Transcript Orange County Water Story

Orange County’s Water Story:
Regional Water Issues and the Import
Supply
Stan Sprague
General Manager
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Santiago Canyon College Managerial Issues Class
March 21, 2003
1
Chapter 1
Water supply development
in Orange County
Once upon a time...
March 21, 2003
2
...at the turn of the last century,



Early settlements
near surface water
streams
Later development
depended on
groundwater
By turn of the
century, settlers were
outpacing nature’s
ability to replenish
March 21, 2003
3
…LA turns to Owens Valley


March 21, 2003
Development of L.A.
Aqueduct
Access for others
came at the price of
annexation to Los
Angeles
4
March 21, 2003
5
Others turn to
the Colorado...

Metropolitan Water District formed in 1928
to provide imported water to Southern
California
•
Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fullerton were original
members
• Coastal MWD formed in 1941
• MWD of Orange County formed in 1951
March 21, 2003
6
Meanwhile, Orange County
shores up rights on the Santa
Ana River

Orange County Water District (OCWD)
formed in 1933 to file lawsuit to litigate
rights vs. upstream diverters

Availability of import water leads to
agency taking preeminent role in
groundwater management
March 21, 2003
7
Eventually, we all look north



SWP authorized by
voters in 1960
First water delivered in
early ‘70s
Contractually agreed to
2 MAF/year to Southern
California
March 21, 2003
8
Where Southern California
Gets its Water Today
Transfers & Storage
Local Supplies
LA Aqueduct
SWP
Entitlement
Local Supplies
Colorado River
Aqueduct
Conservation
Groundwater & Recycling
March
21, 2003
3
9
Chapter Two
Who is the Municipal
Water District of
Orange County?
March 21, 2003
10
March 21, 2003
11
MWD of Orange County
is...







Wholesale water supplier for Orange County
Governed by 7-member elected board
30 retail agencies
Among the largest of Metropolitan’s member
agencies
Service area of 600 square miles
Service area population of 2 million
Four (4) directors appointed to Metropolitan
board
March 21, 2003
12
MWD of Orange County
exists to...

Coordinate and plan local water
management programs in Orange County

Secure a reliable supply of imported water

Represent local retail agencies that provide
water directly to homes and businesses
March 21, 2003
13
MWD of Orange County
as Planner…

Initiated and Manages South Orange
County Reliability Study
•
•

Will make recommendations for both system
and supply reliability improvements
Implementation will be cooperative effort
Analyzes data and trends and coordinates
projects and programs with retail providers
throughout the county
March 21, 2003
14
MWD of Orange County
as Advocate…


Represents water agencies and cities
Influences and helps develop policies
•
•
•


at Metropolitan
at local government level
at State & Federal levels
Works with other Orange County water
providers
Helps to secure funding for local agency
projects
March 21, 2003
15
MWD of Orange County
as Service Provider…




Water-Use Efficiency Programs
School Education
Water Emergency Response Orange
County (WEROC)
Water-related legislative tracking, analysis
and advocacy
March 21, 2003
16
Chapter Three
Traditional Imported
Sources Challenged
March 21, 2003
17
Our County’s Supplies

Orange County depends on imported
water for almost half of its total supply
•
48% groundwater
• 46% imported through Metropolitan from
Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water
Project (Northern California)
• 4% recycled water
• 2% local surface water
March 21, 2003
18
Challenges for Orange County’s
traditional imported water sources...



Questions about water rights and
surplus availability
Increasing environmental regulations
and restrictions
Water quality concerns, i.e. impacts of
salinity and organic compounds require
greater treatment levels, and hamper
recycling and groundwater uses
March 21, 2003
19
Colorado River issues




Metropolitan has high priority entitlement to
approximately 700,000 AF
Additional 500,000 AF annually comes from
surpluses
Arizona & Nevada now taking full shares,
other states wary, drought conditions continue
to worsen
Interior Secretary declares no surplus water
in 2003
March 21, 2003
20
March 21, 2003
21
Immediate concerns …



California’s inability to agree to a plan to
reduce its take of surplus water over 15
years
Immediate cutbacks on surplus supplies
eliminated “soft landing” option
Southern California will now only receive
an 800,000 AF allocation in 2003
March 21, 2003
22
March 21, 2003
23
Long-term
concerns …





Over allocation
Growth in other basin states
Native American lawsuits
Mexico
Water quality concerns
•
Perchlorate
• Moab tailings
• Salinity
March 21, 2003
24
Challenges to
Northern California
water

State
Water
Project
San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta
•
•
•
•
•
Sacramento
San Francisco
Los
Angeles
Aqueduct
Hub of State’s water system
Degraded ecosystem
Los
Angeles
Poor water quality
Supply impacted by endangered species
Early 90s drought, regulatory actions create
crisis
March 21, 2003
25
Colorado
River
Aqueduct
Challenges to Northern
California water




Struggle is to maintain what we have
Historical annual supplies to exporters
from the Bay-Delta have been cut by
25% due to federal actions
Future regulatory actions threaten to cut
supplies by another 25%
This year, State can only promise 45%
(approximately 900,000 AF)
March 21, 2003
26
March 21, 2003
27
CALFED Bay-Delta Program

CALFED Bay-Delta Program to the rescue
•
Joint state-federal consortium formed in 1994
•
California Bay-Delta Authority created in January
2003

March 21, 2003
Collaborative, non-regulatory process to fix
problems in the Delta

Implementation of Record of Decision

Reduce conflict among stakeholders
28
Endangered Species Act
Protected Species in the Delta
Delta Smelt
1993 - Threatened
Chinook Salmon
1989 - Winter-Run Threatened
1994 - Winter-Run Endangered
1999 - Spring-Run Threatened
Steelhead
1998 - Threatened
Sacramento Splittail
1999 - Threatened
Green Sturgeon
March 21, 2003
2001 - Petitioned for listing29
CALFED’s Ecosystem
Accomplishments
Status:
 382 new projects
 $398 million
 100,000 acres new wetlands
 17 new fish screens
 10 diversion dams removed
March 21, 2003
30
Environmental Gains
Fishery Recovery – It’s Working!
Delta Smelt Fall Midwater Trawl Index
Delta Smelt
1,200
Nearing Recovery!
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1982
March 21, 2003
1984
1986
1988 1990
1992
1994 1996
1998
2000
31
Environmental Gains
Fishery Recovery – It’s Working!
20,000
# of Fish
15,000
3 new fish screens & ladders
3 dams removed
10,000
New fish ladder
5,000
Dam removed
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Spring-run Chinook Salmon -- Butte 32Creek
March 21, 2003
Environmental Gains
Fishery Recovery – It’s Working!
Winter Run Chinook Salmon Adult Female Spawner Escapement
Winter-Run Chinook Salmon
6,000
Current take limit is 15 times higher than initially
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
March 21, 2003
33
What CALFED could mean to
Orange County’s future

Hope for some long-term regional relief
•
•

Improved water quality
More certainty = Better local resource
management and planning
Expansion of local projects
CALFED won’t necessarily result in more water
• Limited imported supplies means local agency
projects will become increasingly critical
•
March 21, 2003
34
Chapter Four
The Local Story
March 21, 2003
35
Where does this leave us?



Current total demand on
Metropolitan is 2.0 MAF
per year
Expected to marginally
increase over next 10
years
Supply reliability to So.
Cal. projected to be fairly
stable over next 10
years (if no surprises)
March 21, 2003
36
Local reliability issues emerge




South County - 500,000 residents - depend
on two major pipelines and single treatment
plant for 90% of their water service
One of two main MWD pipelines feeding
South County damaged in December 1999
OCWD proposes lowering pumping
percentage to deal with overdraft of
groundwater basin
Reliability of the water supply and delivery
network is a top priority for all
March 21, 2003
37
Orange County’s Population Growth
North and South
NORTH
Fullerton
Population (millions)
1990: 1.89
2000: 2.18
2010: 2.30
2020: 2.36
Anaheim
Tustin
SOUTH
Santa Ana
20-Year Growth:
0.18 (8%)
Huntington
Beach
TOTAL
20-Year Growth
0.37 million (13%)
Newport Beach
Irvine
Population (millions)
Rancho
1990: 0.51
Santa
2000: 0.68
Margarita
2010: 0.79
2020: 0.87
20-Year Growth:
Laguna Niguel
0.19 (28%)
San Clemente
March 21, 2003
38
Orange County’s Water Consumption
North and South
NORTH
Fullerton
Water Use (acre-feet)
2002:
549,000
2025:
634,000
Additional Demand: 85,000 (15%)
Anaheim
Tustin
Santa Ana
Irvine
Huntington
Beach
TOTAL O.C.
Additional Demand
131,000 (19%)
SOUTH
Newport Beach
Rancho
Santa
Margarita
Water Use (acre-feet)
2002: 134,000
180,000
Laguna Niguel 2025:
Additional Demand:
46,000 (34%)
San Clemente
March 21, 2003
39
Where will additional supplies
come from?








Santa Ana River/Groundwater Basin
Groundwater Replenishment System
(GWRS)
Metropolitan Import / Water Transfers
Water Use Efficiency
Water Recycling
Colored water treatment (MCWD, IRWD)
Other local supplies
Ocean desalination
March 21, 2003
40
Orange County Reliability Study
 Started looking at system & supply reliability
•
Focus on South Orange County


How to meet demands with major facility/system outages
Evaluate alternative supply options, including ocean
desalination
 Second Phase to be completed July 2003
•
Highlights projects/programs for system and supply
reliability





March 21, 2003
Ocean Desalination
Central Pool Augmentation
Regional Storage
Water Use Efficiency
Expanded interconnections
41
Where are we headed?
Water Reclamation:
•Dual plumbing systems (IRWD)
• Expanding
usage from agricultural to urban
• Irrigation of medians, open space, etc.
• Brackish water desalination
•Upstream Santa Ana River Watershed
• Irvine Ranch Water District
• City of Tustin
• San Juan Basin
• South Coast Water District
March 21, 2003
42
What have we been doing?
Water Use Efficiency:
•$6-7 million spent on WUE programs annually
•Collaborative partnerships between:
•MWDOC, OCWD, OCSD, MWD & Local retail agencies
•U.S. Bureau of Reclamation & EPA
•County of Orange
•State of California
March 21, 2003
43
What have we been doing?
Water Use Efficiency:
•300,000 ULFT toilets have been installed (10,000 AF/year savings)
•270,000 showerheads have been installed (1,500 AF/year savings)
•3,250 clothes washers have been installed (43 AF/year savings)
•Computer controlled irrigation system retrofits (8,500 AF/year savings)
•Weather Based Controllers (Estimated 37-57 GPD savings)
•5,000 controllers will be installed beginning in summer 2003
•Funding through Proposition 13, Metropolitan and local agencies
•Overall WUE savings = 10-15%
*Savings based on lifespan of fixtures/controllers
March 21, 2003
44
What have we been doing?
Water Use Efficiency:
•Industrial Water Use
•MWD overseeing rebate/retrofit programs ($500,000/year)
•Studies needed to determine how to recapture industrial
processed water for reuse (cooling towers, recycling systems in
die plants, etc.)
•Landscape Performance Certification Program
•Develop landscape irrigation budgets for more than 12,000
landscape meters
•Technical workshops offered
•Annual water savings of 12,000–24,000 AF ($5.4–$10.8 million)
March 21, 2003
45
Ocean Desalination
in Orange County
 Pre-development work for Ocean
Desalination Plant in Dana Point
• Submitted to Metropolitan on June 28, 2002
 Poseidon Ocean Desalination Plant in
Huntington Beach - 50 MGD
•
EIR is being completed by HB
• MWDOC is assisting two of its agencies, Santa
Margarita WD and Southern California WC with
implementation of necessary agreements to access
water
March 21, 2003
46
Coming full circle

Struggle to maintain current imported supply
means we must make the most of what we
have

Local options:
•
Water Recycling
• Water Transfers
• Conjunctive Use
• Water Conservation
• Desalination

Local delivery network must be reliable
March 21, 2003
47
Questions?
Stan Sprague
(714) 963-3058
March 21, 2003
48