand-
held hose equipped with a positive self -
Landscape -
closing water shut-off nozzle or device, 2)
3
Prohibit all
maintenance of existing landscape necessary
Yes
landscape
for fire protection, 3) maintenance of
irrigation
existing landscape for soil erosion, and 4)
maintenance of landscape within active
public parks, playing fields, day care centers,
golf course greens, and school grounds
provided irrigation does not exceed two (2)
days per week.
Other -Customers
' All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in
3
must repair leaks,
the water user's plumbing or distribution
Yes
breaks, and
system must be repaired with twenty-four
arcadis.com
gffi�l 5-10
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Retail Only: Restrictions
and Prohibitions
on End Uses
Restrictions and
Penalty,
Stage
Prohibitions on
Additional Explanation or Reference
Charge, or
End Users
7(2�)
Other
Enforcement?
malfunctions in a
hours of notification by the City, unless
timely manner
other arrangements are made with the City.
No new potable water service, new
temporary meters, and statement of
immediate ability to serve or provide water
service will be issued except under the
following circumstances: 1) a valid,
unexpired building permit has been issued
3
Other
for the project, 2) the project is necessary to
Yes
protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, or 3) the applicant provides
substantial evidence of an enforceable
commitment that water demands for the
project will be offset prior to the provision
of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction
of the City.
NOTES:
5.5.2 Penalties
Any customer who violates any of the Water Shortage provisions will be subject to written warnings, fine,
and possible disconnection of service. The first violation will result in a written notice in the utility bill of the
customer in violation. The second and subsequent violations will result in a written notice and a surcharge
in an amount set by the City Council on the water use in excess of the water allocation requirements.
Customers who have three violations within a 12-month period shall be deemed gross violators and will
be subject to the installation of a flow restrictor device by the City. The charge for installing and removing
a flow -restricting device and any other penalties and charges due to the City shall be paid before normal
service can be restored (Santa Ana, City Ordinance No. NS-2877, May 2015).
5.5.3 Consumption Reduction Methods
Table 5-4 lists the consumption reduction methods that will be used to reduce water use in restrictive
stages.
arcadis.com
flI�� 5-11
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 5.4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods
, I
Only: Stages of Water Shortage
Contingency Plan - Consumption
ReductionRetail
od
Stage
Consumption Reduction
Additional Explanation or Reference
Methods by Water Supplier
1
Other
Phase 1 Conservation Measures
2
Other
Phase 2 Conservation Measures
3
Other
Phase 3 Conservation Measures
NOTES:
5.6 Impacts to Revenue
The actions described above to address a range of water shortage conditions have the potential to impact
the City's revenues and expenditures. To assess these impacts, the City calculated the revenue impacts
resulting from a 10, 25, and 50 percent reduction in sales as compared to a base year that was based on
an estimate of normal year baseline. Other factors incorporated into the analysis included water losses,
pricing structure, and avoided costs. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Revenue Impact Analysis
Water Production
16,294,794
14,665,315
12,221,096
9,147,397
Groundwater(OCWD)
10,591,616
9,532,454
7,943,712
5,295,808
Imported vater(MWD)
5,703,178
5,132,960
4,277,383
2,851,589
Water Loss(HCF)
545,599
480,544
382,963
220,326
Water 5ales(HCF)
15,749,195
14,194,770
11,838,133
7,927,071
Residential
10,511,375
9,460,238
7,893,531
5,255,688
Commercial
4,278,478
3,850,630
3,208,859
2,139,239
City, Other
854,395
768,956
640,796
427,198
Recycle Irrigation
304,947
104,947
104,947
104,947
Tier 1(%)
64%
64%
64%
64%
Tier 2(%)
35%
35%
35%
35%
Recycle Irrigation (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
Tier 1(HCF)
10,079,485
9,078,253
7,576,405
5,073,325
Tier 2(HCF)
5,564,763
5,001,570
4,156,781
2,748,799
Recycled Water(HCF)
104,947
104,947
104,947
104,947
Total
15,749,195
14,184,770
11,838,133
7,927,071
Revenue
Residential
arcadis.cam
I�j J 5-12
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Demand
Baseline
10%
2S%
SOY.
Per 1 Rate ($1
1.14
2.73
2.73
3.73
Tier 2 Rate(5)
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
Recycled Water ($)
2.18
2.18
2.18
2.18
Tier Revenue
27,516,994
24,783,630
20,683,586
13,850,178
Ter Revenue
17,529,004
15,754,946
13,093,860
8,658,715
Recycled Water ($)
228,784
228,784
228,784
228,784
Total
$45,274,782
$40,767,361
$34,006,230
$22,737,678
Fixed Monthly/Bimonthly Charge Revenue
$3,862,450
$3,862,450
$3,862,450
$3,862,450
Total Rate Revenue
$49,137,232
$44,629,811
$37,868,680
$26,600,128
Revenue Last
($4,507,421)
($11,268,552)
($22,537,104)
Variable Costs
Water Producdon(HCF)
16,764,261
14,593,445
12,179,200
8,155,457
Unit Costs ($/HCF)
Purchased Water
$1.03
$1,03
$1.03
$1.03
Avoided Casts
$2,1]0,815
$4,585,061
$8,608,804
Net Revenue Change
(2,336,605)
(6,683,491)
(13,928,300)
Rate Revenue Increase Required
4.99% t
15,74%
39.56%
The following measures can be implemented by the City to overcome each reduction in water sales
scenario outlined above depending on anticipated short-term and long-term financial impacts.
The City can draw needed funds from its emergency operation and maintenance fund, which are kept
in reserve to provide adequate revenue to allow the water system to function for up to 120 days of
normal operations.
• The City can defer non -mission critical capital improvement projects and reallocate the funds to cover
the cost of operations and critical maintenance.
The City Manager can recommend the City Council to declare a water shortage and implement the
City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Depending on the severity of the shortage and impact on
revenue, the City Council may increase water rates, other than Tier 1 Lifeline rates, by an amount
necessary as determined by the City Council. The subsequent rate increases enacted will remain in
effect until such time the City Council declares a water shortage no longer exists.
arcadis.ccm
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.7 Reduction Measuring Mechanism
Under normal conditions, potable water production figures are recorded daily. Weekly 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.
arcadis.com
I=j 5-14
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6 RECYCLED WATER
Recycled water opportunities have continued to grow in southern California as public acceptance and the
need to expand local water resources continues to be a priority. Recycled water also provides a degree of
flexibility and added reliability during drought conditions when imported water supplies are restricted.
Recycled water is wastewater that is treated through primary, secondary and tertiary processes and is
acceptable for most non -potable water purposes such as irrigation, and commercial and industrial
process water per Title 22 requirements.
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. OCWD is the manager of the OC Basin and strives to maintain and
increase the reliability of the OC Basin through replenishment with imported water, stormwater, and
advanced treated wastewater. OCWD and OCSD have jointly constructed and expanded two water
recycling projects to meet this goal that include: 1) OCWD GAP and 2) OCWD GWRS.
6.1.1 OCWD Green Acres Project
OCWD owns and operates the GAP, a water recycling system that provides up to 8,400 AFY of recycled
water for irrigation and industrial uses. GAP provides an alternate source of water that is mainly delivered
to parks, golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. Approximately 100 sites use GAP water, current recycled water users
include Mile Square Park and Golf Courses in Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa Country Club, Chrome
Systems carpet dyeing, Kaiser Permanente, and Caltrans. The City maintains an agreement with OCWD
to supply GAP water to customers where available.
6.1.2 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System
OCW D's GWRS receives secondary treated wastewater from OCSD and purifies it to levels that meet
and exceed all state and federal drinking water standards. The GWRS Phase I plant has been operational
since January 2008, and uses a three -step advanced treatment process consisting of microfiltration (MF),
reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet (UV) light with hydrogen peroxide. A portion of the treated water is
injected into the seawater barrier to prevent seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin. The other
portion of the water is pumped to ponds where the water percolates into deep aquifers and becomes part
of Orange County's water supply. The treatment process described on OCWD's website is provided
below (OCWD, GWRS, 2015).
GWRS Treatment Process
The first step of the treatment process after receiving the secondary treated wastewater is a separation
process called MF that uses hollow polypropylene fibers with 0.2 micron diameter holes in the sides.
Suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria and some viruses are filtered out when drawing water through the
holes to the center of the fibers.
armdis.com
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The second step of the process consists of RO, semi -permeable polyamide polymer (plastic) membranes
that water is forced through under high pressure. RO removes dissolved chemicals, viruses and
pharmaceuticals in the water resulting in near -distilled -quality water that requires minerals be added back
in to stabilize the water. This process was used by OCWD from 1975 to 2004 at their Water Factory 21
(W F-21) to purify treated wastewater from OCSD for injection into the seawater intrusion barrier.
The third step of the process involves water being exposed to high -intensity UV light with hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) for disinfection and removal of any trace organic compounds that may have passed
through the RO membranes. The trace organic compounds may include NDMA and 1-4 Dioxane, which
have been removed to the parts -per trillion level. UV disinfection with H2O2 is an effective
disinfection/advanced oxidation process that keeps these compounds from reaching drinking water
supplies.
OCWD's GWRS has a current production capacity of 112,100 AFY with the expansion that was
completed in 2015. Approximately 39,200 AFY of the highly purified water is pumped into the injection
wells and 72,900 AFY is pumped to the percolation ponds in the city of Anaheim where the water is
naturally filtered through sand and gravel to deep aquifers of the groundwater basin. The OC Basin
provides approximately 72 percent of the potable water supply for north and central Orange County.
The design and construction of the first phase (78,500 AFY) of the GWRS project was jointly funded by
OCWD and OCSD; Phase 2 expansion (33,600 AFY) was funded solely by OCWD. Expansion beyond
this is currently in discussion and could provide an additional 33,600 AFY of water, increasing total
GWRS production to 145,700 AFY. The GWRS is the world's largest water purification system for indirect
potable reuse (IPR).
6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal
The City operates and maintains the local sewer system consisting of over 390 miles of pipeline, 7,630
manholes, and two lift stations that connect to OCSD's trunk system to convey wastewater to OCSD's
treatment plants. OCSD has an extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized
sewers. Collected wastewater is sent to OCSD's plants located in the Cities of Huntington Beach and
Fountain Valley. OCSD's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley has a capacity of 320 million gallons per day
(MGD) and Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach has a capacity of 312 MGD. Both plants share a common
ocean ouffall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all of its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD's
GWRS for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of
Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast.
Table 6-1 summarizes the wastewater collected by the City and transported to OCSD's system in 2015.
No wastewater is treated or disposed in the City's service area as OCSD treats and disposes all of the
City's wastewater.
arcadis.com I'�
66%rj / /�j�j
6-2
r�
5 a
o
ova
m �
Y
z
U
J
\
N
Y N
O1 E
E z
o 6
m Y
Z Z
a a
L
« T �
A u y
Nto N U!
Y
a o
3�oYu
c y
O c Y
o E m
E E, u
N ~
O
U
Z
O
—
N
0
w � O
N N
Nm G
D
D
E v a
00
00
Y W
M
n
O m u
>3v
N
N
6
u
v
O
a,`w c
E
Y Y Y
d
O
E
v
Y U
E
m Lo
m E w
3
u
u C
W N
O O
>
O C
u '—
N `
3
c
Y
c
u
0 co
v i a
c
m a
E
Z
u
u
Z
U
N
U
m
55A-78
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses
The City provides OCWD GAP recycled water to the southern part of the City. In FY 2014-15,
approximately 352 AF of GAP water was used in the Citys service area. The current users/uses of
recycled water are as follows:
• Centennial Soccer Fields
• Bomo Koral Park
• Flower Street Bike Trail
• McFadden Intermediate School
• Adams Park
• Chroma Systems- Carpet Dyeing
• Chroma Systems- Landscape
• Kaiser Medical Office Landscape
• Chick-fil-A Landscape
• Santa Ana River Trail Landscape
• Godinez High School Landscape
• MacArthur Boulevard Median Landscape
• Bear Street Median Landscape
• Thornton Park
• Harbor Boulevard Median Landscape
• Santa Ana Valley High School Sports Complex Landscape
Current and projected recycled water use through 2040 are shown in Table 6-2 and are expected to
remain constant. The projected 2015 recycled water use from the Citys 2010 UWMP are compared to the
2015 actual use in Table 6-3, where the actual use is higher than the projected.
arcadis.com d I b 6-4
z
J
a
r
z
W
2
W
¢
z
w
W
i
z
m
U�
N
0
v
o
o
N
N
M
m
N
M
o
0
p
m
m
N
O
M
O
o
m
m
N
�
N
O
p
p
N
N
N
m
m
O
N
p
O
O
rq
N
M
M
i
p
Ln
N
M
m
0
E
o
p
>
aj
u
u
~
0
O
c
O N
N m h
y Y
`! N
r
d
0O
Vr U
E U
y N
Y V Y �
EO
C
a E S u
0
0
o
u
�
o
0
0
0
¢
o
u
°
'E
v
o
o
Y
a
c
U
c_
to
m
v
u
v
w
3°
0
m
G
E
0
ry-
U
UN
D
`t
v.v
L
F
c
m
¢
J
(D
u
C7
V1
C
Z
0
u
0
2
m
55A-80
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 63: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual (AF)
2010 UWIMIP Recycled Water Use Projection
Use Type
C. .. -.
2010
Projection for
2015
to 2015
2015 actual use
Agricultural irrigation
Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses)
300
352
Golf course irrigation
Commercial use
Industrial use
Geothermal and other, energy production
Seawater intrusion barrier
Recreational impoundment
Wetlands or wildlife habitat
Groundwater recharge (IPR)
Surface water augmentation (IPR)
Direct potable reuse
Other
Type of
Use
Total
300
352
NOTES:
6.4 Potential Recycled Water Uses
Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. Since
OCWD is limited in GAP plant capacity, additional users do not exist at the time and the City does not
expect additional GAP use in the future.
6.4.1 Direct Non -Potable Reuse
The City currently uses recycled water from OCWD's GAP for direct non -potable reuse such as
landscape irrigation.
6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse
The City benefits from OCWD's GWRS system that provides indirect potable reuse through
replenishment of OC Basin with water that meets state and federal drinking water standards.
arcadis.com 88M 1 6-6
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.5 Optimization Plan
Studies of water recycling opportunities within southern California provide a context for promoting the
development of water recycling plans. It is recognized that broad public acceptance of recycled water
requires continued education and public involvement. Currently, most of the recycled water available is
being directed toward replenishment of the groundwater basin and improvements in groundwater quality.
As a groundwater user, the City supports the efforts of OCWD and OCSD to use recycled water as a
primary resource for groundwater recharge in Orange County.
Public Education
The City participates in the MWDOC public education and school education programs that include
extensive sections on water recycling. MWDOC's water use efficiency public information programs are a
partnership with agencies throughout the county.
Through a variety of public information programs, MWDOC reaches the public, including those in the City,
with information regarding present and future water supplies, the demands for a suitable quantity and
quality of water, including recycled water, and the importance of implementing water efficient techniques
and behaviors. Water education programs through MWDOC have reached thousands of students in the
City with grade -specific programs that include information on recycled water.
Financial Incentives
The implementation of recycled water projects involves a substantial upfront capital investment for
planning studies, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), engineering design and construction before there
is any recycled water to market. For some water agencies, these capital costs exceed the short-term
expense of purchasing additional imported water supplies from Metropolitan.
The establishment of new supplemental funding sources through federal, state and regional programs
now provides significant financial incentives for water agencies to develop and make use of recycled
water locally. Potential sources of funding include federal, state and local funding opportunities. These
funding sources include the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), California
Proposition 13 Water Bond, Proposition 84 and Metropolitan LRP. These funding opportunities may be
sought by the City or possibly more appropriately by regional agencies. The City will continue to support
seeking funding for regional water recycling projects and programs.
Optimization Recycled Water Use
In Orange County, recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, businesses, and
communal landscaping, as well as for groundwater recharge. Recycled water users in the City receive
their water from OCWD's GAP. Analyses have indicated that present worth costs to expand recycled
water within other areas of the City are not cost effective as compared to purchasing imported water from
Metropolitan, or using groundwater. The City will continue to conduct feasibility studies for recycled water
and seek out creative solutions such as funding, regulatory requirements, institutional arrangement and
public acceptance for recycled water use with OCWD, Metropolitan, and other cooperative agencies.
arcadis.com WZV2 6-7
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
7 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
7.1 Water Management Tools
Resource optimization such as desalination and IPR minimize the City's and region's reliance on imported
water. Optimization efforts are typically led by regional agencies in collaboration with local/retail agencies.
7.2 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities
Interconnections with other agencies result in the ability to share water supplies during short term
emergency situations or planned shutdowns of major imported systems. The City maintains seven
connections to Metropolitan's system and nine emergency connections with surrounding agencies. These
connections can provide a total supply of 60,580 gpm into the Citys distribution system. The Metropolitan
connections are typically operating as constant flow sources.
The City relies on its wholesalers, Metropolitan and OCWD, to be the responsible parties for negotiating
water transfers and exchanges. Currently, there are no transfer or exchange opportunities.
7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs
The City continually reviews practices that will provide its customers with adequate and reliable supplies.
Trained staff ensures the water is safe and the supply will meet present and future needs in an
environmentally and economically responsible manner. The City coordinates its long-term and water
shortage planning with Metropolitan and OCWD.
Water use efficiency measures described in Section 4 and use of recycled water described in Section 6
have the potential to reduce overall demand. Any new water sources developed will primarily be to better
manage the groundwater basin and replace or upgrade inefficient wells, rather than support population
growth and new development.
The City's Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Capital Improvement Program identifies planned design and
construction projects as described below.
Advanced Meter Infrastructure — replace existing aging meters with new, more accurate meters and
incorporate technological advances in metering technology that allows City personnel and customers to
access real time water consumption data preventing future O&M involved with manual meter readings.
7.4 Desalination Opportunities
In 2001, Metropolitan developed a Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) to provide incentives for
developing new seawater desalination projects in Metropolitan's service area. In 2014, Metropolitan
modified the provisions of their Local Resources Program (LRP) to include incentives for locally produced
seawater desalination projects that reduce the need for imported supplies. To qualify for the incentive,
proposed projects must replace an existing demand or prevent new demand on Metropolitan's imported
water supplies. In return, Metropolitan offers two incentive formulas under the program:
ar dis.mm 8W43 7-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Up to $340 per AF for 25 years, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the
cost of Metropolitan supplies
• Up to $475 per AF for 15 years, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the
cost of Metropolitan supplies
Developing local supplies within Metropolitan's service area is part of their IRP goal of improving water
supply reliability in the region. Creating new local supplies reduce pressure on imported supplies from the
SWP and Colorado River.
On May 6th, 2015, the SWRCB approved an amendment to the state's Water Quality Control Plan for the
Ocean Waters of California (California Ocean Plan) to address effects associated with the construction
and operation of seawater desalination facilities (Desalination Amendment). The amendment supports the
use of ocean water as a reliable supplement to traditional water supplies while protecting marine life and
water quality. The California Ocean Plan now formally acknowledges seawater desalination as a
beneficial use of the Pacific Ocean and the Desalination Amendment provides a uniform, consistent
process for permitting seawater desalination facilities statewide.
If the following projects are developed, Metropolitan's imported water deliveries to Orange County could
be reduced. These projects include the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, the Doheny
Desalination Project, and the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project.
The City has not investigated seawater desalination as a result of economic and physical impediments.
Brackish groundwater is groundwater with a salinity higher than freshwater, but lower than seawater.
Brackish groundwater typically requires treatment using desalters.
7.4.1 Groundwater
There are currently no brackish groundwater opportunities within the City's service area.
7.4.2 Ocean Water
Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project— Poseidon Resources LLC (Poseidon), a private
company, is developing the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project to be co -located at the AES
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 to provide approximately
10 percent of Orange County's water supply needs.
Over the past several years, Poseidon has been working with OCWD on the general terms and conditions
for selling the water to OCWD. OCWD and MWDOC have proposed a few distribution options to agencies
in Orange County. The northern option proposes the water be distributed to the northern agencies closer
to the plant within OCWD's service area with the possibility of recharging/injecting a portion of the product
water into the OC Basin. The southern option builds on the northern option by delivering a portion of the
product water through the existing OC-44 pipeline for conveyance to the south Orange County water
agencies. A third option is also being explored that includes all of the product water to be recharged into
the OC Basin. Currently, a combination of these options could be pursued.
arcadis.com WALV 7-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCWD's current Long -Term Facilities Plan (LTFP) identifies the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination
project as a priority project and determined the plant capacity of 56,000 AFY as the single largest source
of new, local drinking water available to the region. In addition to offsetting imported demand, water from
this project could provide OCWD with management flexibility in the OC Basin by augmenting supplies into
the Talbert Seawater Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion.
In May 2015, OCWD and Poseidon entered into a Term Sheet that provided the overall partner structure
in order to advance the project. Based on the initial Term Sheet, Poseidon would be responsible for
permitting, financing, design, construction, and operations of the treatment plant while OCWD would
purchase the production volume, assuming the product water quality and quantity meet specific contract
parameters and criteria. Furthermore, OCWD would then distribute the water in Orange County using one
of the proposed distribution options described above.
Currently, the project is in the late -stages of the regulatory permit approval process and Poseidon hopes
to obtain the last discretionary permit necessary to construct the plant from the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) in 2016. If the CCC permit is obtained, the plant could be operational as early as
2019.
Doheny Desalination Project— In 2013, after five years and $6.2 million to investigate use of a slant well
intake for the Doheny Desalination Project, it was concluded the project was feasible and could produce
15 MGD (16,800 AFY) of new potable water supplies to five participating agencies. These agencies
consist of: South Coast Water District (SCWD), City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano,
Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) and Moulton Niguel Water District.
Only SCWD and LBCWD expressed interest in moving forward after work was completed, with the other
agencies electing to monitor the work and consider options to subsequently come back into the project
while considering other water supply investments.
More recently, LBCWD has had success in using previously held water rights in the OC Basin and may
elect to move forward with that project instead of ocean desalination. A final decision is pending based on
securing the necessary approvals on the groundwater agreement.
SCWD has taken the lead on the desalination project and has hired a consulting team to proceed with
project development for the Doheny Desalination Project. Major items scheduled over the next year
include:
• Preliminary Design Report and Cost Estimate
• Brine Outfall Analysis
• EIR Process
• Environmental Permitting Approvals
• Public Outreach
• Project Funding
• Project Delivery Method
• Economic Analysis
arcadis.com dibt 7-3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The schedule for this project includes start-up and operation of up to a 5 MGD (5,600 AFY) facility by the
end of 2019. SCWD anticipates leaving the option open for other agencies to participate in a larger, 15
MGD facility, with subsequent permitting and construction of additional slant wells and treatment capacity.
Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project— San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is
studying a desalination project to be located at the southwest corner of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base adjacent to the Santa Margarita River. The initial project would be a 50 (56,000 AFY) or 100
(112,100 AFY) MGD plant with expansions in 50 MGD increments to a maximum capacity of 150 MGD
(168,100 AFY), making this the largest proposed desalination plant in the US.
The project is currently in the feasibility study stage and SDCWA is conducting geological surveys,
analyzing intake options, and studying the effect on ocean life and routes to bring desalinated water to
SDCWA's delivery system. MWDOC and south Orange County agencies are maintaining an interest in
the project.
armdis.mm MU 7-4
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
8 UWIVIP ADOPTION PROCESS
Recognizing that close coordination among other relevant public agencies is key to the success of its
UWMP, the City worked closely with entities such as Metropolitan to develop and update this planning
document. The City also encouraged public involvement by holding a public hearing for residents 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
CoordinationExternal
Date
Reference
5/20/16 &5/27/16
Encouraged public involvement (Public Hearing)
Appendix E
Notified city or county within supplier's service area that water
supplier is preparing an updated UWMP (at least 60 days prior to
3/3/16
Appendix E
public hearing)
Held public hearing
6/7/16
Appendix E
Adopted UWMP
6/7/16
Appendix F
Submitted UWMP to DWR
7/1/16
Submitted UWMP to the California State Library and city or
8/1/16
county within the supplier's service area
Made UWMP available for public review
8/1/16
This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2016. A copy of the adopted resolution is
provided in Appendix F.
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. As indicated in Table 8-2,
the City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange on March 3, 2016 to state that it was in the
process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix E).
arcadisxom d i$fi 8-1
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table 8-2: Notification to Cities and Counties
Retail: Notification
to Cities and Counties
City Name
60 Day Notice
Notice of Public
Hearing
Orange
R
County Name
60 Day Notice
Notice of Public
Hearing
Orange County
0
NOTES:
8.1 Public Participation
The City encouraged community and public interest involvement in the plan update through a public
hearing and inspection of the draft document on June 7, 2016. Public hearing notifications were published
in local newspapers. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix E. 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.
8.2 Agency Coordination
The City's water supply planning relates to the policies, rules, and regulations of its regional and local
water providers. The City is dependent on imported water from Metropolitan, its regional wholesaler. The
City is also dependent on groundwater from OCWD, the agency that manages the OC Basin as well as
provides recycled water in partnership with OCSD.
While the City is not a member agency of MWDOC, it contracts and joins with it in conducting water
education, conservation programs, and other activities as discussed elsewhere in the Plan. MWDOC
provided assistance to the Citys 2015 UWMP by providing data and analysis such as population
projections, demand projections, and SBx7-7 modeling.
I -Mall J1711a6mOTI9fm
8.3.1 Review of 2010 UWMP Implementation
As required by California Water Code, the City summarized Water Conservation Programs implemented
to date, and compared them to those planned in its 2010 UWMP.
arcadis.com Mitt 8-2
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015
Actual Programs
As a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California,
the City's commitment to implement Best Management Practice (BMP)-based water use efficiency
program continues today. For the City's specific achievements in the area of conservation, please see
Section 4 of this Plan.
Comparison of 2010 Projected Recycled Water Use with 2015 Actual Use
Recycled water use for the City in 2015 was about 17 percent higher than previously forecasted for 2015
in the 2010 UWMP, as illustrated in Table 6-3.
8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP
The City Council reviewed the Final Draft Plan on June 7, 2016. The seven -member City Council
approved the 2015 UWMP on June 7, 2016. See Appendix F for the resolution approving the Plan.
By July 1, 2016, the City's Adopted 2015 UWMP was filed with DWR. By August 1, 2016, the City's
Adopted 2015 UWMP was filed with California State Library, County of Orange, and cities within its
service area, if applicable.
arcadis.com Mbb 8-3
2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources, 2015. Urban Water Management Plans, Guidebook for Urban
Water Suppliers.
CDM Smith, 2016. Final Technical Memorandum #1 of Orange County Reliability Study.
Department of Water Resources, 2015. State Water Project Final Delivery Capability Report 2015.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2016. Metropolitan Urban Water Management Plan
2015.
Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015. Orange County Reliability Study.
Orange County Water District, 2014. OCWD Engineer's Report.
Orange County Water District, 2015. OCW D Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update.
Orange County Water District. (2015). Groundwater Replenishment Study [Brochure].
San Diego County Water Authority, 2003. Quantification Settlement Agreement.
Santa Ana, 2003. City of Santa Ana Sewer Master Plan.
Santa Ana, 2015. City of Santa Ana Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2015/2016.
Santa Ana, California, Municipal Code Ordinance No. NS-2877, (2015).
Southern California Association of Governments, 2012. 51h Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Final Allocation Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 2012. Colorado River Basin Study.
Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code § 10610-10656 (2010).
Water Conservation Act of 2009, California Senate SB x7-7, 7 h California Congress (2009).
Water Systems Optimization, 2016. California Department of Water Resources: Water Audit Manual.
arcadis.com WZY0 84
L„ �; ■;�r/m-
UWMP Checklist
Standardized Tables
Groundwater Management Plan
/_\,`a A11I-91!/
City Ordinance
Notification of Public and Service area Suppliers
Adopted UWMP Resolution
..:4
Bump Methodology
AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet
,.,
Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
445 South Figueroa Street
Suite 3650
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel 213 486 9884
Fax 213 486 9894
www.arcadis.com
AARCAD IS I °�9°g��°fancy
fmnaturaland
huiltassets
9 bo
jmf 6110119
RESOLUTION NO.2019-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA APPROVING THE WATER SUPPLYASSESSMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED ELAN MIXED -USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1660
EAST FIRST STREET
WHEREAS, in accordance with Califomia Water Code Sections 10912(a)(1) and
10912(a)(6), any development that is proposing a mixed -use project that includes a
proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units requires the
preparation and approval of a water supply assessment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Elan Mixed -Use Project located at 1660 East First Street
is proposing development of a mixed -use project including 603 residential dwelling units;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Elan Mixed -Use Project therefore requires the
preparation and approval of a water supply assessment pursuant to California Water
Code Sections 10910 and 10912; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is the publicwater system that currently supplies
and will supply water to the proposed Elan Mixed -Use Project; and
WHEREAS, the projected water demand associated with the proposed Elan
Mixed -Use Project was accounted for in the City of Santa Ana 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Water Supply Assessment for the Elan Mixed -Use Project has
been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the findings from the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Elan
Mixed -Use Project show that there is sufficient water supply available for the proposed
Elan Mixed -Used Project during normal, single -dry, and multiple dry years within a 20-
year projection to meet the projected water demand of the Project in addition to the
demand of existing and other planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural
and manufacturing uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana as follows:
Section 1. The Water Supply Assessment for the Elan Mixed -Use Project is
hereby approved, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and will be on file at the offices
of the Public Works Agency of the City for public inspection.
Resolution No. 2019-XXX
Page 1 of 3
Z'ZM6 l,1
jmf 6/10/19
Section 2. Approval of the Water Supply Assessment by the City does not
constitute a "will -serve" or in any way entitles the Elan Mixed -Use Project to water service
or to any right, priority or allocation in any supply, capacity or facility.
Section 3. Approval of the Water Supply Assessment shall not affect the City of
Santa Ana's obligation to provide service to its existing customers or any potential future
customers, including this Elan Mixed -Use Project.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
ADOPTED this day of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
John M. Funk
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT:
Councilmembers
2019.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Resolution No. 2019-XXX
Page 2 of 3
55A-102
!mf 6/10/19
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, NORMA MITRE, Acting Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2019-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Acting Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2019-XXX
Page 3 of 3
55A-103
EXHIBIT A
�IPh� a,„.FUSCOE
E N G I N r E R I N G
ELAN FURIOJECT3
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
City of Santa Ana
County of Orange, California
Prepared For
Santa Anna First Street, LLC
5120 Shoreham Place, #150
San Diego, CA 92122
858.535.1475
Prepared By
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
16795 Von Korman, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
949.474.1960
www.fuscoe.com
Project Manager:
Josh Ruiz
Date Prepared: November 2, 2017
f u 1! C I r c I a P h i 13 ?' r Ir
55A-104
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Elan P
WATER
PLY ASSESSMENT
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
SANTA ANNA FIRST STREET, LLC
5120 Shoreham Place, #150
San Diego, CA 92122
858.535.1475
PREPARED BY:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
16795 Von Korman, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
949.474.1960
www.fuscoe.com
DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017
55A-105
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY A55ESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2a17
1.
WSA PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ............................................ 4
2.
INTRODUCTION............................................................
I........ 6
2.1
Project Description.............................................................................................6
2.1.1
Existing Water Use......................................................................................8
2.1.2
Proposed Water Use.................................................................................10
3.
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS
12
..............................
3.1
City Water Supplies.........................................................................................12
3.2
City Water Demands.......................................................................................18
4.
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ...................................... 20
4.1
Metropolitan Water District regional water supply reliability.................................20
4.2
OCWD and City of Santa Ana Local Water supply reliability................................21
5.
CONCLUSION..................................................................... 27
6.
REFERENCES........................................................................28
7.
TECHNICAL APPENDICES........................................................
29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................7
Figure 2 Existing Land Use Aerial......................................................................................9
Figure 3 Proposed Elan Site Plan....................................................................................I I
FuscOE ENGINEERING, INC.
I
55A-106
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
Table 1 Project Home Type Details...................................................................................6
Table2 Existing Water Demands......................................................................................8
Table 3 Proposed Water Demands.................................................................................10
Table 4 City of Santa Ana Connections to Metropolitan Facilities.......................................12
Table 5 2015 Projected and Actual Water Supply and Demand (Acre-feet).........................13
Table 6 City of Santa Ana Groundwater Production Data 2015-16...................................15
Table 7 City of Santa Ana Projected Total Water Demands...............................................19
Table 8 Metropolitan Multiple Climate Scenario Water Supply Capability and Projected
Demands Comparison from 2020-2040 (AF)..................................................................21
Table 9 City of Santa Ana Multiple Climate Scenario Water Supply and Demand Comparison
from2020-2040(AF)....................................................................................................23
Table 10 City of Santa Ana Ability to Supply the Elan Project.............................................25
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A— Proposed Project Water Demand Calculations
Appendix B — City of Santa Ana Landscape Guidelines
Appendix C—SGMA Basin 8-1 Alternative Plan
FUSCOE ENGINEERING,
55A-107
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AF Acre -Feet
AFY Acre -Feet per Year
BEA
Basin Equity Assessment
BPP
Basin Production Percentage
CDR
Center for Demographic Research
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
Cfs
cubic feet per second
CRA
Colorado River Aqueduct
DU
Dwelling Unit
DWR
Department of Water Resources
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
gpd gallons per day
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
LTFP Long Term Facilities Plan
M&I Municipal and Industrial
MG Million Gallons
OCWD Orange County Water District
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RA Replenishment Assessment
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SAR
Santa Ana River
SB
Senate Bill
SCAG
Southern California Association of Governments
SF
Square Feet
SWP
State Water Project
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
FUsCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
55A-108
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2. 2017
1. WSA PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for Santa Anna First Street, LLC as the project
sponsor/applicant, and the City of Santa Ana ("City" or 'Santa Ana`) as the lead agency under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (Fuscoe), as the
consultant, regarding the Elan Project ('Elan' or 'Project'). This study is a requirement of
California law, specifically Senate Bill 610 (referred to as SB 610). SB 610 is an act that
amended Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, and Sections 10631,10656, 10910,
10911, 10912, and 10915 of the Water Code. SB 610 repealed Section 10913, and added
and repealed Section 10657 of the Water Code. SB 610 was approved by the Governor and
filed with the Secretary of State on October 9, 2001, and became effective January 1, 2002.
Under SB 610, WSAs must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in environmental
documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912 [a]) subject to CEQA. Due
to increased population, land use changes and water demands, this water bill seeks to improve
the link between information on water availability and certain land use decisions made by cities
and counties. SB 610 takes a significant step toward managing the demand of California's
water supply as it provides regulations and incentives to preserve and protectfuture water needs.
The intent of this bill is to coordinate local water supply and land use decisions to help provide
California's cities, farms, and industrial developments with adequate water supplies.
With the introduction of SB 610, any project under CEQA shall provide a WSA if the project
meets the definition of the Water Code Section 10912. 'Project" means any of the following:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons
or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more
than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house
more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than
650,000 square feet of floor area.
• A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount
of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
• If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any
proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that
would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water
system's existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an amount
of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential
development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the
public water system's existing service connections.
After review of Water Code Section 10912, the Elan Project is deemed a'Project' because it
proposes a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
In addition, it is also necessary to include the recent passing (September 24, 2016) of Senate
Bill 1262 (Chapter 594) which acts to amend Section 66473.7 of the Government Code, and
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
55A-109
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2 2017
to amend Section 10910 of the Water Code, relating to land use' and the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) that was passed by California's Governor on
September 16, 2014. Pursuant to SB 1262, as of January 1, 2017, WSAS are now required
to include certain SGMA-related information if water supply for a proposed project includes
groundwater. Specifically, if a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the
following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
• A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be
supplied.
• For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump
groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description
of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required
to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order
or decree.
• For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as high- or medium -
priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following:
o Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions
of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924.
o If a groundwater sustoinability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan
or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan.
• For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as low- or very low priority
pursuant to Section 10722.4, information as to whether the department has identified the basin
or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present
management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that
characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public
water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to
subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term
overdraft condition.
As described in more detail throughout this WSA, the proposed Project will utilize water from
the Orange County Groundwater Basin that is designated as a medium priority basin.
Therefore, additional information regarding groundwater supply and management will be
included in this WSA to satisfy the requirements of SB 1262.
Senate Bill No. 1262, CHAPTER 594, found here:
http://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/biliTextOient.xhtmlEbill id=201520160SB1262
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
55A-110
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Elan Project is a 6.4-acre residential and commercial project located in the City of Santa
Ana. The Project address is 1660 E. First Street, Santa Ana which is located north of E. Chestnut
Avenue, south of E. First St, east of S. Lyon St and west of Elk Ln next to the Santa Ana Zoo, See
Figure 1 fora vicinity map of the proposed Project. The proposed Project will replace an existing
hotel (Elks Lodge) and associated surface parking lot. The northern portion of the Project is
currently vacant.
The Project includes the development of two buildings with 601 residential units comprised of
21 studios, 280 one -bedroom apartments, 256 two -bedroom apartments and 43 three -
bedroom apartments. In addition, 9,519 sf of commercial space will be included that will
provide a live/work opportunity for some of the one -bedroom apartments.
The majority of the parking for the Project will be located within two (2) levels of subterranean
parking structures located below the two residential structures. Amenities of the Project include
fitness/yoga areas, an artist's gallery, a pet spa, courtyards and other lounging areas.
Approximately 56,730 SF of publicly accessible open space is provided through common areas
and courtyards. See Table 1 below for additional specifications related to the proposed Project.
Table i Project Home Type Details
+Home Type
Unit
Count
Average Square
Footage
Percentage of
Total VnIt Count
Peddnp,
Studios
21
576
4%
Parking Garage
One -bedrooms
280
776
47%
Parking Garage
Two -bedrooms
256
1,078
43%
Parking Garage
Three -bedrooms
43
1,303
7%
Parking Garage
Total
601
935
100%
Parking Garage
Notes:
As mentioned, the purpose of this WSA is to provide information to confirm that the City of
Santa Ana has sufficient water supply to provide for the proposed Project in addition to other
service area demands now and into the future. This WSA compares the existing water demand
of the Project site to the proposed water demand of the Project and to the City of Santa Ana
regional water supplies and demands through 2040.
FusCOE ENGINEERING,
55A-111
E-
I
CIO
WE
55A-1 12
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
2.1.1 6ddii g Water Use
As mentioned, the existing land use of the Project is vacant at the northern portion of the Project
with an existing hotel and parking at the middle and southern portions. The Elks Lodge area in
the center of the site covers a footprint of approximately 86,000 sf. The Elks Lodge structures
cover approximately 50,000 SF and has approximately 20,000 SF of existing landscaping. See
Figure 2 for an aerial image of the existing land uses at the proposed Project site.
The water demand factors from the City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer
Facilities (March 2017)' were utilized to establish an estimate of existing water demands at the
Project site. A commercial water demand factor of 2,500 gallons per day (gpd) per acre was
employed to account for Elks Lodge at the existing Project site. In addition, a landscape water
demand factor of 3,000 gpd/acre was employed for the scattered landscaping at the Project
site. See Table 2 below for estimated existing water demands and the Project site.
Table 2 Existing Water Demands
bMng Land
Land Use
Land Use
Water Demand Factor
Eid Watx
0 We1erSquare
Use
Footage .:,
Aawp
{ Wacre) ..
.
Downd t" '
Elks Lodge
50,000
1.15
2,500
2,875
3.22
Landscaped
Area
20,000
0.46
3,000
635
0.71
TOW
7OA00
1.61
--
3,610
3.93
Nolen:
d gallons Per day AFY aoa-feet per year
As shown above, the estimated existing water use at the Project site is approximately 3,510
gallons per day (gpd) or 3.9 acre-feet per year (AFY). An estimated annual difference between
existing water demands and proposed water demands resulting from the proposed Project are
calculated and shown in Section 2.1.2 below.
3 City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities (March 2017). Found here:
http://www.sonta-ano,org/pm/documents/DesignGuidelinw.pdf
FuscOE ENGINEERING, INC.
55A-113
4 . ii�`':. r !"�✓fir/ � 'Y.g. � � -
/ tw ~/ .
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
!'l _•.a _• 1 •,
As mentioned, the proposed Project includes a total of 601 residential units comprised of 22
studios, 280 one -bedroom apartments, 256 two -bedroom apartments and 43 three -bedroom
apartments. Amenities include fitness/yoga areas, an artist's gallery, a pet spa, courtyards and
other lounging areas. In addition, 9,519 sf of commercial space will be included that will
provide a live/work opportunity for some of the one -bedroom apartments. Approximately
56,730 SF of open space is provided through common areas and the court yards. See Figure
3 below for the proposed site plan for the Project.
Total Project residential water demands include estimates of both indoor and outdoor water
demands. Indoor water demands include toilet -flushing, showers, baths, dishwashers, washing
machines, faucets, and leakage. Outdoor water demands include landscape irrigation
estimates. The estimates for residential water demands were developed by following the City of
Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities (March 2017).
Table 3 Proposed Water Demands
LOW Use
"Walx
Persons per DU Project DU
Daily Water Usage
Annual'
Wahr.LUW
Type
Demarldl
Assumptions or acreage
(GPCQ
Studios
g�� Pita
1.27
22 DU
3,353
3.8
One
bedrooms
120
ca
gpd/capita
1.72
280 DU
57,792
64.7
Two-
bedrooms
120
gpd/capita
2.89
256 DU
88,781
99.5
Three-
bedrooms
120
m
gpd/capita
3.80
43 DU
19,608
21.0
Commercial
2,500
gpd/acre
9,519 sf
(0.22 acres)
546
0.6
Landscaped
3,000
56,730 sf
3,900
4.4
Areas
gpd/acre
(1.30 oc)
TOTAL PROJECT WATER DE"D
601. RESIDEMPIL UWRS
173,94apd
194.9 AN
Notes
r City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities (March 2017).
] Modified US Census Assumptions — Utilised from HerBa a Mlzed Use Project in Santa Ana Ouly 2015
As shown, the proposed Project will have an annual water demand of approximately 195 AFY.
This is an increase of approximately 191 AFY as compared to the existing water demands at the
Project site. The following sections evaluates the ability for the City to meet the proposed
increase in water demands.
FusCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 10
55A-115
s
a
0
0
0
0
4
z
�l
-117
r
n
N
z
Q
O
m
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
3. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS
3.1 CITY WATER SUPPLIES
The City's water supply comes from a combination of imported water, local groundwater and
recycled water to satisfy water demands. The City purchases these water supplies from
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and the Orange County Water
District (OCWD). The City is a member agency of Metropolitan and receives imported water
from the State Water Project and the Colorado River under agreements with Metropolitan.
OCWD manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin ("OC Basin" or "Basin") and provides
groundwater resources to the City.
The City maintains 444 miles of transmission and distribution mains, nine reservoirs with a
storage capacity of 49.3 million gallons, seven pumping stations, 20 wells, and seven imported
water connections. The seven imported water connections to the Metropolitan System ore
described in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Clly of Santa Ana ConnO&Ons to Metropolitan Facilities
MWD Conned' on
Ndnie of i onnecNon
Normal Qperating
Ca' (MGD)
1) 1&. Capacity
SA-1
Bristol
5.17
6.46
SA-2
First
5.17
9.69
SA-3
McFadden
5.17
6.46
SA-4
Warner
4.85
6.46
SA-5
Alton
4.85
12.93
SA-6
Santa Clara 1
7.76
12.93
SA-7
Red Hill 1
4.85
32.31
From 2005-2015, Metropolitan delivered between 3,000 AF or 2.6 MGD (2015, lowest
delivery) to 13,000 AF or 11.6 MGD (2005, highest delivery) to the City.' The design capacity
of the Metropolitan connections is more than adequate to deliver imported to the City as shown
in the table above.
The City's Water Utility provides water service within a 27-square mile service area. The service
area includes the City of Santa Ana and a small neighborhood in the City of Orange, near
Tustin Avenue and Fairhaven by the northeast comer of Santa Ana. See Table 5 which shows
the City's recent water supply to satisfy demands from 2015.
12075 Metropolitan UWMP,
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
12
55A-119
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY
NOVEMBER 2. 201
Table 5 2015 Projected andActual Water Supply and Demand (Acre-feet)
Land Use Type: :
yp
2010 UWMP Projected 2015 .
Demand.
Actua12015 Demand
Single Family
18,368
14,084
Multi -Family
13,563
10,399
Other CII
15,684
12,025
Landscape
185
147
Total
47 800
36,666
Notes:
Source: 2010 and 2015 City of Santa Ana UWMPs
As shown in Table 5 above, there was a decrease in water supplied to the City in 2015 as to
what was predicted to be delivered in the 2010 UWMP (47,800 AF) by approximately 23%.
This is likely due to Senate Bill (SB) x7-7 which requires the State of California to reduce urban
water use by 20% by the year 2020 as described in more detail below. Similarly, the Executive
Order mandated by Califomia Governor Edmund Brown in April 2015 in response to the recent
drought further required a collective reduction in statewide urban water use of 25%which would
also reduce Citywide demands. In addition, UWMPs are typically developed in a conservative
manner and tend to overestimate future water demands.
Currently, 71% of the City's water supply is from OC Basin groundwater, 28% is from
Metropolitan imported water and 1 % is from recycled water. The City's water supply portfolio
is expected to change slightly to 70% from OC Basin groundwater, 29% from Metropolitan
imported water, and 0.7% recycled water by the year 2040 as discussed in more detail
throughout this WSA. Additional details on the strategic management of these resources is
explained below.
OCWD Groundwater
The primary source of water for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin ("OC Basin")
which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OC Basin underlies the
north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The OC 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 OC Basin storage capacity is estimated to be 66 million AF", of which only a fraction is
available for use to prevent against physical damage to the Basin such as seawater intrusion or
land subsidence. To ensure the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local
and imported water. The Basin is recharged primarily by four sources including local rainfall,
storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River (SAR), purchased Metropolitan imported water;
and highly treated recycled wastewater. Basin recharge occurs largely in the following recharge
basins that are located in or adjacent to the City of Anaheim:
Warner Basin: A 50-foot-deep recharge basin located next to the SAR at the intersection
of the 55 and 91 freeways;
^ OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. June 17, 2015.
FuscoE ENGINEERING, INC.
13
55A-120
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
• Burris Basin: Located between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road in the City of Anaheim;
• Kraemer Basin: Located adjacent to Burris Pit;
• Santiago Creek: Located in the City of Orange between Villa Park Road and E. Bond
Avenue.
As mentioned above, SB 1262 amended Section 10910 of the Water Code and requires the
inclusion of SGMA-related information in WSAs. Specifically, following the SGMA basin
prioritization and designations', for a non -adjudicated basin that is designated as high- or
medium -priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following must be
included:
• Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions
of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924.
• If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or
has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan.
The OC Basin (also referred to as Basin 8-1) has been designated as a medium -priority basin
which requires this WSA to address or include information regarding the bullets above. As
mentioned, SGMA provides authority for agencies like OCWD to develop and implement
Groundwater Sustainability Plans or alternative plans ("Alternatives') that demonstrate the basin
has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. OCWD decided to
submit an Alternative for evaluation by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).
An Alternative is required to be submitted to DWR for review no later than January 1, 2017,
and every 5 years thereafter. In general, Alternatives must be consistent with one of the following
(Water Code §10733.6(b)):
• A plan developed,pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750) or other law
authorizing groundwater management.
• Management pursuant to an adjudication action.
• An analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin has operated within its
sustainable yield over, a period of at least 10 years. The submission of an alternative
described by this paragraph shall include a report prepared by a registered professional
engineer or geologist who is licensed by the state and submitted under that engineer's
or geologist's seal.
OCWD prepared an Alternative that satisfies the third bullet point above to prove the OC Basin
has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Basin 8-1
Alternative is included in Appendix C of this WSA. The Alternative states that Basin 8-1 has
operated within its sustainable yield for more than 10 years without experiencing significant and
unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality
degradation, (4) seawater intrusion, (5) inelastic land subsidence, or (6) depletions of
interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on
beneficial uses of the surface water. In addition, Basin 8-1 has not been in conditions of critical
overdraft. DWR has one year to evaluate the Basin 8-1 Alterative. The paragraphs below will
' SGMA Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map Application, found here:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 14
55A-121
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
further explain how OCWD successfully manages the OC Basin to meet these new groundwater
monitoring and management requirements.
OCWD manages the Basin through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) which is determined
each water year. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water
supplies, water year precipitation, SAR runoff, and basin management objectives. The BPP
represents an established percentage identifying the amount of groundwater all pumpers in the
Basin can pump without paying a "pumping tax" or Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) to OCWD.
For example, if the BPP is set to 75%, all pumpers within the Basin, including the City, can supply
75% of their water needs from groundwater supplies at a cost significantly less than the cost of
imported water. If groundwater production is equal to or less than the BPP (i.e. less than 75%
in the example above), all producers within the Basin pay a replenishment assessment (RA) fee
which is used to fund groundwater replenishment and recharge programs aimed at ensuring
the long-term viability and stability of the Basin. If groundwater production is greater than the
established BPP for that water year (i.e. greater than 75% in the example above), the BEA is
determined for the producer of that amount of groundwater provided in excess of the BPP. The
BEA is an additional fee paid on each AF of water pumped above the BPP, making the total
cost of that additional water equal to the higher cost of imparted water from Metropolitan.
According to OCWD's Engineers Report for fiscal year 2015/16, the actual BPP was 75% as
shown in Table 6 below. Total water demands within OCWD were 367,402 AF for the water
year (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016). This is the lowest figure for total water demands since
1982 which was caused by the State of California's emergency drought regulations.
Groundwater production for the water year totaled 277,090 AF including any available In -Lieu
Program water and excluding Metropolitan Groundwater Storage Program extractions. A total
of 47,524 AF of supplemental water was used for the purpose of groundwater replenishment
and barrier maintenance. For the water year, the "annual overdraft" (annual basin storage
decrease without supplemental replenishment water) was 141,000 AF. The accumulated
overdraft decreased from 381,000 AF on June 30, 2015 to 379,000 AF on June 30, 2016.
Precipitation within the Basin was 62% of normal rainfall during the water year, totaling 8.40
inches .6 The table below shows the water production data from 2015/16 for the City of Santa
Ana.
Table 6 0y al Santo Ana Groundwater Produdlon Data 2015.16
Groundwatifr, .
5upplemeidal Watar (AF) ":
(/�..
Attu cl.
Oroundwater
... .
PP .
Pnic(ueor
Non- Mt
Irrigation etropolitan Toal
Conservation Total
Delivery
Grand
Non-
Irrigation
CUP
Purnin
Credit
Total
Only
City of Santa
Ana
29,629
4,524
24,745
8,183
83
8,266
33,012
75.0%
Source: OCWD 2015-16 Engineer's Report
Over the recent past, production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased
wastewater reclamation at the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) located in Fountain
Valley. The GWRS, which is designed to turn wastewater into drinking water, is one of the most
6 OCWD. Engineer's Report, 2015/16, February 2017.
FusCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
15
55A-122
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
technologically advanced wastewater treatment plants in the world. Atreatment plant expansion
of 30 million gallons per day was recently put on line by OCWD increasing the recharge
capacity of the GWRS to 100 million gallons per day. This equates to the recycling of over
110,000 AFY of wastewater back into the Basin for future extraction and potable use. A final
expansion of the treatment system is being designed to have a capacity of 130 million gallons
par day. Expansion projects to the GWRS increase local water supply reliability and ensure low-
cost water supplies throughout northern Orange County, including the City of Santa Ana.
Metropolitan Imported Water
The City of Santa Ana is one of only three retail member agencies of Metropolitan in Orange
County. As a member agency, pursuant to the Metropolitan Act, the City has preferential rights
to a certain percentage of water delivered to Metropolitan each year primarily from the State
Water Project and/or the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as other Metropolitan storage
programs. Being a member agency of Metropolitan puts the City in a better position relative to
receiving water directly from Metropolitan, as opposed to other agencies in Orange County
which obtain their imported Metropolitan water through Municipal Water District of Orange
County (MWDOC). The main sources of water Metropolitan provides to the City include water
from northern California delivered via the State Water Project (SWP) and water from the
Colorado River Basin delivered via the Colorado RiverAqueduct. More details on these sources
of imported water are explained below.
Colorado River
The Colorado River was Metropolitan's original source of water after Metropolitan's
establishment in 1928. Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two largest reservoirs in the United
States, can store 4 times the annual flow of the Colorado River. River flows are primarily
generated from snowpack in the Rocky Mountains. Colorado River water is allocated and
delivered to seven states in the US including Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona,
Nevada and California. Mexico also has an allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet (MAF) along the
Colorado River each year.
California's urban water allocation is managed by Metropolitan and imported from the
Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) which is stored at Diamond Valley Lake
and Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The CRA includes supplies from the implementation of
the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements to transfer water from
agricultural agencies in Imperial County to urban uses throughout Southern California including
Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego. The 2003 QSA enabled California to implement
major Colorado River water conservation and transfer programs, stabilizing water supplies for
75 years and reducing the state's demand on the river to its 4.4 MAF entitlement. Colorado
River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water up to the CRA capacity of
1.25 MAF on an as -needed basis.
California is apportioned the largest allocation on the River of 4.4 MAF of water from the
Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively
in Arizona, California, and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use
Colorado River water apportioned to but not used by Arizona or Nevada. Metropolitan has a
basic entitlement of 550,000 AFY of Colorado River water, plus surplus water up to an
additional 662,000 AFY if certain conditions exist. The remainder of California's allocation
FuscOE ENGINEERING, INC.
55A-123
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY AssEssMENT NOVEMBER2 2017
goes to Imperial County, primarily to the Imperial Irrigation District, and is used mainly for
agriculture production.
Over the past 16 years (2000-2015), there have only been three years when the Colorado River
flow has been above average.' The long-term imbalance in future supply and demand is
projected to be approximately 3.2 MAF by the year 2060. Actions are currently being taken
and planned in the future to resolve the imbalance between water supply and demand in areas
that use Colorado River water. Such actions include the resolution of uncertainties related to
water conservation, reuse, water banking, and weather modification concepts.'
State Water Project
The State Wafer Project (SWP) collects water from rivers in Northern California and redistributes
it to the water -scarce but populous central and southern portions of California through a
network of aqueducts, pumping stations and power plants. Approximately 70% of the water
provided by the SWP is used for urban areas and industry in Southern California and the San
Francisco Bay Area, and 30% is used for irrigation in the Central Valley. The availability of
water supplies from the SWP can be highly variable. A wet water year may be followed by a dry
water year which restricts the amount of water that can be delivered throughout California.
Metropolitan's SWP imported water is stored at Castaic Lake on the western side of
Metropolitan's service area and at Silverwood Lake near San Bernardino, as well as in Diamond
Valley Lake.
The Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is key to the SWP's ability to deliver water to
its agricultural and urban contractors. The Delta faces many challenges concerning its long-
term sustainability such as climate change posing a threat of increased variability in floods and
droughts. Sea level rise complicates efforts in managing salinity levels and preserving water
quality in the Delta to ensure a suitable water supply for urban and agricultural use.
Furthermore, other challenges include continued subsidence of Delta islands, many of which
are below sea level, and the related threat of a catastrophic levee failure as the water pressure
increases, or as a result of a major seismic event.
Metropolitan's Board approved a Delta Action Plan in June 2007 that provides a framework for
staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and
reduce conflicts between wafer supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan
aims to prioritize immediate short-term actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution
is selected, and mid-term steps to maintain the Delta while a long-term solution is implemented.
Currently, Metropolitan is working towards addressing three basic elements: Delta ecosystem
restoration, water supply conveyance, and flood control protection and storage development.
In April 2015, the Brown Administration announced California WaterFix, as well as a separate
ecosystem restoration effort called California EcoRestore. Together, the California WaterFix
and California EcoRestore will make significant contributions toward achieving the coequal
goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and
enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The WaterFix is aimed at making physical and operational
improvements to the SWP system in the Delta necessary to restore and protect ecosystem health,
r 2015 Metropolitan UWMP.
' 2012 USBR Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study.
FUSCOE ENGINEERING,
TA
55A-124
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
south -of -Delta SWP water supplies, and water quality. The WaterFix includes the construction
of two tunnels up to 150 feet below ground and three new intakes, each with 3,000 cubic -feet
per second (cfs) capacity and an average annual yield of 4.9 million acre-feet designed to
protect California's water supplies. These proposed upgrades would provide protection against
water supply disruption from failure of aging levees due to sea -level rise, earthquakes and flood
events.
Recycled Water
The City depends on OCWD for its recycled water supply for non -potable uses such as irrigation.
OCWD provided 352 AF of recycled water to the City of Santa Ana in 2015 as part of the
Green Acres Project (GAP). OCWD owns and operates the GAP, a water recycling system that
provides up to 8,400 AFY of recycled water as an alternate source of water that is mainly
delivered to parks, golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries in the cities of Costa
Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, in addition to Santa Ana. The City maintains an
agreement with OCWD to supply GAP water to customers where available. It is anticipated
that recycled water supplied to the City will maintain around 300 AFY through 2040,
3.2 CITY WATER DEMANDS
The City's Water Utility provides water service within a 27-square mile service area to a
population of approximately 335,299 as of 2015.9 . The City is almost completely built -out and
its population is projected to increase only 0.9% by 2040. Approximately 67% of the City's
water demand is residential including single family and multi -family residential units.
Commercial land uses, including dedicated landscape, accounts for the remaining 33% of the
total demand. The 2015 UWMP highlighted that water demands throughout the City were
36,656 AF from July 2014 to June 2015. The 2010 UWMP anticipated water demands in
2015 to be much larger at 47,800 AF, As mentioned, the difference -is likely because of the
mandatory water restrictions from the Governor's Executive Order and the fact that UWMPs are
typically developed in a conservative manner and tend to overestimate future water demands.
In April 2015 Governor Brown issued an Executive Order as a result of one of the most severe
droughts in California's history, requiring a collective reduction in statewide urban water use of
25% by February 2016, with each agency in the state given a specific reduction target by DWR.
In response to the Governors mandate, the City began to track its water wasting prohibition
enforcement activities. On June 2, 2015, the City declared a Phase 2 water supply shortage in
Resolution No. 2015-025 by formally requiring all water consumers to reduce use by 12%
relative to their 2013 consumption. Additionally, on August 4, 2015, a water wasting penalty
rate was established by Resolution No. 2015-047. This new penalty rate permits City staff to
penalize those users not meeting their water use reduction targets of 12%. The City of Santa
Ana as a whole met its State mandated target; as a result the City did not have to impose any
monetary penalties on any of its users.
As of April 7, 2017, Governor Brown ended the drought State of Emergency in most of
California, while maintaining water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful
9 Center of Demographics Research (CDR) at California State University, Fullerton
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
18
55A-125
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 201
practices such as watering during or right after rainfoll.10 The City continues to promote water
use efficiency and currently has a goal to continue to reduce water demands by 3% compared
to 2013 consumption. In addition, the City only allows outdoor watering to every other day or
Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and only between the hours of 6 PM and 6 AM.ii
Such restrictions have significantly reduced water demands throughout California. In addition
to these mandated restrictions, cities must follow the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also
known as 5enote Bill (SB) x7-7. This law required the State of California to reduce urban water
use by 20% by the year 2020. The City must determine baseline water use during their baseline
period and water use targets for the years 2015 and 2020 to meet the state's water reduction
goal. The City's 2015 target was 123 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and the 2020 target
is 116 GPCD. The 2015 UWMP reported that the City has already met both the 2015 and
2020 water use targets with an actual use in 2015 of 83 GPCD. This is likely due to increased
conservation as required by the Governors Executive Order during severe drought conditions
throughout California.
The City's water demand has been decreasing in recent years due to the combination of the
Governors Executive Order and SBx7.7 goals. The City's water demands are then expected to
increase by approximately 8%from 2015 to 2040 as shown in the table below.
Table 7 Ofy of Santa Ana Projected Total Water Demands
D dnd T e
?Ol s, .
`::: 2020 .. '
2025.
2030
2035
2040
Potable and
Raw Water
36,656
36,678
39,397
39,669
39,658
39,716
Recycled
Water
352
320
320
320
320
320
Total Water
Demand
37,008
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
Source: 2015 City of Santa Ana UWMP
As shown above, it is projected that water demands will increase from 37,008 AF in 2015 to
40,036 AF in year 2040. These estimates are approximately 10,000 AF less than what was
predicted in the 2010 UWMP further highlighting the conservative nature of UWMP preparation.
The 2015 Metropolitan UWMP stated that Metropolitan would be able to meet the demands of
its member agencies, including the City of Santa Ana, through 2040. Therefore, imported water
demands for the City are projected to be met through the 20-year requirements of SB 610 and
beyond. The City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP also confirmed the ability of the local supplies
and the OC Basin to meet the growing demands of the City. The ability for the City to meet
these growing demands in multiple climate scenarios is explained in the sections below.
10 SWRCB Water Conservation Portal — Emergency Conservation Regulation, accessed on 09/06/2017. Found
here: hap://www.woterboards.w.gov/water issues/programs/conseNution_poriel/emergency_mgulation.shtmi
11 City of Santa Ana — Water Conservation Websife, accessed 09/06/2017. Found here: hitp://www.ci.santa-
ana.ca.us/waterconservation/
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
m
55A-126
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
4. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The City of Santa Ana currently depends on Metropolitan and OCWD to provide the majority
of its water supply. This section provides a description of the ability of Metropolitan, OCWD
and the City to ensure that adequate water supplies will be available to satisfy the City's growing
water demands including the proposed Project through 2040 during normal, single dry year
and multiply dry year scenarios.
4.1 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Metropolitan's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was finalized in June 2016 and
has been prepared in compliance with Water Code Sections 10608.36 of SB X7-7 and Sections
10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act). The information
included in the 2015 UWMP represents the most current and available planning projections of
supply capability and demand developed through a collaborative process with the member
agencies, including the City of Sana Ana. The Act requires reporting agencies to describe their
water reliability under a single dry -year, multiple dry -year, and average year conditions, with
projected information in five-year increments for 20 years.
Metropolitan updates its retail municipal and industrial (M&I) projection periodically based on
the release of official regional demographic and economic projections. The projections of retail
M&I water demands used in the 2015 UWMP are based on data from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Community Strategy (April 2012) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) —
Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (October 2013). The projected regional water
demand is adjusted to account for water conserved by Best Management Practices from active,
code -based, and price -effect conservation.
Supply analysis includes Colorado River supplies, SWP supplies and existing and proposed
storage programs through Metropolitan's service area. Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA)
supplies include supplies that would result from existing and committed programs and from
implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements.
State Water Project (SWP) supplies are estimated using the 2015 SWP Delivery Capability Report
distributed by DWR in July 2015. In regards to storage, Metropolitan assumed 2015 storage
levels at the start of simulation and used the median storage levels going into each of the five-
year increments based on the balances of supplies and demands. See Table 8 below showing
Metropolitan's ability to meet growing demands in normal, single -dry and multiple -dry year
climate scenarios.
FUSCOE ENGINEERING,
20
55A-127
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER2 2017
Table 8 Metropolitan Multiple Climate Scenario Water Supply Capability and Projected
Demands Comparison from 2020 2040 (A17
Fareeasf:Year
3g20, 2025
20,30p35
2040
Noratal: Year
Capability of Current Supply
3,448,000
3,550,000
3,658,000
3,788,000
3,824,000
Total Demands
1,860,000
1,918,000
1,959,000
2,008,000
2,047,000
Supply Programs Under
Development
63,000
100,000
316,000
428,000
468,000
Total Potential Surplus
1,651,000
1,732,000
2,085,000
2,208,000
2,245,000
Singld
:DryYear' ... .
Capability of Current Supply
2,584,000
2,686,000
2,775,000
2,905,000
2,941,000
Total Demands
2,005,000
2,066,000
2,108,000
2,160,000
2,201,000
Supply Programs Under
Develo men
63,000
100,000
316,000
358,000
398,000
Total Potential Surplus
642,000
720,000
983,000
1,1D3,000
1,138,000
::Multiple;,
D Year.. '
ry.
Capability of Current Supply
2,103,000 1
2,154,000 1
2,190,000
2,242,000
2,260,000
Total Demands
2,001,000
2,118,000
2,171,000
2,216,000
2,258,000
Supply Programs Under
Development
43,000
80,000
204,000
245,000
286,000
Total Potential Surplus
1 55,000
116,000
223,000
271,000
288,600
Source: 2015 Metropolitan UWMP
The findings of the 2015 Metropolitan UWMP highlight that Metropolitan has supply capabilities
that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040 under the normal,
single dry -year and multiple dry -year conditions. Metropolitan also has proposed programs in
place to ensure against water shortages in the future. These programs include projects along
the California Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct in addition to demand reduction
projects. In all climate scenarios, Metropolitan estimates potential surpluses in water supply
through 2040.
The Metropolitan 2015 UWMP was made public in early 2016 and shared with Metropolitan's
member agencies. Once these findings were finalized, the Metropolitan member agencies
could conclude their own 2015 UWMP findings. The City of Santa Ana published their 2015
UWMP in April 2016 after determining Metropolitan would be able to meet the City's imported
water demands through 2040. The City of Santa Ana and OCWD local water supply reliability
is summarized below.
4.2 OCWD AND CITY OF SANTA ANA LOCAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Like Metropolitan, the City of Santa Ana is also required to assess the reliability of their water
service to its customers under normal, single -dry and multiple -dry water years. As mentioned
the City depends on a combination of imported water from Metropolitan and local groundwater
supplies from OCWD to meet its water demands. The City has taken numerous steps to ensure
it has adequate supplies to provide for growing demands.
FuscOE ENGINEERING, INC.
N
55A-128
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
The City has several water demand reduction requirements and resources on their website that
informs its customers on how to save water. Some of the main requirements are summarized
below:
Residential
o Mandatory 3% reduction in water use compared to usage during the same
billing period in 2013.
a Outdoor watering is restricted to no more than every other day or Mondays,
Thursdays and Saturdays, and only between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.'
o Leaks must be repaired within 48 hours of notification by the City.
a No washing down sidewalks or driveways.
o No excessive water flow or runoff that causes water to flow onto an adjoining
sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch.
o No washing vehicles with a hose, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off
nozzle.
o No operating a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is part of
a recirculating system.
o No outdoor watering during and 48 hours following measurable rainfall.
Businesses
o Restaurants, cafes and bars can only serve water to customers on request.
o Hotels and motels must prominently display a notice providing guests with the
option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily.
In addition, landscape policies have also been modified to allow drought tolerate landscape
throughout the City (see Appendix B). These programs have been successful in reducing water
demands throughout the City's service area.
OCWD is also taking strides to ensure local water supplies will meet growing demands now
and into the future. As mentioned, OCWD manages the City's groundwater supply and the
entire OC Basin utilizing the BPP approach. In 2013, OCWD's Board of Directors adopted a
policy to establish a stable BPP with the intention to work toward achieving and maintaining a
75 percent BPP by tY 2015-16. Although BPP is set at 75 percent, based on discussions with
OCWD a conservative BPP of 70 percent is assumed through 2040 for supply projection
analysis in the City's 2015 UWMP. Principles of this policy include:
OCWD's goal is to achieve a stable 75 percent BPP, while maintaining the some
process of setting the BPP on an annual basis (BPP will be set in April of each year after
a public hearing has been held and based upon the public hearing testimony, presented
data, and reports provided at that time).
OCWD's transition to the 75 percent BPP was due to construction of the GWRS Initial
Expansion Project, which was completed in 2015. This expansion provided an
additional 31,000 AFY of water for recharging the groundwater basin.
OCWD must manage the OC Basin in a sustainable manner for future generations.
The BPP will be reduced if future conditions warrant the change.
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
22
55A-129
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
• Each project and program to achieve the 75 percent BPP goal will be reviewed
individually and assessed for their economic viability.
The BPP goals mentioned above coincide with other management strategies as shown in
OCWD's Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP), the 2015 Groundwater Management Plan and the
2020 Water Master Plan Report. These documents highlight OCWD's plans to ensure
groundwater supply will be available into the future to support growing demands of its service
area.
As shown in Table 9 below, the City's available supply, including OCWD groundwater and
Metropolitan imported water, will meet projected demand during normal, single dry and
multiple dry years. For the City's 2015 UWMP, the normal dry year was selected as the City's
2015 demand. A single -dry year is defined as a single year of no to minimal rainfall within a
period that average precipitation is expected to occur. The City has documented that it is 100%
reliable for single dry year demands from 2020 through 2040 with a demand increase of 6%
using FY 2013-14 as the single dry -year. Multiple -dry years are defined as three or more years
with minimal rainfall within a period of average precipitation. The City is capable of meeting all
customers' demands with significant reserves held by Metropolitan, local groundwater supplies,
and conservation in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040 with a demand increase of 6%
using FY 201 1-12 through FY 2013-14 as the driest years.
Table 9 City of Santa Ana Multiple Climate Scenario Water Supply and Demand Comparison
from 2020-2040 (AF)
ForecoshYear- 2020 ,; .2025 _
2030; 1:-2035'-_'
_.
2040
Normal Year
Supply totals
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
Demand totals
36,998
39,717
39,989
39,978
40,036
Single -Dry Year
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Demand totals
1 39,218
142,100
1 42,388
42,377
42,438
Multiple
-Dry Year
Firstyear
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Demand totals
39,218
142,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Second year
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Demand totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Third year
Supply totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Demand totals
39,218
42,100
42,388
42,377
42,438
Source: 2015 City of Santa Ana UWMP
FUSCOE ENGINEERING,
23
55A-130
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
As shown in Table 9 above, in all climate scenarios analyzed in the 2015 UWMP, available
water supplies are projected to meet demands. Reliability of local water supplies will be ensured
through continued implementation of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, OCWD's
LTFP, and the combined efforts and programs among member agencies of Metropolitan.
The City closely monitors development throughout the City to ensure water supplies will meet
growing demand. The City has a log of all developments that have required a WSA and track
the increases in water demands from these projects. As shown in Table 10 below, the City is
able to provide water supply to satisfy growing City demands including the Elan Project.
FuscOE ENGINEERING, INC.
24
55A-131
0
N
a
..
N
N
O
P
N
M
rq
n
N
cl
cli
f7
N
N
N
O
O
N
m
`NO
N
h
W
N
O
O
V1
M
N
P
O
NN^
c")
P
m
P
ci
n
CY
cV
n
ni
(V
Q
<
P
P^
<
cn
Q
N
P^
ci
N
Q
c
N
Ln
m
n
N
m
h
N
..
6=
Ct
o
n
P
cv
,
.�
m
CI
C-.
N
a
O
o
Q
O
n
Q
P
n
�O
P
n
m
�
Q�p
m
N
O
N
Q
try
N
p
n
m
P
N
NP
O
(V
'ILI
N
y
m
n
F
w
�
a
m
o
Q
E
c
�
a
mE
T
c
o
°
cl
O
E
E
-'
S.
4
o
y
' Q
=!
E
o
m
aEr
o❑
vo
CL
->
U°
v
o
LEE
o¢
o
e
g
42
g
of
u_
LLo
U
a.
v
c
LL
v
v
o
o
o
o
o
E
2
�-0
3R�Po.a.o•ov.o
8
Tj
m
y
y
Q
O_
E
O
O
E
O
4
c
U
O
u
O
u �oe
O
O
tvi
O
u
C
a
O
N
N
N
Q
u
E
u
E
vy
u
u
��DD
u
TK
u
o
o
G
c
0
o
sq
❑
❑
>
>
>
7
!c-
Q
Qu
¢
Q
Ll
V
U
m
m
ll
W
m
55A-132
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
As shown above, a small deficit of 329 AF (less than 1 % of total demands) is projected for the
year 2020. These demand/supply numbers come from projections calculated within the City's
UWMP. As mentioned throughout this WSA, UWMPs are conservative in nature and tend to
overpredict demand. For example, there was a 23% decrease in water use in the City in 2015
as to what was predicted to be used in the 2010 UWMP for the year 2015. Therefore, the
deficits shown in Table 10 above durjng the year 2020 will likely not occur due to the significant
decreases in demand as seen over the past several years. From 2025-2040, surplus supply of
approximately 2,000 AF is anticipated as well. As confirmed by the City's Water Utility
department, the deficit Is not anticipated to be an issue for the Project or the City.12 The findings
of the Metropolitan 2015 UWMP and the City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP confirm that the City
of Santa Ana will be able to supply water to growing demands within its service area including
the proposed Project through 2040 which satisfies the requirements of SB 610.
rs Personal communication with City's Water Utility department on 10/02/2017.
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
26
55A-133
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
5. CONCLUSION
The City of Santa Ana depends on local and regional water supplies from OCWD and
Metropolitan to satisfy growing demands. OCWD has managed the OC Basin for over 75
years and has plans to sustainably manage the groundwater system through 2040 under the
new California SIGMA policies and guidelines. Metropolitan has stated in its 2015 UWMP that
its water supply portfolio will be able to satisfy regional growth and water demands through
2040. The same findings were concluded in the City of Santa Ana 2015 UWMP as both
Metropolitan and OCWD supplies are projected to meet future water demands.
The 2015 City UWMP projected that water demands would grow from 37,008 AF in 2015 to
40,036 AF in 2040. Over the past several years, actual demands decreased substantially to
due to local conservation and regional drought management regulations. Therefore, like most
UWMPs, the 2015 City UWMP is conservative with projections of water supplies needed to
satisfy demands through 2040.
The 2015 UWMP incorporates regional growth projections from CDR in order to determine
future water demands. Projects like Elan are included in these regional projections of future
population growth and are tracked by the City. The proposed Project will demand
approximately 195 AF per year (an increase of approximately 191 AF per year as compared to
existing water demands) which is well within the planned water supplies needed in the future in
the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, this WSA is able to conclude adequate supplies are available
to provide for the demands of the proposed Project as well as other service area demands within
the City of Santa Ana.
ENGINEERING, INC.
27
55A-134
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
6. REFERENCES
2012 USBR Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study
2015 Metropolitan of Southern California Urban Water Management Plan
Center of Demographics Research (CDR) at California State University, Fullerton
City of Santa Ana — Water Conservation Website, accessed 09/06/2017. Found here:
http://www.ci.sonto-ono.ca.us/waterconservation/
City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities (March 2017). Found
here: http://www.sonto-ona.org/pwa/documents/DesignGuidelines.pdf
OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. June 17, 2015
OCWD. Engineer's Report, 2015/16, February 2017
Senate Bill No. 1262, CHAPTER'594, found here:
http://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bil lTextClient.xhtml? bill—id--201520160SB 126
2
SGMA Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map Application, found here:
https://gis.water.co.gov/app/gicima/
SWRCB Water Conservation Portal — Emergency Conservation Regulation, accessed on
09/06/2017. Found here:
http://www.wate rboards. ca. gov/water—issues/programs/conservation—porta I/em ergen
cy_regulation.shtml
FusCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
28
55A-135
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
7. TECHNICAL APPENDICES
AppendixA— Proposed Project Water Demand Calculations
Appendix B — Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance No. 6355
Appendix C—SGMA Basin 8-1 Altemative Plan
PUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
NOVEMBER 2. 2017
29
55A-136
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PROJECT WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
30
55A-137
/ k
cq
IT
(31
C�
'o
-q-
C�
10
a,
C%4
-1:
ol
00
CL
C14
0,
co
00
0
0
CY)
10
LO
ci
LO
co
CN
0
10
CY)
C14
CY)
CN
co
04
LO
C4
-.;r
cl
0
7 2
0
E
r�
ol
O�
00
E
CIT
cyi
8
o
o
CD
C)
0
0
CD
CN
N
CN
C14
to
C�
I
CIJ
C�)
0
u
0
2
0
o
0
0
-0
D
-0
_0
(D
CL
0
�o
0
E
u
a
0
E
0
0
0 .E
1
0
�;-5
u
I
lz
�TN I
55A-1 38
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B
CITY OF SANTA ANA LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
31
55A-139
Planning and Building Agency
Planning Division
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702 CALIFORNIA FRIENDLY
(714)647-5804 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES
www.santa-ana.org
In response to the extreme drought conditions throughout California, and the drought State of
Emergency declared by the Governor in 2014, landscape policies have been modified to allow
drought tolerant landscape throughout the city. The following are the Planning Division policy
guidelines for required landscape planting and "ground cover" on private property:
1. 100% of the required landscape for private property MUST be covered with materials such
as plants, compost and mulch, and permeable "hardscape" — with the exception of approved
driveways and walkways. Refer to property zoning district for minimum of trees and shrubs.
hftp://www.cl.santa-ana.ca.us/pba/planninq/ZoningDocuments.asp
2. Plant material must cover at least 65% of the required landscape area.
a. The Landscape Plan MUST be designed such that it can reasonably be assumed that at
least 65% of the site will be covered with Plant material by the time the plants are
mature, or within two years, whichever is sooner. This determination will be made at the
sole discretion of Planning and Building Agency staff. Synthetic turf may be installed,
provided it does not exceed 50% of the area designated as plant material for the yard.
For more details on synthetic turf landscape plan requirement see
http://www.santa-ana.org/pba/planninq/documents/SVnthetic turf standards.Ddf
b. Plant material is to be dispersed throughout the landscape area.
3. Permeable hardscape may cover no more than 35% of the required landscape area.
a. Permeable hardscape may include pavers and brick set on a bed of sand, where no
mortar or grout has been used.
b. If not covered by permeable hardscape or plant material, landscape must be completely
covered by at least a two-inch layer of mulch. Acceptable mulch includes compost, bark
and other organic material. There can be no bare soil or Installation of non -permeable
(material water cannot easily penetrate) hardscape such as a concrete patio or walkway.
c. Permeable hardscape adjacent to approve driveways shall not be used for parking of
vehicles. Permeable hardscape is to no greater than two percent slope to allow for
draining of water Into the soil.
4. All plant materials selected from these two websites (LA Coastal Gardens and
www.bewaterwise.com) are acceptable drought tolerant plants.
5. Irrigation systems should also be adjusted to be water efficient through best practices (drip
irrigation, bubblers, etc.)
Additional information and a variety of resources for creating and maintaining a California
Friendly garden are available at htto://www.santa-ana.or_q/SAwatersmarU. For more Information
about landscaping your parkway, is please see the "Quick Links" for the Parkway Improvement
Guidelines.
hl;Tand eapeCA Fnendl,V landscape Guideline \Iay27201iItE\Cdeti
55A-140
Sample of landscape planting and permeable hardscape
i,
1�"` FLiJoSfOrl C:
1 T: _
20 Feet
0 Landscape Plants Permeable Hardscape
(65% minimum) (35% maximum)
Single Family Residences (111 zoning district) requires: 20 feet landscape setback
for front yard; to include one 24-inch box canopy tree, six 5-gallon shrubs, ten 1-gallon
shrubs (SAMC 41-240) and "ground cover" (per 2014 City California Friendly
Landscape Guideline). A five feet landscape setback is also required for side yards,
with the exception of approved walkway or driveway.
NFLan(L caln'k A I liendly Landscape Guideline lday?7201 iRE V.doc
55A-141
ELAN PROJECT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2, 2017
APPENDIX C
SIGMA BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 32
55A-142
-kqs
. NS
SINCE 1933
CITY OF LA HABRA
r--, 1*7'r
Irvine Ranch
WATER DISTRICT
Basin 8-1 Alternative
"Reduced Version. Full document found here:
https://www.ocwd.com/media/4918/basin-8.1-olternotive-final-report-1 .pdf
Submitted by: Orange County Water District
City of La Habra
Irvine Ranch Water District
Submitted to: California Department of Water Resources
January 1, 2017
55A-143
55A-144
55A-145
Table of Contents
Overview
II. Hydrogeology of Basin 8-1
III. La Habra -Brea Management Area
IV. OCWD Management Area
V. South East Management Area
VI. Santa Ana Canyon Management Area
Attachment One: Documentation of Public Participation and Agency Approvals
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Table of Contents i
55A-146
Basin 8-1 Overview
BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
OVERVIEW
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires all high- and medium -priority
basins, as designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), be sustainably managed.
DWR designated the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin ("Basin 8-1" or
"Basin") as a medium -priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin's groundwater
as a source of water supply.
Compliance with SGMA can be achieved in one of two ways:
1) A Groundwater Sustainability, Agency (GSA) is formed and a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan (GSP) is adopted, or
2) Special Act Districts created by statute, such as OCWD, and other agencies may
prepare and submit an Alternative to a GSP.
The agencies within Basin 8-1 have agreed to collaborate together in order to submit an
Alternative to a GSP. Within this document, this Alternative to a GSP will be referred to herein
as the "Basin 8-1 Alternative" or "Alternative". In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3),
this Alternative presents an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the Basin has
operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. In addition, the
Alternative establishes objectives and criteria for management that would be addressed in a
GSP and is designed to be "functionally equivalent" to a GSP. As will be shown in the Basin 8-1
Alternative, Basin 8-1 has been operated within its sustainable yield for more than 10 years
without experiencing significant and unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2)
reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, (4) seawater intrusion, (5) Inelastic land
subsidence, or (6) depletions of Interconnected surface water that have significant and
unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. Please note that the
boundaries of Basin 8-1 described in this document are based on the scientific boundary
modifications as accepted by DWR in 2016 as part of the Basin Boundary Modification Process.
The Basin 8-1 Alternative has been jointly prepared by the Orange County Water District
(OCWD), Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD); and the City of La Habra (collectively the
"Submitting Agencies"); pursuant to this Alternative, the Submitting Agencies will ensure the
entire Basin 8-1 continues to be sustainably managed and data reported as required by SGMA.
Other agencies within Basin 8-1 and at least partially outside of OCWD's boundaries support
submission of the Basin 8-1 Alternative and either have participated in preparing the Alternative
and/or reviewed the Alternative. These agencies include the cities of Brea, Corona, and Chino
Hills; the Counties of Orange. Riverside, and San Bernardino; Yorba Linda Water District; and
El Toro Water District. Pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Basin 8-1 Alternative has
been prepared by or under the direction of a professional geologist or professional engineer.
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 1
55A-147
Basin 8-1 Overview
For the purpose of compliance with the SGMA requirement that the entire basin be covered by
this Basin 8-1 Alternative, Submitting Agencies have divided Basin 8-1 Into four management
areas: La Habra -Brea, OCWD, South East, and Santa Ana Canyon Management Areas, shown
In Figure 1-1.
Historically, the majority of Basin 8-1 (90% of the land area) has been managed by OCWD,
which includes the land area within the OCWD Management Area and a small portion of the
land area within the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The percentage of the land area
within Basin 8-1 in each of the management areas is shown in Figure 1-2.
Although the land areas outside of OCWD's jurisdiction in the Santa Ana Canyon and South
East Management Areas have not been formally "managed" by OCWD, the hydrogeological
conditions in these areas are essentially an extension of the managed basin. OCWD has
Incorporated data, when available, from these areas into the OCWD data base. For example,
precipitation runoff from the mountains along the eastern border (in the South East
Management Area) Is estimated and incorporated into OCWD's basin water budget. The Santa
Ana Canyon Management Area, created in this report in order to include land within and outside
of OCWD's service area, is upstream of OCWD recharge operations. While OCWD does not
have jurisdiction over all the land in this area, OCWD does have the rights to all the water in the
Santa Ana River released from Prado Dam. In this respect, OCWD Is actively engaged in
managing the flow of surface water within the Santa Ana Canyon Irrespective of land ownership.
While the four management areas are described separately in this report, it is important to
understand that actual "management" is not as distinct, and existing collaborative efforts
between agencies in managing groundwater resources will continue. In the case of the La
Habra -Brea Management Area, the City of La Habra has already been deemed the exclusive
GSA for the La Habra/Brea area and intends to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP). When La Habra submits a GSP, this Basin 8-1 Alternative will no longer include the La
Habra/Brea area within the area designated by the GSP.
As authorized by 23 CCR § 354.20, this Basin 8-1 Alternative describes four management areas
as shown in Figure 1. The rationale for designating these management areas within Basin 8-1
is explained as follows:
La Habra -Brea Management Area includes the northern portion of Basin 8-1 that is
located outside of the OCWD service area and is within the cities of La Habra and Brea.
The City of La Habra currently manages this portion of Basin 8-1. Although this
management area is hydrologically distinct from the OCWD Management Area there is
an estimated 1,000 afy of subsurface groundwater flow from the La Habra -Brea
Management Area to the OCWD Management Area. Surface water that recharges the
OCWD portion of Basin 8-1 does not replenish the La Habra -Brea Management Area.
• The OCWD Management Area includes approximately 89 percent of the land area of
Basin 8-1. Ninety-eight percent of all groundwater production within 8-1 occurs in this
management area. This area includes the portion of Basin 8-1 that is within OCWD's
service area, except for an approximately 7-square mile portion of OCWD's service area
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 2
55A-148
Basin 8-1 Overview
that is in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. OCWD has been managing the
majority of Basin 8-1 since its formation in 1933.
The South East Management Area includes the southern and southeastern portion of
Basin 8-1 that is hydrogeologically connected to the OCWD Management Area but Is
outside of OCWD's service area. This area consists of several, disconnected, small
fringe areas that are within the DWR designated boundary of Basin 8-1. This
management area includes areas under the jurisdiction of the IRWD, the El Toro Water
District and the City of Orange. The groundwater basin In this area is thin and contains
more clay and silt deposits than aquifers in the OCWD Management Area. Groundwater
historically has flowed out of this area into the OCWD Management Area. Production
has been minimal in this area due to hydrogeological conditions with little potential for
significant future increases.
The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area includes the easternmost section of Basin 8-
1. This area includes land under the jurisdiction of several cities, two counties, and two
water districts, Including a portion that is within the OCWD service area. Groundwater
production is relatively minor compared to groundwater production in the OCWD
Management Area, The western boundary of this management area is located at
Imperial Highway in the city of Anaheim where the basin thickness begins to increase.
Imperial Highway crosses the Santa Ana River where OCWD begins to divert river water
into the recharge facilities for percolation into the groundwater basin.
The Basin 8-1 Alternative is organized as follows:
• Overview: Provides a map and description of Basin 8-1 and a brief description of the
basin management areas.
• Hydrogeology of Basin 8-1: Provides a description of the hydrogeology of Basin 8-1
including a description of the basin, the aquifer systems, fault zones, total basin volume,
basin cross -sections, basin characteristics, and general groundwater quality.
• La Habra -Brea Management Area: Provides a description of sustainable management of
the La Habra -Brea Management Area
• OCWD Management Area: Provides a description of sustainable management of the
OCWD Management Area
• South East Management Area: Provides a description of sustainable management of the
South East Management Area
• Santa Ana Canyon Management Area: Provides a description of sustainable
management of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 3
55A-149
Basin 8-1 Overview
� �� �+�.QPU�NE! �I �a2 SAN BERNARDINO� i/
Fg, 0.�.
I ILOSANGELES -r 1OU LLS-� {j
I COUNTY
(( OP�-,Q$
CO2'' �unw� f,t'�HILLS4�f
IV M
r _7 e u" mnnkl •_ �, ® 1 yYi�1+�r7r
y-'3\2.
P L SIDE
t)i sa.�f12Ay�t°l}fIII��ulrrrxJJJn�
i rr..Re,,,,.s.l°`�. IORIINO�.'j i ruha �r �r+ilr`�.d -dr�i�_
l` RRL � �i �\. ®5 �ao-t.'-.vl°` ii-�tff jLrii •�y'&��.�Yf� R /,f
N" I—
orav i p a
c y ®eouxasl q .0 n �``, a1 I
Sp/ate
I
i 'r�CAunry BwnADry H ,� / y;� ` y/I� la Habra. Bream..gememk.
EAHMAOUIN Y f OGNO ManasarcMArna
0 7x000 2a 00p TY�• yL,MLL'Sf $f-f� SSIRa Ana Lanycn MawBf+R`nl Ar
'r FeM Saud En .1.3er nl Area
Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1 Management Area Boundaries
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 4
55A-150
Basin 8-1 Overview
® South East ®La Habra U SAR Canyon ® OCWD
Figure 1-2: Percentage of Land Area in Basin 8-1 within Management Areas
•1. LA HABRA-BREA MANAGEMENT AREA
The La Habra -Brea Management area covers the northern portion of Basin 8-1. The City of La
Habra has been deemed the exclusive GSA under SGMA for this management area. This
management area is part of Basin 8-1, but is hydrogeologically distinct from the OCWD
Management Area and is not under the jurisdiction of OCWD. The City adopted a resolution to
establish the La Habra Basin as a separate basin from Basin 8-1. OCWD adopted a resolution
to support the City's request to DWR for an internal jurisdictional boundary modification in the
OC Basin that follows the city limits of La Habra and Brea as is outside of the Orange County
Water District's jurisdictional boundary.
The La Habra -Brea Management Area is Included with this Alternative to facilitate collaboration
among groundwater agencies within Basin 8-1 as required by SGMA. The City of La Habra and
portions of the City of Brea comprise the La Habra -Brea Management Area. This area overlies
the extents of the proposed La Habra Groundwater Basin, referenced herein.
The La Habra -Brea Management Area is currently monitored for groundwater elevations and for
groundwater quality through productions wells and historical data from monitoring wells within
the La Habra -Brea Management Area and surrounding area.
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE Overview 5
55A-151
Basin 8-1 Overview
As the City of La Habra currently depends on local groundwater to meet approximately 40
percent of its water consumption; preserving the sustainability of the La Habra -Brea
Management Area is essential. Currently (and historically), the City of La Habra manages (and
has managed) the La Habra -Brea Management Area through management plans and programs
for groundwater levels, basin storage, and water quality. By January 2020, the City will manage
the La Habra -Brea Management Area through a Groundwater Sustainability Plan under SGMA,
which will describe the monitoring program and ensure that no undesirable results occur in the
future.
2. OCWD MANAGEMENT AREA
The OCWD Management Area covers an area of approximately 260 square miles within Basin
8-1, which represents approximately 89 percent of the land area of Basin 8-1. Ninety-eight
percent of the groundwater production within Basin 8-1 occurs in the OCWD Management Area.
Groundwater produced within the OCWD Management Area provides approximately 70 percent
of the total water supply for a population of around 2.4 million residents.
Since its formation by the California Legislature in 1933, OCWD has been the managing agency
for the majority of Basin 8-1, also referred to as the Coastal Plain of Orange County
Groundwater Basin. As a special act district listed in Water Code § 1072(c)(1), OCWD is the
exclusive local agency within Its jurisdictional boundaries with powers to comply with SGMA.
Water demands within the OCWD Management Area have grown from approximately 150,000
acre-feet per year (afy) in the mid-1950s to a high of approximately 366,000 afy in water year
2007-08. OCWD-operates an -extensive -network of -recharge -basins to increase recharge of -
surface water into the groundwater basin to support groundwater production. OCWD monitors
the basin by collecting groundwater elevation and quality data from nearly 700 wells, including
over 400 OCWD-owned monitoring wells, manages an electronic database that stores water
elevation, water quality, production, recharge and other data on over 2,000 wells and facilities
within and outside OCWD boundaries.
An OCWD-operated water recycling plant provides up to 100 million gallons per day of
advanced tertiary -treated wastewater that supplies recharge operations and a seawater
intrusion barrier operated to protect the basin's water quality. OCWD manages groundwater
storage and water levels within an established operating range which has resulted in
sustainable conditions with no unreasonable and significant undesirable results.
The Sustainability Goal for the OCWD Management Area is to continue to sustainably manage
the groundwater basin to prevent conditions that would lead to significant and unreasonable (1)
lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, (4)
seawater intrusion, (5) Inelastic land subsidence and (6) adverse impacts on hydrologically
connected surface water.
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 6
55A-152
Basin 8-1 Overview
3. SOUTH EAST MANAGEMENT AREA
The South East Management Area contains portions of Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), El
Toro Water District (ETWD), and the City of Orange. The area covered this management area
is essentially an extension of the main basin and was formed to comply with the requirement
that the entirety of Basin 8-1 be covered by a responsible agency.
There is relatively little existing, or potential, groundwater development within the South East
Management Area. What pumping does occur is less than 200 acre -feet -per -year (afy), which
is much less than the total recharge to the area. Water levels and storage levels are steady.
The Sustainability Goal for the South East Management Area is to recognize it is a small part of
the larger groundwater basin that is managed by OCWD. Nevertheless, groundwater levels and
water quality will be monitored to assure that conditions do not lead to significant and
unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality
degradation, (4) inelastic land subsidence, (5) unreasonable adverse effect on surface water
resources, and (6) adverse impacts on hydrologically connected surface water.
4. SANTA ANA CANYON MANAGEMENT AREA
The Santa Ana Canyon Management Area covers the easternmost extent of Basin 8-1. The
water resources in the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area include the Santa Ana River and
groundwater. Groundwater is primarily located in a thin alluvial aquifer that is 90 to 100 feet
thick and is a combination of infiltrated surface water and groundwater inflow from the adjacent
foothills.
Groundwater pumping in this management area is primarily used for irrigation with a minimal
amount used for potable purposes. The amount of groundwater pumping is small relative to the
large volumes of flow in the canyon provided by the Santa Ana River and monitoring indicates
there are no depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable
adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. There are no groundwater withdrawals
within the areas covered by the Cities of Anaheim, Chino Hills, and Yorba Linda; Riverside
County; and Yorba Linda Water District.
OCWD has water rights to all Santa Ana River flows released through Prado Dam. For the area
within its boundary, OCWD has the legal authority through the OCWD Act to require reporting of
groundwater production and to charge groundwater pumping assessments for groundwater
production. OCWD also monitors surface water flow and quality as well as groundwater levels
and quality throughout the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area.
The Sustainability Goal for the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area is to continue monitoring
sustainable conditions and monitor to ensure that no significant and unreasonable results occur
in the future.
2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE
Overview 7
55A-153
55A-154