Transcript Upper Claremont Heights CUP - Southern California Water

Groundwater Assessment
Study for the
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Southern California Water Dialogue
May 2008
Service Area Water Supplies
 Four million AF of total average annual
retail demand
 Local groundwater production supplies
37% of the total average annual retail
demand in Metropolitan’s service area
Overview
 Metropolitan Board requested study in Fall
2005
 Collaborative effort with member agencies
and groundwater basin managers
 Technical and factual baseline using
existing data
 Reviews period 1985 through 2004
Report Content
 Regional overview and groundwater basin
reports
 Physical characteristics of each basin, and
management, facilities and operations
 Regional trends in management, facilities,
production, recharge, water levels
 Assessment of storage space available
Regional Overview Findings
 On average, over 1.5 million AF produced
annually from groundwater basins
 0.75 million AF actively recharged each year
 Recharge utilizes storm runoff, recycled
water, and imported water
Regional Overview Findings
 In 2004/05 capital facility investments
include:
– More than 4,300 active production wells
– 36 ASR wells
– 5,000 acres of spreading basins
– 7 seawater intrusion barriers
– 16 desalters
– 400 acres of water quality wetlands
Groundwater Basin
Governance in 2006
Adjudicated
Un-adjudicated
Management Statute / Adopted Plan
Trends in
Production
(Acre-Feet)
1985-’94 1995-’04
Northwest MWD Service Area Basins
151,844
122,206
San Fernando Valley Basins
89,834
109,071
LA County Coastal Plain Basins
240,663
247,732
San Gabriel Valley Basins
296,845
319,959
Orange County Basins
275,370
318,477
Inland Empire Basins
163,854
180,732
Eastside MWD Service Area Basins
181,085
213,355
San Diego County Basins
51,321
52,531
Trends in
Recharge
(Acre-Feet)
1992-’93 2004-’05
Northwest MWD Service Area Basins
104,550
70,050
San Fernando Valley Basins
64,658
74,198
LA County Coastal Plain Basins
218,945
223,217
San Gabriel Valley Basins
311,536
438,168
Orange County Basins
284,672
258,556
Inland Empire Basins
14,212
30,060
Eastside MWD Service Area Basins
24,148
24,632
--
--
San Diego County Basins
Comparison of Production and
Recharge Trends
Time period
Average Annual
Production (AF)
Average
Production
annual
supported by
recharge (AF) recharge
1985-1994
1,450,817
759,578
52%
1995-2004
1,564,062
741,633
47%
Trends in Recharge Mix
Average 1985/86 to 1994/95
Injection
Imported 4%
Injection
Recycled 1%
Average 1995/96 to 2004/05
Injection
Imported 3%
In-lieu
11%
Spreading
Runoff 56%
Spreading
Imported
21%
Spreading
Recycled 7%
Injection
Recycled 2%
In-lieu
10%
Spreading
Runoff 63%
Spreading
Imported
16%
Spreading
Recycled 6%
Regional Overview Findings
 In 2004/05, active recharge utilized 60% of
the reported available capacity
 In 2004/05, 21% of production was
reported as treated or blended for water
quality purposes
 3.2 million AF of basin capacity is
available for storage subject to resolution
of issues and determinations of
institutional, operational and economic
feasibility
Available Basin
Storage Space (AF)
Northwest MWD Service Area Basins
945,000
San Fernando Valley Basins
505,000
LA County Coastal Plain Basins
450,000
San Gabriel Valley Basins
245,000
Orange County Basins
135,000
Inland Empire Basins
439,000
Eastside MWD Service Area Basins
500,000
San Diego County Basins
19,000
12 1
3
11
4 9
5
Approved Projects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
7
28
N. Las Posas (Phases 1&2)
Long Beach
Foothill MWD
TVMWD / La Verne
Chino Basin
Orange County Basin
Compton
Long Beach - Lakewood
Upper Claremont Heights – TVMWD
Elsinore
6
10
Identified Projects
11.
12.
Raymond Basin - Pasadena
N. Las Posas (Phase 3)
In-Basin Groundwater Storage Projects
Issues for Storage
 Need for funding
– Water quality treatment
– Capital infrastructure
 Mismatch of storage with overlying demand
 Resolution of institutional disagreements
 Regulatory issues
 Availability of surplus water to store
Groundwater Workshops
 Objective: Develop recommendations
to encourage growth in groundwater
storage and conjunctive use
 Purpose: Provide input to
Metropolitan’s IRP Update
 Participants: Metropolitan member
agencies and groundwater basin
managers
 Timing: Spring/Summer 2008