Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 2016-38 RESOLUTION NO 2016L38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO AB 797 AND SB 1011 WHEREAS, Resolution No 2011-40 adopted the City of Huntington Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan in 2011, and Under state regulations, an Urban Water Management Plan is required to be adopted every five years, and In the semi-arid coastal plain of southern California, it is imperative that every reasonable measure be taken to manage precious local and imported water supplies, and A current Urban Water Management Plan ("Plan") lias been completed, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein,pun suant to the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, and The Plan is a general information document and compliments the Plan of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the Regional Plan of the Metiopolitan Water District of Southern California, and The purpose of Huntington Beach's Plan is to provide a local perspective and analysis of the current and alternative water conservation activities of Huntington Beach, and Huntington Beach's Plan also addresses the effects of water shortages within the City's boundaries and suggests a framework for developing a mechanism, In concert with neighboring cities, to cope with short tern as well as chronic water supply deficiencies, and Huntington Beach's Plan will be periodically updated to reflect changes in water Supply trends and conservation policies within the boundaries of Huntington Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, THE City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hen eby resolve as follows I That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby acknowledges the essential nature of water conservation within its boundaries as described herein, and 2 That the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", is hereby approved and adopted, and the City will implement the Plan as discussed therein 3 Resolution No 2011-40 is hereby repealed 1 RLS 6/2/2016/16-5281/137354/PD Resolution No. 2016-38 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20hday of June , 20 16 May REVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS FORM Ail& City anag r C Attorney MN INITIATED AND APPROVED le Director of Public Works 2 RLS 6/2/2016/16-5281/137354/PD 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT JUNE 2016 1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Huntington Beach FINAL DRAFT Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department [Signature 1 Name] 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 [Title] 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 HB -251- Item 17. - 6 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 Huntington Beach Service Area.. ....... ._...... ....................................................... ......... ..................1-6 1.3.2 City of Huntington Beach 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 ........................................ .......................................................2-2 2.2.2 Demographics ...................... .....................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Land Use............................................_..:.................. ............................... ...... .............2-3 2.3 Water Use by Customer Type ................................ ...... ...........................................2-6 2.3.1 Overview.......:.. ........... .......................... .. .... ................................................................2-7 2.3.2 Non-Residential...........`:`:........................_............................. ...... ..... .... ..........................2-8 2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies...................................................................................................2-8 2.3.4 Non-Revenue Water.................. .................................. . .....................................2-8 2.4 Demand Projections......._.............................................................................................................2-9 2.4.1 Demand Projection Methodology.....................................................................................2-9 2.4.2 Agency Refinement.......... .........................._... . ........ .......................................2-10 2.4.3 ' 25 Year Projections........................................................................................................2-10 2.4.4 Total Water Demand Projections ...................................................................................2-11 2.4.5 Water Use for Lower Income Households .....................................................................2-11 2.5 SBx7-7 Requirements................................................................................................................2-13 2.5.1 Baseline Water Use........................................................................................................2-13 2.5.1.1 10 to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD).................................................2-14 2.5.1.2 Five-Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation) ................................................2-15 2.5.1.3 Service Area Population.......................................................................................2-16 Item 17. - 7 HB 5 1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.5.2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets ............................................................................................2-16 2.5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods........................................................................................2-16 2.5.2.2 2015 and 2020 Targets ........................................................................................2-17 2.5.3 Regional Alliance............................................................................................................2-18 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.............................................................................................................................3-7 3.3 Groundwater................................................................................................................................3-7 3.3.1 Basin Characteristics.................................._ -..................................................................3-7 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......................................................3-14 3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program .........................................................................3-14 3.3.6 Groundwater Historical Extraction..................................................................................3-14 3.3.7 Overdraft Conditions.......................................................................................................3-14 3.4 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water................................................................3-15 3.5 Recycled Water.. .._...._. ......... ............................... ... ............ ........... ..................................3-17 3.6 Supply Reliability........................................................................................................................3-17 3.6.1 Overview....................................................... ........................................... .....................3-17 3.6.2 Factors Impacting Reliability ..........................................................................................3-17 3.6.2.1 Environment...................................... ...................................................................3-17 3.6.2.2 Legal.....................................................................................................................3-17 3.6.2.3 Water Quality........................................................................................................3-18 3.6.2.3.1 Imported Water...........................................................................................3-18 3.6.2.3.2 Groundwater...............................................................................................3-18 3.6.2.4 Climate Change....................................................................................................3-20 arcadis.com HB -253- Item 17. - 8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.6.3 Normal-Year Reliability Comparison..............................................................................3-20 3.6.4 Single-Dry Year Reliability Comparison .........................................................................3-21 3.6.5 Multiple-Dry Year Period Reliability Comparison ...........................................................3-21 3.7 Supply and Demand Assessment................................................................................................3-22 4 Demand Management Measures.........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances..........................................................................................4-1 4.2 Metering...................................................................................__.._.............................................4-2 4.3 Conservation Pricing....................................................................................................................4-2 4.4 Public Education and Outreach ........................................................... ............................4-3 4.4.1 City's Public Education and Outreach Programs.............................................................4-3 4.4.2 MWDOC's Public Education and Outreach Programs.._..................................................4-4 4.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss.... . .............. ...... ................4-6 4.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support...............................................4-6 4.7 Other Demand Management Measures................................ .....................................................4-6 4.7.1 Residential Programs.. _ .......... ....... ............ . ......................................4-7 4.7.2 CII Programs ........................... ................... .. . .........................................4-7 4.7.3 Landscape Programs.............. .. ...................................................................................4-8 5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.......................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Overview.........................................._...........................................................................................5-1 5.2 Shortage Actions ......... ......... ......... ....... ................................. ..............................................5-1 52.1 Metropolitan Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan ..........................................5-1 5.2.2 Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan......................................................................5-3 5.2.3 MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan............... ............... .. ....... ........................... .. ..5-4 5.2.4 City of Huntington Beach..................................................................................................5-5 5.3 Three-Year Minimum Water Supply .............. ............................................ ................................5-6 5.4 Catastrophic Supply Interruption .................................................................................................5-7 5.4.1 Metropolitan......................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.2 Water Emergency Response of Orange County..............................................................5-7 5.5 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods....................................................5-8 5.5.1 Prohibitions.......................................................................................................................5-8 5.5.2 Penalties.........................................................................................................................5-12 Item 17. - 9;..m HB -254- iii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.5.3 Consumption Reduction Methods..................................................................................5-12 5.6 Impacts to Revenue...................................................................................................................5-13 5.7 Reduction Measuring Mechanism .............................................................................................5-13 6 Recycled Water....................................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................................6-1 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...................................................................... ............................6-4 6.4.1 Direct Non-Potable Reuse................................................................................................6-4 6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse.....................................................................................................6-4 6.5 Optimization Plan.........................................................................................................................6-4 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs......................................................................................7-1 7.1 Water Management Tools ...........................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities......_.....................................................................................7-1 7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs........... ... ..... ................................. . .... ...........7-1 7.4 Desalination Opportunities...........................................................................................................7-2 7.4.1 Groundwater....... ......... ........ .......... . .................................... .......... ....... ...............7-3 7.4.2 Ocean Water...... ................................... . . ............. .... ................... . . .........................7-3 8 UWMP Adoption Process ..... ............................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Public Participation .................... ....................... ........... ............................................................8-2 8.2 Agency Coordination ....'. ...................... ... ..... ........ . ....................... .. .. .. ....... .....................8-2 8.3 UWMP Submittal..........................................................................................................................8-3 8.3.1 Review of2010UWMP Implementation........ ....... ................................... .....................8-3 8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015 Actual Water Conservation Programs.................................................................................................................8-3 8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP..............................-........................................................................8-3 References.................................................................................................................................................8-4 arcadis com HB -255- Item 17. - 10 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLES Table 1-1: Plan Identification......................................................................................................................1-2 Table1-2: Agency Identification.................................................................................................................1-3 Table 1-3: Public Water Systems (AF).......................................................................................................1-9 Table 1-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange ......................................................................................1-9 Table 2-1: Population —Current and Projected................................... ............................2-3 Figure 2-2: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use... ..... .. ......... .......... ...............................2-6 Table 2-2: Current and Historical Service Connections.............................................................................2-7 Table 2-3: Demands for Potable and Raw Water—Actual (AF)............................ ............................2-8 Table 2-4: Water Loss Audit Summary ........................ .... .. ................. .... ............ .... -.......................2-9 Table 2-5: Demands for Potable and Raw Water- Projected (AF)..... ........ .......2-10 Table 2-6: Inclusion in Water Use Projections ...................................... . ................................................2-11 Table 2-7: Total Water Demands (AF)........::..................................-.......................................................2-11 Table 2-8: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income................................................2-12 Table 2-9: Projected Housing Need by Income Category for 2013-2021 Planning Period......................2-12 Table 2-10: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AF).............2-13 Table 2-11: City of Huntington Beach Base Daily Per Capita Use FY 1995-2005...................................2-15 Table 2-12: City of Huntington Beach Base Daily Per Capita Use FY 2004-2008....... ...........................2-16 Table 2-13: Baselines and Targets Summary..........................................................................................2-17 Table 2-14:2015 Compliance .......,............................................. .............. .. ...................... ................2-18 Table 3-1: Metropolitan Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities ..................................................3-6 Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF)........................................................................................3-14 Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual (AF)....................................................................................................3-15 Table 3-4: Water Supplies, Projected (AF)...............................................................................................3-16 Table 3-5: Basis of Water Year Data........................................................................................................3-22 Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)..............................................................3-22 Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF).........................................................3-23 Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison.............................................................3-23 Table 4-2: Water Rates Effective December 2, 2015.................................................................................4-3 Table 5-1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan ...........................................................................5-6 Item 17.. - 1 l om HB -256- 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-2: Minimum Supply Next Three Years (AF) ..................................................................................5-7 Table 5-3: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses...............................................................................5-8 Table 5-4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods.................5-13 Table 6-1: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015 (AF)..........................................................6-3 Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach.........................................................................................8-1 Table 8-2: Notification to Cities and Counties...................................................::.......................................8-2 FIGURES Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier..........-..............................-................................1-5 Figure 1-2: City of Huntington Beach Service Area ............-.....................................................................1-7 Figure 1-3: City of Huntington Beach Existing Potable Water System Facilities .......................................1-8 Figure 2-1: City of Huntington Beach Existing Land Use...........................................................................2-4 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 3-3: Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers.................................................................3-13 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 J CUWCC BMP Report K MWDOC Water Shortage Allocation Model arcadis com HB -257- Item 17. - 12 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 BECSP Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan Biops Biological Opinions BMP Best Management Practice BPP Basin Production Percentage CCC California Coastal Commission CDR Center for Demographic Research CFS Cubic Feet per Second CII Commercial/Industrial/Institutional City City of Huntington Beach CPTP Coastal Pumping Transfer Program CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CUP Conjunctive Use Program CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP Central Valley Project DCU Data Collection Unit Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta DMM Demand Management Measure DOF Department of Finance DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report FY Fiscal Year GAP Green Acres Project GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day GPM Gallons per Minute GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washers HET High Efficiency Toilet IPR Indirect Potable Reuse IRP Integrated Water Resource Plan IWA International Water Association LBCWD Laguna Beach County Water District LRP Local Resources Program Item 17. - 1 3 om HB -258- vii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LTFP Long-Term Facilities Plan MAF Million Acre-Feet MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income MOU Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether MTU Meter Transmission Unit MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NCC Network Control Center NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine OC Orange County OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District PCH Pacific Coast Highway Poseidon Poseidon Resources LLC` PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RA Replenishment Assessment`'' RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis 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 UV Ultraviolet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VOC Volatile Organic Compound WBIC Weather Based Irrigation Controller WEROC Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County WF-21 Water Factory 21 WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan arcadis.com xB -259- Item 17. - 14 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WSDM Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan WUE Water Use Efficiency Item 17.. - 15 om HB -260- ix 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 customers 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 UWMP provides DWR with a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands within the City of Huntington Beach's (City) service area and assesses the City's 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 (DMM) • 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 (20x2O2O). Reduction in water use is an important part of this plan that aims to sustainably manage the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (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 com xB -261- Item 17. - 16 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 (AWWA). 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 �'•'� x >s., a„>�.-,—b'�: _ ..�`i$..���,�,.A ,r o amp 7 Individual UWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a ❑ RUWMP . Watersiipplier is also a member of a #teg!onal Alliance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) NOTES: Item 17. - 17;oR, HB -262- 1-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 1-2: Agency Identification Agency Identification Type of one o both) Agency is a wholesaler ;Agency is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year fselect one) 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 Units of Measure Used in UWMP(select from Drop down) Unit AF NOTES: 1.2 agency Overview The City is a predominantly residential community located along the California coastline in Orange County. It was incorporated in 1909 and is a charter city. From 1936 to 1964, the water system serving the City was owned and operated by the Southern California Water Company. In 1964, the City purchased the private system and the City's Water Division was established as a Division of the Public Works Department. In 2003, the Public Works Wastewater Section was incorporated into the Water Division to form the Utilities Division. The City is administered under a council/administrator form of government, and is governed by a seven-member elected City council, with part time council members.Current City Council members are: • Jim Katapodis, Mayor • Dave Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tempore • Barbara Delgleize, Council Member • Billy O'Connell, Council Member • Erik Peterson, Council Member • Jill Hardy, Council Member • Mike Posey, Council Member The City has a 2015 population of 198,429 and the projected population by the year 2040 is 207,182. Total water demand in 2015 was 25,744 acre-feet per year(AFY), which includes 1,094 AFY of unaccounted for system loss. The City receives its water from two main sources, local well water from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District arcadis.com HB -263- Item 17. - 18 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is Orange County's wholesale supplier and is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The City's location within MWDOC is shown on Figure 1-1. Item 17. - 19;om HB -264- 1-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN tMA�es OaaV�t .., • Bart lvrMrdao GaleQy LA HPIN A p F[L;'.}34TCN YORBA LOMA MUER DCMI.CT BGLOENSTATE WATEIP C.. ANAHEAP IiCfAZ CsiD' A2WD MMfJt3R pCiSA7E ' vJwi M71TERC0 AAROEN BNt01lE `; WESTLMIST'Er w TLMTAN HCAYttN47pN 8fiF '*+«« RVRIERANCH WAWWC. i —TER DISTRAT' Tl0i8IJG0 CANVON A19atKYtF;�DM $ NRTE KOMAJON AvctI SAi.'ASiMRBAIb`Tl V NIERA:P BAY WATVRDA7R11LT NRFER OI:STRtCT WRLTCE LYS TR CCT L aLIW BEACH CCLri WATER Pacific Ocean CAKSTRA/!D a.,—COAT 14A'EIP Ct'STRfCT East Orange County Water Distnct(Wholesale) --._� Freeways and 7o0ways v Orange CDccrty water District NF Souttrcaast_WD_NRVYA S &WDDC Retail Agersaes Non-RetalJ Agency Boundary o ._ s 1s MIaY MWDOC Service Area and Member Agencies Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier arcadis com xB -265- Item 17. - 20 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.3 Service Area and Facilities 1.3.1 City of Huntington Beach Service Area The City is located 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 90 miles northwest of San Diego along the Southern California Coast of Orange County as shown in Figure 1-2. The City's water service area is 27.3 square miles of which 0.2 square miles is Sunset Beach. The City is generally flat, with elevations ranging from a low of about five feet below sea level to 120 feet above sea level. The City also has 71 parks and public facilities and 8.5 miles of beaches. The City formerly supplied water to Sunset Beach, which is approximately 68 acres of land located off of the Pacific Coast Highway(PCH) near Huntington Harbor, but recently annexed it. Item 17. - 21 ;om HB -266- 1-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN _ 7 t E Seal Beach e n., •1 - �u .p. Q Fountain d'aAey firms City Of N .. Huntligton Beach m. N W i E D 0.5 t 1.5 - Costa Mesa Miles Figure 1-2: City of Huntington Beach Service Area 1.3.2 City of Huntington Beach Water Facilities The Public Works Department maintains the City's water facilities. Groundwater is currently pumped from 8 active wells located throughout the City. The City's water distribution system is connected to Metropolitan transmission mains at OC-9, OC-35, and OC-44 located respectively along the northeast, northwest, and southeast sides of the City. The Public Works Department also operates four storage and arcadis.com HB -267- Item 17. — 22 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN distribution reservoirs with a combined capacity of 55 million gallons. The storage system is supported with four booster stations located at the reservoir sites. The booster pumps have a total capacity of 58,690 gallons per minute (gpm), which is adequate to keep the system pressurized under peak flow conditions. The system connections and water volume supplied are summarized in Table 1-3, and the wholesalers informed of this water use as required are displayed in Table 1-4. Figure 1-3 shows the City's existing potable water system facilities and pipelines. - -- _.. - . -�_ - I ram. ..n.....W.A. ...... a� Y I �P l[1 lI jam+ 11_ 7 i If_ I� _..��`r"-�- •L�_" �w.,-� F t �x�i s — .� � I t t t Legend 0 City Boundary � �.i S r�• � _ ��i � 1' .� � C�. .�.. r t! u},., Zone 2 Boundary Rnr � Reservoir-1800ster Pump Station — G oundwaur Wen L ` 0 Pressure Relief Valve ® Check Valve • Import Water Service Connection -1 1 , • Emergency inter-Connection `rs Water Pipes By Diameter j., ` _ rc—I 1:: 1 IV �.,�,` —20'-24' - -26'-42' i,�� Figure 1-3: City of Huntington Beach Existing Potable Water System Facilities Item 17. - 23:0,,, HB -268- 1-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 1-3: Public Water Systems (AF) Retail Only: Public Water Systems Number of Volurne of Public lUater Public Wafer System Municipal Water Supplied SystQrn'Number Name 'Connections 2015 2015 CA3010053 City of Huntington 53,091 27,996 Beach TOTAL 53,091 27,996 NOTES: *Total Revenue Water was 26,894 AFY and Unaccounted for System Loss is 1,102 AFY Table 1-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange SupplierRetail:Water • The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s)of projected water use in accordance with CWC 1063L MWDOC OCWD NOTES: arcadis com HB -2-69- Item 17. - 24 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 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; as such, the City has already surpassed its 2020 target of 144.4 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) with a current water use of 105 GPCD. 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 20 percent set for the City itself and the Regional Alliance of all participating MWDOC utility agencies. As previously stated, the City has already exceeded its target; the Regional Alliance has done so as well. As discussed later in Section 2.5, the Regional Alliance 2020 target is 158 GPCD and the actual 2015 water use was 125 GPCD. In addition to local water conservation ordinances, the City has engaged in activities that range from being a signatory member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council's (CUWCC) Best Management Practices(BMPs) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) since 2000 to ongoing water audit and leak detection programs. The City has also partnered with MWDOC on educational programs, indoor retrofits and training. These efforts have been part of statewide water conservation ordinances that require reducing landscape watering, serving water in restaurants and bars only upon customers' request, 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 25 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. Item 17. - 25:om HB -270- 2-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 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 water 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 yeas and used it as an additional source of supply for groundwater recharge. Metropolitan's water supplies come from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), 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 198,429 according to the California State University at Fullerton's Center for Demographic Research (CDR). The City is almost completely built-out, and its population is projected to increase 4.4 percent by 2040, representing an average growth rate of 0.18 percent per year. Two factors likely contribute to increased water demand. The City attracts a significant number of visitors throughout the year and there has been an increase in the mixed-use type of higher density new developments. Growth has increased slightly since the 2010 UWMP as housing is becoming denser and new residential units are multi-storied In 2012, the Sunset Beach community was annexed into the City's official boundaries from the County of Orange, 497 parcels were added within the City's boundaries. Before annexation the Sunset Beach community was included within the City's service area. Table 2-1 shows the population projections in five-year increments out to 2040 within the City's service area. Historical, current, and projected population has been revised using the 2010 U.S. Census data and can be found in Table 2-1. Upon initial inspection, the population shows a drop since the 2010 UWMP; therefore CDR's population was cross referenced with the Department of Finance (DOF), and the new population tool from DWR. All three sources of population are consistent with one another and confirm the revised population data is accurate. arcadis.com JIB -2)71- Item 17. - 26 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-1: Population—Current and Projected P• . • . Projected 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population Served 198,429 203,840 204,330 206,207 207,387 209,689 NOTES: Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2015 2.2.3 Land Use The City's service area can best be described as a predominately single and multi-family residential community located along the coast in northern Orange County. There is a large number of visitors to the City throughout the year to take advantage of the miles of coastline and beachfront activities. There are few open plots left within the City, most growth is occurring through densification of existing communities. The Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP) has a maximum amount of new development of 2,100 dwelling units (1,900 of which are already permitted) as a result of a 2015 amendment. There are 17,368 acres of land within the City's service area, which includes the annexed Sunset Beach area. Existing land use in the City is shown on Figure 2-1. The existing land use presented is from the City's current General Plan. The City currently does not have a Vacant Land Survey. Land Use presented in this water master plan is solely for the purposes of estimating water demands. Item 17. - 2T: , HB -272- 2-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN General Plan -' — City qfHw7tingtonBeach General Plan Designations _\ {fit � — � �_ '� � ►. \ � Y _ A 1 .B �s rtm i j u Figure 2-1: City of Huntington • • 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Only 2.2% of the City remains as vacant land (376 acres). Of this vacant land, approximately 32% is designated residential, 28% is designated open space -conservation, and 22% is designated open space - park. It is assumed that all of this land will be developed ultimately with the exception of vacant land in the open space conservation category, which is assumed to remain open space, i.e. no projected increase in future water demands. Pursuant to the General Plan, which is currently being updated, the City is being developed in accordance with 14 Specific Plans. The largest Specific Plans currently underway are the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The largest land use in the City is residential at 7,909 acres (approximately 46% of the total). Approximately 71%0 of the residential land use is low density residential (3 to 7 dwelling units per acre). Commercial land use is spread out over the City (550 acres). The Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Conference Center and the Hilton Water Front Beach Resort constitute the majority of the 67 acres of Commercial Visitor land use. Low income housing for the city is addressed in section 2.4.5. The General Plan Land Use at Build-out is shown on Figure 2-2. Approximately 850 acres in the City are designated for Mixed Use, which is a composite of Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, and Residential including town homes, garden apartments, and mid to high-rise apartments. Mixed Use is also designated as either vertical or horizontal integrated housing. As shown on Figure 1-2, a large portion of the mixed use land borders Beach Boulevard from Adams Avenue to Edinger Avenue as part of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Mixed use land use is also designated in the downtown area near the Pier. The large mixed use area with horizontal integrated housing located between the Seacliff Golf Course and PCH is already partially developed in accordance with the Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan. Parks, City Beach, State Beach, and Meadowlark Golf Course have a combined total of 1,063 acres. The largest park in the City is Huntington Central Park at 343 acres which still has areas for development. The largest commercial recreation land use areas are the Seacliff Golf Course and the Meadowlark Country Club at 238 acres. The smallest land use type in the City is for industrial land at 1,153 acres. The largest industrial areas in the City include Boeing and the McDonnell Center Business Park in the northwestern part of the city and the Gothard Industrial Corridor bordering Gothard Street between Ellis and Edinger Avenue. The final industrial area of note of the City is the Southeast Industrial Area. This mix of industrial, public, and open space includes two large water users: the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD),No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Plant. (PSOMAS, Water Master Plan, December 2012). The City completed the 2014 Existing Land Use Technical Report, but it has not yet been adopted by the City Council. It is available at http://www.hbthenextwave.org/wp-contenUur)loads/Revised-Land-Use- 121814.pdf. Item 17. - 29;ors, HB -274- 2-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN General Plan . _ Oty qfHuntington Beach ' v ' -- �t i A£ i i..� # .� General Plan De::ignations � � . g Figure 2-2: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use 2.3 dater 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 the quantity of water used, and by whom within the agency's service area. A comprehensive 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. arcadis com HB -275- Item 17. - 30 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 sales to other agencies and non-revenue water are also discussed in this section. 2.3.1 Overview There are 53,091 current customer active service connections in the City's water distribution system with all connections metered. Table 2-2 has the number of service connections for the City since 2005, within this ten year period the number of connections has increased only 1.8 percent while the demand has decreased to meet the 20% mandatory reduction implemented for the City. Table 2-2: Current and Historical Service Connections Service ConnecCion Type 2005 2010 2015 Single Family 43,887 44,147 44,833 Multi-Family 4,173 4,119 4,124 Commercial 2,337 2,286 2,251 Industrial 591 564 306 Institutional/Governmental 873 934 584 Landscape ,, 307 306 993 Total 52,168 52,356 53,091 Table 2-3 contains a summary of the City's total water demand in fiscal year (FY) 2014-15 for potable water. Historical demand data from 2005 and 2010 are also listed in the table to demonstrate that the current level of demand within the City is not typical. Vigorous conservation efforts and mandatory restrictions have had a significant impact on the City's water demand in response to the drought conditions impacting California. For FY 2014-15, approximately 19,100 AF (or 68 percent) of the City's water demand was residential, with commercial, industrial, dedicated landscape, other uses, and losses accounting for the remaining 32 percent of the total demand. Item 17. - 31 ;. HB -276- 2-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-3: Demands for Potable and Raw Water—Actual (AF) Retail: Demands for Potable Use .- Additionah Level of Description Treatment Volume , When Deliverer! 2005 2010 2015 Single Family Drinking Water 14,705 13,937 13,174 Multi-Family Drinking Water 6,908 6,298 6,016 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 70 169 139 Commercial Drinking Water 4,079 3,700 3,597 Industrial Drinking Water 663 514 404 Landscape Drinking Water 2,673 2,785 2,942 Other AES Power Plant Drinking Water 306 290 386 Other Meadowlark Golf Raw Water 211 203 236 Course Losses Drinking Water 2,758 1,567 1,102 TOTAL 32,373 29,463 27,996 NOTES: Meadowlark Golf Course uses untreated well water 2.3.2 Non-Residential For FY 2014-15, non-residential use includes commercial, industrial, dedicated landscape, and institutional water demands. Commercial water use accounts for 3,538 AF (or 12.6 percent) of total water demands and dedicated landscape for 2,894 AF (or 10.3 percent) of total water demand. Industrial, institutional, governmental, and other use make up about 1,009 AF (3.6 percent) of total 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. 2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies The City does not sell water to other agencies although it does maintain emergency interconnections with the Cities of Seal Beach, Westminster, and Fountain Valley. 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 apparent losses (unauthorized consumption and metering inaccuracies). A water loss audit was conducted per AWWA methodology for the City to understand the relation between water loss 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 arcadis.com HB -277- Item 17. - 32 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. Table 2-4 below is a result of the AWWA Water Audit completed for the City and the 2015 UWMP. The water loss summary was calculated over a one-year period from available data and the methodology explained above. The volume of water loss calculated for this period represents 1,167 AF (4.8 percent) of the City's annual water supplied. Table 2-4: Water Loss Audit Summary Retail: 12 Month Water Loss AuditReporting fteporting�eriodStart"Date Volume of Water Lass mm/YYYv) 10/2014 1,167 NOTES: 2.4 Demand Projections Demand projections were developed by MWDOC for each agency within their service area based on available data as well as land use, population and economic growth. Three projections 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) per MWDOC's OC reliability study(CDM Smith, Final Technical Memorandum #1 of Orange County Reliability Study, April 2016). 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 Ordinance, plumbing code efficiencies for toilets, and expected plumbing code for high-efficiency clothes washers. 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, Orange County Groundwater Basin (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 a survey of Orange County water agencies (FY 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 areas and 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. Item 17. - 33:. xB -278- 2-9 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The unit water use factor multiplied by a demographic factor yields demand projections without new conservation. To account for new conservation, projected savings from new passive and active conservation were subtracted from these demands. 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 UWMP. 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 water demand is 27,996 AFY, met through locally pumped groundwater and purchased imported water from MWDOC. Table 2-5 is a projection of the City's water demand for the next 25 years. Table 2-5: Demands for Potable and Raw Water-Projected (AF) Retail::Demands for Potable Use o- Projected 7,7 Additional'Descri tion 2020, 2025 . 2030 2035' 2040 Single Family 13,218 14,189 14,286 14,283 14,303 Multi-Family 6,036 6,480 6,524 6,522 6,532 Institutional/Governmental 140 150 1 151 151 151 Commercial 3,609 3,874 1 3,900 3,899 3,905 Industrial 405 435 438 438 438 Landscape 2,952 3,169 3,190 3,190 3,194 Other AES Power Plant 388 416 419 419 419 Other Meadowlark Golf 237 254 256 256 256 Course Losses 1,106 1,187 1,195 1,195 1 11196 TOTAL 28,090 30,153 1 30,360 1 30,352 1 30,396 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and Retail Water Agency Projections. The above demand values were provided by MWDOC and reviewed by the City as part of the UWMP effort. As the regional wholesale supplier for much of Orange County, MWDOC works in collaboration with each of its retail agencies as well as Metropolitan, its wholesaler, to develop demand projections for imported water. The City will aim to decrease its reliance on imported water by pursuing a variety of water conservation strategies, per capita water use is developed in Section 2.6 below. arcadis.com xB -279- Item 17. - 34 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-6: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Retail Only: Projections Are Futur&Water Savings included in Projections? . .' Yes If"Yes"to above,state the"section or page number,in the cell to the right,where Section 4.1 citations of the codes,ordinances,etc...utilized in demand projections are found. Are Lower Income"Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes NOTES: 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 and 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 2-7. The City will evaluate the potential use of recycled water in its service area as opportunities become available. Table 2-7: Total Water Demands (AF) Retail:Total Water Demands 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water 27,996 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 Recycled Water Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 27,996 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 NOTES: City will evaluate the potential use of recycled water as opportunities become available 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 65589.7 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). This MHI is based on the mean County income and an applied 110 percent social equity adjustment. 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 Item 17. - 35 ;om HB -280- 2-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 2-8. Altogether the City has 36.22 percent low income housing [(7,377+7,175+12,356)/74,299]. For the planning period of 2013 to 2021, the City is expected to add housing to each income level. This data is shown in Table 2-9 and low income housing will account for 39.39 percent of new housing projects(SCAG, RHNA, November 2013). The City will construct according to the BECSP, as the Amendment that would have reduced the overall new development was determined to be in noncompliance with the required amount of low income housing. This may affect the number of low income households in the future but will not affect overall water consumption. (Huntington Beach, 2013-2021 Housing Element, September 2013), (Brittany Woolsey, Low-cost housing decision a setback for H.B., Huntington Beach Independent, 21 April 2016). Table 2-8: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income Number of Households by Income Household Type Number Percent Extremely Low Income 7,377 9.9% Very Low Income 7,175 9.7% Lower Income 12,356 16.6% Moderate Income 13,464 18.1% Above Moderate Income 33,927 45.7% Total Households 74,299 100% Table 2-9: Projected Housing Need by Income Category for 2013-2021 Planning Period Number of Households by income : E Household Type Number Percent Very Low Income 313 23.1% Lower Income 220 16.3% Moderate Income 248 18.3% Above Moderate Income 572 42.2% Total Households 1,353 10OYo arcadis.com HB -281- Item 17. - 36 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-10 provides the projected water needs for low income residential households based on the percentage of projected housing need that is low income. This will be 36.27 percent of the total housing, [(7,377+7,175+12,356+313+220)/74,299+1,353)], taking into effect the current number of households in Table 2-8 in addition to the projected households in table 2-9. The projected water demands represent 36.27 percent of the projected water demand for the residential category provided in Table 2-5 above. For example, the residential demand for low income households is projected to be 6,984 AFY in 2020 and 7,557 AFY in 2040. Table 2-10: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AF) Water Use Sector Fiscal Year Ending 2020 2025 2030t 040 Total Residential Demand 19,255 20,669 20,811 20,805 20,835 SF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 4,794* 5,146 5,182 5,180 5,188 MF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 2,189* 2,350 2,366 2,366 2,369 Total Low Income Households Demand 6,984 7,497 7,548 7,546 7,557 "Values equal to 36.27% of 2020 demand from Table 2-5 2.5 SBx7-7 Requirements 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. As stated above in Section 2.1, the City has surpassed its conservation goals for 2020. 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. As stated above, the City has met its 2015 water use target. 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. This form is included as Appendix B. 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 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 Item 17. - 3 7;om HB -282- 2-13 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Indirect recycled water • Water placed in long-term storage • Water conveyed to another urban supplier • Water delivered for agricultural use • Process water Water suppliers within the OCWD Basin, including the City, have the option of choosing to deduct recycled water used for indirect potable reuse (IPR) from their gross water use to account for the recharge of recycled water into the OC Basin by OCWD, historically through Water Factory 21 (WF-21), and now by the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). Water suppliers must report baseline water use for two baseline periods, the 1`0-to 15-year baseline (baseline GPCD) and the five-year baseline (target confirmation) as described below. 2.5.1.1 10 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). 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. Recycled water use was less than 10 percent of the City's retail delivery in 2008; therefore,,a 10-year baseline period is used. The City's baseline water use is 161 GPCD, obtained from the 10-year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. Table 2-11 shows how this was determined. arcadis.com HB -283- Item 17. - 38 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-11: City of Huntington Beach Base Daily Per Capita Use FY 1995-2005 Annual/Water Recycled Gross Water Fiscal from Imported Water Agricultural Year Own Water for Use 1 e 2 Water Use Area Sources (AF) Indirect + 1 . 1996 26,370 8,729 470 23 34,606 30,894,246 186944 165.3 1997 26,106 10,188 417 35,876 32,028,029 187812 170.5 1998 20,003 14,058 307 33,754 30,133,629 188754 159.6 1999 19,590 16,560 213 35,938 32,083,379 189697 169.1 2000 20,144 15,417 201 35,359 31,566,481 190978 165.3 2001 18,254 16,756 213 34,797 31,064,760 192211 161.6 2002 24,581 10,420 255 34,746 31,019,230 193141 160.6 2003 14,131 19,378 170 33,338 29,762,248 193990 153.4 2004 13,188 18,049 218 34,054 30,401,452 194372 156.4 2005 14,945 17,892 212 32,625 29,125,723 193915 150.2 Baseline (Average FY 1996-2005) 161.2 [1]Indirect is recycled water for groundwater recharge through spreading and injection of GWRS(Water Factory 21 prior to FY 2004).The yearly totals are apportioned among the OCWD Basin agencies on the basis of groundwater production over a five year rolling average,per MWDOC [2]Gross Water Use=Water from own sources+Imported—Recycled—Agricultural [3]The Center for Demographic Research,California State University Fullerton, including Sunset Beach Population 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 151 GPCD, obtained from the five-year period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 as shown in Table 2-12. Item 17. - 39;om HB -284- 2-15 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-12: City of Huntington Beach Base Daily Per Capita Use FY 2004-2008 Population'Water Recycled Gross Water Annual/ Fiscal from Imported Water Agricultural Water Gross Service Capita Year Own Water for Use(AF) Use? Water Use Area Use Sources (AF) Indirect (AF) (gal/day) 2004 16,223 18,049 218 34,054 30,401,452 194,372 156.4 2005 14,945 17,892 212 32,625 29,125,723 193,915 150.2 2006 19,543 12,369 271 31640 28,246,372 193,009 146.3 2007 1 21,795 11,536 257 33,073 29,525,672 192,172 153.6 2008 25,573 6,285 193 31,664 28,267,797 191,448 147.7 Baseline (Average FY 2004-2008) 150.8 [1] Indirect is recycled water for groundwater recharge through spreading and injection of GWRS(Water Factory 21 prior to FY 2004).The yearly totals are apportioned among the OCWD Basin agencies on the basis of groundwater production over a five year rolling average, per MWDOC [2]Gross Water Use=Water from own sources+Imported—Recycled-Agricultural [3]The Center for Demographic Research,California State University Fullerton,including Sunset Beach Population 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 DOF. The CDR, 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. 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 1 requires a simple 10 percent reduction from the baseline by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. arcadis.com xB -22ss- Item 17. - 40 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Option 2 employs a budget-based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics • Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD • Landscape water use commensurate with the Model Landscape Ordinance • 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, which is 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 152 GPCD and the 2020 target is 142 GPCD as summarized in Table 2-13. 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 5 percent reduction from the five-year baseline water use. Table 2-13: Baselines and Targets Summary RetailBaselines and Targets Summary Agency Baseline Erid Average 2035 ., Confirmed Start Year Baseline Interim-' 2020 Peraotl Year GPCD* Target* Target* 10-15 i 1995 2005 151 152 142 year 5 Year 2004 2008 151 *A1#ualuesran. ns der Capita°per Day: PC �� NOTES: Table 2-14 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 already met the 2020 water use target. Item 17.. - 41 :om HB -2)86- 2-17 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-14: 2015 Compliance 2015 Compliance RetailAgency Actual 2015., 2015Interirn Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction GPCD Target GPCD for 2015?YIN , 106 152 Yes *II I values nre rn Gar%iriins per COp�per 43 (Gt Cb NOTES: 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, its wholesaler. 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. 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. As previously stated, the City has also met its individual goal arcadis.com HB -287- Item 17. - 42 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 WATER SOURCES AND SUPPLY RELIABILITY 3.1 Overview The City relies on a combination of imported water and local groundwater to meet its water needs. The City works together with three primary agencies, Metropolitan, MWDOC, and OCWD 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 the CRA and the SWP provided by Metropolitan and delivered through MWDOC. The City's main source of water supply is groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, also known as the Orange County Groundwater Basin, For FY 2014-15, the City relied on approximately 72 percent groundwater and 28 percent imported. It is projected that by 2040, the water supply mix will change to approximately 70 percent groundwater and 30 percent imported water. The City's projected water supply portfolio is shown on Figure 3-1. 100% 90% _ 10,303 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,303 80% 60% 50% _ 40% 20% 10% 0% - 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 ■Groundwater ■Imported 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. Item 17.. - 43 ;om HB -288- 3-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2 Imported Water The City supplements its local groundwater with imported water purchased from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Imported water historically represents approximately 30 percent of the City's total water supply. Metropolitan's principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the CRA and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the SWP. The raw water obtained from these sources is, for Orange County, 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 maintains three imported water connections to the Metropolitan system, OC-9 with a capacity of 14 cubic feet per second (cfs), OC-35 with a capacity of 20 cfs, and OC-44 with a capacity of 15 cfs. OC-9 is located at the intersection of Dale and Katella Streets in the City of Stanton, and enters the City at the intersection of Newland and Edinger Streets. OC-35 is also located at the intersection of Dale and Katella Streets, and enters the City at the intersection of Springdale and Glenwood Streets. OC- 9 and OC-35 are under the jurisdiction of the West Orange County Water Board. OC-44 is located at the East Orange County Feeder #2, and flow is delivered to the City's service area through a 24 to 42 inch transmission main jointly owned by the City and Mesa Water District. A secondary metering station, also jointly owned, is located on Adams Avenue at the Santa Ana River. 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 Draft UWMP, March 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: arcadis.com xB -289- Item 17. - 44 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Surplus water is available • 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 Draft UWMP, March 2016). The long-term imbalance in future supply and demand is projected to be approximately 3.2 MAF by the year 2060. 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. 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: • 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 Item 17.. - 45:om HB -290- 3-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 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 SWP'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. 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 arcadis.com 11B -291- Item 17. - 46 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 SWP'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 MAFY. Of this amount, 4.13 MAFY 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 SWP's share of San Luis Reservoir, when`space is available, for the contractor to use in the following year. Turnback pool water is essentially unused Table A water. Turnback pool water is able to 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 Item 17.. - 4 / ;om HB -292- 3-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 ExportsAverage Annual Average Annual Delta Year (MAF) Deliveries(MAF) 2005 2.96 2.82 2013 2.61 2.55 Percent Change -11.7% -9.4% 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 storms 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. • 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 (Department of Water Resources, The State Water Project Final Delivery Capability Report 2015, July 2015). arcadls.com FiB --9;- Item 17. - 48 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 Biops 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. 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 through its ten groundwater wells. The total capacity of all the potable groundwater wells is estimated at 56 cfs. However, the City does not operate most of its wells at maximum capacity due to factors such as groundwater level and water quality and also to prolong the life of the wells and their associated supply equipment. Each well is operated only about six to seven months per year(Huntington Beach,2012 Water Master Plan, December 2012). 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 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. Item 17. - 49=, HB -294- 3-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. Groundwater is able to flow between the three major aquifer systems through intervening aquitards and discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shallow 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. arcadis com xB Item 17. - 50 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN La Habra i Brea z `c r� . 47 433 LAMIT.OS A BARRIER a � +R TALBERT g o BARRIER NN lip N DWR Basin 8-1,Coastal Plan [�—n;OCWD Boundaryof OC Groundwater Basin _ � La Habra&Bres City a Infection Wells - -Boundaries IN E _Faults-Newport-Inglewood L OCWD Recharge Fatuities R` System D 3 PatM1 I:�SSNulcnlnionUwP easN.6-1 Suetu.naeunOsry ivG A' l„ 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 Item 17. - 51 :om HB -296- 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 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. Pumping above the BPP is also assessed a Basin Equity Assessment(BEA), in addition to the RA, which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is greater than MWDOC's melded rate. 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 OC Basin management objectives. The BPP is a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production from the OC Basin for that year. When Metropolitan has an abundance of water, they may choose to activate their Groundwater Replenishment Program also known as In-Lieu Program, encouraging retailers to purchase imported water in-lieu of pumping groundwater. In some cases, OCWD encourages 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. 3.3.2.1 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 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, 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. arcadts com HB -297- Item 17. - 52 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • OCWD would endeavor to transition to the 75 percent BPP between 2013 and 2015 as construction of the GWRS Initial Expansion Project is completed and it is in operation. 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 its economic viability. The groundwater 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 from "overdraft". 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 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 A BPP level above 75 percent may be difficult to achieve. Analysis of the groundwater 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. 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). Item 17. - 53 HB -298- 3-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 and recycled water. Today OCWD owns and operates a network of recharge facilities that cover 1,067 acres. An increase in recharge capacity of greater than 10,000 AFY occurred with the addition of the La Jolla Recharge Basin which came online in 2008. The La Jolla Recharge Basin is a 6-acre recharge basin. One of OCWD's primary efforts has been the control of seawater intrusion into the OC Basin, especially via the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers. The Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers are shown on Figure 3-3. arcadis.com HB -299- Item- 17. - 54 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN +ALA MITO S ' >;BARRIER _0 � Alamitos Gap $A ' 6 i SU f►set $ Gap + i41S Bola 2 ap w TA LBERT BARRIER , Y } �i �M + � O + �,r Talbert ; Goa N 'w W„!t f E 9 Active Large-System Production Well D e IM Injection Well S + Monitoring Well 0 5;000 10,000 * Multiport Monitoring Well ion Fcct ew Pathway of seawater Intrusion Figure 3-3: Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers OCWD began addressing the Alamitos Gap intrusion by entering a partnership in 1965 with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to operate injection wells in the Alamitos Gap. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. The Alamitos Barrier consists of 43 injection wells, four extraction wells, and 226 observation wells. Item 17. - 55 :om IJB -300- 3-13 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 (through MWDOC). OCWD purchases the water at a reduced rate, and then bills the agency for the amount it would have had to pay for energy and the Replenishment Assessment (RA) if it had produced the water from its wells. The deferred local production results in water being left in local storage for future use. 3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program Since 2004, OCWD, MWDOC, 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 eight wells. A summary of the groundwater volume pumped by the City is shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF) Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Location or Basin Groundwater Type 2411 2012 2013'; 2014 2015 Name Alluvial Basin Orange County 16,790 14,927 20,344 18,585 16,604 Groundwater Basin TOTAL 16,790 14,927 20,344 18,585 16,604 NOTES: Volumes represent actual groundwater pumped, not including any In-Lieu Adjustment with import water 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 arcadis.com HB -301- Item 17. - 56 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual (AF) Supplies Supply,Retail:Water Water i Ad itional Detail on ` WaterWater Supply,, ActualVolume Quality Groundwater Orange County 20,059 Drinking Groundwater Basin Water Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 7,937 Drinking Water Total 27,996 NOTES: Item 17. - 5 / ;om HB -302- 3-15 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A summary of the current and planned sources of water for the City is shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Water Supplies, Projected (AF) SuppliesRetail: Water Projected SupplyWater Supply Projected Water Reportr the Extent Procticable Additional Detail on 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Water Supply Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably, Reasonably Reasonably Available, Available,l Available Available Available Volume ` Volume Volume Volume Volume Groundwater Orange County 19,663 21,107 21,252 21,246 21,277 Groundwater Basin Purchased or Imported MWDOC 10,303 10,303 10,303 10,303 10,303 Water Total 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 NOTES: Volume based BPP of 70% CD J arcadis.com 3-16 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.5 Recycled Water The City does not currently use any recycled water. 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 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 SWP 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. Item 17. - 59:. HB -304- 3-17 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 (PPCPs). 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 constituents. OCWD collects 600 to 1,700 samples each month to monitor 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 arcadis corn HB -305- Item 17. - 60 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 Shallow 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. Item 17. - 61 :om HB -306- 3-19 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) — 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 Orange County 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 through MWDOC via connections to Metropolitan's 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 arcadis core HB -307- Item 17. - 62 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN groundwater supplies that are available to the City through OCWD by a pre-determined pumping percentage. 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 Orange County 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 Orange County 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. Item 17. - 63;on, HB -308- 3-21 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 3-5: Basis of Water Year Data WaterRetail: Basis of Data ot YearTypeRepeats Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP. Year Type Base Year Location Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only,or both. Volume Available %of Average Supply Average Year 1990-2014 N/A 100% Single-Dry Year 2014 N/A 106% Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 2012 N/A 106% Multiple-©ry Years 2nd Year 2013 N/A 106% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 N/A 106% NOTES: Based on OC Reliability Study.The City can implement conservatively a 5 percent conservation effort to offset any demand increase from increase in population. 3.7 Supply and Demand Assessment A comparison between the supply and demand for projected years between 2010 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. It is conservative for the City to implement water conservation measures to save five percent or"more to provide surplus water. Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025'' 2030 2035., 2040 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Demand totals 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 Difference 1,876 1,257 1,195 1,197 1,184 NOTES: A comparison between the supply and the demand in a single dry year is shown in Table 3-7. As stated above, the available supply will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. arcadis com HB -')09- Item 17. - 64 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Retail:Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 202020 2030 - 2035 2040 Supply.#otals, 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Demand totals ;;k`" , 28,371 30,455 30,644 30,656 30,700 Difference'. 1,595 956 891 894 880 NOTES: During a dry year scenario,the City would implement conservation measures to reduce demands by 5 percent. With an estimated increase in demand of six percent, a net increase in demand of one percent is estimated. A comparison between the supply and the demand in multiple dry years is shown in Table 3-8. Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison Multiple . • and Demand Comparison `=�12020 2025 2030 2035 2040.' Suppiytotals'; 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 First year Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Second year-.- Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Thirsl,year ,: Demand totals ' 28,371 30,455 1 30,664 1 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 8911 894 880 NOTES: During a dry year scenario,the City would implement conservation measures to reduce demands by five percent. With an estimated increase in demand of six percent, a net increase in demand of one percent is estimated. Item 17. - 65;om HB -310- 3-23 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The goal of the DMM section is to provide 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 has been 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 Taste Prevention Ordinances The City Council adopted the Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program Ordinance No. 4022 on April 21, 2014; per Huntington Beach Municipal Code 14.18.050. Ordinance No. 4022 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: • Limits on watering hours • Limit on watering duration • No excessive water flow or runoff • No washing down hard or paved surfaces • Obligation to fix leaks, break,or malfunctions • Re-circulating water required for water fountains and decorative water features • Limits on washing vehicles • Drinking water served upon request only • Commercial lodging establishments must provide guests option to decline daily linen services • No installation of single pass cooling systems • No installation of non-recirculating water systems in commercial car wash and laundry systems • Restaurants required to use water conserving dish wash spray valves • Commercial car wash systems • Construction activities may not use potable water for compaction or dust control when non-potable water is available and must use hoses with an automatic shut-off nozzle • Hydrants must only be used for emergencies without first obtaining a permit • Indiscriminate use prohibited • Measurable rainfall event-watering prohibited aMadis.com HB -31 1- Item 17. - 66 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 UWMP. The City's water conservation ordinance is included in Appendix D. The City has a water conservation hot line and a website to receive water waste complaints and water conservation related service requests. Once a complaint is received, the City's water conservation coordinator investigates the complaint then notifies the resident and/or tag with a water conservation ordinance brochure accordingly. When a service request is received, a work order is filled out and entered into the City's Work Order system known as the Huntington Beach Service Maintenance System (HBSMS). The HBSMS is used to track data related to water waste and non-compliance on irrigation schedule to be reported to State Water Resource Control Board. During FY 2014-15, the City also conducted field patrol to identify water waste and non-compliance on irrigation schedule. The field inspector leaves a door hanger and follows up with a phone call during business hours. 4.2 Metering All of the City's water connections are fully metered and customers are billed for volume of use. The City does not have any mixed-use meters (e.g. meters that measure irrigation as well as restroom uses at parks). All new irrigation meters for commercial industrial/institutional customers are required to be dedicated irrigation meters. The City is on the fourth year of converting the existing metering program to the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system by ACLARA. About one-half of the City, mainly by the south end, has AMI installed. The City has converted over 28,000 meters to the AMI system and plans to be fully converted by the end of 2018. Currently, 24 Data Collection Units (DCU) are operating throughout the City. The DCU receives the reads from the Meter Transmission Unit (MTU) multiple times per day. The DCU then sends all of the captured reads to the Network Control Center (NCC). 4.3 Consenfation Pricing One hundred percent of the City is metered and this method is used to determine consumption per connection. The charge for water service is made up of two components: (1) the basic monthly (meter) charge and (2)'the water usage or commodity charge. The fees charged for each of these are designed to recover the cost of providing this component to the customer. The City's basic daily charge per meter size is shown in Table 4-2. The City usage charge is uniform at $1.8302 per 100 cubic feet of water. These rates are effective as of December 2, 2015 and are generally updated annually with City Council approval. Item 17. - 67:om IJB -31?- 4-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 4-1: Water Rates Effective December 2, 2015 Meter Size/Type Daily Rate 3/<" or 5/8" $0.3735 1" $0.7470 1"-1 '/2" $1.1205 2" $1.8675 3" $4.1085 4" compound $6.3495 4" Fire Meter $12.3255 6" compound $12.3255 6" Fire Meter $25.0245 8" Fire Meter $43.6994 10" Fire Meter $68.3504 4.4 Pudic Education and Outreach The City has created an array of public education and outreach programs that help educate its residents on how to use water more efficiently. The City also participates in public education and outreach program administered by its wholesaler, MWDOC. MWDOC has established an extensive public education and outreach program to assist its retail agencies in promoting water use efficiency awareness within their service areas. 4.4.1 City's Public Education and Outreach Programs The City implements many public education and outreach program through partnership with the local community. The City distributes public information through social media (Facebook), newspaper advertisements, flyers, bill inserts, brochures, and special events every year. Event flyers are distributed at City facilities including, City Hall, Shipley Nature Center, three community centers, City Gym, Central Library, and five library branches. The City (Public Works Department) also maintains a website where information on the City's water conservation programs can be found. The website provides a water usage calculator, dates for workshops and events, information on rebate programs, tips of identifying home water leaks, resources for water wise landscaping and gardening, and other resource issues. Landscape Projects—The City has set up demonstration gardens with California friendly drought tolerant plants using drip irrigation at the City's Utilities Yard and at City Hall. These water wise gardens demonstrate to residents that by drawing on the rich native plant life of Southern California, it is possible arcadis-com HB -313- Item 17. - 68 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN to create gardens that are multi-functional, practical, supportive of the regions biodiversity and adapted to the local climate. Landscape Classes—The City offers landscape classes to residents about once a month at the City's Utilities Yard. The classes cover various topics from design to plant selection to irrigation. In close partnership with the Shipley Nature Center composting classes are also offered. Each class host up to 65 attendees. HOA Presentation —The City gives presentations on water efficient landscaping to homeowners associations (HOAs) and their landscape contractors. The City encourages HOAs to take advantage of Metropolitan's water audit program that provides a comprehensive irrigation audit to those with one-acre or more of landscape for free. The audit program provides a landscape auditor and a full 40-page site- specific irrigation audit report. Rainwater Harvesting Classes — During October 2014 and March 2015, the City offered monthly classes to educate residents about rainwater harvesting.About 45 people attended each class. The City worked with a vendor to repurpose barrels that were initially contained olives and olive oil products from Greece into rain barrels and diverted them from going to the landfill. The rain barrels were sold for$85 per barrel and residents could obtain a $75 rebate from Metropolitan. Promotional Items —The City works with vendors to design and create promotional items used at events to promote water conservation messaging as well as to create water conservation tools and items that help residents conserve water. Participation at Local Community Events—The City participates in local community events by setting up a booth with informational brochures and giveaways. Examples of local events, the City has participated in include Surf Contest, Surf City Nights, Bike Festival, May Water Awareness Month, Shipley Open House, Duck-a-Thou, Fix-It-Clinic, presentation at Sustainable Surf City Committee, Green Business Workshop, Green Forum a Night of Water, and Green Expo. National Mayor's Challenge for Water Conservation-The City participated in this is national challenge through the Wyland Foundation under the U.S. cities between 100,000 and 300,000 in population categories. The competition involved residents signing an online pledge to their reduce water consumption. Winning cities are the cities with the highest percentage of residents participating in the challenge. The City had an aggressive outreach campaign for the contest. Many points of outreach include City facilities, high schools, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, Rodger Senior Center, farmer's markets, coffee shops, and through email blast to residents. The City won first and fifth place in 2014 and 2015, respectively. 4.4.2 MWDOC's Public Education and Outreach Programs 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. MWDOC's public education and outreach programs consist of five primary activities as described below. Item 17. - 69.om HB -314- 4-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. While Metropolitan arcadis.com HB -3)1_5- Item 17. - 70 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN covers the cost of the trips, MWDOC has two members of the public affairs staff that work diligently on identifying OC residents and leaders to attend. MWDOC staff also attends each trip. In the past year, MWDOC participated in a dozen trips, each taking an average of 30 residents. MWDOC also works with Metropolitan on special trips to educate County Grand Jurors the key water infrastructure. To augment MWDOC's programs, the City distributes public information through water bill inserts, offers classes on water-wise landscaping and rainwater harvesting, and maintains the surfcitygardening.com software on its website. The City also has public outreach through local events such as the Shipley Nature Center, the OC Garden Friendly event at Home Depot, bike events, Surf City Nights, and a Public Works Open House. 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 American Water Works Association (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 customer metering inaccuracies, billed metered, and volume from own sources. 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 12-month period (10/2014—9/2015) was 1,168 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 does not have a leak detection program. However, sudden drastic changes in monthly water bills are monitored as customers are notified of potential leaks by either mail notification or by phone. 4.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City's Public Works Department shares the implementation and promotion of water conservation programs as part of its duties. Sylvia Franklin, the City's Water Conservation Coordinator, has obtained the Water Conservation Practitioner Certificate from the AWWA. Laurie Hill, Field Services Representative, provides assistance for public outreach efforts. City staff participates in the Water Use Efficiency meetings hosted by MWDOC, and works with MWDOC to implement the DMM's. Funding for the City's water conservation program is from the City's Water Fund. 4.7 Other Demand Management Measures During the past five years, FY 2010-11 to 2014-15, the City, with the assistance of MWDOC, has implemented many water use efficiency programs for its residential, CII, and landscape customers as described below. Appendix I provides quantities of rebates and installations achieved under each Ite171 17. - 71 ;om HB 16- 4-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN program since program inception. The City will continue to implement all applicable programs in the next five years. 4.7.1 Residential Programs Water Smart Home Survey Program The Water Smart Home Survey Program provides free home water surveys (indoor and outdoor). The Water Smart Home Survey Program uses a Site Water Use Audit program format to perform comprehensive, single-family home audits. Residents choose to have outdoor(and indoor, if desired) audits to identify opportunities for water savings throughout their properties. A customized home water audit report is provided after each site audit is completed and provides the resident with their survey results, rebate information, and an overall water score. High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program The High Efficiency Clothes Washer(HECW) Rebate Program provides residential customers with rebates for purchasing and installing WaterSense labeled HECWs. HECWs use 35-50 percent less water than standard washer models, with savings of approximately 9,OOO gallons per year, per device. Devices must have a water factor of 4.0 or less, and a listing of qualified products can be found at ocwatersmart.com. There is a maximum of one rebate per home. High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program The largest amount of water used inside a home, 30 percent, goes toward flushing the toilet. The High Efficiency Toilet(HET) Rebate Program offers incentives to residential customers for replacing their standard, water-guzzling toilets with HETs. HETs use just 1.28 gallons of water or less per flush, which is 20 percent less water than standard toilets. In addition, HETS save an average of 38 gallons of water per day while maintaining high performance standards. 4.7.2 CII Programs Water Smart Hotel Program Water used in hotels and other lodging businesses accounts for approximately 15 percent of the total water use in commercial and institutional facilities in the United States. The Water Smart Hotel Program provides water use surveys, customized facility reports, technical assistance, and enhanced incentives to hotels that invest in water use efficiency improvements. Rebates available include HETs, ultralow volume urinals, air-cooled ice machines, weather-based irrigation controllers (WBIC), and rotating nozzles. Socal Water$mart Rebate Program for CII The City through MWDOC offers financial incentives under the Socal Water$mart Rebate Program which offers rebates for various water efficient devices to CII customers, such as HETs, ultralow volume urinals, connectionless food steamers, air-cooled ice machines, pH-cooling towers controller, and dry vacuum pumps. arcadis com HB -3 17- Item 17. - 72 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.7.3 Landscape Programs Water Conservation at City Facilities The City has installed Smart Controllers at various City parks and has removed turf at several City facilities, including City Hall. As a result, the City has significantly reduced the amount of water used to irrigate its parks and facilities. Turf Removal Program The Orange County Turf Removal Program offers incentives to remove non-recreational turf grass from commercial properties throughout the County. This program is a partnership between MWDOC, Metropolitan, and local retail water agency. The goals of this program are to increase water use efficiency within Orange County, reduce runoff leaving the properties, and evaluate the effectiveness of turf removal as a water-saving practice. Participants are encouraged to replace their turf grass with drought-tolerant landscaping, diverse plant palettes, and artificial turf, and they are encouraged to retrofit their irrigation systems with Smart Timers and drip irrigation (or to remove it entirely). Water Smart Landscape Program MWDOC's Water Smart Landscape Program is a free water management tool for homeowner associations, landscapers, and property managers. Participants in the program use the Internet to track their irrigation meter's monthly water use and compare it to a custom water budget established by the program. This enables property managers and landscapers to easily identify areas that are over/under watered and enhances their accountability to homeowner association boards. Smart Timer Rebate Program Smart Timers are irrigation clocks that are either WBICs or soil moisture sensor systems. WBICs adjust automatically to reflect changes in local weather and site-specific landscape needs, such as soil type, slopes, and plant material. When WBICs are programmed properly, turf and plants receive the proper amount of water throughout the year. During the fall months, when property owners and landscape professionals often overwater, Smart Timers can save significant amounts of water. Rotating Nozzles Rebate Program The Rotating Nozzle Rebate Program provides incentives to residential and commercial properties for the replacement of high-precipitation rate spray nozzles with low-precipitation rate multi-stream, multi- trajectory rotating nozzles. The rebate offered through this Program aims to offset the cost of the device and installation. Spray to Drip Rebate Program The Spray to Drip Pilot Rebate Program offers residential and commercial customers rebates for converting planting areas irrigated by spray heads to drip irrigation. Drip irrigation systems are very water- efficient. Rather than spraying wide areas, drip systems use point emitters to deliver water to specific locations at or near plant root zones. Water drips slowly from the emitters either onto the soil surface or below ground. As a result, less water is lost to wind and evaporation. Item 17. - 73 :om HB -318- 4-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Socal Water$mart Rebate Program for Landscape The City through MWDOC also offers financial incentives under the SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program for a variety of water efficient landscape devices, such as Central Computer Irrigation Controllers, large rotary nozzles, and in-stem flow regulators. arcadis com HB -319- Item 17. - 74 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN 5.1 Overview In connection with recent water supply challenges, the SWRCB found that California has been subject to multi-year droughts in the past, and the American 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 provide a framework for actions to take for surplus supplies. Deliveries in DVL and in SWP 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 Item 17. - 75:om HB -320- 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. Surplusstages Actions Shortage Stages 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 PikPut to SWP&CRA Groundwater Storage Put to SWP&CRA Surface Storage Put to Conjunctive Use Groundwater Put to DWR Flexible Storage Put to Metropolitan Surface Storage Public Outreach Take from Metropolitan Surface Storage Take from SWP Groundwater Storage id P Take from Conjunctive Use Storage Take from SWP&CRA Surface Storage Take from DWR Flexible Storage Extraordinary Conservation Reduce IAWP Deliveries Call Options Contracts Buy Spot Transfers Implement Water SupplyAllomtion Plan EZ Potential Simultaneous Actions 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 for 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 Water Supply Allocation Plan 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 Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) (Metropolitan, 2015 Final Draft UWMP, March 2016). arcadis.com HB -321- Item 17. - 76 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 the response 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 to apply 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 and 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 Item 17. - 77.om HB -322- 5-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN in Metropolitan needing to implement its WSAP to preserve dry-year storage and curtail demands (Metropolitan, 2015 Draft UWMP, March 2016). 5.2.3 MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan To prepare for the potential allocation of imported water supplies from Metropolitan, MWDOC worked collaboratively with its 28 retail agencies to develop its own WSAP that was adopted in January 2009 and amended in 2015. The MWDOC WSAP outlines how MWDOC will determine and implement each of its retail agency's allocation during a time of shortage. The MWDOC WSAP uses a similar method and approach, when reasonable, as that of the Metropolitan's WSAP. However, MWDOC's plan remains flexible to use an alternative approach when Metropolitan's method produces a significant unintended result for the member agencies. The MWDOC WSAP model follows five basic steps to determine a retail agency's imported supply allocation. Step 1: Determine Baseline Information—The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the last two non-shortage fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014. Step 2: Establish Allocation Year Information— In this step, the model adjusts for each retail agency's water need in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates for increased retail water demand based on population growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Metropolitan's Declared Shortage Level— This step sets the initial water supply allocation for each retail agency. After a regional shortage level is established, MWDOC will calculate the initial allocation as a percentage of adjusted Base Period Imported water needs within the model for each retail agency. Step 4:Apply Allocation Adjustments and Credits in the Areas of Retail Impacts and Conservation— In this step, the model assigns additional water to address disparate impacts at the retail level caused by an across-the-board cut of imported supplies. It also applies a conservation credit given to those agencies that have achieved additional water savings at the retail level as a result of successful implementation of water conservation devices, programs and rate structures. Step 5: Sum Total Allocations and Determine Retail Reliability—This is the final step in calculating a retail agency's total allocation for imported supplies. The model sums an agency's total imported allocation with all of the adjustments and credits and then calculates each agency's retail reliability compared to its Allocation Year Retail Demand. The MWDOC WSAP includes additional measures for plan implementation, including the following: • Appeal Process—An appeals process to provide retail agencies the opportunity to request a change to their allocation based on new or corrected information. MWDOC anticipates that under most circumstances, a retail agency's appeal will be the basis for an appeal to Metropolitan by MWDOC. • Melded Allocation Surcharge Structure—At the end of the allocation year, MWDOC would only charge an allocation surcharge to each retail agency that exceeded their allocation if MWDOC exceeds its total allocation and is required to pay a surcharge to Metropolitan. Metropolitan enforces arcadis.com HB -32')- Item 17. - 78 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN allocations to retail agencies through an allocation surcharge to a retail agency that exceeds its total annual allocation at the end of the 12-month allocation period. MWDOC's surcharge would be assessed according to the retail agency's prorated share (acre-feet over usage) of MWDOC amount with Metropolitan. Surcharge funds collected by Metropolitan will be invested in its Water Management Fund, which is used to in part to fund expenditures in dry-year conservation and local resource development. • Tracking and Reporting Water Usage—MWDOC will provide each retail agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each retail agency's current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterly reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. • Timeline and Option to Revisit the Plan—The allocation period will cover 12 consecutive months and the Regional Shortage Level will be set for the entire allocation period. MWDOC only anticipates calling for allocation when Metropolitan declares a shortage; and no later than 30 days from Metropolitan's declaration will MWDOC announce allocation to its retail agencies. 5.2.4 City of Huntington Beach As defined in Chapter 14.18 of the City's Municipal Water Code, a water shortage is declared based on one or more of the following conditions: • A general water supply shortage due to increased demand or limited supplies • A major failure of the supply, storage, and distribution facilities of Metropolitan or of the City • A local or regional disaster,which limits the water supply The City's Water Management Program is defined in Chapter 14.18 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. This program establishes a staged water conservation program that will 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. Along with permanent water conservation requirements, the City's Water Conservation Program consists of three stages to respond to a reduction in potable water available to the City for distribution to its customers. For the first two stages, the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. The third stage is declared by the City Council as a water shortage emergency and residents and businesses are notified that a significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water suppliers for public health and safety. A summary of the stages of water shortage is displayed in Table 5-1 (Huntington Beach, Chapter 14.18 Municipal Code). The City does not have set percent supply reduction for each water shortage stage. The City will implement the percent supply reduction on its own discretion as it enters into a water shortage stage. Conditions prevailing in the City area require that available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent possible. The waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water should be prevented and water conservation and water use efficiency should be encouraged with a view toward Item 17. - /9:om HB -324- 5-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN maximizing reasonable and beneficial use in the interests of the people of the City and for the public welfare. Preservation of health and safety is a top priority for the City. Table 5-1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan ContingencyRetail Stages of Water Shortage Co:mplete Both Stage Percent 5uppiy Water Su 1 Cor►ditiori Reduction1,,, PP Y A water supply shortage or threatened shortage 1 N/A exists and consumer demand reduction necessary to respond to existing water conditions N/A A water supply shortage or threatened shortage 2 exists and consumer demand reduction necessary to existing water conditions. N/A An "Emergency"condition. Exists when the City declares a water shortage emergency and notifies its 3 residents and businesses that significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain water supplies for public health, safety, and welfare S One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Current water conservation ordinance does not breakdown by percent reduction but the City will look into this in the future. 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 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. MWDOC has adopted a shortage allocation plan and accompanying allocation model that estimates firm demands on MWDOC. Assuming MWDOC would not be imposing mandatory restrictions if Metropolitan is not, the estimate of firm demands in MWDOC's latest allocation model has been used to estimate the minimum imported supplies available to each of MWDOC's retail agencies for 2015-2018. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to the City is 30,713 AF. The model is included as Appendix K. (MWDOC, Water Shortage Allocation Model, November 2015). 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. arcadis.com HB -3?5- Item 17. - 80 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Metropolitan has taken into account its actual storage levels at the beginning of 2015 and the actual storage program conveyance constraints. SWP supplies were estimated using the 2015 SWP Delivery Capability Report, which represents the current estimate of water deliveries for current conditions. These estimate incorporate restrictions on SWP and CVP operations in accordance with water quality objectives established by the SWRCB and the Biops from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and national Marine Fisheries Service. Thus for purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that Metropolitan and MWDOC will be able to maintain the identified supply amounts throughout the three-year period. Metropolitan projects reliability for full service demands through the year 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 the MWDOC WSAP, the City is expected to fully meet demands for the next three years assuming Metropolitan and MWDOC are not in shortage, a BPP of 75 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) SupplyRetail: Minimum 2016 2017, ; 2018 . Available Water„ 30,713 30,713 30,713 Supply NOTES: MWDOC Shortage Allocation Model 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 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 Item 17. - 81 HB -326- 5-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. 5.5 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Redaction Methods 5.5.1 Prohibitions As part of the City's Water Management Program, water use regulations are set forth in Chapter 14.18 of the City's Municipal Code, which shall take effect upon implementation by the City Council. These prohibitions shall 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 the water supply and demand. Any violations of the City's Water Management Program, including waste of water and excessive use, is a misdemeanor. In addition to any other remedies the City may have for enforcement, service of water would be discontinued or appropriately limited to any customer who willfully uses water in violation of any provision of the ordinance. A list of restrictions and prohibitions that are applicable to each stage is displayed in Table 5-3 (Huntington Beach, Chapter 14.18 Municipal Code). Table 5-3:Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses RestrictionsRetail Only: • Prohibitions on Restrctions'and_ - - Penalty, Stage' Prohibitions on, Additional Explanation or Reference Charge,or, Other EnIUsers Enforcement? Landscape - Limit Irrigation prohibited between 9:00 a.m. and Permanent landscape 5:00 p.m. on any day, except by use of hand- Yes Year-Round irrigation to water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very specific times short periods of time for repairs Permanent Landscape-Other Irrigation with a device not continuously Year-Round landscape attended limited to no more than ten Yes restriction or minutes watering per day per station. Does arcadis.com xB -327- Item 17. - 82 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Only:Retail Restrictions and Penalty, Stage Prohibitions on Additional Explanation or Reference Charge,or Other End End Users Enforcement? prohibition not apply to low-flow drip type irrigation systems Landscape- Permanent Restrict or prohibit runoff - Yes Year-Round from landscape irrigation Exception made for hand-held bucket or Other- Prohibit similar container, hand-held hose with Permanent use of potable positive self-closing water shut-off device, Yes Year-Round water for washing low-volume, high-pressure cleaning machine hard surfaces equipped to recycle water, or low-volume high-pressure water broom Other- Customers must repair leaks, Permanent Leaks must be corrected within 5 days of Year-Round breaks, and notice from the City Yes malfunctions in a timely manner Water Features- Restrict water use Water fountains or other decorative water Permanent for decorative features that does not use recirculated water Yes Year-Round water features, is prohibited. such as fountains Other- Prohibit vehicle washing Permanent except at facilities Yes Year-Round using recycled or recirculating water CII - Restaurants Permanent may only serve - Yes Year-Round water upon request CII - Lodging Permanent establishment - Yes Year-Round must offer opt out of linen service Permanent Other Installation of single pass cooling systems Yes Year-Round prohibited in buildings requesting new water Item 17. - 83:o,,, HB -328- 5-9 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. tither End Users Enforcement? service Installation of non-recirculating water Permanent Other systems is prohibited in new commercial Yes Year-Round conveyor car wash and new commercial laundry systems CII -Commercial Permanent kitchens required _ Yes Year-Round to use pre-rinse spray valves Permanent New commercial conveyor car wash systems Year-Round Other must install operational recirculating water Yes systems or have a waiver from the City Other- Prohibit Permanent use of potable Year-Round waterfor - Yes construction and dust control Permanent Other- Require Applies to water hoses used in construction Year-Roun automatic shut of activities Yes d hoses Permanent Other Fire hydrants used only for fire suppression Yes Year-Round or emergency aid. Permanent Indiscriminate running of water when it is Year-Round Other wasteful or without reasonable purpose is Yes prohibited Permanent Any water regulation should not limit water Year-Round Other use which is immediately necessary to Yes protect public health and safety Landscape -Other Permanent landscape Irrigation prohibited during or within 48 Yes Year-Round restriction or hours of rainfall prohibition Irrigation limited to 3 days per week During Landscape - Limit the November through March, irrigation landscape limited to no more than 2 days per week 1 irrigation to Does not apply to low flow drip type Yes specific days irrigation systems, by use of a hand-held, or short periods of time for repairing an arcadis-com HB -329- Item 17. - 84 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Only:Retail Restrictions and Penalty, Stage Prohibitions on Additional Explanation or Reference Charge, or End Users_ Other Enforcement? irrigation system Other-Customers must repair leaks, 1 breaks, and Leaks must be repaired within 72 hours of Yes malfunctions in a notification by the City timely manner Irrigation limited to 2 days per week During Landscape - Limit November through March, irrigation with landscape potable water limited to 1 day per week. 2 irrigation to Does not apply to very low flow drip type Yes specific days irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket, or for very short periods of time for repairing irrigation system Other- Customers must repair leaks, 2 breaks, and Leaks b must be repaired within 48 hours of Yes malfunctions in a notification by the City timely manner Other water feature at Filling or refilling ornamental lakes or ponds 2 prohibited, except to sustain aquatic life of Yes swimming pool significant value restriction Other- Prohibit vehicle washing 2 except at facilities _ Yes using recycled or recirculating water Other water feature at Refilling more than one foot and initial filling 2 of residential swimming pools or outdoor Yes swimming pool restriction spas with potable water is prohibited. Irrigation is prohibited. Does not apply use of Landscape- hand-held bucket, maintenance of landscape Prohibit all for fire protection and for soil erosion 3 landscape control, the maintenance of rare plant Yes irrigation materials, maintenance of landscape within active public parks provided irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week, and actively Item 17. - 85 :om HB ->)0- 5-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Only:Retail Restrictions and Penalty, Stage Prohibitions on Additional Explanation or Reference Charge,or End Users Other Enforcement? irrigated environmental mitigation projects Other- Customers must repair leaks, 3 breaks, and Leaks must be repaired within 24 hours of Yes notification by the City malfunctions in a timely manner No new potable water service will be 3 Other provided except under special circumstances Yes by the City The city will limit or withhold issuance of 3 Other building permits which require new or Yes expanded water service The City may discontinue service to 3 Other consumers who willfully violate any water Yes conservation provisions 3 Other The City will suspend consideration of Yes annexations to its service area NOTES: 5.5.2 Penalties ' Any person violating any of the restrictions listed in Table 5-3 is guilty of a misdemeanor and will be given a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months or by both fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation occurs will be considered a separate offense. The City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately 1 gpm capacity for service up ton one-half inch size and comparatively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a flow restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight(48) hours. The City may also disconnect a customer's water service in addition to the installation of a water flow restrictor device. The customer in violation of the restrictions is responsible for payment of the City's charges and for installing and/or removing of any flow restricting device and for disconnecting and/or reconnective service. These charges must be paid to the City before the device is removed (Huntington Beach, Chapter 14.18 Municipal Code). 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 xB -3 31- Item 17. - 86 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan -Consumption Reduction Methods Only:Retdil MethodsStages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan-Consumption Reduction Consumption Reduction Methods Stage Additional Explanation or Reference by Water Supplier ; 1 Other Stage 1 Water Conservation Measures 2 Other Stage 2 Water Conservation Measures 3 Other Stage 3 Water Conservation Measures NOTES: 5.5 Impacts to Revenue During the current water conservation level, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies, prolonged drought, or water shortage of any kind, the City will experience a reduction in revenue due to reduced water sales. Throughout this period of time, expenditures may increase or decrease with varying circumstances. Expenditures may increase in the event of significant damage to the water system, resulting in emergency repairs. Expenditures may also decrease as less water is pumped through the system, resulting in lower power costs. The City receives water revenue from a service charge and a commodity charge based on consumption. The service charge is intended to recover costs associated with providing water to the serviced property. The service charge does not vary with consumption and the commodity charge is based on water usage. Rates should be designed to recover the full cost of water service in the charges. Therefore, the total cost of purchasing water would decrease as the usage or sale of water decreases. However, there are significant fixed costs associated with maintaining a minimal level of service. The City will monitor projected revenues and expenditures should an extreme shortage and a large reduction in water sales occur for an extended period of time. To overcome these potential revenue losses and/or expenditure impacts, the City will use reserves or other mitigation measures. If necessary, the City may reduce expenditures by delaying implementation of its Capital Improvement Program and equipment purchases, implement a drought surcharge, and/or make adjustments to its water rate structure. 5.7 Reduction Measuring Mechanism Under normal conditions, potable water production figures are recorded daily, and 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. The City participates in monthly member agency manager meetings with both MWDOC and OCWD to monitor and discuss monthly water allocation charts. This will enable the City to be aware of imported water use on a timely basis as a result of specific actions taken responding to the City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Item 17. - 87:om HB -3 32- 5-13 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 Green Acres Project (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, Chroma Systems carpet dyeing, Kaiser Permanente, and Caltrans. The City does not receive any GAP water. 6.1.2 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD'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 1 plant has been operational since January 2008, and uses'a three-step advanced treatment process consisting of microfiltration 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 microfiltration 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. arcadls.com HB -333- Item 17. - 88 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 WF-21 to purify treated wastewater from OCSD for injection into the seawater intrusion barrier. The third step of the process involves the RO treated 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 seawater barrier 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 75 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 IPR. 6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal The City operates and maintains the local sewer collection pipes that feed into the OCSD's trunk sewer system to convey wastewater to OCSD's treatment plants. The City's sewer system includes 360 miles of sewer lines ranging from 6 inches to 30 inches in diameter, 10,000 manholes and 27 lift stations. OCSD has an extensive system of gravity,flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. OCSD's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley has a capacity of 320 million gallons per day (MGD) and Plant No. 2 in the City has a capacity of 312 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, 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 the City. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. Residential homes northwest of Sunset Beach, in the area known as Surfside, have sewer flow that goes to the Sunset Beach Sanitary District, which eventually connects into the City's sewer collection system. The Sunset Aquatic Marina also sends its sewer flow to the City's sewer collection system. Lastly, a property at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue is within the City of Westminster, but their sewage also goes to the City. 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. Item 1.7. - 89:. HB -334- 6-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 6-1: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015 (AF) Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015 Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Name of Wastewater Name of Wastewater Volume of Is WWTP Treatment Agency Treatment Wastewater-, Volume Metered Wastewater= Located Within Receiving Collected Plant Name Collection Agency or Estimated? Collected in 2015 LJWMP Area? Wastewater City of Estimated 18,197 OCSD Plant No. 2 Yes Huntington Beach Total Wastewater Collected from Service Area in 2015: 18,197 NOTES: Estimated at 65% of 2015 potable water consumption r-� �D J arcadis.com 6-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses There are currently no recycled water uses within the City's service area. 6.4 Potential Recycled Water Uses The City has contracted with OCWD to purchase GAP water to fill water trucks for irrigation of various medians, parkways, and other landscaped areas. 6.4.1 Direct Non-Potable Reuse Direct non-potable reuse is the beneficial reuse of recycled water. Recycled water is wastewater that is treated through primary, secondary and tertiary processes and is acceptable for most direct non-potable water purposes such as landscape irrigation, commercial and industrial process water per Title 22 requirements. The City does not have any direct non-potable uses within their service area and does not currently have the potential for non-potable reuse as a result of nonexistent or planned recycled water infrastructure. 6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse IPR consists of introducing advanced treated water into an environmental buffer prior to being withdrawn for potable uses. The environmental buffer provides storage and an additional natural treatment barrier for protection of public health.An environmental buffer can consist of a groundwater aquifer or surface water reservoir. If the water is advanced treated, it can be spread or injected into the groundwater aquifer; but if the water is tertiary treated, it must be sent to a spreading basin to slowly percolate into the ground and take advantage of soil aquifer treatment. The groundwater is then withdrawn, treated, and added to the drinking water distribution system. The City benefits from OCWD's GWRS system that provides IPR through replenishment of the OC-Basin with water that meets state and federal drinking water standards. 6.5 Optimization Plan The City does not use recycled water, therefore, there is no need for a recycled water optimization plan. In other areas of Orange County, recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, businesses, and communal landscaping, as well as for groundwater recharge. Analyses have indicated that present worth costs to incorporate recycled water within the City are not cost effective as compared to purchasing imported water from MWDOC, 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 MWDOC, OCWD, Metropolitan and other cooperative agencies. Item 17. - 91 :om IJB -336- 6-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 7.1 plater (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 The City maintains three connections with Metropolitan transmission mains as follows: • OC-9 (northeast side of City) • OC-35 (northwest side of City) • OC-44 (southeast side of City) 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 four emergency connections with adjacent cities as follows: • By Anderson Street and PCH (with City of Seal Beach) • On PCH, north of Sea Way (with City of Seal Beach) • On Garfield Avenue, east of Bushard Street(with City of Fountain Valley) • On Sugar Drive, east of Rushmoor Lane (with City of Westminster) OCWD has developed the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program (CPTP) as a tool to manage salinity levels in the groundwater basin. The CPTP encourages inland producers to pump more groundwater and coastal producers to pump less groundwater to raise coastal groundwater levels and decrease seawater intrusion. Inland pumpers can pump above the BPP without having to pay the BEA for the amount pumped above the BPP. The funds collected from the increased inland pumping offset the increased cost of water paid by coastal producers that purchase additional imported water, so the CPTP is cost-neutral to the producers (OCWD, OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). MWDOC continues to help its retail agencies develop transfer and exchange opportunities that promote reliability within their systems. Therefore, MWDOC will look to help its retail agencies navigate the operational and administrative issues of transfers within the Metropolitan distribution system. Currently, there are no transfer or exchange opportunities. 7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs Highlighted below are several of the City's FY 14-15 Capital Improvement Program that identified planned design and construction projects. Water Distribution System Improvements— install new distribution mains and infrastructure to optimize system redundancy, efficiency, and reliability. arcadis.com xB -337- Item 17. - 92 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Water Production System Improvements— improvements at various production facilities, including new and existing wells, reservoirs, and booster stations. Well No. 9 Treatment—restore well capacity by removing nuisance odor from dissolved Hydrogen Sulfide. The City is pursuing assistance from OCWD to help fund both capital and operational costs for this project. The projects described below are costly and require OCWD approval since OCWD already has plans to use all of the recycled water they produce, making the projects described below difficult for OCWD to allow the City to pursue as well as locate funding for. The City would only pursue at most one of the two projects described, or neither if another more feasible project surfaced. The listed projects would serve the same irrigation footprint, primarily 350 acres at Central Park, the sports complex south of Central Park, and several hundred residents in close vicinity to Central Park that have existing purple pipes in place to connect. However, all the existing purples pipes are currently connected to the existing potable water distribution system. If another source is to be used, hundreds of purple pipe/potable water interconnections would need to be located and removed to avoid cross-connection. Additional purple pipe will need to be installed to connect the purple pipes in front of existing residential housing. In addition, the City would need to establish and implement a water rate for recycled water, provide signs for all customers receiving recycled water, and educate customers on safe practices when dealing with recycled water. GWRS Interconnection-tie into OCWD GWRS pipeline at the saltwater intrusion barrier pipeline near Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue with one mile long large diameter purple pipe to connect to City's existing 24-inch purple pipe at Garfield Avenue/Huntington Street to provide irrigation for parks, businesses, and homes. GAP Connection and Pipeline- install 3.5 mile large diameter purple pipe from OCWD's GAP treatment plant on Garfield Avenue/ Ward Street to the City's existing purple pipe on Garfield Avenue/Huntington Street to provide irrigation for parks, businesses, and homes. In addition, there are a number of regional projects within Orange County that indirectly benefit the City to further increase local supplies and offset imported supplies. For detailed descriptions of these projects, please refer to MWDOC's 2015 UWMP. 7.4 Desalination Opportunities In 2001, Metropolitan developed a Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) to provide incentives for the development of 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.. • 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 Item 17.. - 93 ;om HB -33 S- 7-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. 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 along the PCH 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. 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 arcadis.com HB -339- Item 17. - 94 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. 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 groundwater 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 • Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Process • Environmental Permitting Approvals • Public Outreach • Project Funding • Project Delivery Method • Economic Analysis 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) 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. Item 17. - 95 ;om HB -340- 7-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. arcadis-com Item 17. - 96 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN g UWMP 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 MWDOC and OCWD 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 Encouraged public involvement (Public Hearing) 6/2/16 & Appendix E 6/9/16 Notified city or county within supplier's service area that water supplier is preparing an updated UWMP (at least 60 days prior to 4/18/16 Appendix E public hearing) Held public hearing 6/20/16 Appendix E Adopted UWMP TBD Appendix F Submitted UWMP to DWR (no later than 30 days after adoption) Submitted UWMP to the California State Library and city or county within the supplier's service area (no later than 30 days after adoption) Made UWMP available for public review(no later than 30 days after filing with DWR) This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on June 20, 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 shown in Table 8-2, the City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange and others on April 18, 2016 to state that it was in the process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix E). Item 17. - 97;0,,, xB -342- 8-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 8-2: Notification to Cities and Counties Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties City Name- 6D Day Notice� Notice of Public Hearing Bolsa Chica (] Fountain Valley ❑ (J Seal Beach ❑J Westminster ❑`' County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Orange County ❑� ❑� Los Angeles (] County NOTES: 8.1 Public Participation The City encourages community participation developing its urban water management planning efforts. For this UWMP update, a public meeting was held on June 20, 2016 for public review and for the City to receive comments on the draft plan before City Council approval. Notices of public meetings were posted in the City Hall. Legal public notices for the meeting were published in the local newspaper and posted at City facilities. Copies of the draft plan were available on the City's website. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix E. 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 through MWDOC, its regional wholesaler. The City is also dependent on groundwater from OCWD, the agency that manages the OC Basin. As such, the City involved these water providers in this 2015 UWMP at various levels of contribution. arcadis com HB -3�4 3- Item 17. - 98 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.3 UVVMP Submittal 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. 8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015 Actual Water Conservation Programs As a signatory to the MOU regarding urban water use efficiency, the City's commitment to implement BMP-based water use efficiency program continues today. For the City's specific achievements in the area of conservation, please see Section 4 of the UWMP. 8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP The City Council reviewed the Final Draft Plan on June 20, 2016. The seven-member City Council approved the 2015 UWMP on June 20 2016. See Appendix F for the resolution approving the Plan. By July 1, 2016, the City is to adopt the 2015 UWMP and to file the plan with DWR, California State Library, County of Orange, and cities within its service area, if applicable. Item 17. - 99:om HB -44- 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. Huntington Beach, 2011. City of Huntington Beach 2010 UWMP. Huntington Beach, 2012. Water Master Plan and Financial Plan Update. Huntington Beach, 2014. City of Huntington Beach 5-Year Capital Improvement Projects. Huntington Beach, California, Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 (2014). Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2016. Metropolitan Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015. Orange County Reliability Study. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015. Water Shortage Allocation Model. Orange County Water District, 2014. OCWD Engineer's Report. Orange County Water District, 2015. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Orange County Water District. (2015). Groundwater Replenishment Study [Brochure]. San Diego County Water Authority, 2003: Quantification Settlement Agreement. Southern California Association of Governments, 2012. 5th 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, 7t1 California Congress (2009). Water Systems Optimization, 2016. California Department of Water Resources: Water Audit Manual. arcadis com 1 1B -1)-15- Item 17. - 100 D I �fiFP ,r, Item 17. - 101 'xB -346- UWMP Checklist This checklist is developed directly from the Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB X7-7. It is provided to support water suppliers during preparation of their UWMPs. Two versions of the UWMP Checklist are provided —the first one is organized according to the California Water Code and the second checklist according to subject matter. The two checklists contain duplicate information and the water supplier should use whichever checklist is more convenient. In the event that information or recommendations in these tables are inconsistent with, conflict with, or omit the requirements of the Act or applicable laws, the Act or other laws shall prevail. Each water supplier submitting an UWMP can also provide DWR with the UWMP location of the required element by completing the last column of eitherchecklist. This will support DWR in its review of these UWMPs. The completed form can be included with the UWMP. If an item does not pertain to a water supplier, then state the UWMP requirement and note that it does not apply to the agency. For example, if a water supplier does not use groundwater as a water supply source, then there should be a statement in the UWMP that groundwater is not a water supply source. H13 -_)-I 7- Item 17. - 102 Checklist Arranged by Subject aii - t e s� p �-g ra3� 9 a 10620(b)' Every person that becomes an urban water Plan Preparation Section 2.1 Section 1.1 supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. 10620(d)(2) Coordinate the preparation of its plan with Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.2 other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.1 water supplier has encouraged active and involvement of diverse social, cultural, and Appendix economic elements of the population within E the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Section 3.1 Section Description 1.3.1 10631(a) `' Describe the climate of the service area of System Section 3.3 Section the supplier. Description 2.2.1 10631(a) , Provide population projections for 2020, System Section 3.4 Section 2025, 2030, and 2035. Description 2.2.2 10631(a) Describe other demographic factors affecting System Section 3.4 Section the supplier's water management planning. Description 2.3 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service System Sections 3.4 Section area. Description and and 5.4 2.2.2 Baselines and Targets 10631(e)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water System Water Section 4.2 Section use, identifying the uses among water use Use 2.3.1 and sectors. 2.4.3 10631(e)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for System Water Section 4.3 Section the most recent 12-month period available. Use 2.3.4 and Appendix H 10631.1(a)`' Include projected water use needed for lower System Water Section 4.5 Section income housing projected in the service area Use 2.4.5 of the supplier. 10608.20(b) Retail suppliers shall adopt a 2020 water use Baselines and Section 5.7 Section target using one of four methods. Targets and App E 2.5.2.1 10608.20(e), Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily Baselines and Chapter 5 and Section per capita water use, urban water use target, Targets App E 2.5.2.2 interim urban water use target, and Item 17. - 103 HB -348- compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. 10608.22 Retail suppliers' per capita daily water use Baselines and Section 5.7.2 Section reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of Targets 2.5.2.2 base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100. 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their interim Baselines and Section 5.8 Section target by December 31, 2015. Targets and App E 2.5.2.2 10608.24(d)(2) If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance Baselines and Section 5.8.2 Section GPCD using weather normalization, Targets 2.5.2.2 economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment. 10608.36 Wholesale suppliers shall include an Baselines and Section 5.1 N/A assessment of present and proposed future Targets measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. 10609.40 Retail suppliers shall report on their progress Baselines and Section 5.8 Section in meeting their water use targets. The data Targets and App E 2.5.2.2 shall be reported using a standardized form. 1063.1(b) Identify and quantify the existing and System Supplies Chapter 6 Section 3.4 planned sources of water available for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. 10631(b) Indicate whether groundwater is an existing System Supplies Section 6.2 Section 3.3 or planned source of water available to the supplier. 10631(b)(1) Indicate whether a groundwater System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section management plan has been adopted by the 3.3.2.1 water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization. 10631(b)(2) Describe the groundwater basin. System Supplies Section 6.2.1 Section 3.3.1 10631(b)(2)s Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section and include a copy of the court order or 3.3.2 decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to Pump. 10631(b)(2) For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether System Supplies Section 6.2.3 Section or not the department has identified the 3.3.7 basin as overdrafted, or projected to become overdrafted. Describe efforts by the supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. 10631(b)(3); Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Section 6.2.4 1 Section 7 of the location, amount, and sufficiency of 3.3.6 I1B -;49- Item 17. - 104 groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years 10631(b)(4) Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Sections 6.2 Section 3.3 of the amount and location of groundwater and 6.9 and 3.4 that is projected to be pumped. 10631(d Describe the opportunities for exchanges or System Supplies Section 6.7 Section 7.2 transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. 10631(g) Describe the expected future water supply System Supplies Section 6.8 Section 7 projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. 10631(h)" Describe desalinated water project System Supplies Section 6.6 Section 7.4 opportunities for long-term supply. 106310) Retail suppliers will include documentation System Supplies Section 2.5.1 Section 3.4 that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s)— if any-with water use projections from that source. 106310) Wholesale suppliers will include System Supplies Section 2.5.1 NIA documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water,year types. 10633" For wastewater and recycled water, System Supplies Section 6.5.1 Section 6.1 coordinate with local water, wastewater, (Recycled groundwater, and planning agencies that Water) operate within the supplier's service area. 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and System Supplies Section 6.5.2 Section 6.2 treatment systems in the supplier's service (Recycled area. Include quantification of the amount of Water) wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater System Supplies Section Section 6.2 that meets recycled water standards, is (Recycled 6.5.2.2 being discharged, and is otherwise available Water) for use in a recycled water project. 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being System Supplies Section 6.5.3 Section 6.3 used in the supplier's service area. (Recycled and 6.5.4 Water) 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section 6.4 recycled water and provide a determination (Recycled of the technical and economic feasibility of Water) those uses. 10633(e)„' Describe the projected use of recycled water System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section 6.3 within the supplier's service area at the end (Recycled and 6.4 of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description Water) of the actual use of recycled water in Item 17. - 105 HB -350- comparison to uses previously projected. 10633(f Describe the actions which may be taken to System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section 6.4 encourage the use of recycled water and the (Recycled projected results of these actions in terms of Water) acre-feet of recycled water used per year. 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section 6.5 recycled water in the supplier's service area. (Recycled Water) 10620(f) Describe water management tools and Water Supply Section 7.4 Section 3.3, options to maximize resources and minimize Reliability 4.5, 4.6, 6.4 the need to import water from other regions. Assessment 10631(c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply Water Supply Section 7.1 Section 3.6 and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic Reliability shortage. Assessment 10631(c)(1) Provide data for an average water year,.a Water Supply Section 7.2 Section single dry water year, and multiple dry water Reliability 3.6.5 years Assessment 10631(c)(2) For any water source that may not be Water Supply Section 7.1 Section available at a consistent level of use, Reliability 3.2.3, 3.3, describe plans to supplement or replace that Assessment 3.6, 4 source. 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing Water Supply Section 7.1 Section sources of water available to the supplier Reliability 3.6.2.3 and the manner in which water quality Assessment affects water management strategies and supply reliability 10635(a) Assess the water supply reliability during Water Supply Section 7.3 Section normal, dry, and multiple dry water years by Reliability 3.7 comparing the total water supply sources Assessment available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. 10632(a)and Provide an urban water shortage Water Shortage Section 8.1 Section 5.2 10632,(a)(1)' contingency analysis that specifies stages of Contingency action and an outline of specific water supply Planning conditions at each stage. 10632(a)(2) Provide an estimate of the minimum water Water Shortage Section 8.9 Section 5.3 supply available during each of the next Contingency three water years based on the driest three- Planning year historic sequence for the agency. 10632(a)(3) Identify actions to be undertaken by the Water Shortage Section 8.8 Section 5.4 urban water supplier in case of a Contingency catastrophic interruption of water supplies. Planning 10632(a)(4) Identify mandatory prohibitions against Water Shortage Section 8.2 Section specific water use practices during water Contingency 5.5.1 shortages. Planning 10632(a)(5)" Specify consumption reduction methods in Water Shortage Section 8.4 Section the most restrictive stages. Contingency 5.5.3 Planning 10632(a)(6) Indicated penalties or charges for excessive Water Shortage Section 8.3 Section Contingency HB -351- Item 17. - 106 use, where applicable. Planning 5.5.2 10632(a)(7) Provide an analysis of the impacts of each of Water Shortage Section 8.6 Section 5.6 the actions and conditions in the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis on the Planning revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts. 10632(a)(8) Provide a draft water shortage contingency Water Shortage Section 8.7 Appendix D resolution or ordinance. Contingency Planning 10632(a)(9) Indicate a mechanism for determining actual Water Shortage Section 8.5 Section 5.7 reductions in water use pursuant to the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis. Planning 10631(f)(1) Retail suppliers shall provide a description of Demand Sections 9.2 Section 4 the nature and extent of each demand Management and 9.3 management measure implemented over the Measures past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. 10631(f)(2) Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific Demand Sections 9.1 N/A demand management measures listed in Management and 9.3 code, their distribution system asset Measures management program, and supplier assistance program. 10631(i) CUWCC members may submit their 2013- Demand Section 9.5 Section 4 2014 CUWCC BMP annual reports in lieu of, Management and or in addition to, describing the DMM Measures Appendix J implementation in their UWMPs. This option is only allowable if the supplier has been found to be in full compliance with the CUWCC MOU. 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public Plan Adoption, Section 10.3 Section 8.1 hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, Submittal, and and economic impact of water use targets. Implementation 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public Plan Adoption, Section 10.2.1 Appendix E hearing, any city or county within which the Submittal, and supplier provides water that the urban water Implementation supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. 10621(d) Each urban water supplier shall update and Plan Adoption, Sections Section submit its 2015 plan to the department by Submittal, and 10.3.1 and 8.3.3 July 1, 2016. Implementation 10.4 10635(b) Provide supporting documentation that Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, Submittal, and 8.3.3 or will be, provided to any city or county Implementation within which it provides water, no later than 60 days after the submission of the plan to DWR. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Sections Section 8.1 urban water supplier made the plan available Submittal, and 10.2.2, 10.3, for public inspection, published notice of the Implementation and 10.5 Item 17. - 107 HB �?- public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan. 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and Plan Adoption, Sections Appendix E place of the hearing to any city or county Submittal, and 10.2.1 within which the supplier provides water. Implementation 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.3.1 Appendix F plan has been adopted as prepared or Submittal, and modified. Implementation 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.3 Section urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and 8.3.3 UWMP to the California State Library. Implementation 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section 8.2 urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and UWMP to any city or county within which the Implementation supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, Plan Adoption, Sections Section submitted to the department shall be Submittal, and 10.4.1 and 8.3.3 submitted electronically. Implementation 10.4.2 10645 Provide supporting documentation that, Plan Adoption, Section 10.5 Section 8 not later than 30 days after filing a copy Submittal, and of its plan with the department, the Implementation supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. xB -353- Item 17. - 108 Standardized Tabes All 5}t �1}2 a JI fly 0, MME man x a _ . .. Item 17. - 109 ��B -�s �- Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems Public Water System Number of Municipal Volume of Public Water System Name Water Supplied Number Connections 2015 2015 (AFY)* CA3010053 City of Huntington Beach 53,091 27,996 TOTAL 53,091 27,996 NOTES: HB -355- Item 17. - 110 Table 2-2:Plan Idenfification l RUWMP or 8egi©nat All!ance vpPGcable flnfy One €r . tp ❑ Individual UWMP ❑ Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP 7 Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alhance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance ❑ Regional Urban Water Management Plan(RUWMP) NOTES: Item 17. - 111 HB -356- Table 2-3:Agency Identification e- of Agency Iselect one e e. Agency is a wholesaler Agency is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year(select on e- UWMPTables 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 AF NOTES: HB _;;7_ Item 17. - 112 SupplierTable 2-4 Retail:Water ► MWDOC OCWD NOTES: Item 17. - 113 1113 -358- Table 3-1 Retail: Population-Cuffent and Projected Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Served 198,429 203,840 204,330 206,207 207,387 209,689 NOTES: Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton HB -359- Item 17. - 114 Table 4-1 Ret;fil:Demands for Potable R- 1 Use Dron doom list haou s'&Iect each use n7ultipie tin eE Level of Treatment Additional Description These are the only t,se rypes thal iv it be When Delivered volume rec63nized oy the Mfacta online (as needed) Drop down,list ;.Stlb.711ita;:iDIIi Single Family Drinking Water 13,174 Multi-Family Drinking Water 6,016 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 139 Commercial Drinking Water 3,597 Industrial Drinking Water 404 Landscape Drinking Water 2,942 Other AES Power Plant Drinking Water 386 Other Meadowlark Golf Course Raw Water 236 Losses Drinking Water 1,102 TOTAL 27,996 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Retail Tracking. Item 17. - 115 HB -360- -r e- err rrt s t r r wr -ri '• --r-r '-ss r t e - Additional Description Use Drop down list M'7 SeieL 60Ch use r7tt€tlnle times' (Qs needed) These ore the only Use vpes ihm will be recoantae+ 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 b ,the WU dafo online suhnn l-ni toe Single Family 13,218 14,189 14,286 14,283 14,303 Multi-Family 6,036 6,480 6,524 6,522 6,532 Institutional/Governmental 140 150 151 151 151 Commercial 3,609 3,874 3,900 3,899 3,905 Industrial 405 435 438 438 438 Landscape 2,952 3,169 3,190 3,190 3,194 Other AES Power Plant 388 416 419 419 419 Other Meadowlark Golf Course 237 254 256 256 2S6 Losses 1,106 1,187 1,195 1,195 1,196 TOTAL 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and Retail Water Agency Projections. HB -361- Item 17. - 116 Retail:Table 4-3 Demands 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water From 27,996 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 Tables 4-1 and 4-2 Recycled Water Demand From 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6-4 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 27,996 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 NOTES: City will evaluate the potential use of recycled water as opportunities become available Item 17. - 117 HB - 622- Table 4-4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporfing Reporting Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss (m m/yyyy) 10/2014 1,167 NOTES: HB -')6;- Item 17. - 118 Table 4-5 Retail Only-* incluMon in Water Use Projection Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook) Yes Drop down list(Y/n) If"Yes" to above,state the section or page number,in the cell to the right,where citations of the codes, Section 4.1 ordinances,etc..utilized in demand projections are found. Are Lower Income Residential Demands included In Projections? Yes Drop down list(yin) NOTES: Item 17. - 119 HB -364- RetailTable 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary Agency or Regional 'Alliance Only Average Baseline 2015Interim Confirmed Start Year End Year Baseline Period GPCD* Target* 2020 Target* 10-15 1996 2005 159.3 152 144.4 year S Year 2004 2008 1 144.6 * lwvaues arein�a_toas per Cap�t ` erDay(Gc> 1 NOTES: 1 113 .365_ Item 17. - 120 e RetailI Dr ReglanalAllionce 2015 Did Supplier Actual Interim Achieve Targeted 2015 GPC© Target . Reduction for GPCD 2015?YJN 105 152 Yes *A!I vufiaes wre n Gaovlas.per C�Itp per NOTES: Item 17. - 121 HB -366- TableVolume Pumped Groundwater Type Drop Down List Location or Basin 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Moy use each category Name rnuttrple times Alluvial Basin Orange County 16,790 14,927 20,344 18,585 16,604 Groundwater Basin TOTAL 16,790 14,927 20,344 18,585 16,604 !NOTES: Volumes represent actual groundwater pumped, not including any In-Lieu Adjustment with import water HB -367- Item 17. - 122 Wastewater Name of Wastewater IsWWTP'Located'. Name of Volume of Metered or Treatment Agency Treatment Plant Within UWMP Wastewater Wastewater Estimated? , Receiving Collected Name Area? Collection Agency. Collected In 2015 Drop Down List Wastewater Drop Down List City of Huntington Estimated 18,197 OCSD Plant No.2 Yes Beach Total Wastewater Collected from Service Area in 2015: 18,197 NOTES: Estimated at 65% of 2015 potable water consumption Item 17. - 123 HB -368- Tablee2015 0 F• F i E E .E' E.. xB -369- Item 17. - 124 Table 6-4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Witwin SerVice Area 2=LI 1 7'M T /! • ! i ! R' Item 17. - 125 xB -170- ❑ 's r -► i i a f r - 'r E i J BB -371- Item 17. - 126 Table to Expand Future Re ed Water Use, 77 Section 6.4 •- • • Item 17. - 127 HB -372- c- L Section 7.3 +- HR -;73- Item 17. - 128 Tableo Drop down list Additional Detail on May use each categorymuttlp}e times. Water Water Supply These are the oiVy watersiipp}y categories Actual Volume Quality that will be-recognized by the WUEdato online Drop Down List submittal toil Groundwater Orange County 20,059 Drinking Groundwater Basin Water Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 7,937 Drinking Water Total 27,996 NOTES: Item 17. - 129 HB -374- 0 MDjrop—d4ownR"stAdditional Detail on 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 '✓7m,us each cm egory rtt;pfe times. These ore the only watersupp;y Water Supply cc_cones tho:wiU be recognized by Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably the VVVEioto ont,;esubvitta+toot' Available Available Available Available Available Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Orange County Groundwater 19,663 21,107 21,252 21,246 21,277 Groundwater Basin Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 10,303 10,303 10,303 10,303 10,303 Total 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 NOTES:Volume based on BPP on 70% FIB -375- Item 17. - 130 Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data es i Year TVpe Repeats Base:Year Quantification of available supplies is not ifnot using a , compatible with this table and is provided calendaryear,tyPein elsewhere in the UWMP. YearType the Iasi year of the Location fiscal, water year,,or range of years,for exampie,water year Quantification of available supplies is provided in 19-99-2000 use2000 this table as either volume only, percent only,or both. Volume Available %of Average Supply Average Year 1990- 2014 N/A 100% Single-Dry Year 2014 N/A 106% Multiple-Dry YeIars 1st Year 2012 N/A 106% Multiple-D yYears 2ndYear 2013 N/A 106% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 N/A 106% NOTES: Based on OC Reliability Study.The City can implement conservatively a 5 percent conservation effort to offset any demand increase from increase in population. Item 17. - 131 HB 76- Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025 2030 2035 " 2040 Supply totals (autofill from Table 6-9) 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Demand totals (autofill from Table 4-3) 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 Difference 1,876 1,257 1,195 1,197 1,184 NOTES: HH _;77_ Item 17. - 132 Table r r r - r t6rno'"'arison, 2020 2025 2030. 2035 2040 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 NOTES: During a dry year scenario, the City would implement conservation measures to reduce demands by 5%. With an estimated increase in demand of 6%, a net increase in demand of 1% is estimated. Item 17. - 133 xB -378- Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025, 2030 2035 2040 - Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 First year, _ Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Second year Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 Supply totals 29,966 31,410 31,555 31,549 31,580 Third year, Demand totals 28,371 30,455 30,664 30,656 30,700 Difference 1,595 956 891 894 880 NOTES: During a dry year scenario, the City would implement conservation measures to reduce demands by 5%. With an estimated increase in demand of 6%, a net increase in demand of 1% is estimated. f113 - 9- Item 17. - 134 Table 8-1 Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan ----- -Complete Botb Stage Percent Supply Reduction- Water Supply Condition Numericdl value as a (-Narrative description) percent A water supply shortage or threatened shortage 1 exists and consumer demand reduction necessary to respond to existing water conditions A water supply shortage or threatened shortage 2 exists and consumer demand reduction necessary to existing water conditions. An "Emergency" condition. Exists when the City declares a water shortage emergency and notifies 3 its residents and businesses that significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain water supplies for public health, safety, and welfare ? One stage in the Wafer Shortage Contingency;Pion must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Current water conservation ordinance does not breakdown by percent reduction but the City will look into this in the future. Item 17. - 135 HB -3sO- TableOnly. r • ProMbitions vnEnd Uses Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Penalty,Charge,or Stage Drop down list Additional Explanation or Reference Other These are the only;categories that (optional) Enforcement? will be accepted by the tVUE—data Drop jr ov ;List online submittal tool Irrigation prohibited between 9:00 a.m. and Permanent Year- Landscape- Limit landscape 5:00 p.m. on any day, except by use of hand Yes Round irrigation to specific times water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for repairs Irrigation with a device not continuously Permanent Year- Landscape-Other landscape attended limited to no more than ten Round restriction or prohibition minutes watering per day per station. Does Yes not apply to low-flow drip type irrigation systems Permanent Year- Landscape- Restrict or prohibit Round runoff from landscape Yes irrigation Exception made for hand-held bucket or Other- Prohibit use of potable similar container, hand-held hose with Permanent Year- water for washing hard positive self-closing water shut-off device, Yes Round surfaces low-volume, high-pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle water, or low- volume high-pressure water broom Other-Customers must repair Permanent Year- Leaks must be corrected within 5 days of leaks, breaks, and malfunctions Yes Round notice from the City in a timely manner Permanent Year- Water Features- Restrict Water fountains or other decorative water Round water use for decorative water features that does not use recirculated Yes features, such as fountains water is prohibited. Other- Prohibit vehicle Permanent Year- washing except at facilities - Yes Round using recycled or recirculating water Permanent Year- CII- Restaurants may only _ Yes Round serve water upon request Permanent Year- CII- Lodging establishment Round must offer opt out of linen - Yes service Permanent Year- Installation of single pass cooling systems Round Other prohibited in buildings requesting new Yes water service HB -38 1- Item 17. - 136 Installation of non-recirculating water Permanent Year- systems is prohibited in new commercial Other Yes Round conveyor car wash and new commercial laundry systems CII-Commercial kitchens Permanent Year- required to use pre-rinse spray - Yes Round valves New commercial conveyor car wash Permanent Year- systems must install operational Other Yes Round recirculating water systems or have a waiver from the City Permanent Year- Other- Prohibit use of potable water for construction and - Yes Round dust control Permanent Year- Other- Require automatic shut Applies to water hoses used in construction Yes Round of hoses activities Permanent Year Fire hydrants used only for fire suppression Other Yes Round or emergency aid. Permanent Year- Indiscriminate running of water when it is Other wasteful or without reasonable purpose is Yes Round prohibited Permanent Year- Any water regulation should not limit water Round Other use which is immediately necessary to Yes protect public health and safety Permanent Year- Landscape-Other landscape Irrigation prohibited during or within 48 Yes Round restriction or prohibition hours of rainfall Irrigation limited to 3 days per week During the November through March, irrigation Landscape-Limit landscape limited to no more than 2 days per week 1 irrigation to specific days Does not apply to low flow drip type Yes irrigation systems, by use of a hand-held, or short periods of time for repairing an irrigation system Other-Customers must repair 1 leaks, breaks, and malfunctions Leaks must be repaired within 72 hours of notification by the City Yes in a timely manner Irrigation limited to 2 days per week During November through March, irrigation with Landscape- Limit landscape potable water limited to 1 day per week. 2 irrigation to specific days Does not apply to very low flow drip type Yes irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket, or for very short periods of time for repairing irrigation system Other-Customers must repair Leaks b must be repaired within 48 hours of 2 leaks, breaks, and malfunctions Yes notification by the City in a timely manner Item 17. - 137 HB -382- Other water feature or Filling or refilling ornamental lakes or ponds 2 swimming pool restriction prohibited, except to sustain aquatic life of Yes significant value Other- Prohibit vehicle 2 washing except at facilities Yes using recycled or recirculating water Refilling more than one foot and initial Other water feature or filling of residential swimming pools or 2 Yes swimming pool restriction outdoor spas with potable water is prohibited. Irrigation is prohibited. Does not apply use of hand-held bucket, maintenance of landscape for fire protection and for soil Landscape- Prohibit all erosion control,the maintenance of rare 3 landscape irrigation plant materials, maintenance of landscape Yes within active public parks provided irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week, and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects Other-Customers must repair 3 leaks, breaks, and malfunctions Leaks must be repaired within 24 hours of Yes notification by the City in a timely manner No new potable water service will be 3 Other provided except under special Yes circumstances by the City The city will limit or withhold issuance of 3 Other building permits which require new or Yes expanded water service The City may discontinue service to 3 Other consumers who willfully violate any water Yes conservation provisions 3 Other The City will suspend consideration of Yes annexations to its service area NOTES: HB Item 17. - 138 Table 8-3 Retail Only: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan-Consumption Reduction Methods Consumption Reduction` Methods by Water Supplier Stage; Additional Explanation or Reference Drop lawn test o T#�esrrethP anlyrot& arles that �� tional P will tie accepted by the"WUEdato onhi e submittoi t001- 1 Other Stage 1 Water Conservation Measures 2 Other Stage 2 Water Conservation Measures 3 Other Stage 3 Water Conservation Measures NOTES: Item 17. - 139 HB - 84- SupplyTable 8-4 Retail:Minimum 2016 2017 2018 Available Water SUPPlY 30,713 30,713 30,713 NOTES: HB -38 Item 17. - 140 Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties Notice of Public` City Name 60 Day Notice Hearing Bolsa Chica I] Fountain Valley 7 Seal Beach 0 Westminster County Name Notice of Public" 60 Day Notice Drop Down List Hearing Orange County 0 0 Los Angeles 0 ElCounty NOTES: Item 17. - 141 HB -)86- �m E3` S s � t � HB -397- Item 17. - 142 A copy of the OCWD GWMP can be found at http://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/g rou ndwater- management/groundwater-management-plan/ Item 17. - 143 11B -388- �w U t= a ma lift r � � a2 P. xB -_89- �.�_. _ . ._ . �.a� Item 17. - 144 Chapter 14.18 WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) Sections: 14.18.010 Title 14.18.020 Purpose and Intent 14.18.030 Definitions 14.18.040 Application 14.18.050 Permanent Water Conservation Requirements—Prohibition Against Waste 14.18.060 Level 1 Water Supply Shortage 14.18.070 Level 2 Water Supply Shortage 14.18.080 Level 3 Water Supply Shortage—Emergency Conditions 14.18.090 Procedures for Determination and Notification of Water Supply Shortage 14.18.100 Hardship Waiver 14.18.110 Violation—Penalty 14.18.120 Severability 14.18.010 Title. (3104-4191, 3849-1/10) This chapter will be known as the City of Huntington Beach Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 14.18.020 Purpose and Intent. (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) a. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a water conservation and supply shortage program that will reduce water consumption within the City of Huntington Beach 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 of Huntington Beach to avoid and minimize the effect and hardship of water shortage to the greatest extent possible. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) b. This chapter establishes permanent water conservation standards intended to alter behavior related to water use efficiency at all times and 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. (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) 14.18.030 Definitions. (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) a. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning hereafter set forth unless a different meaning is clearly intended from the context in which such word or phrase is used. Any word or phrase not herein defined shall have the meaning attributed to it in ordinary usage. (3104-4/91, 3849- 1/10) 1. "Person" means any natural person or persons, corporation, public or private entity, governmental agency or institution, including all agencies City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 1 of 10 Item 17. - 145 HB -3190- and departments of City of Huntington Beach or any other user of water provided by City of Huntington Beach. (3104-4191, 3849-1/101) 2. "Landscape irrigation system" means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that are operated by hand or through an automated system. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 3. "Large landscape areas" means a lawn, landscape, or other vegetated area, or combination thereof, equal to more than one (1) acre of irrigable land. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 4. "Single pass cooling systems" means equipment where water is circulated only once to cool equipment before being disposed. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 5. "Potable water" means water which is suitable for drinking. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 6. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of non-potable water for beneficial use as defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 7. "Billing unit" means the unit of water used to apply water rates for purposes of calculating water charges for a person's water usage and equals 748 gallons. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 14.18.040 Application. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) a. The provisions of this chapter apply to any person in the use of any potable water provided by the City of Huntington Beach. (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) b. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to uses of water necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential government services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) C. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the use of recycled water, with the exception of Section 14.18.050(a). (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) d. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the use of water by conunercial nurseries and commercial growers to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for commercial sale. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) e. This chapter is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any stormwater ordinances and stormwater management plans. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 2 of 10 HB -391- Item 17. - 146 14.18.050 Permanent Water Conservation Requirements — Prohibition Against Waste. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) The following water conservation requirements are effective at all times and are permanent. Violations of this section will be considered waste and an unreasonable use of water. (3104-4/91, 3810-9108, 3849-1/10) a. Limits on Watering Hours: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on any day, except by use of a hand-water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) b. Limit on Watering Duration: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended is limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes watering per day per station. This subsection does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two (2) gallons of water per hour and weather based controllers or steam rotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency standard. (3104-4/91, 3810. 9/08, 3849-1/10) C. No Excessive Water Flow or Runoff. Watering or irrigating of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch is prohibited. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) d. No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys, is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, and then only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, a low-volume, high-pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used, or a low-volume high-pressure water broom. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08,3849-1/10) e. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: Excessive loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system for any period of time after such escape of water should have reasonably been discovered and corrected and in no event more than seven (7) days of receiving notice from the City of Huntington Beach, is prohibited. (3104-4/91,3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) f. Re-circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features: Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use re-circulated water is prohibited. (3104-4/91,3810-9/08,3849-1/10) g. Limits on Washing Vehicles: Use water to wash or clean a vehicle, including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device. This subsection does not apply to any commercial car washing faculty. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 3 of 10 Item 17. - 147 1413 -392- h. Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only: Eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to a restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria, bar, or other public place where food or drinks are sold, served, or offered for sale, are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested. (3104-4/91,3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) i. Commercial Lodging Establishments Must Provide Guests Option to Decline Daily Linen Services: Hotels, motels and other commercial lodging establishments must provide customers the option of not having towels and linen laundered daily. Commercial lodging establishments must prominently display notice of this option in each bathroom using clear and easily understood language. (3104-4/91,3810-9/08,3849-1/10) j. No Installation of Single Pass Cooling Systems to Domestic Water Supplies: Installation of single pass cooling systems is prohibited in buildings requesting new water service. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) k. No Installation of Non-re-circulating in Commercial Car Wash and Laundry Systems: Installation of non-recirculating water systems is prohibited in new commercial conveyor car wash and new commercial laundry systems. (3104-4/91,3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) 1. Restaurants Required to Use Water Conserving Dish Wash Spray Valves: Food preparation establishments, such as restaurants or cafes, are prohibited from using non-water conserving dish wash spray valves. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08, 3849-1/10) in. Commercial Car Wash Systems: Effective on January 1, 2010, all new commercial conveyor car wash systems must have installed operational re- circulating water systems, or must have secured a waiver of this requirement from the City of Huntington Beach. (3104-4/91, 3810-9/08,3849-1/10) 14.18.060 Level 1 Water Supply Shortage. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) a. A Level 1 Water Supply Shortage exists when the City of Huntington Beach determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the City of Huntington Beach of a Level 1 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City of Huntington Beach will implement the mandatory Level 1 conservation measures identified in this section. (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) b. Additional Water Conservation Measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Section 14.18.050, the following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Level 1 Water Supply Shortage: (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) 1. Limits on Watering Days: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to three days per week on a schedule established and posted by the City of Huntington Beach. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than one day per week on a schedule established and posted by the City of Huntington Beach. This provision does not apply to landscape City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 4 of 10 HB -;9;- Item 17. - 148 irrigation zones that exclusively use very low flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two (2) gallons of water per hour. This provision also does not apply to watering or irrigating by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container. a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 2. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within seventy-two (72) hours of notification by the City of Huntington Beach unless other arrangements are made with the City of Huntington Beach. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 14.18.070 Level 2 Water Supply Shortage. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) a. A Level 2 Water Supply Shortage exists when the City of Huntington Beach determines, in its sole discretion that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and approximately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the City of Huntington Beach of a Level 2 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City of Huntington Beach will implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation measures identified in this section. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) b. Additional Conservation Measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Section 14.18.050 and 14.18.060, the following additional water conservation requirements apply during a declared Level 2 Water Supply Shortage: (3104-4/91,3849-1/10) 1. Watering Days: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to two days per week on a schedule established and posted by the City of Huntington Beach. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than one day per week on a schedule established and posted by the City of Huntington Beach. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation zones that exclusively use very low flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two (2) gallons of water per hour. This provision also does not apply to watering or irrigating by use of a hand- held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 2. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the City of Huntington Beach unless other arrangements are made with the City of Huntington Beach. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 3. Limits on Filling Ornamental Lakes or Ponds: Filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds is prohibited, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 5 of 10 Item 17. - 149 HB -394- have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a supply shortage level under this ordinance. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 4. Limits on Washing Vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle. including but not limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not, is prohibited except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, by high pressure/low volume wash systems, or at a commercial car washing facility that utilizes a re-circulating water system to capture or reuse water. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 5. Limits on Filling Residential Swimming Pools & Spas: Re-filling of more than one foot and initial filling of residential swimming pools or outdoor spas with potable water is prohibited. (3104-4/91, 3849-1/10) 14.18.080 Leve13 Water Supply Shortage—Emeraencv Condition. (3849-1/10) a. A Level 3 Water Supply Shortage condition is also referred to as an "Emergency" condition. A Level 3 condition exists when the City of Huntington Beach declares a water shortage emergency and notifies its residents and businesses that a significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety. Upon the declaration of a Level 3 Water Supply- Shortage condition, the City of Huntington Beach will implement the mandatory Level 3 conservation measures identified in this section. (3849-1/10) b. Additional Conservation Measures: In addition to the prohibited use of water identified in Section 14.18.050, 14.18.060 and 14.18.070, the following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Level 3 Water Supply Shortage Emergency: (3849-1/10) 1. Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is prohibited. This restriction does not apply to the following categories of use, unless the City of Huntington Beach has determined that recycled water is available and may be applied to the use: (3849-1/10) 1. Maintenance of vegetation, including trees and shrubs, that are watered using a hand-held bucket or similar container, hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device; (3849-1/10) ii. Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection, (3849-1/10) iii. Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control; (3849-1/10) iv. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species; (3849-1/10) V. Maintenance of landscape with active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, golf course greens, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established in Section City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 6 of 10 HB 5- Item 17. - 150 14.18.070(b)(1) and time restrictions in Section 14.18.050(a) and 14.18.060(b)(1); (3849-1110) vi. Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. (3849-1/10) 2. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the City of Huntington Beach unless other arrangements are made with the City of Huntington Beach. (3849-1/10) 3. a. New Potable Water Service: Upon declaration of a Level 3 Water Supply Shortage Emergency condition, no new potable water service will be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will-serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) will be issued, except under the following circumstances: (3849-1/10) 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or (3849-1/10) 2. The project is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare: or (3849-1/10) 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 of Huntington Beach. (3849-1/10) This provision does not preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or the restoration of service that has been interrupted for a period of one year or less. (3849-1/10) Or b. Limits on Building Permits: The City of Huntington Beach will limit or withhold the issuance of building permits which require new or expanded water service, except to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or in cases which meet the City of Huntington Beach's adopted conservation offset requirements. (3849-1/10) 4. Discontinue Service: The City of Huntington Beach, in its sole discretion, may discontinue service to consumers who willfully violate provisions of this section. (3849-1/10) 5. New Annexations: Upon the declaration of a Level 3 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City of Huntington Beach will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. This subsection does not apply to boundary corrections and annexations that will not result in any increased use of water. (3849-1/10) City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 7 of 10 Item 17. - 151 HB -3196- 14.18.090 Procedures for Determination and Notification of Water Supple Shorta6e. (3849-1/10) a. The City's Director of Public Works and the City Administrator. or their designated representatives, are authorized and directed by the City Council to implement the provisions of this Chapter. The Director of Public Works shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary, reasonable and proper to enforce the provisions of this Code. A copy of any rule or regulation promulgated by the Director shall be provided to the City Council. (3849-1/10) b. The City shall monitor the projected supply and demand for water by its customers. The Director of Public Works shall determine the extent of the conservation required through the implementation and/or termination of particular conservation stages in order for the City to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. The existence of Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 water supply shortage conditions shall be declared by Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with state law. The mandatory conservation requirements applicable to Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 conditions, will take effect on the tenth day after the date the shortage level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the shortage level, the City of Huntington Beach shall publish a copy of the Resolution in—a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the City of Huntington Beach activates a water allocation process, it shall provide notice of the activation by including it in the regular billing statement or by any other mailing to the address to which the City of Huntington Beach customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. A water allocation process will be effective on the fifth day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. (3849-1/10) C. In case of local emergencies as defined under the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the City Administrator shall have the authority to order the implementation of the appropriate level of water conservation subject to ratification by the City Council within seven (7) days thereafter or such order shall have no further force or effect. (3849-1/10) 14.18.100 Hardship Waiver. (3849-1/10) a. Undue and Disproportionate Hardship: If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this chapter would result in undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water users, then the person may apply to the City Administrator for a waiver to the requirements as provided in this section. (3849-1/10) b. Written Finding: The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user's property. (3849-1/10) 1. Application: Application for a waiver must be on a form prescribed by the City of Huntington Beach and accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by City of Huntington Beach resolution of the Citv Council. (3849-1/10) City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 8 of 10 1413 )97- Item 17. - 152 2. Supporting Documentation: The application must be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information, including a written statement of the applicant. (3849-1/10) 3. Required Findings for Waiver: An application for a waiver will be denied unless the City Administrator finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the City of Huntington Beach or its Agent, all of the following: (3849-1/10) i. That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses; (3849-1/10) ii. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this chapter would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to residents and businesses generally; (3849-1/10) iii. That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the ability of the City of Huntington Beach to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and (3849-1/10) 4. Approval Authority: The City Administrator shall act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the waiver. The applicant requesting the waiver shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a waiver is approved, the waiver will apply to the subject property during the period of the mandatory water supply shortage condition. The decision of the City Administrator will be final. (3849-1/10) 14.18.110 Violation—Penalty. (3849-1/10) a. Any person violating this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation of this ordinance occurs is a separate offense. (3849-1/10) b. In addition to any fines, the City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately one gallon per minute capacity for service up to one and one-half inch size and comparatively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a flow restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours. (3849-1/10) C. A person or entity that violates this ordinance is responsible for payment of the City's charges for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device and for disconnecting and/or reconnecting service per the City's schedule of charges then in effect. The charge for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 9 of 10 Item 17. - 153 HB -398- must be paid to the City before the device is removed. Nonpayment will be subject to the same remedies as nonpayment of basic water rates. (3849-1/10) d. In addition to any fines and the installation of a water flow restrictor, the City may disconnect a customer's water service for willful violations of mandatory restrictions in this chapter. (3849-1/10) 14.18.120 Severability. (3849-1/10) If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase in this chapter is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter will not be affected. The City of Huntington Beach hereby declares it would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections.. sentences, clauses, or phrases or is declared invalid. (3849-1/10) City of Huntington Beach Chapter 14.18 Page 10 of 10 HB -399- Item 17. - 154 I jn1:� i t\fUi.11iCG....I1.;�� C'l ��,Al�'il'v 3:1 I I�i. c.::GC�4`r�l�.-C /r fC�.�,C�,. ulr.,ii.:ilf�'v; k ut" Item 17. - 155 HB -400- April 18, 2016 Ms. Grace Adams Bolsa Chica Conservancy Director 3842 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Adams, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or sen-es 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6. Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan. shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642. notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more inforination or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -401- Item 17. - 156 April 18, 2016 Mr. Dean Logan County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk 12400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Logan, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-terns resource plamling and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify the County that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If the County would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org Item 17. - 157 HB -402- April 18, 2016 Mr. Hugh Nguyen County of Orange Clerk-Recorder 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 101 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Nguyen, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Plarming, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify the County that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If the County would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -403- Item 17. - 158 April 18, 2016 Ms. Kelly O'Reilly California Department of Fish and Wildlife Associate Marine Fisheries Biologist 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. O'Reilly, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UW`MP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org Item 17. - 159 HB -404- April 18, 2016 Mr. Rick Miller City of Fountain Valley City Clerk 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley. CA 92708 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Miller, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 31,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban eater supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or chances to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org 1413 -405- Item 17. - 160 April 18, 2016 Ms. Stephanie Pincetl Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Chair 320 West Temple Street, 13' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Pincetl, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-terns resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dl ee@surfcity-hb.org Item 17. - 161 HB -406- April 18, 2016 Mr. David Hanson Orange County Parks Commission Chair 13042 Old Myford Road Irvine, CA 92602 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Hanson, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -407- Item 17. - 162 April 18, 2016 Mr. Colby Cataldi Orange County Public Works/Development Services Deputy Director P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Cataldi, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify Orange County Development Services that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If Orange County Development Services would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org Item 17. - 163 HB -408- April 19, 2016 Mr. Rob Hunter Municipal Water District of Orange County General Manager P.O. Box 20895 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Hunter, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UW1\lPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify MWDOC that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If MWDOC would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@,surfcity-hb.org HB -409- Item 17. - 164 April 18, 2016 Ms. Maria Ayala Orange County Sanitation District Clerk of the Board 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Ayala, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org Item 17. - 165 HB -410- April 18, 2016 Mr. Mike Markus Orange County Water District General Manager P.O. Box 8300 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Markus, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Plamiing, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify OCWD that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If OCWD would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -411- Item 17. - 166 April 18, 2016 Ms. Jill Ingram City of Seal Beach City Manager 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Ingram, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall. at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for.Tune 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfeity-hb.org Item 17. - 167 HB -412- April 18, 2016 Ms. Chris Montana Sunset Beach Sanitary District Clerk of the Board P.O. Box 1185 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Montana, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-terns resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -41 Item 17. - 168 April 18, 2016 Torch Operating Company 5775 Pacific Coast Highway Ventura, CA 93001 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan To Whom It May Concern, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-lib.org Item 17. - 169 HB -414- April 18, 2016 Ms. Amanda Jensen City of Westminster City Clerk 8200 Westminster Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683 Re: Notice of Preparation of Huntington Beach's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Jensen, The City of Huntington Beach (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-terns resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban "rater supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Duncan Lee Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 714-375-5118 dlee@surfcity-hb.org HB -415- Item 17. - 170 t � F 'dopted Resolution daa aid Item 17. - 171 Will be incorporated in future draft once available s i 4 HB -4 1 7_ Item 17. 172 �E b °R Ago Item 17. - 173 g ` �' HB -418- �, �_ .._��� ;� _- CDM. s it Final Technical Memorandum #1 To: Karl Seckel, Assistant Manager/District Engineer Municipal Water District of Orange County From: Dan Rodrigo, Senior Vice President, CDM Smith Date: April 20, 2015 Subject: Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap Analysis 1.0 Introduction In December 2014,the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) initiated the Orange County Reliability Study(OC Study) to comprehensively evaluate current and future water supply and system reliability for all of Orange County.To estimate the range of potential water supply gap (difference between forecasted water demands and all available water supplies), CDM Smith developed an OC Water Supply Simulation Model (OC Model) using the commercially available Water Evaluation and Planning(WEAP) software.WEAP is a simulation model maintained by the Stockholm Environment Institute (httl2://ww\v.sei-us.org/wgaa) that is used by water agencies around the globe for water supply planning,including the California Department of Water Resources. The OC Model uses indexed-sequential simulation to compare water demands and supplies now and into the future. For all components of the simulation (e.g.,water demands, regional and local supplies) the OC Model maintains a given index (e.g.,the year 1990 is the same for regional water demands, as well as supply from Northern California and Colorado River) and the sequence of historical hydrology.The planning horizon of the model is from 2015 to 2040 (25 years).Using the historical hydrology from 1922 to 2014, 93 separate 25-year sequences are used to generate data on reliability and ending period storage/overdraft. For example,sequence one of the simulation maps historical hydrologic year 1922 to forecast year 2015,then 1923 maps to 2016 ...and 1947 maps to 2040. Sequence two shifts this one year, so 1923 maps to 2015 ...and 1948 maps to 2040. The OC Model estimates overall supply reliability for MET using a similar approach that MET has utilized in its 2015 Draft Integrated Resources Plan (MET IRP). The model then allocates available imported water to Orange County for direct and replenishment needs.Within Orange County,the OC Model simulates water demands and local supplies for three areas: (1) Brea/La Habra; (2) Orange County Basin; (3) South County; plus a Total OC summary (see Figure 1). xB -4 1 9_ Item 17. - 174 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 2 Three Study Regions in Orange County Based on Mix of Local and Imported Water Sources R119i,�N r ,Of�1,IJ�,Wi�ROQf� R /a1UNRE� R,vcr+ . f �tmi,STAE �j}J 1WIERW. � � CAfMY R LT Q%gDM QdNE vA%Tm 1Eli YEAC. r i[ieFM CG GE'G{ FokNTNN MYJ ET YEAS RAA['N NPRFlI 11E5AVMT D1HT. M14Tr71 1� aid •-- /1`r �l� O NEWPOTr flEl�J� CeS1ecF� "� y' / t ..�.^�� YDLLTON MI®ila SM �fBUT W1M F].ERALD OST l yyyg,OBl{OCT � MIVER TTR1CT �,�aSt1aCF fltt [N33i4 ffE#Cii MUQSi GIFT r�aw.u.w 1 cwa*R,wo , YTRIER 06iRICT orange County,water Dist ict(tat 5J> N Rrea a Habra ❑ 25 5 1❑LG— w+E South orange County s Figure 1. Geographic Areas for OC Study The OC Model also simulates operations of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Figure 2 presents the overall model schematic for the OC Model,while Figure 3 presents the inflows and pumping variables included in the OC Basin component of the OC Model. A detailed description of the OC Model,its inputs,and all technical calculations is documented in Technical Memorandum #2: Development of OC Supply Simulation Model. " 1 -20-16 Item 17. - 175 xB -420- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 3 5"delherles to Ma.. dimats DE�ta From 2025 D1+i7i FLiabday Report(wAth and without Cai Frx to Deltal Climate - dbaW Gennrotedh"'M Charw JXA GCWS dOWTUOMt:d ro drgemmrrtvfovts fDeiko.CaJe.adv m,+,v Aasir4 sdnta Aim Kbrer Oxd} water Vim.AreC TranSfers defteriaL From MrM pubrished reports Aggrepte Reeonal Surfacsairs #-k MET'suppflaa i Aggregat�af!1�eginnxl�a1At �___.�&Demands iQo�ltusdo From A+rTS published reports less revkMd tocw suppies CRA Oeftveriet to MET. From MET and 8QR New!)CYMater ., O�CWD Basin - Supply Options oC supplies linckAng Watermil _GYIfRSwater__ Dts I+3Cts-PoRabh Non-OC Swin GW supplies Figure 2.Overall Schematic for OC Model MWO Replenishment: Incidental Recharge:linear correlation J Target=65,0Q0 AFY" ate to rainfall(0CWD,Z014 j --- GVbRS inilgv 130.001)AFY by 2022 NIVVIDOC Agencies; hd J,�� awsa oj.o%'wXe rshed repo rtaard-",.v4oWy,' Mlcan F-osecast ft Total Demands x SPP urth Demand ---- -�..�..�.---- C3' , d Basin Faato,Ts 4 1 SAR Baseflmv_ (D High,Medium, Low,� flow based on OCWD 7 Long-term Facilities fJmtt-tf'Yi,'OQC SAR Stotrnflow. f Plan(2014); MCI% based on rainfall, lrunicipallties(Fullerton, recharged to basin population,maximum Ar.aheim,Santa Ana).- Mean Forecasf with Other%l scellaneous temperature regression Demand Factoas. Pumpin `Outflaws °b recharge baseed on SAR Waterrnasterand OCWD data regression Figure 3. Inflows and Pumping Variables for OC Basin Component of OC Model Final 4-20-16 xB -421- Item 17. - 176 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 4 The modeling part of this evaluation is a necessity to deal with the number of issues impacting water supply reliability to Orange County. Reliability improvements in Orange County can occur due to water supply investments made by MET,the MET member agencies outside of Orange County, or by Orange County agencies. In this sense, future decision-making regarding reliability of supplies should not take place in a vacuum,but should consider the implications of decisions being made at all levels. This technical memorandum summarizes the water demand forecast for Orange County and the water supply gap analysis that was generated using the OC Model.The outline for this technical memorandum is as follows: • Section 1:Water Demand Forecast for Orange County • Section 2: Planning Scenarios • Section 3:Water Supply Gap • Section 4: Conclusions • Section 5: References 2.0 Water Demand Forecast for Orange County The methodology for the water demand forecast uses a modified water unit use approach. In this approach,water unit use factors are derived from a baseline condition using a sample of water agency billing data and demographic data. In early 2015, a survey was sent by MWDOC to all water agencies in Orange County requesting Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 water use by billing category (e.g., single-family residential, multifamily residential, and non-residential). In parallel,the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) in Orange County provided current and projected demographics for each water agency in Orange County using GIS shape files of agency service areas. Water agencies were then placed into their respective areas (Brea/La Habra, OC Basin, South County),and water use by billing category were summed and divided by the relevant demographic (e.g., single-family water use _ single-family households) in order to get a water unit use factor (expressed as gallons per day/demographic unit). In addition,the water agency survey collected information on total water production.Where provided, the difference between total water production and billed water use is considered non- revenue water. Table 1 summarizes the results of the water agency survey information and calculates the water unit use factors for the three areas within Orange County. -20-16 Item 17. - 177 HB -4222- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 5 Table 1.Water Use Factors from Survey of Water Agencies in Orange County(FY 2013-14) SF Res MF Res Com/Instit. Indust. Non Revenue Units, Unit Use' Units Unit Use Units Unit Use Units Unit Use total acc % Basin Area ANAHEIM 50,030 441 58,618 193 169,902 90 19,260 160 63,004 7% BUENA PARK 16,455 346 8,600 224 31,566 137 4,837 39 19,004 11% FOUNTAIN VALLEY 12,713 336 6,964 141 30,282 124 2,093 134 17,149 13% FULLERTON 26,274 454 22,575 176 60,839 115 6,251 398 31,557 5% GARDEN GROVE 31,400 422 17,580 295 48,394 134 7,221 163 No data GSWC 38,038 383 17,218 215 58,901 122 6,857 68 HUNTINGTON BEACH 44,605 297 35,964 154 69,266 99 10,355 58 52,855 6% IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 39,182 444 80,854 196 253,393 80 39,484 207 85,508 9% MESA WATER DISTRICT 16,585 320 23,173 215 80,999 97 4,832 87 No data NEWPORT BEACH 19,455 329 15,517 177 59,754 86 26,517 5% ORANGE 28,545 470 15,483 246 96,606 97 No data 35,363 9% SANTA ANA 35,547 461 42,027 288 151,008 96 No data TUSTIN 11,788 505 9,435 253 25,265 79 1,293 92 14,178 3% WESTMINSTER 17,648 318 10,973 215 24,148 109 976 84 20,379 5%1 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT 22,046 586 3,746 249 22,164 120 2,745 230 No data Weighted Average 411 211 97 167 7.3% South County IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 16,582 444 12,864 196 32,554 80 22,730 9%', MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT 47,673 345 17,077 189 70,067 156 Included in 55,149 10% SAN CLEMENTE 12,047 361 9,045 186 22,921 119 commerical/ No data SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 7,176 502 6,246 206 16,483 158 institutional 11,277 3% SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT 36,022 436 19,SE5 268 37,241 254 category 54,129 2%! Weighted Average 397 216 158 65% Brea/La Habra BREA 9,094 425 6,898 160 42,654 93 5,931 140 No data LA HABRA 11,995 436 8,051 177 17,331 90 680 135 13,674 6% Weighted Average 431.06 1 169.31 1 92.13 1 139.49 6% Units represent: SF Res=SF accounts or 5F housing(CDR)if SF account data looks questionable. MF Res=total housing(CDR)minus SF units. Com/Instit=total employment(CDR)minus industrial employment(CDR). Industrial=industrial employment(CDR). 2Unit Use represents billed water consumption(gallons/day)divided by units. To understand the historical variation in water use and to isolate the impacts that weather and future climate has on water demand, a statistical model of monthly water production was developed.The explanatory variables used for this statistical model included population, temperature, precipitation,unemployment rate, presence of mandatory drought restrictions on water use,and a cumulative measure of passive and active conservation. Figure 4 presents the results of the statistical model for the three areas and the total county. All models had relatively high correlations and good significance in explanatory variables. Figure 5 shows how well the statistical model performs using the OC Basin model as an example. In this figure,the solid blue line represents actual per capita water use for the Basin area,while the dashed black line represents what the statistical model predicts per capita water use to be based on the explanatory variables. Using the statistical model, each explanatory variable (e.g.,weather) can be isolated to determine the impact it has on water use. Figure 6 presents the impacts on water use that key explanatory variables have in Orange County. Final 4-20-16 11B -421 Item 17. - 178 �- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 6 i A,djulstet R? i 11.9t3 Q; 1 ! ' 0.89 I 0 91 } a j Standard Error*' 0-07 C1.09 0.09 0.07 ExI;tnat�xyy Variable All at All at Ali at � All at� M... l Ssignifir;aAC6 * I <0.0001 t0.0001 i <O.4001 at�001 Adjusted R1 greater than 0.70 considered good overall correlation_ :s Standard Errors less than 0.10 considered good overall predictive models. *"Explanatory Variables are considered statistically significant(valid)at the 0.05 level or less. Figure 4. Results of Statistical Regression of Monthly Water Production 350 It 1t ► t �: 250 i it it 1 11_i► it It 11 f— t ( 1 + it )t `it 1 i 7t 11 11 It 1ii It it �t 1d 1I + 1 u t l t t t N1 200 i1 1 tl tl 11 ti li ! It air it +1 t t i i �� t i I t t l h t+ t 1 t+ t 1 f it � ! 1+ 1 +1 + + 1 1 It It t( tl i� t ► 1 1 i j 1 + I s # tl ++ I I It +1_�+ 3 150 =,,-1t +r ,1 —y u � 1—,t—r 'if + t 1 3u—t 1 CL L 100 v a � -Actual 50 __._. ........_... — __.._.. -.—.............._ ...... ---- Predicted 0 1 o 1-1 cV M lzzr Lrf lD r- 00 O1 0 1-1 N M It 1n �.D r" W Q1 o r+ N m -Izi- rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn M M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 4 r-1 c-i N N N N N CV N N N N N N rV N N Figure 5.Verification of Statistical Water Use Model " 20-16 Item. 17. - 179 xB -424- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 7 a � �Irtf Dry Veatl~er" +#96 + Cool/Wet Weather"* .4% -796 -59b -5% Economic flecei one- *i 43% -1296 =1346 -13% Drought Conservation -+6% -5% -5% -6% Passive/Active Cons. -20% -1796 -7% -19` (Since 1990 *FY 2013-14 for Hot/Dry Weather,relative to average(1990-2014). '*FY 1997-99 for Cool/Wet Weather,relative to average(1990-2014). ***Comparing unemployment for FY 2009-10 to average(1990-2014)_ Figure 6. Impacts of Key Variables on Water Use 2.1 Base Demand Forecast (No Additional Conservation post 2014) For the purposes of this analysis three types of water conservation were defined.The first type is passive conservation,which results from codes and ordinances, such plumbing codes or model landscape water efficient ordinances. This type of conservation requires no financial incentives and grows over time based on new housing stock and remodeling of existing homes. The second type is active conservation,which requires incentives for participation.The SoCal Water$mart grant that is administered by MET,through its member agencies, provides financial incentives for approved active water conservation programs such as high efficiency toilets and clothes washer retrofits. The third type is extraordinary conservation that results from mandatory restrictions on water use during extreme droughts.This type of conservation is mainly behavioral, in that water customers change how and when they use water in response to the mandatory restrictions. In droughts past, this type of extraordinary conservation has completely dissipated once water use restrictions were lifted—in other words curtailed water demands fully"bounced back" (returned) to pre-curtailment use levels (higher demand levels,within a relatively short period of time (1-2 years). The great California Drought,which started around 2010, has been one of the worst droughts on record. It has been unique in that for the last two years most of the state has been classified as extreme drought conditions. In response to this epic drought, Governor Jerry Brown instituted the first-ever statewide call for mandatory water use restrictions in April 2015,with a target reduction of 25 percent.Water customers across the state responded to this mandate,with most water agencies seeing water demands reduced by 15 to 30 percent during the summer of 2015.Water agencies in Southern California also ramped up incentives for turf removal during this time. Because of the unprecedented nature of the drought,the statewide call for mandatory water use restrictions, and the success of turf removal incentives it was assumed that the bounce back in water use after water use restrictions are lifted would take longer and not fully recover. For this study, it was assumed (hypothesized) that unit use rates would take 5 years to get to 85 percent Final 4-20-16 HB -425- Item 17. - 180 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 8 and 10 years to get to 90 percent of pre-drought water use levels.After 10 years, it was assumed that water unit use rates would remain at 90 percent of pre-drought use levels throughout the planning period-reflecting a long-term shift in water demands.Table 2 presents the assumed bounce back in water unit use rates (derived from Table 1) for this drought. Table 2. Bounce Back in Water Unit Use from Great California Drought Brea/La Habra ClC';BasJn South County PeriodWater Billing Sector Time Unit Use(gal/day) Unit Use(gal/day)� Unit Use(gal/day) Single-Family Residential 2015 431 411 397 2020 366 349 337 2025 to 2040 388 369 357 Multifamily Residential 2015 169 211 216 2020 144 179 183 2025 to 2040 152 190 194 Commercial 2015 92 97 158 (or combined commercial/ 2020 78 83 134 industrial forSouth County) 2025 to 2040 83 87 142 Industrial 2015 139 167 NA 2020 119 142 NA 2025 to 2040 126 150 NA * Units for single-family and multifamily are households, units for commercial and industrial are employment. Table 3 presents the demographic projections from CDR for the three areas.These projections were made right after the most severe economic recession in the United States and might be considered low given that fact. In fact, draft 2015 demographic forecasts do show higher numbers for 2040. Table 3. Demographic Projections Totalrime Orange Demographic Perikpd OC Basin South County County Single-Family Housing 2020 20,463 386,324 133,989 540,776 2030 20,470 389,734 138,709 548,913 2040 20,512 392,387 142,008 554,907 Multifamily Housing 2020 18,561 453,758 118,306 590,625 2030 19,113 468,972 125,030 613,115 2040 19,585 478,362 126,736 624,683 Commercial Employment 2020 63,909 1,254,415 255,050 1,573,374 (or combined commerciol/ 2030 64,961 1,304,353 266,553 1,635,867 industrial employment for South County) 2040 65,743 1,343,509 271,808 1,681,060 Industrial Employment 2020 6,583 138,474 NA 145,057 2030 6,552 137,763 NA 144,315 2040 6,523 137,066 NA 143,589 r " -20-16 Item 17. - 181 xB -4216- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 9 Brea/La Habra To determine the water demand forecast with no ad Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) water unit use factors in Table 2 are multiplied by tl SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total non-revenue percentage is added to account for tote AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 9,404 3,140 6,190 1,033 1,186 20,953 percentage).These should be considered normal we 2020 8,397 2,992 5,605 874 1,072 18,941 results shown back in Figure 4, demands during dry 2025 9,894 3,262 6,033 921 1,147 20,257 2030 8,913 3,342 6,105 917 1,157 20,434 during wet years demands would be 4 to 7 percent 1 2035 8,913 3,501 6,163 913 1,169 20,659 with no additional conservation post 2014. In year 2 2040 8,919 3,513 6,205 909 1,173 20,719 conservation for the total county is forecasted to be OC Basin actual county water demand was 609,836; in 2015,1 Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) forecast for 2016 is 463,890. This represents a total SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total from 2014 to 2040. In contrast,total number of hou: AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 171"44 100,997 127,252 26,027 30,087 459,907 4.24 percent for the same period; while county emp'. 2020 150,978 91,182 116,082 22,015 26,618 406,874 percent. 2025 161,270 99,782 127,803 23,190 28,843 440,889 2030 162,368 101,780 131,640 23,073 29,320 448,181 2035 162,772 103,766 134,543 22,958 29,683 453,722 Table 4. Normal Weather Water Demand Forecas 2040 162,969 105,890 137,083 22,840 30,015 458,797 Brea/La Habra South County Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 9,404 3,140 6,190 1,033 1,186 20,953 2015 56,181 26,940 41,990 7,507 132,616 2020 8,397 2,992 5,605 874 1,072 18,941 2020 50,644 24,300 38,3S5 6,798 120,097 2025 8,894 3,262 6,033 921 1,147 20,257 2025 55,512 27,191 42,443 7,509 132,655 2030 8,913 3,342 6,105 917 1,157 20,434 2030 56,832 27,562 43,28D 7,660 135,335 2035 8,913 3,501 6,163 913 1,169 20,659 2035 57,350 27,884 43,970 7,752 136,956 2040 8,919 3,513 6,205 909 1,173 20,719 2040 57,635 1 28,047 44,459 7,809 1 137,950 OC Basin Total Orange County Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 175,544 100,997 127,252 26,027 30,087 459,907 2015 241,129 131,076 1 175,431 27,059 38,780 613,476 2020 150,978 91,182 116,082 22,015 1 26,618 406,874 2020 210,019 118,473 160,042 22,889 34,488 1 545,911 2025 161,270 99,782 127,803 23,190 28,843 440,889 2025 225,676 130,236 176,279 24,111 37,499 1 593,801 2030 162,368 101,780 131,640 23,073 29,320 448,181 2030 228,113 132,685 181,025 23,990 38,137 603,950 2035 162,772 103,766 134,543 22,958 29,683 453,722 2035 229,034 135,151 184,676 23,871 38,604 611,338 2040 162,969 105,890 137,083 22,840 30,015 458,797 2040 229,524 137,450 187,747 23,750 38,996 617,466 South County Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total (e Water Conservation AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 56,181 26,940 41,990 7,507 132,616 2020 50,644 24,300 38,355 6,798 120,097 ;timates were made: 2025 55,512 27,191 42,443 7,509 132,655 2030 56,832 27,562 43,280 7,660 135,335 2035 57,350 27,884 43,970 7,752 136,956 '-s and businesses (post 2015) and remodels 2040 57,635 28,047 44,459 7,809 137,950 new homes (post 2015) Total Orange County Baseline Demand Forecast(no new conservation) e- affecting new homes and businesses (post SF MF COM IND Non Rev Total AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2015 241,129 131,076 175,431 27,059 38,780 613,476 2020 210,019 118,473 160,042 22,889 34,488 545,911 2025 225,676 130,236 176,279 24,111 37,499 593,801 2030 228,113 132,685 181,025 23,990 38,137 HB -427- Item 17. - 182 2035 229,034 135,151 184,676 23,871 38,604 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 10 High Efficiency Toilets A toilet stock model was built tracking different flush rates over time.All new homes (post 2015) are assumed to have one gallon per flush toilets.This model also assumes a certain amount of turn- over of older toilets due to life of toilet and remodeling rates.This analyses was done for single- family, multifamily and non-residential sectors. The following assumptions were made: • Number of toilet flushes is 5.5 per person per day for single-family and multifamily homes. • Household size is calculated from CDR data on persons per home. In single-family, household size decreases over time. • Number of toilet flushes is 2.5 per employee per day for non-residential. • Replacement/remodeling rates are 7% per year for 5 gal/flush toilet; 6% per year for 3.5 gal/flush toilets; and 5%per year for 1.6 gal/flush toilets. Table 5 shows this toilet stock model for the OC Basin for single-family and non-residential sectors as an example. Table 5.Toilet Stock Model for OC Basin (example) OC Basin Single-Family # Total Portion of Homes with Gal/Flush Toilets Savings Savings Flushes Year Housing 7 5 3.5 1.6 1 Av Flush (GPD/H) (AFY) 17.40 2000 348,114 3,133 53,261 123,232 168,487 2.84 17.40 2013 379,999 - 4,794 27,111 348,094 1.78 17.40 2015 381,806 4,122 23,858 313,285 40,541 1.69 17.37 2020 386,324 2,680 16,700 234,964 131,980 1.50 3.32 1,435 17.31 2025 389,734 - 11,690 176,223 201,821 1.35 5.98 2,610 17.23 2030 392,387 - - 8,183 132,167 252,037 1.25 7.54 3,312 17.141 2035 393,363 - - 5,728 99,125 288,509 1.19 1 8.64 t 3,806 17.051 2040 393,840 - - 4,010 74,344 315,486 1.14 9.43 4,159 OC Basin Non-Residential # Portion of Emp with Gal/Flush Toilets Savings Savings Flushes Year Empl 7 5 3.5 1.6 1 Av Flush (GPD/E) (AFY) 3,298,440 2015 1,319,376 13,194 131,938 461,782 712,463 1.50 3,510,508 2020 1,404,203 8,576 92,356 346,336 956,935 1.34 0.41 641 3,633,438 2025 1,453,375 5,574 64,649 259,752 1,123,399 1.23jO.67 1,083 3,729,448 2030 1,491,779 3,623 45,255 194,814 1,248,087 1.164 1,404 3,801,693 2035 1,520,677 2,355 31,678 146,111 1,340,533 1.126 1,635 3,864,600 2040 1,545,840 1,531 22,175 109,583 1,412,551 1.084 1,808 "-20-16 Item 17. - 183 H13 -428- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 11 High Efficiency Clothes Washers It was assumed that all new clothes washers sold after 2015 would be high efficiency and roughly save 0.033 afy per washer'.These savings would only apply to new homes (post 2015), and only for the single-family sector. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (2015� The new California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) will take place in 2016. For single-family and multifamily homes it will require that 75 percent of the irrigable area be California Friendly landscaping with high efficiency irrigation systems,with an allowance that the remaining 25 percent can be turf(high water using landscape). For non-residential establishments it will require 100 percent of the irrigable area to be California Friendly landscaping with high efficiency irrigation systems (and no turf areas).There are exemptions for non-potable recycled water systems and for parks and open space. To calculate the savings from this ordinance a parcel database provided by MWDOC was analyzed.This database had the total irrigable area and turf area delineated for current parcels. For each parcel, a target water savings was set depending on the sector. For residential parcels, 25 percent of the total irrigable area was assumed to be turf and the savings from a non-compliant parcel was estimated. For each square feet of turf conversion the estimate savings is 0.00013 afy'. Table 6 summarizes the per parcel savings for the total county using this method. Table 6. Estimated Parcel Savings from MWELO for Total Orange County Total Irrigable current Turf Cvns6i�vitlon Number Area Turf Area Conversion Conversion Savings, Parcel Type of Parcels Isq.feet) jsq.feet) (sq.feet)'�� (sq.ft/parcel), [aWoarceg Single-Family 527,627 2,114,679,368 897,177,779 368,507,937 698 0.091 Residential Multifamily 555,255 155,315,983 51,697,361 12,868,365 23 0.003 Residential Businesses 1,623,307 499,127,269 212,043,667 212,043,667 131 0.017 (Non-Residential) *Assumes 25%turf conversion for single-family and multifamily, and 100%for businesses. The conservation savings in afy/parcel where then multiplied by new homes and businesses (post 2015), assuming a 75 percent compliance rate. 2.2.2 Future Baseline Active Water Conservation To estimate a baseline water savings from future active water conservation measures,the actual average annual water savings for the last seven years for the SoCal Water$mart program within Orange County were analyzed.A continuation of this program through 2040 at similar annual implementation rates was assumed to be representative of a baseline estimate for active water conservation into the future. ' Per MET's SoCal Water$mart conservation estimates,table provided by MWDOC (2015). Final 4-20-16 HB -429- Item 17. - 184 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 12 New active conservation measures or more aggressive implementation of existing active conservation will be evaluated as part of a portfolio analysis of water demand and supply options in Phase 2 of the OC Study. 2.2.3 Total Future Water Conservation Savings Combing future passive and active water conservation results in a total estimated water savings, which is summarized in Table 7.The total passive and active conservation for the total Orange County is shown in Figure 7. Table 7. Future Passive and Baseline Active Water Conservation Savings Brea/La Habra Area Single-Family Savings(AFY) Multifamily Savings(AFY) Non-Residential Savings(AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 186 32 78 8 j 304 11 51 5 67 63 32 17 112 2025 169 33 131 15 348 13 85 10 108 79 52 34 166 2030 166 34 163 30 394 16 106 20 142 91 67 68 226 20351 156 34 186 61 1 437 1 21 127 40 188 1 101 77 136 314 20401 149 34 203 79 1 465 1 21 137 53 211 108 85 1 177 370 DC Basin Single-Family Savings(AFY) Multifamily Savings(AFY) Non-Residential Savings(AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 272 148 1,435 221 2,076 61 1,217 171 1,449 759 641 556 1,956 2025 430 260 2,610 441 3,742 96 2,165 342 2,603 1,199 1,083 1,112 3,394 2030 542 347 3,312 883 5,084 118 2,738 684 3,540 1,542 1,404 2,224 5,170 20351 557 379 3,806 1,766 6,509 139 3,182 1 1,369 4,690 1,801 1,635 4,447 7,883 20401 544 395 4,159 2,472 7,570 162 3,537 1 1,916 5,615 2,026 1,808 6,226 10,059 South County Single-Family Savings(AFY) Multifamily Savings(AFY) Non-Residential Savings(AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 558 251 507 116 1,432 11 335 160 506 582 119 329 1,029 2025 812 406 877 232 2,326 22 599 321 942 960 202 657 1,819 2030 972 514 1,148 463 3,097 25 761 642 1,428 1,133 257 1,314 2,704 2035 990 556 1,332 927 3,805 27 876 1,283 2,187 1,275 298 2,628 4,201 20401 967 580 1,480 1,112 4,139 29 969 1,540 2,537 1,376 327 3,154 4,857 Total County Single-Family Savings(AFY) Multifamily Savings(AFY) Non-Residential Savings(AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 1,017 431 2,020 344 3,812 83 1,602 337 2,022 1,404 792 901 3,097 2025 1,411 698 3,618 688 6,416 132 2,848 673 3,653 2,238 1,337 1,803 5,378 2030 1,680 895 4,624 1,377 8,575 159 3,606 1,346 5,111 2,766 1,728 3,606 8,100 2035 1,704 969 5,325 2,754 10,752 188 4,185 2,692 7,065 3,177 2,010 7,212 12,399 20401 1,660 1,009 5,842 3,663 12,175 1 212 4,643 3,509 8,363 3,510 2,219 9,557 15,286 20-16 Item 17. - 185 HB -4 30- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 13 40,000 35,000 ........ Q 30,000 16;700 AFY tw 25,000 20,000 _ o h r > 15,000 kX c 10,000 in 2040 k +5 - 5,000 w wa S ''`kxy , 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 K7, Passive Active Figure 7.Total Water Conservation in Orange County 1.3 With Conservation Demand Forecast Subtracting the future water conservation savings shown in Table 7 from the base water demand forecast shown in Table 4 results in the water demand forecast with conservation that is used to model potential water supply gaps for the OC Study.Table 8 presents the demand forecast by area and total Orange County,while Figure 8 presents the historical and forecasted water demands for total Orange County. Note: Price elasticity of water demand reflects the impact that changes in retail cost of water has on water use. Theory states that if pricegoes up,customers respond by reducing water use.A price elasticity value of-0.2 implies that if the real price of water increases by 10%, water use would decrease by 2%. Price elasticity is estimated by detailed econometric water demand models, where price can be isolated from all other explanatory variables. Many times price is correlated with other variables making it difficult to estimate a significant statistical value. In addition, there is a potential for double counting reduction in water demand if estimates of future conservation from active programs are included in a demand forecast because customers who respond to price take advantage of utility-provided incentives for conservation. MST's 2015 IRP considers the impact of price elasticity in their future water demand scenarios, but does not includefuture active conservation in its demand forecast. The OCStudy included future estimates of water conservation from active conservation, and thus did not include a price elasticity variable in its statistical modeling of water demand. Including both price elasticity and active conservation would have resulted in "double counting"of the future water savings. Final 4-20-16 xs -43 1- Item 17. - 186 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 14 Table 7.Water Demand Forecast with Conservation Brea/La Habra OC Basin With Conservation Demand With Conservation Demand SF MF CII Non Rev Total SF MF CII Non Rev Total AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2020 8,094 2,925 6,368 1,043 18,429 2020 148,902 89,733 136,077 26,230 400,941 2025 8,546 3,154 6,789 1,109 19,598 2025 157,528 97,180 147,532 28,157 430,396 2030 8,519 3,200 6,796 1,111 19,626 2030 157,284 98,240 149,476 28,350 433,350 2035 8,475 3,313 6,762 1,113 19,663 2035 156,263 99,076 149,552 28,342 433,233 2040 1 8,454 3,302 6,745 1,110 19,611 1 2040 1 155,399 100,275 149,797 28,383 433,854 South County Total Orange County With Conservation Demand With Conservation Demand SF MF CII Non Rev Total SF MF CII Non Rev Total AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY AFY 2020 49,212 23,793 37,326 6,620 1 116,951 2020 206,207 116,451 179,770 33,893 536,321 2025 53,186 26,250 40,624 7,204 127,263 2025 219,260 126,583 194,945 36,470 577,257 2030 53,735 26,135 40,575 7,227 127,672 2030 219,537 127,575 196,848 36,688 580,647 2035 53,545 25,697 39,769 7,141 126,151 2035 218,283 128,086 196,082 36,596 579,047 2040 1 53,496 25,509 39,602 7,116 125,725 2040 1 217,349 129,087 196,144 36,610 579,189 800,000 700,000 ...... ----.. .............. } (IJ a a 400,000 - °1 300,000 200,000 i 100,000 ___--_ -_ Actual Projected (Average Weather) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Existing Levels of Conservation New Passive& Baseline Active Conservation Figure 8. Water Demand Forecast for Total Orange County 3.0 Planning Scenarios At the start of the Orange County Water Reliability Study,a workgroup was formed made up of representatives from Orange County water agencies.This OC Workgroup met 13 times during the ' "-20-16 Item 17. - 187 1413 _4;2_ Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 15 12-month Phase 1 of the study. During the first four meetings of the OC Workgroup,three basic planning scenarios emerged, each with and without a California WaterFix to the Delta—thus resulting in six scenarios in total.While there was discussion on assigning probabilities or weights to these planning scenarios, consensus was not reached on which scenario was more probable than the others.Assignment of the likelihood that one scenario is more probable than the others will be revisited in Phase 2 of the Orange County Reliability Study.There was, however,general agreement that all of the scenarios represent plausible future outcomes and thus all scenarios should be evaluated in terms of assessing potential water supply gaps (difference between forecasted water demands and existing water supplies). It is important to note that the purpose of estimating the water supply gaps for Orange County is to determine what additional MET and Orange County water supply investments are needed for future reliability planning.Thus, other than the California WaterFix to the Delta, all planning scenarios assume no new additional regional or Orange County water supply investments,with a couple of exceptions. In Orange County, it was assumed that existing and planned non-potable recycling projects would build additional supplies out into the future. It was also assumed that the OCWD GWRS Phase 3 expansion project would be implemented by 2022 to increase the recycled supplies for groundwater replenishment from 100,000 afy to 130,000 afy. To develop the planning scenarios,the OC Workgroup considered the following parameters: • California WaterFix to Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Cal Fix),which impacts the reliability of the State Water Project. • Regional MET water demands and supplies, which impacts the availability of water from MET and supply reliability for Orange County. • Orange County water demands,which impacts the supply reliability for Orange County. • Santa Ana River baseflows,which impacts the replenishment of the OC Basin and the supply reliability for the water agencies within the OC Basin. • Climate variability impacts on regional and local water demands and supplies,which impacts the availability of water from MET and the supply reliability for Orange County. The definition of the six scenarios are: • Scenario 1a- Planned Conditions, No Cal Fix: Essentially represents MET's IRP planning assumptions,with very little climate variability impacts (only impacting Delta supplies and not through 2040),no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments. • Scenario 1b - Planned Conditions,with Cal Fix: Same as Scenario 1a,but with new supply from the California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. Final 4-20-16 HB _43;- Item 17. - 188 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 16 • Scenario 2a- Moderately Stressed Conditions, No Cal Fix: Moderate levels of climate variability impacts (affecting Delta, Colorado River, and Santa Ana watershed),slightly lower regional local supplies than MET assumes in IRP,4%higher demand growth reflecting climate impacts and higher demographic growth, no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments.The higher demand growth and fewer local supplies reflects potential future impacts if our existing demographics are low and if local supplies become more challenged, a continuation of the trend in recent times. • Scenario 2b- Moderately Stressed Conditions,with Cal Fix: Same as 2a, but with new supply from California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. • Scenario 3a- Significantly Stressed Conditions,No Cal Fix: Significant levels of climate variability impacts (affecting Delta, Colorado River, and Santa Ana watershed), 8%higher demand growth reflecting climate impacts and higher demographic growth, no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments. • Scenario 3b-Significantly Stressed Conditions,with Cal Fix: Same as 3a,but with new supply from California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. All of these scenarios were deemed plausible and likely carry about the same likelihood of occurring.While no attempt was made to specifically assign the probability of any one of the six scenarios occurring over the others,some might postulate that Scenario 2 would be the most likely to occur given that most climate experts believe we are already seeing evidence of climate variability impacts today. But even with this postulation,assigning a probability to the success of the Cal Fix would be difficult at this time. 4.0 Water Supply Gap To plan for future water supply reliability, a gap between forecasted water demands and existing supplies (plus planned projects that are a certainty) should be estimated. In past planning efforts, this gap is often done for average conditions or at best, using one reference drought condition. However, due to recent droughts and environmental restrictions in the Delta,a more sophisticated approach to estimating the potential water supply gap is needed.The OC Model, described in detail in TM #2: Development of OC Supply Simulation Model, uses"indexed-sequential"simulation to evaluate regional water demands and supplies,and Orange County water demands and supplies. All model demands and supply sources are referenced to the same hydrologic index—meaning that if a repeat of the year 1991 occurred,the OC Model would represent the availability of Delta water supplies in 1991 to MET,the availability of Colorado River water supplies in 1991 to MET, and the local Santa Ana watershed conditions in 1991.The OC Model also preserves the historical sequence of the hydrologic years.This is necessary because the source of availability of Delta and Colorado River water supplies are hydrologic models run by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).These hydrologic models incorporate water rights (or contract rights) and storage conditions that are run using a specific sequence of hydrologic g ) g g P q conditions. Both MET IRP and OC modeling of water supply maintain these sequences in order to r� - - ' -20-16 Item 17. - 186 xB -434- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 17 preserve the accuracy of the DWR and BOR model inputs.The hydrologic period used by the OC Model is 1922 to 2014 (which differs from MET's IRP which is 1922 to 2012). The forecast period is 2015 to 2040. Thus, in the OC Model there are 93 25-year sequences that are mapped to the forecast period.When the year 2014 is reached in any of the sequences, the next year wraps back around starting in 1922.Table 8 illustrates how the indexed-sequential method works. Table 8. Illustration of Indexed-Sequential Supply Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Forecast Year Year—Sequence 1 Year—Sequence 2 .. . Year—Sequence 93 2015 1922 1923 2014 2016 1923 1924 1922 2040 1947 1948 1946 Using the SWP system as an index, approximately 12 of the 93 historical hydrologic years (13 percent) are considered critically dry; 20 years (22 percent) are considered very wet; and the remaining 61 years (65 percent) are along the below-normal, normal,and above-normal spectrum. 4.1 Assumptions for Supply Gap Analysis Figure 9 presents the overall assumptions for the water supply gap analysis. Figure 10 presents more specific assumptions regarding groundwater in the OC Basin. In addition to these assumptions,the following summarizes some of the differences between the MET IRP and the supply gap analysis for the OC Study: • Simulation Period: MET IRP uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2012; while the OC Study uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2014—capturing the recent drought. • Cal Fix: When the Cal Fix is included, MET IRP assumes that new supply from Cal Fix begins in 2020,based on the assumption that a"commitment" to move forward with the Cal Fix project will result in regulatory relief, beginning in 2020; while the OC Study assumes that supplies from Cal Fix begins when project is fully operational in 2030. • Water Conservation: MET IRP only includes new passive conservation in their demand forecast(with new active conservation being reserved as a new supply option); while the OC Study assumes new passive and baseline new active conservation for water demands in Orange County(additional new active conservation will be evaluated in Phase 2 of the OC Study). Final 4-20-16 1­113 -435- Item 17. - 190 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 18 • Climate Variability: MET IRP only includes minimal impacts of climate variability for Delta water supplies through 2030; while the OC Study includes a range of climate scenario impacts on water supplies from Delta, Colorado River and Santa Ana Watershed through 2040, Water Demands(AFY) MET manty*, i, ,t ao 1;8s'a, 3 '920,000 ,000: OCWD Basin Aeman&14 453,,000 410,000 425,000 434,000 OC Total Demands" 610,000 554,OW 565,000 579,000 •With future passive conservation CAInv "with future Evasive ared besek*neon,active conservation Groundwater5upply 154=* 1u,5fl0"* 10.000 Z1315DO 'Based on firm yield from la Habra basin and groundwater purchases frorn Main San Gabriel Basin, '*Inctudes GWRS,SAR bascflows,SAR st rmflows,indgYcntai rc,, 4rge,PAST xeplcnishmcnt,and rnisccilancous pumping_ � astrt yC ter 22,000 27,700 South County Recycled Water 23,900 41,800 Total 45,900 69,500 Note:Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD)is split between the Basin and South County Figure 9. Overall Assumptions for Water Supply Gap Analysis OC Basin Groundwater . Model Grot�lndvuat lteO erilshrnehtSystem{Gi1i RS) o 13{40p SAR Baseflow(mid level assumption) 53,000 53,0W 94,"to 53,0010 SARS>ormflt ja er ge of all h rolog3es :' 53,,9t30 " 53;17 , to 1SQ, SAR Incidental Recharge(average of all hydroloeles) 59,000 59,000 20,000 to 140,000 lko,iepfe- tsh;t rrt iaverage of all yd►ologtes)* 54,OOC1. 34,Dta0 Ifl to IS5,0'60 ' SEA Outflows -22,000 -9,000 -22,000 to-9,01XI 5c..Pumpiimg(golf-cot,rse5a etc.) -8,5001 Mi 8,00 = 5 Net Groundwaterfor OC Basin Agencies Z881500 311,500 168,000 to 455,OW 'While 0CW0 replenishment target es E5,000 AFY replenishment water i5 mot assumed to be token during very wet years when SAR stor€nP.ows are high,and a,hy a portion of replenishment water is available during years in which WET is in aftocation of imported water. Figure 10.Assumptions for Groundwater in OC Basin 20-16 Item 17. - 191 HB -436- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 19 4.2 Availability of Water from MET Key to the assessment of water reliability for Orange County is estimating the availability of imported water from MET under a wide range of scenarios.Availability of MET water to Orange County is a function of the water demands on MET and the reliability of imported water from the Colorado River and Delta to MET, supplemented by withdrawals from various MET storage accounts. 4.2.1 Demands on MET MET water demands represent that difference between regional retail water demands (inclusive of groundwater replenishment) and regional local supplies (which includes groundwater, Los Angeles Aqueducts, surface reservoirs,groundwater recovery, recycled water, and seawater desalination). Table 9 presents the MET demand forecast under normal/average weather conditions. A significant challenge for MET in terms of reliability planning is it represents the "swing" water supply for the region.This compounds the variability on demands on MET due to weather and hydrology. For retail water demands,variations in weather can cause water use to change±5 to 9 percent in any given year due to varying demands for irrigation and cooling. In addition to retail water demand variability,local supplies can vary±80 percent for the Los Angeles Aqueducts and + 55 percent for surface reservoirs. Thus, the variability for demands on MET in any given year can be + 15 to 25 percent. This fact alone makes storage so Ivey in assuring supply reliability for MET and the region. Table 9. Demands on MET Total Demand(AFY) Retail M&I 865,20 Retail Agricultural _ _ _� 3'169,822 --.3'1163,1220—I 3_ 159,5377 Seawater Barrier 66,500 66,500_ 66,500 Replenishment 292,777 272,829 272,847 Total Demand ( 4,236,645 ,, 4,367,650 I 4,453,698 Local Supplies(AFY) Groundwater Production 1,308,101 i 1,321,220 1 1,322,197 Surface Production 113,705 113,705 1 113,705 Los Angeles Aqueduct_ 261,100 264,296 267,637 Seawater Desalination 50,637 50,637 50,637 Groundwater Recovery 142,286 158,816 162,688 Recycled Water 425,131 468,862 1 495,698 Other Non-Metropolitan Imports 1 13,100 13,100 13,100 i Total Local Supplies 2,314,061 2,390637 2,425,663 Demand On MET(AFY) Consumptive Use 1,743,866 1,826,245 1,880,131 Seawater Barrier 11,635 8,708 5,877 Replenishment 167,083 142,060 142,027 Total Net Demand on Metropolitan ; 1,92-2,584 1,977,013 i 2,028,035 Final 4-20-16 HB -43)7_ Item 17. - 192 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 20 4.2.2 Supplies from Colorado River and Delta MET's water supply from the Colorado River,via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), has historically been the backbone to MET's supply reliability. Before the settlement agreement between lower Colorado River Basin states and water agencies that use Colorado River water within California, MET kept the CRA full at 1.2 million acre-feet(maf) per year or nearly at that level in many years. The settlement agreement requires California to live within its 4.4 maf apportionment, and dictates how Colorado River water within California is prioritized.This eliminated most of the surplus water that MET was using to keep the CRA full.To deal with this challenge, MET has developed a number of water transfers and land fallowing programs to mitigate the impacts of the settlement agreement. The 2015 MET IRP is assuming that it will maintain minimum CPA supply of 0.90 maf,with a goal of a full CRA during dry years,when needed (although it is not specified exactly how that will occur). For the OC Study,we have assumed similar baseline assumptions as the MET IRP,but have added some uncertainties with regard to climate scenarios under Scenario 2 and more significant impacts under Scenario 3.Under significant climate scenario impacts (Scenario 3),where the BOR simulates that Lake Mead elevation would fall below 1,000 feet about 80 percent of the time,the OC Study assumed MET would get a proportionate share of shortages that are allocated by BOR. Exactly how BOR would manage water shortages when Lake Mead elevation falls below 1,000 is uncharted territory, but assuming some proportional allocation of Colorado River water among the Lower Basin states and within California is a plausible scenario. Figure 11 presents the assumed CRA water supplies to MET for the OC Study with (Scenario 3) and without (Scenarios 1 & 2) significant climate scenario impacts. Under the significant climate scenario (Scenario 3),there is a 50 percent probability that CRA deliveries would be below 815,000 afy and a 20 percent probability that CRA deliveries would be below 620,000 afy. The other main source of imported water available to MET is from the Delta and is delivered to Southern California via the State Water Project (SWP).Although MET's contract for SWP water is 2.0 maf, it has never received that amount. Prior to the QSA (in 2003) when MET relied more heavily on CRA supplies,the maximum water taken by MET from the SWP exceeded 1.1 maf in only three years (1989, 1990 and 2000). Beginning in 2001, MET has tried to maximize their delivery of SWP water. In very wet years, MET typically receives about 1.7 maf of supply from the SWP (about 80 to 85%of their total contract). More typically, MET receives closer to 1.2 maf of supply from the SWP (about 60% of their maximum contract). Droughts and environmental regulatory restrictions in the Delta have greatly impacted the reliability of SWP supply. Biological opinions regarding endangered species not only limit Delta exports during dry years, but have greatly impacted exports during more normal years when water agencies such as MET are counting on such water for storage replenishment. Item 17. - 193 20-16 HB -438- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 21 1,200,040 1,000,00C? AM �F at 800,490 600,000 _ Average Deliveries Base with ICS(Sc 1) =0.92 MAF a 400,090 "• _ . Base w/CC Impacts(Sc 3) =0,77 MAF u 200,000 JA=averagevalues Q 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Probability of Exceedance ---Base with IC S ••,•Base w/Significant CC Impacts Figure 11. Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries to MET To stabilize the decline in SWP deliveries, California has committed to the California WaterFix (Cal Fix) and California EcoRestore. In the long-term,the preferred alternative identified in Cal Fix is expected to increase SWP deliveries (above what they otherwise would have been) by providing more flexible water diversions through improved conveyance and operations. It is important to note that the Cal Fix does not generate NEW water supplies per se,but allows supplies lost due to regulatory restrictions to be regained.This project would also provide much needed resiliency during seismic events in the Delta.The new conveyance and diversion facilities will allow for increased water supply reliability and a more permanent solution for flow-based environmental standards.The anticipated implementation of the Cal Fix is expected to be around 2030. Assuming a more flexible, adaptive management strategy, MET is assuming that if Cal Fix moves forward that regulatory relief from further biological opinions in the Delta would occur and SWP deliveries would return to pre-biological opinion deliveries as soon as 2020. However,some might argue this is an optimistic assumption, and there is no certainty that such relief would occur until the project is operational.Therefore for the GAP analysis,the OC Study assumed that improved SWP deliveries from Cal Fix would begin in 2030. Climate variability can further reduce the reliability of SWP deliveries. The source of water that is pumped from the Delta originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains as snowpack. It is widely accepted by climate and hydrology experts that climate scenario impacts on snowpack-driven water supplies is even more significant because even a fraction of a degree increase leads to early snowmelt which reduces the ability to capture river flows in surface reservoirs. Using methods described in TM#2, CDM Smith and its climate scenario expert Dr. David Yates estimated the potential impacts to the SWP under significant climate scenario.These estimates are similar to Final 4-20-16 xB -439- Item 17. - 194 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 22 earlier work that California DWR did on climate scenario impacts on SWP reliability. Figure 12 presents the full range of SWP deliveries to MET with and without Cal Fix and with and without significant climate scenario impacts.As shown,the Cal Fix greatly improves the reliability of SWP supplies to MET—with an average increase in supply (restoration of supplies compared to the no project alternative) of over 400,000 afy. Significant climate scenario reduces SWP deliveries by an average of 200,000 afy, even with the Cal Fix. 2,000,D00 Average Deliveries 1,800,D00 Existing (Sc la) =0.82 MAF Existing w/CC(Sc 3a) =0-63 MAF _ 1,600,000 Delta Fix(Sc 1b) =1.26 MAF d 1,400,000 Delta Fix w/CSC(5c 3b)=1.07 MAF _._ .............. � I ai 1,200,000 .�, Qr 3 rre' • 3 1,000,000 d 800,000 .0 600,000 i 4D0,000 ,.••._ . •.• =average values 200,000 ,�...• __ 0 100% 80 60r% 40% 20% 0% Probability of Exceedance —Existing r--•Delta Fix wJ Significant CC Impacts ---Delta Fix ....Existing wJ Significant CC Impacts Figure 12.State Water Project Deliveries to MET 4.2.3 Overall MET Reliability In addition to CRA and SWP water, MET has significant surface storage and groundwater storage programs. MET also has a number of water transfers in the Central Valley.These investments have been critical for the region's supply reliability during droughts. However,since the first MET IRP in 1996 MET has had to allocate its imported water to its member agencies three in the last seven years. Using the indexed-sequential simulation method described in TM#2, MET water reliability can be illustrated for several hydrologic sequences. Figures 13, 14 and 15 utilize just 2 of the 93 hydrology sequences to demonstrate how the analysis works. Figure 13 shows the MET demands and supplies without a Cal Fix for the forecast period 2015 to 2040 with the last 25-year hydrologic sequence of 1989 to 2014 imposed. In other words,forecast year 2015 is 1989, 2016 is 1990 ...and 2040 is 2014. Of all the 93 possible 25-year hydrologic sequences,this one is the worst in terms of cumulative supply shortages. 20-16 Item 17. - 195 xB -440- Orange County Reliability Stud Water Demand Forecast and Supply Ga g tY h' Y� PP Y P April 2016 Page 23 Figure 14 shows Met demands and supplies without a Cal Fix for a more normal hydrology sequence imposed on the forecast period (this sequence begins with 1950 and ends in 1975). Even with a normal hydrology,there are still some water shortages in the later years. Figure 15, shows this same hydrology(1950 to 1975) but with a Cal Fix. Under this scenario, regional storage replenishes greatly and shortages in the later years are eliminated. When all 93 hydrologic sequences are simulated, and under all six scenarios representing various climate scenarios and Cal Fix assumptions,the probability of MET shortages exceeding 15 percent can be derived.A regional 15 percent shortage is similar to the allocation MET imposed in 2015. Figure 16 presents this probability of MET shortage. The results presented here for Scenario 1 with and without Cal Fix are similar to those presented in MET's Draft IRP. Extreme drought Hydrology(1989-2014) Shortage (difference bei�.ti,een demands and supplies) 2,500,000 2,000,000 b 1,5a0,000 a 1,000,000 RAV I I to tD r, 00 Q) O '1 (^Q M It Ln tD r� co 0) O 11 N M IT tn1 to r` W M LJ `4 _-I r 1 a--4 r 4 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M rn M rn rn T7 O O O O O C4 O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CRA SWP Storage Take+SWP Transfers Storage Put —Demands —Ending Period Storage Figure 13. MET Reliability under Drought,for Scenario la (no Climate variability, no Cal Fix) Final 4-20-16 xB -441- Item 17. - 196 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 24 Average Hydrology(195O-1975) 3,500,000 - i 3,000,000 2,500,000 - 2,000,000 1,500,000 500,000 -4 tD r` 00 G1 O tN N M N N � r4 N Ti O r-i M rn M M M M M M G7 r� .--r � ri H N N N N N N N N N N M M n5 M Cf'� M M M M to b' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N r'V rV N N N N N N N N N N r'4 N N N N N N N N N N M CRA SWP Storage Take+SWP Tranfers E','Storage Put —Demands —Ending Period Storage Figure 14. MET Reliability under Average Hydrology,for Scenario la (no Climate variability,no Cal Fix) Average Hydrology(1950-1975) 3,500,000 3,000,000 t a z, m 2,000,000 1,500,000 U a 1,000,000 _ v& �g-�ag 5500000 to to n ca (71 O ri N M Ile LA �n r.� 00 Cl 0 'i"4 N M 4 Ln 0 r" 00 M 0 r1 ­4 *- -4 ri t11 N N N r`J N N N N N M M M M M M rn M M M +? O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O N rV N N N N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N . N rV N rN .N N . CRA SWP =6W Bank,SW Storage Flow to Storage ---Demands Ending Period Storage Figure 15. MET Reliability under Average Hydrology,for Scenario lb (no Climate variability,with Cal Fix) Item 17. - 197 20-16 xs -442- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 25 80% ,Ln. 70% .............................. A 60% ................................................... t =0 50% Ln 40% 30% Al- 20% Lo 10% CL WA 0% Sc la Sc Za Sc 3a Sc lb Sc 2b Sc 3b Without Cal Fix With Cal Fix Ell 2030 E 2040 Figure 16. MET Supply Reliability(Percent of Time MET Supply Shortage Greater than 15%) As shown in Figure 16,the impacts of climate variability (Scenarios 2 and 3) can be significant in increasing the probability and magnitude of MET shortages. In 2040, significant climate scenario (Scenario 3) can increase the probability of shortage by 60 percent without Cal Fix. The analysis also shows the enormous benefit that Cal Fix can have on MET reliability, decreasing the probability of shortage from SO percent in 2040 to 10 percent under Scenario 2. 4.3 Orange County Water Supply Gap When MET shortages occur, imported water is allocated to Orange County based on MET's current drought allocation formula. For the OC Basin,the estimation of the water supply gap required that the OC Model be able to simulate the way OCWD manages the OC Basin.The OC Basin's Basin Production Percentage (BPP) was set in the model to look forward each year and estimate all inflows to the basin,then set the BPP so that the cumulative overdraft in the basin would not exceed 500,000 af. In addition,the model does not allow the change in overdraft to exceed certain thresholds—essentially trying to keep some managed overdraft in the basin. Note: Modeling the management of the OCWD basin is complex, especially with respect to future uncertainties. The discussion of this effort herein was an initial attempt to reflect on how the BPP could be set within the context of a modeling effort. Since this initial effort, CDM Smith and OCWD have met a number of times to refine the analysis for the Phase 2 effort The refined analysis will be documented in the final Project Technical Memorandum. Final 4-20-16 HB -44') Item 17. - 198 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 26 Figure 17 presents a simulation of the OC Basin for the forecast period of 2015 to 2040,under an extreme drought hydrology of 1989 to 2014. Under Scenario 11 with no climate scenario and no Cal Fix, Figure 17 shows the pumping from the basin (blue line),the sources of inflows to the basin (shaded color areas),the cumulative basin overdraft (red line), and the BPP (dashed black line read on right-hand axis). Extreme Drought Hydrology{1989-21)14) 1 0mm ow 100 Average Pumping=321,000 AF Average Overdraft=251,000 AF � 800,000 Average SPP=68 �`" + �� rry "t !ram �. h so 70 No + E _ m 50 y 0 400.000 7 44 C �. — "`�'"`. 30 200,0w i _1 20 10 0 v7 fi� O �• ry m V N �D t+ ap d� O N`_yN N N N N N N N N N E" sm 54*eftm MR$torM600W+h1C.,RiKhmn '::'..GWU M WQ IMPI t3 -Purrwft —Accumtd■ted Owrdra$ _--DPP Figure 17.Simulation of OC Basin under Drought,for Scenario la (no Climate scenario, no Cal Fix) When the other local Orange County water supplies from the Brea/La Habra and South County areas are added to the simulation,the OC Model estimates the overall supply reliability for the OC County total.Using all 93 hydrologic sequences, a probability chart can be created.The probability chart shows the percent time that any water shortage occurs and to what magnitude. Figure 18 shows the overall reliability for OC County total for Scenarios la, 2a and 3a (no Cal Fix) for the year 2040.As shown on this chart,there is a 50 percent chance that some level of shortage occurs for Scenario la.This probability of some shortage occurring increases to 80 percent for Scenario 2a and 98 percent for Scenario 3a.The average shortages are 32,000 afy, 74,000 afy, and 126,000 afy for Scenarios la, 2a,and 3a respectively. Figure 19 compares Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with and without the Cal Fix.As shown in Figure 19,the Cal Fix dramatically reduces the probability of shortages and thus the average shortages.The average shortages under the Cal Fix are 5,000 afy, 17,000 afy,and 64,000 afy for Scenarios lb, 2b, and 3b respectively.The one thing to note, however, is that the maximum shortages (which occur about 1 to 3 percent of the time) are not reduced substantially with the Cal Fix. These maximum shortages may require a multipronged strategy to minimize or eliminate,such as new base-loaded supplies,storage,water transfers and mandatory restrictions on some water uses. Item 17. 199 20-16 xB -444- Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 27 average values 140,000 126K 40 80,000 ---0!4K 40,000 32K 20,000 0% 0% 2C% 30% 40% 59% W% 70% 80% 90% 100% —5c la-no Fix —Sc 2a-no Fix —Sc 3a-no Fix Figure 18. Probability of Water Shortages(Gap)for Orange County Total, No Cal Fix 20Q,0M 190,000 0 =average values 160,000 140,000 120,000 t j 100,000 k 80,000 60,OW 40,000 20,OW 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 7C% 80% 90% 1D0% —Sc la-no Fix —Sc 2a-no Fix _5c 3a-no Fix ---Sc 1b-with Fix ---Sc2b-with Fix ---Sc 3b-with Fix Figure 19. Probability of Water Shortages (Gap)for Orange County Total,with Cal Fix Final 4-20-16 HB -445- Item 17. - 200 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 28 This supply reliability analysis was done for all three areas of the Orange County, Brea/La Habra, OC Basin, and South County.The average water shortages (averaged for all 93 hydrologic sequences) are shown in Table 10 for all six scenarios. Table 10.Summary of Average Water Supply Gap for Orange County Areas (acre-feet year) Brea/la Habra a-no Fix b-with Fix a-no Fix b-with Rx a--no Fix b-with Fix 2020 110(1%) 110(1%) 160(1%) 160(1x) 250(1%) 250(1%) 2040 820(41,4) 130 fN 1,800(9%) 430(2%) 31100115%) 1,600(8%) OC Basin a-no Fix b-with Fix a-no Rx b-with Fix a-no Fix b-with Fix 2020 3,800(1%) 3,800(1%) 5,300(1%) 5,300(1%) 9,300(2%) 9,300(2%) 2040 19,000(5%.) 2,800(m) 49,000(12%) 11,000(3%) 85,000(2[3Sa) 42,000(iax) South County a-no Fix b-with Fix a-no Fix b-with Fix a-no Fix b-with Rx 2020 2,100(2%1 2,100(2°%) 3,0W JM 3,000(3%) 4,800(4%) 4,80014%) 2040 12,000(9%) 1,900(2%) 23,000(19%) 5,600(ox) 38,000(79%) 20,000(15%) OC Total a-no Fix b-with Fix a-no F"oc b-with Fix a-no Fix b with Fix 2.020 6,000(1%) 6,000{1%) . 8,500(2%j 8,500 p%j 14,000(ass) 14,000(3%) 2040 32.000(6%) 4,800(1%) 74,000(13%) 17,000(3%,j 126,000(21%) 54,000(11%) Numbers in parentheses()represent 1;of water demand. 5.0 Conclusions While no attempt was made during Phase 1 of the OC Study to assign the likelihood of any one of the six scenarios occurring over the others,some might postulate that Scenario 2 would be the most likely to occur given that most climate experts believe we are already seeing evidence of climate variability impacts today.This all said, a number of observations can be made from this study, which are: 1. The most sensitive model parameters are: • Whether or not the Cal Fix is implemented, and by when • The extent that climate variability impacts our supply reliability,which can take many forms: - Loss of the snowpack in the Sierras and Rocky's affecting imported water - Higher reservoir evapotranspiration - Reduced groundwater recharge statewide and locally - Increased water demands for irrigation and cooling from higher temperatures - Requires increase storage to capture and utilize available supplies 20-16 Item 17. - 201 xB -446- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 29 2. The range in water supply gaps carry different implications, namely: • Under Scenario 1a (no climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages are fairly manageable,with average shortages in 2040 being about 6% of demand with an occurrence of about 4 in 10 years. • Under Scenario 2a (moderate climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages require moderate levels of new investments, with average shortages in 2040 being about 13% of demands with an occurrence of about 5 in 10 years. • Under Scenario 3a (significant climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages require significant levels of new investments,with average shortages in 2040 being about 21% of demands with an occurrence of about 6 in 10 years. • Scenarios with Cal Fix significantly reduce average shortages by 85% for Scenario 1, by 77% for Scenario 2, and by 50% for Scenario 3 in 2040. • Modest shortages begin in 2020, 8,500 AF per year on average (about 2%of demands) with an occurrence of about 1 in 10 years 3. Decisions made by Orange County water agencies to improve water supply reliability with local water supply investments should consider the following: • The large influence of the Cal Fix. MET and Orange County are much more reliable with the Cal Fix; however,the following questions are posed: — What is the implication for triggering Orange County supply investments as long as the Cal Fix is an uncertainty? — How long should Orange County wait to see where the Cal Fix is headed? 3, 5 or 10 years? — What types of Orange County supply investment decisions would be beneficial whether or not the Cal Fix proceeds ahead? • MET is potentially undertaking a NEW Indirect Potable Reuse project. — What are the implications of this project for decision-making in Orange County? • Other MET investments in its recommended 2015 IRP. — What success rate does Orange County attribute to these planned MET water supply investments? — Will the success rate be influenced by the Cal Fix? (e.g., additional storage without Cal Fix may not provide much benefit if there is no replenishment water during normal hydrologic years) Phase 2 of the OC Study seeks to address these observations in a collaborative way by providing insights as to the various cost implications of different portfolios made up from MET,the MET member agencies and Orange County water supply options and to discuss policy implications for MET and Orange County.The combined information from Phases 1 and 2 would give local decision Final 4-20-16 xB -447- Item 17. - 202 Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 30 makers both an idea of the risk of water supply shortages under a wide range of plausible scenarios, and the range of cost implications for mitigating the shortages.The intent of the OC Study,however, is to not to make any specific recommendations as to which supply options should be implemented, but rather present common information in an objective manner for local decision making. 6.0 References Center for Demographic Research (2015). Demographic forecasts for Orange County water agencies provided to MWDOC. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2005).The Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2013). Inland Feeder ... at a glance. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2015). http_//www mwdh2o com/mwdh2o/pages/operations/ops0l.html Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2015). Draft Integrated Resources Plan. Municipal Water District of Orange County (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Municipal Water District of Orange County(2015). Existing and Planned Recycled Water Supply/Use in Orange County. From: Robert Hunter, To: Planning&Operations Committee,June 1 2015. Municipal Water District of Orange County(2015). Historical SoCalWater$mart conservation savings for Orange County. Data provided to CDM Smith. Orange County Water District. (2007). 2005-2006 Engineer's Report on the groundwater conditions,water supply and basin utilization in the Orange County Water District. Orange County Water District Board of Directors, February 2007. Orange County Water District (2013). 2011-2012 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Orange County Water District(2014). Long-Term Facilities Plan 2014 Update. Orange County Water District(201S). Draft OCWD Water Management Plan 2015. United States Bureau of Reclamation (2007). Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead:Appendix D, Lower Division States Depletion Schedules. D-3. http,//www.usbr gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/FEIS/index.html Item 17. - 203 HB -448- Orange County Reliability Study,Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 31 United States Bureau of Reclamation (2011). Operation Plan for Colorado River System Reservoirs (24-Month Study). littp://wNA7w.usbr.gov/lc/regioii/g4OOO/24nio/­index.litml United States Bureau of Reclamation (2012). Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study:Appendix G,Analysis & Evaluation. G2-5 to G2-6. http://"7xm usbr gov/lc/region j�rogramsZcrbstudY/finalreport/index.htnil United States Bureau of Reclamation (2013). Hood River Basin Study: Groundwater Modeling. Presentation,August 19th 2013. South Coast Water District (2015). Draft Water Supply Allocation Plan, February 12, 2015. California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project (2015). Draft Delivery Capability Report. Yates, D.,Averyt,K., Flores-Lopez, F., Meldrum,J., Sattler, S., Sieber,J.,and Young, C. (2013).A water resources model to explore the implications of energy alternatives in the southwestern US. Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 14 pp. Final 4-20-16 xB -449- Item 17. - 204 E E:; '� D 1)� - z 31 Item 17. - 205 HB -450- `. aW. ZM This spreadsheet-based water audit tool Is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and Identify areas for Improved efficiency and cost recovery.It provides a"top-down"summary water audit format,and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale,comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and largetting loss reduction levels The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets.Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen,or by clicking the buttons below. Please begin by providing the following Information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit Name of Contact Person: Chris Davis All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worhsheet Email Address: chris.davis@surfcity-hb.org Value can be entered by user Telephone(]net Ext.): (714)374-1641 ___j Value calculated based on input data Name of City/Utility: lCity of Huntington Beach These cells contain recommended default values CityFrown/Municipality: lHuntington Beach State/Province: California(CA) Use of Option Pont: Value: Country: JUSA (Radio)Buttons: 10 25% Year: E 2014-2015 Financial Year �—t— Start Date: 10/2014 Enter MM/YYYY numeric format - - --- Select the default percentage To enter a value,choose End Date: 09/2015 Enter MM/YYYY numeric format by choosing the option button this button and enter a Audit Preparation Date: 4/25/2016 on the left value in the cell to the right Volume Reporting Units: Acre-feet PWSID/Other ID: — � The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page 11 Instructions Rorostreet Comments7to Water Balance Dashboard k nce The current sheet. Enter the required Enter comments to rs The values entered in A graphical summary of Enter contact data on this worksheet explain how valuesthe Reporting the water balance and information and basic to calculate the water were calculated or to he Worksheet are used to balance and data Non-Revenue Water i audit details(year, grading document data nce po uIate the Water units etc) g g valuate pcomponents sources the audit Balance Grading Matrix 7depicting ection Definitions Loss Control Example Audits rAcknowledgementsfor nowledoemen[s Presents the possible m PlonninO Use this sheet to Reporting Worksheet grading options forunderstand the terms Use this sheet topicting and Performance WWA Free Water each input componentused In the audit interpret the results of dit Software vS.O tomer the audit validity score Indicators examples of the audit stion line process and performance are shown for two tions indicators validated audits If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: wic-@awwa.erg AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 I---V CD N O 7" 6 o.�W-;Fz::R: , �:.. i' s�w..,2.'=,a.�»�.....�.� �` ,�. a; � ,a,�":.=i.,.»,.r ,:3.t '•3,....',�_:�.sv..�seE:�: .w'.�«s.,�".sc ',; 0 Click to access dennnion Water Audit Report for: City of Huntin ton Beach © Click to add a comment Reporting Year:120142015 10/2014-9l2015 Please enter data in the white cells below.Where available,metered values should be used,if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value.Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component(rila or 1-10)using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell.Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as:ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input,determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED < Enter grading in column'E'and'J­ Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: 15,367.450 acne-ft/yr 8 • 0 F acre-ft/yr Water imported ®®� 10,154.795 ace-fVyr 0® • O f' ace-iVyr Water exported®® acre-fuyr ®© 0_I acre-fUyr Enter negative%or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 25,522.245 acre-fuyr Enter positive%or value for over-registration AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: Billed metered:®® a 24,291.084 acre-ftlyr for help using option Billed unmetered:®® n a acre-ft/yr buttons below Unbilled metered:®® va acre-ftlyr Pcnt. Value: Unbilled unmetered®® s 63.800 acre-ft/yr "'' .' QW!63.800 acre-fuyr AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 0 24,354.884 acre-ft r Use buttons of select � � Y percentage of water supplied OR WATER LOSSES(Water Supplied-Authorized Consumption) �— 1,167.3 22 acre-fuyr -- value Apparent Losses Pcnt: v Value: Unauthorized consumption:�® 63.8061 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-uyr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption-a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies:IM® 0.50 122.066 acre-fUyr %__ acre-fuyr Systematic data handling errors:®®8 60.728 acre-ft/yr 1 0.25%I U L I acre=fvyr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors-a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ® �—24,.599 acre-f/yr Real Losses(Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses=Water Losses-Apparent Losses: ® 920,763 acre-it/yr WATER LOSSES: 1,167.362 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ® 1,231.162 acre-ftlyr =Water Losses+Unbilled Metered+Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: a 622.1 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: Up, 55,525 Service connection density: 89 conn./mile main Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? �— Yes (length of service line,beyond the property A.verade length of customer service line: boundary,that is the responsibility of the utility) Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 1D has been applied Average operating pressure: ®Da 63.3 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:Im Im' to $51,606,212 $/Year Customer retail unit cost(applied to Apparent Losses): �o $/100 cubic feet(ccf) Variable production cost(applied to Real Losses): t $600.00 $/acre-ft DUse Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: YOUR SCORE IS:64 out of 100" A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the ckulation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided,audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1:Customer metering inaccuracies 2:Billed metered 3:Volume from own sources AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Item 17. - 207 1-1I3 -4-52- 9W�R N�'F_ :R�H� OR.,Mit t'I L" �-. ?�,.. .ram � �a�v =.�.,, .,-u. •,,�,a ..: :.. .�e>'�'�' .. .. -r-�s ,.._�ws'a.-wa�-. ,3 ...., ,a..,.. _ .... ..,. . Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Reporting Year: 2014.2015 11 1012014-912015 ***YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 64 out of 100*** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 246.599 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: �— 920.763 acre-ft/yr Water Losses: 1,167,362 acre-ft/yr Unavoidable Annual Real Losses 29.20 acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $3r$� Annual cost of Real Losses: �— $552,4581 Valued at Variable Production Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: (� Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: [— 4.8% Financial: —j x L Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost J� Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 3.96 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: �— 14.801gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: — N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.23 gallons/connection/day/psi From Above, Real Losses= Current Annual Real Losses(CARE): [ -- 920.76 acre-feeUyear ® Infrastructure Leakage Index(ILI) [CARL/UARL]: 1.11 *This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 1 CD J N O 00 rrrr , M tT. , e 71 7".MM77 Me, x s}��f 4 4Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. J General Comment: N O Audit Item Comment Volume from own sources: DI.from own sources:Master meter error adjustment: Water imported: JVater imported: master meter error adjustment: Cd 4� Water exported: U� Water exported:master meter error adjustment: Billed metered. Billed unmetered: AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 1 Unbilled metered: Unbilled unmetered: Unauthorized consumption: Customer metering inaccuracies: Systematic data handling errors Length of mains: Number of active AND inactive service connections: Cd a e length of customer service line: v, • v� Average operating pressure: Total annual cost of operating water s stem: Customer retail unit cost(applied to Apparent Losses): Variable prodUGtiOfl cost(applied to Real Losses): AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 2 r--� CD J N O Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Reporting Year: 2014-2015 1012014-9/2015 N Data Validity Score: 64 ~ Water Exported Billed Water Exported 0.000 Billed Metered consumption (water exported Revenue Water Billed Authorized Consumption is removed) 24,291,084 Own Sources Authorized 24,291.084 Billed Unmetered Consumption 24,291.084 Consumption ,djusted for known 0.000 errors) 24,354.884 Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unbilled Metered Consumption Non-Revenue Water 0.000 (NRW) 15,367.450 63.800 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption 63.800 Water Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 1,231.162 Apparent Losses 63.806 25,522.245 246.599 Customer Metering Inaccuracies 41 v, 122.066 Systematic Data Handling Errors Water Losses 60.728 Water Imported 1,167,362 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution Mains Real Losses Not broken down 920.763 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage 10,154.795 Tanks Not broken down Leakage on Service Connections Not broken down AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Water Balance 1 e e IMM M� The graphic below is a visual representation of the Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Water Balance with bar heights propotional to the Reporting Year: 2014-2015 1012014-912015 Q Show me the VOLUML of Non-Revenue Water volume of the audit components Data Validity Score: 64 0 Show me the COST of Non-Revenue Water 00% Total Cost of NRW=$1,023,149 90% - - - - - �� � �xn 600,000 i s. 80% F 500,000 70% �� - } r on ow vdim � o r 300,000 40% s ri 30% 200,000 s 100,000 - 41 J Water Exported Water Exported Water Exported Water Exported ■Unbilled metered(valued at Var.Prod.Cos[) Water Exported ^'Billed Auth.Cons. ■Unbilled unmetered)valued at Var.Prod,Cost) Water Supplied Authorized Consumption ■Revenue Water Water Imported ■Unauth.consumption Unbilled Auth.Cons. *�Water Losses ■Non Revenue Water ■Cost,metering inaccuracies ■Volume From Own Sources m Apparent Losses ■Syst.data handling errors ■Real Losses ■Real Losses(valued at Var.Prod.Cost) AVVWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Dashboard 1 r--t t� J N N All � i NE f \� t NO Nan 'k �- , X", F' "kA j Item 17. - 213 xB -458- Orange County Water Use Efficiency Programs Savings and Implementation Report Retrofits and Acre-Feet Water Savings for Program Activity Month Indicated Current Fiscal Year Overall Pro ram Program Gumulative Program Retrofits Water Water Annual Water Water Start Date Installed in Interventions Savings Interventions Savings Interventions Savings[4] Savings[4] High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program 2001 October-15 532 1.53 2.244 16.15 105,611 3,644 20,708 Smart Timer Program-Irrigation Timers 2004 October-15 1 0.00 371 15.65 13.438 4.655 28,933 Rotating Nozzles Rebate Program 2007 October-15 3,709 14.83 18,064 135.73 478,934 2,422 9,721 SoCal Water$mart Commercial Plumbing Fixture Rebate Program 2002 September-15 2,767 7.65 3,622 18.06 51,788 3,518 34,157 111, :d ter Smart Landscape Program[1] 1997 September-15 12,690 905.55 12,690 2,710.58 12,690 10,632 71,574 a� ustrial Process Water Use Reduction -gram 2006 September-15 0 11.26 1 11.26 14 357 1,357 Turf Removal Program[31 2010 November-15 947,615 11.05 2,868, 223 68 10,386,596 1,454 2,982 High Efficiency Toilet(HET)Program 2005 October-15 2,337 8.28 8,102 114.87 54,376 2,010 11,439 Home Water Certification Program 2013 October-15 11 0.022 42 0.147 301 7.080 15.007 Synthetic,-Turf Rebate,Pfo r`arn.r 2007 �:: 685;+f38 96 Ultra-Low-Flush4ollet Programs[�I 1992 #363;926 ' 43,d5 182;551 Home Water surveys 1995 ' _ 11;867 :�' ;"'16b 1T05 Showerhead Replacements " . 1991 2�b,604 1,667 A693 ITotal Water Savings All Programs 960 2,914,059 3,090 12,435,583 44,073 364,706 'I/later Smart Landscape Program participation is based on the number of water meters receiving monthly Irrigation Performance Reports. emulative Water Savings Program To Date totals are from a previous Water Use Efficiency Program Effort. irf Removal Interventions are listed as square feet. _ imulative&annual water savings represents both active program savings and passive savings that continues to be realized due to plumbing code changes over time. J N_ Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xlsPrepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 r-+ J N HIGH EFFICIENCY CLOTHES WASHERS INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs 15 yr. Current FY Water Cumulative Water Lifecycle Savings AcIFt Savings across all Savings Agency FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09110 FY 10/11 FY 11112 FY 12/13 FYI 3/14 FYI 4/15 FY15/16 Total (Cumulative) Fiscal Years Ac/Ft Brea 132 175 156 42 186 144 93 115 114 43 1,777 0.30 346.91 919 Buena Park 85 114 146 59 230 145 105 1 106 91 24 1 1,412 0.19 263.13 731 East Orange CWD RZ 18 22 17 3 23 10 10 8 8 4 185 0.03 38.21 96 El Toro WD 91 113 130 32 162 112 134 121 111 29 11438 0.23 267.47 744 Fountain Valley 205 219 243 72 289 158 115 102 110 37 2,296 0.24 467.55 1,188 Garden Grove 238 304 332 101 481 236 190 162 165 42 3,227 0.36 641.93 1,670 Golden State WC 339 401 447 168 583 485 265 283 359 106 4,723 0.80 909.33 2,444 Huntington Beach 761 750 751 211 963 582 334 295 319 89 7,930 0.64 1,649.30 4,103 Irvine Ranch WD 1,972 2,052 1,844 1,394 2,621 2,170 1,763 1,664 1,882 676 22,448 4.63 4,161.08 11,615 La Habra 96 136 83 22 179 128 82 114 87 25 1,233 0.16 230.28 638 La Palma 33 35 51 25 76 46 34 25 34 10 429 0.07 78.92 222 ^^una Beach CWD 57 77 77 27 96 57 38 37 39 23 904 0.16 181.03 468 3a Water 239 249 246 73 232 176 114 86 89 27 2,352 0.21 498.68 1,217 ilton Niguel WD 652 716 742 250 1,127 679 442 421 790 337 8,995 2.42 1,691.75 4,654 vport Beach 245 270 259 57 197 142 116 92 95 36 2,533 0.28 540.91 1,311 one 366 365 403 111 349 262 218 163 160 54 3,748 0.44 781.73 1,939 uran e Park Acres 4 8 - - - - - - - - 12 0.00 3.09 6 San Juan Capistrano 109 103 127 43 190 110 76 73 92 34 1,397 0.30 271.08 723 San Clemente 204 261 278 63 333 206 140 94 141 41 2,516 0.29 494.64 1,302 Santa Margarita WD 654 683 740 257 1,105 679 553 662 792 224 8,907 1.68 1,660.81 4,609 Seal Beach 47 46 57 7 81 51 31 29 38 12 582 0.10 113.15 301 Serrano WD 30 31 23 7 21 20 13 10 26 5 343 0.03 71.90 177 South Coast WD 107 130 148 43 183 112 89 79 68 25 1 1,522 0.18 297.39 788 Trabuco Canyon WD 69 60 62 28 82 62 30 45 47 19 1 755 0.14 146.53 391 Tustin 152 146 144 45 174 97 78 59 80 32 1,534 0.231 314.38 794 Westminster 213 171 233 74 329 208 121 82 109 30 2,383 0.20 480.73 1,233 Yorba Linda 288 350 367 117 394 273 181 167 156 64 3,637 0.471 750.09 1,882 MWDOC Totals 1 7,406 1 7,987 1 8,106 3,331 10,686 7,350 5,365 5,094 61002 1 2048, 89,218 14.78 17,352.00 17,237 Anaheim 854 847 781 860 910 477 331 285 295 1 98 10,301 0.68 2,141.25 5,330 Fullerton 269 334 330 69 397 270 200 186 211 63 3,486 0.451 644.49 1,804 Santa Ana 236 235 257 87 355 190 163 131 132 35 2,606 0.251 570.33 1,348 Non-MWDOC Totals 1,359 1,416 1,368 1,016 1,662 937 694 1 602 638 196 16,393 1.371 3,356.08 3,167 Orange County Totals 8,765 9,403 9,474 1 4,347 1 12,348 8,287 1 6,059 1 5,696 6,640 2,244 1 105,611 16.151 20,708.07 1 20,404 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 SMART TIMERS INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs FY 04/05 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08109 FY 09110 FY 10111 FY 11/12 FY 12M FY 13114 FY 14115 FY 15116 Total Pro ram cvmvl.tly.w.t.r S.vinpr.crow.n A enc Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm. Flfc.l Ya+rt Brea 2 0 1 3 8 6 0 40 3 9 0 0 2 0 8 0 9 8 4 0 43 6 5 0M87 388.22 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 19 3 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 85.75 East Orange CWD RZ 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 155 El Toro WD 1 0 8 0 4 95 1 174 0 25 2 18 5 5 26 2 7 2 11 0 8 9 4 0 1,976.OJ Fountain Valle 3 3 2 2 11 0 4 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 8 2 3 2 4 0 7 10 2 0 114,99 Garden Grove 2 2 11 1 2 0 1 J 2 1 6 0 5 4 7 0 5 2 9 0 10 14 3 3 106.46 Golden Slate WC 0 0 15 2 24 12 8 8 1 2 9 22 7 4 13 3 9 49 9 25 39 12 1 0 520.07 Huntington Beach 5 2 21 9 12 12 7 1 13 1 6 27136 36 15 4 18 33 20 35 19 2 11 0 666.38 Irvine Ranch WD 2 2 68 111 160 4J4 66 183 29 56 14 145 153 267 71 414 135 71 59 67 310 9 0787 7 92J.73 La Habra 0 0 0 0 7 1 1 9 0 0 0 21 0 3 0 4 7 2 0 2 7 51 43 78 79 171.24 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 7 1 7.52 Laguna Beach CWD 3 0 5 0 21 0 5 0 2 0 2 14 1 109 2 76 2 71 0 efi 0 0 0 384 19 157.52 Mesa Water 5 0 1J 27 14 6 12 0 6 7 13 7 22 21 0 10 2 15 2 17 28 5 0 138 101 486.67 Moulton Niguel WD 2 0 25 10 39 52 59 20 21 23 17 162 60 179 31 51 74 40 45 46 95 2 0 517 572 2 337.11 New ort Beach 3 17 35 4 125 B6 98 40 10 27 7 58 0 275 12 242 26 168 75 11 9 53 25 1033 379 1957.82 Oran e 8 4 37 13 28 38 4 0 5 2 2 13 e 25 0 20 24 13 9 16 31 4 0 184 142 448.97 73 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 5 4 5 4 11 1 10 0 7 49 13 1 103 2 14 1B 6 11 6 19 4 2 104 111 056.38 San Clemente 4 0 483 1 46 7 21 60 81 20 13 209 46 11 212 17 26 7 28 2 28 24 i6 6 1,004 J64 2 056.38 Santa Margarita WD 3 0 15 8 40 96 53 70 25 44 10 152 61 53 262 7 53 171 64 93 53 321 8 0 647 1 015 3,563.9 Santiago CWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 31 1 31 1 2.10 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 36 1 12 0 0 3 52 104.07 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 24 0 8.89 27 South Coast WD 2 0 6 1 17 29 7 49 11 6 3 10 13 3 78 10 13 16 B 4 106 73 4 0 266 201 828.89 x SouthTrabu o Canyon WD 0 0 29 0 10 93 4 0 1 0 2 0 2 10 �22 2 0 6 0 2 0 6 1 6 0 80 104 211.62 w--t Tustin 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 3 7 9 10 14 10 01 0 8 4 9 1 18 14 8 0 85 49 211.62 Westminster 1 0 8 12 6 0 1 0 3 0 J 0 1 12 0 1 1 2 0 13 17 4 0 45 J7 130.93 W-t Linda 1 0 30 6 31 5 21 41 8 5 5 21 25 0 0 20 0 12 5 J2 2 15 1 220 86 529.19 MWDOC Totals 48 30 820 218 610 976 J85 693 242 238 142 949 289 374 1,671 185 1,017 583 571 402 648 1,026 254 82 6,697 5,756 26,151.20 Anaheim 6 1 8 1J 17 78 12 57 9 59 5 46 12 11 23 60 19 10 9 26 7 52 6 7 133 420 1,94 9.05 Fullerton 0 0 2 0 10 0 10 0 2 2 2 39 9 33 22 51 9 29 8 0 40 26 5 6 119 18fi 641.99 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 1 0 J 0 2 4 1 8 8 0 6 5 e 19 7 e 9 27 10 1 55 72 190.50 Non-MWDOC Totals 6 1 10 13 28 18 25 57 13 65 8 93 29 44 51 116 36 58 24 34 56 105 21 14 307 678 2,781.54 Orange County Totals 54 31 830 231 638 1 054 1 410 1 750 1 255 1 au I I,042am 1 n51 I 841 I 595 1 436 1 704 1 1,131 1 275 1 96 1 7,004 1 6,434 1 28 933 �1 e--F �4 I Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/712016 .-I ROTATING NOZZLES INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Locai Agency Conservation Programs ~� FY 06107 FY 07/08 FY 08109 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13114 FY 14M5 FY 15116 Total Program cumni.rroe w,a. S,vings Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Lar a ro Ye,�a Agency Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. Res Comm. Comm. area 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 32 0 0 13o 0 0 65 120 0 84 0 0 157 45 0 0 842 0 498 1,107 0 13.71 3uena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 J7 75 0 29 0 0 32 0 0 65 0 0 5J 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 751 75 2,535 459.61 _ast Cuing. 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 D 0 0 0 340 0 0 55 0 0 30 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 751 0 0 5.80 5 Toro 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 290 0 174 0 0 357 76 0 23 6,281 0 56 3 288 0 1 741 28 714 0 90 4,45 0 2,674 45 980 890 637.95 =ounlain Valle IllD a 51 0 0 83 0 0 83 0 0 108 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 18 0 0 606 0 0 7.95 warden Grove 0 0 0 44 0 0 153 106 0 38 0 0 119 0 D 95 0 0 80 0 0 88 50 0 44 0 0 212 101 0 02.16 09 Golden State 0 0 0 i61 0 0 83 0 0 303 943 0 294 0 0 257 2,595 0 192 0 0 553 1 741 0 65 0 0 2,216 6 JOB 0 102.89 72 Humni ton Beach 0 0 0 97 845 1,202 322 19 1 174 203 625 0 458 0 0 270 0 0 110 0 0 798 1,419 D 198 /432 a 2,601 7 760 2,004 656.37 Irvine Ranch 0 0 0 610 7,435 440 1 594 5,108 85 2 411 2,a61 0 1,715 4.255 0 25,018 1,014 0 11,010 4,257 0 1,421 632 0 171 1 110 0 44,984 81,113 2,004 2,656.J7 La Habra 0 535 0 9 0 0 15 0 900 0 0 0 33 90 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 109 338 0 21 0 0 202 1 276 900 217.49 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0.24 Laguna Beach 0 0 0 115 0 0 101 47 0 156 0 0 763 0 0 3,696 0 0 2,943 $78 0 2,079 1,971 0 46 0 0 10,795 2,896 0 164.61 26 Mesa Water 83 0 0 a 25 343 198 0 0 11a 0 0 297 277 0 270rl 0 361 0 0 229 0 0 77 0 0 1 826 435 943 906.15 Moulton Niguel 0 D 0 297 120 0 426 6,883 1 986 1,578 0 0 1,225 0 0 612 0 161 227 0 1,596 4,58 0 473 233 0 6,702 1J,435 2,945 906.15 Newport Beach 0 0 0 22 669 0 65 170 0 7J7 1,208 0 640 3 273 0 26 365 0 19,349 6,835 0 460 3,857 0 250 0 0 46,580 20 74J 0 947.J1 Oren e 0 0 0 158 0 0 96/ 163 0 135 JO 0 747 0 0 264 0 245 120 0 304 668 0 271 0 0 2,810 981 0 68.18 San Clemenle 0 0 0 11a a 0 466 25 0 2,612 951 0 4,266 117 1,343 631 0 415 5,074 0 326 0 0 279 0 0 9,842 7,638 1,343 387.00 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 70 0 0 434 1,660 0 1,452 0 0M90 0 684 0 J70 0 0 495 737 0 150 0 5,125 8136 0 2J9.61 Santa Mar arila 0 0 0 165 0 0 1,079 68 0 J959 3 566 0 0 983 0 389 0 0 1 107 1,513 0 711 107 0 15 165 656 611 450.97Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5 261 0 0 0 D 155 5,562 0 48.97 Serrano D 0 0 94 0 0 24 0 0 364 0 0 0 190 a 0 105 0 0 377 0 0 291 0 0 J 001 00 13.13S0 74 iJJ 0 115 0 0 318 1,77it 0 0 435 0 0 70 0 0 4.99J 131717 0 116 179 0 6,809 16160 0 213.11 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 77 0 0 2,033 791 0 61.17 0A27 0 0 549 0 0 512 0 0 476 1013 0 378 0 0 329 0 0 408 0 0 120 45 0 31D9 1058 0 60.05 .uy "nsler 0 D 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 15 0 0 D 0 0 54 0 0 57 0 0 789 0 0 5.47 Linda 0 0 0 0 0 440 113 600 529 0 0 659 0 0 730 0 0 40 990 0 921 0 0 6J6 0 0 4 789 4 369 500 155.6J MWDOC Totals 83 535 09,127 1,985 7,696 14,727 4,645 15,343 11,856 0 19,072 9,460 1,34J 59,970 11,647 0 J6,622 21,669 0 19,818 65,250 0 4,028 8,405 0 174,582 231,005 14,752 8,780.80 im 0 0 0 68 0 0 329 0 0 172 382 0 742 76554 0 459 813 0 338 0 0 498 712 0 151 5 221 0 32J7 45 ad6 105 675.88 even 0 0 0 95 0 0 322 64 0 416 0 0 409 0 0 119 0 0 107 0 0 684 1 196 0 260 a 0 2 684 1 260 1 484 706.J7 Sanle Ana 0 0 0 1d5 0 0 96 56 o 53 0 0 22 65 D 99 0 0 86 2,5331 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 869 3 226 0 67.47 Non-MWDOC Totals 0 0 0 308 0 0 871 120 0 841 382 0 1 173 38 619 0 677 813 0 531 2 533 0 1,4921 1 908 0 412 5 221 0 6 674 50 332 1 589 9J9.71 Oran a Count 83 Totals 535 0 3,1051 9,1271 1,9851 8,4671 14 847 4 645 16 184 12,238 0120,245148 079 60 647 1 1 343 2 460 0 37 153124.202 0 21 310 57 158 0 4 138113.626 011 256 281 337 16 341 9,720.51 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7I2016 SOCAL WATER$MART COMMERCIAL PLUMBING FIXTURES REBATE PROGRAM"] INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs cumulative Water Savings FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY across all Agency 07108 08109 09110 10111 11112 12113 13114 14115 15116 Totals Fiscal Years Brea 27 113 24 4 1 234 0 10 53 593 346 Buena Park 153 432 122 379E290 5 23 56 941,859 908East Oran e CWD RZ 0 0 0 0 0 0EI Toro WD 0 92 143 1 0 212 6 1 760 512 Fountain Valle 17 35 0 2 0 0 1 0 623Garden Grove 5 298 130 22 4 1 167 160 1,986 1,304 685 MHabra WC 46 414 55 68 135 0 1 0 182 1,966 1,665 each 48 104 126 96 156 104 144 7 451 1,981 1,368 WD 121 789 2,708 1,002 646 1,090 451 725 894 11,702 5,898 191 75 53 4 0 0 0 0 109 652 478 0 140 21 0 0 0 D 0 0 166 74 h CWD 20 137 189 0 0 0 27 0 0 446 281 Mesa Water 141 543 219 669 41 6 0 79 269 3,080 1,817 Moulton Niguel WD 9 69 151 6 0 0 0 3 0 583 722 Newport Beach 98 27 245 425 35 0 0 566 0 1,834 1,144 Orange 18 374 67 1 73 1 271 81 62 1,966 1,560 San Juan Ca istrano 2 1 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 260 367 San Clemente 2 18 43 0 19 0 0 1 0 432 350 Santa Margarita WD 6 23 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 117 182 Santiago CWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Seal Beach 1 2 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 354 383 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Coast WD 9 114 56 422 84 148 0 382 0 1 320 441 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 Tustin 115 145 25 230 0 0 0 75 0 832 720 Westminster 40 161 16 63 35 1 28 0 20 835 699 Yorba Linda 10 24 8 30 0 1 0 0 135 420 496 MWDOC Totals 1,079 4,134 4,537 3,424 1,966 1,594 1,172 2,161 2,430 34,337 22,466 Anaheim 766 3,298 582 64 48 65 342 463 959 11,331 6,099 Fullerton 66 579 29 4 0 94 0 178 55 1,736 1,427 Santa Ana 493 815 728 39 12 16 17 5 178 4,384 4,166 Non-MWDOC Totals 1,392 4,692 1,339 107 60 275 359 646 1,192 17,451 11,691 C➢ Orange County Totals 2,471 8,826 5,876 3,531 2,026 1,869 1,531 2,807 3,622 51,788 34, I--� � [11 Retrofit devices include ULF Toilets and Urinals,High Efficiency Toilets and Urinals,Multi-Family and Multi-Family 4-Liter HETs,Zero Water Urinals,High Efficiency Clothes • Washers.Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers,Ph Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers,Flush Valve Retrofit Kits,Pre-rinse Spray heads,Hospital X-Ray Processor Recirculating Systems.Steam Sterilizers,Food Steamers,Water Pressurized Brooms,Laminar Flow Restriclors,and Ice Making Machines. N 4/7/2016 00 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County J N Water Smart Landscape Program Total Number of Meters in Program by Agency Overall Water Savings To Date Agency FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 (AF) Brea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 22 22 22 62.80 Buena Park 01 0 0 0 0 17 103 101 101 101 101 101 455.49 East Orange CWD RZ 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 El Toro WD 881 109 227 352 3841 371 820 810 812 812 812 812 4,798.99 Fountain Valley 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Garden Grove 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Golden State WC 0 0j 0 14 34 32 34 32 32 32 32 32 198.31 Huntington Beach 0 0 0 0 0 31 33 311 31 31 31 311 146.22 Irvine Ranch WD 277 638 646 708 1,008 6,297 6,347 6.368 6,795 6,797 6,769 6,780 37,821.08 4 aguna Beach CWD 0 0 0 0 57 141 143 141 124 124 124 124 724.23 a Habra 0 0 0 0 23 22 24 22 22 22 22 22 135.15 a Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0, lesa Water 191 170 138 165 286 285 288 450 504 511 514 515 lo D 2,906.82 41- ulton Niguel W 80 57 113 180 473 571 595 643 640 675 673 695 4,073.55 Newport Beach 321 27 23 58 142 171 191 226 262 300 300 300 1,479.78 Orange 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 San Clemente 1911 165 204 2271 233 247 271 269 269 299 407 438 2,336.02 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Santa Margarita WD 547 619 618 945 1,571 1,666 1,746 1,962 1,9561 2,274 21386 2,3861 14,007.83 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 South Coast WD 01 0 0 62 1171 108 110 118 118 118 164 164 818.21 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 0 0 12 49 48 62 60 60 60 60 60 346.24 Tustin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Westminster 0 0 0 10 18 18 20 18 18 18 18 18 115.17 Yorba Linda WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 MWDOC Totals 1,406 1,785 1,969 2,733 4,395 10,025 10,787 11,273 11,766 12,196 12,435 12,500 70,425.9 Anaheim 01 0 0 0 0 142 146 144 190 190 190 190 1,147.97 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Non-MWDOC Totals 1 01 0 01 0 0 142 146 144 190 190 190 190 1,147.97 Orange Co.Totals 1,406 1,785 1,969 2,733 4,395 10,1671 10,9331 11,4171 11,9561 12,3861 12,6251 12,690 71,573.83 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATER USE REDUCTION PROGRAM Number of Process Changes by Agency Cumulative Water Savings Overall across all Program Annual Water Fiscal Agency FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/101 FY 10/11 FY 11/121 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Interventions Savings[1] Years[l] Brea 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buena Park 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 54 365 East Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fountain Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garden Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Golden State 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 22 Huntington Beach 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 127 234 Irvine Ranch 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 98 366 pz La Habra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v, Laguna Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Mesa Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Moulton Niguel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 21 18 Orange 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 330 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Clemente 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Margarita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Coast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tustin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westminster 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Yorba Linda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWDOC Totals 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 0 13 346 1335 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 23 OC Totals 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 14 357 1357 ~ (11 Acre feet of savings determined during a one year monitoring period. If monitoring data is not available,the savings estimated in agreement is used. N O r+ CD J HIGH EFFICIENCY TOILETS (HETs) INSTALLED BY AGENCY ' through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs N N water FY05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Total Cumulative Savings across all Agency Fiscal Years Brea 0 21 7 43 48 8 0 0 38 146 115 407 56.69 Buena Park 0 1 2 124 176 7 0 0 96 153 75 634 126.10 East Orange CWD RZ 0 0 10 12 1 0 0 0 13 26 16 78 12.77 El Toro WD 0 392 18 75 38 18 0 133 218 869 159 1,920 346.39 Fountain Valley 0 69 21 262 54 17 0 0 41 132 144 740 169.64 Garden Grove 0 14 39 443 181 24 0 0 63 350 276 1,390 281.36 Golden State WC 2 16 36 444 716 371 80 2 142 794 385 2,654 514.92 Huntington Beach 2 13 59 607 159 76 0 0 163 1,190 455 2,724 443.98 Irvine Ranch WD 29 1,055 826 5,088 2,114 325 0 1,449 810 1,777 1,398 14,871 3,784.91 Laguna Beach CWD 0 2 17 91 28 11 0 0 45 112 42 348 66.56 La Habra 0 3 18 296 34 20 0 0 37 94 52 5541 139.13 La Palma 0 1 10 36 26 13 0 0 21 591 34 2001 36.73 Mesa Water 0 247 19 736 131 7 0 0 147 1621 116 1,565 441.29 Moulton Niguel WD 0 20 104 447 188 461 0 0 400 2,497 11455 5,157 593.83 Newport Beach 0 5 19 163 54 131 0 0 49 168 141 612 110.87 Orange 1 20 62 423 79 40 0 1 142 978 329 2.075 326.05 j�, San Juan Capistrano 0 10 7 76 39 11 0 0 35 140 143 461 69.71 San Clemente 0 7 22 202 66 21 0 0 72 225 178 793 141.13 Santa Margarita WD 0 5 14 304 151 44 0 0 528 997 721 2,764 350.18 Seal Beach 0 678 8 21 12 1 0 2 17 50 45 834 311.28 Serrano WD 2 0 1 13 5 0 0 0 2 40 37 100 12.47 South Coast WD 2 2 29 102 41 12 23 64 102 398 175 950 133.04 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 0 4 23 23 0 0 0 10 108 107 275 31.24 Tustin 0 186 28 387 479 17 0 0 64 132 137 1,430 393.93 Westminster 0 17 25 541 167 23 0 0 351 161 287 11256 287.02 Yorba Linda WD 0 141 891 323 96 18 0 0 401 2801 278 1.138 223.99 MWDOC Totals 38 2,7791 1,4941 11,282 5,1061 8091 1031 1,6511 3, 301 12,0381 7,300 45,9301 9,405.17 Anaheim 01 2551 781 2,7711 6191 114 01 01 1561 1,1881 400 5,581 1,433.43 Fullerton 0 4 28 286 60 23 0 0 61 293 193 948 174.49 Santa Ana 0 11 25 925 89 23 0 0 33 602 209 1,917 425.93 Non-MWDOC Totals 01 2701 1311 3.9821 7681 160 01 01 250 2,083 802 8,446 2,033.66 Orange County Totals 381 3,0491 1,6251 15,2641 5,8741 9691 1031 1,6511 3,5801 14,1211 8,1021 54,3761 11,439.03 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 TURF REMOVAL BY AGENCY"' through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs FY 10/11 FY 11112 FY 12113 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Program Cumulative Water Agency Savings across all Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Fiscal Years Brea 0 0 3,397 9,466 7,605 0 5,697 0 71,981 30,617 12,421 0 101,101 40,083 46.12 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,670 1,6261 5,827 0 17,497 1,626 4.54 East Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,964 0 18,312 0 6,921 0 27,197 0 El Toro 0 0 4,7231 0 4,680 72,718 4,582 0 27,046 221,612 15,277 86,846 56,3081 381,176 137 Fountain Valley 0 0 1,3001 0 682 7,524 4,252 0 45,583 5,279 5,869 0 57,686 12,803 Garden Grove 0 46,177 14,013 0 4,534 0 8,274 0 67,701 22,000 13,443 0 107,965 68,177 81.61 Golden State 0 0 42,593 30,973 31,813 3,200 32,725 8,424 164,507 190,738 29,919 0 301,557 233,335 192.04 Huntington Beach 801 3,651 27,630 48,838 9,219 12,437 20,642 0 165,600 58,9421 54,016 7,426 277,908 131,294 Irvine Ranch 5,423 12,794 6,450 1,666 32,884 32,3841 36,584 76,400 234,905 317,9991 70,450 1,174,609 386,696 1,615,852 434.10 La Habra 0 7,775 0 8,262 0 0 0 0 14,014 1,818 6,127 2,936 20,1411 20,791 18.02 La Palma 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 4,884 0 500 57,400 5,384 57,400 9.47 Laguna Beach 978 0 2,5331 0 2,664 1,712 4,586 226 13,647 46,850 2,693 0 27,101 48,788 24.38 Mesa Water 0 0 6,7771 0 10,667 0 22,246 0 131,675 33,620 18,947 0 190,312 33,620 Moulton Niguel 956 16,139 4,4831 26,927 11,538 84,123 14,739 40,741 314,250 1,612,845 80,041 127,043 426,007 1,907,818 681.78 w sport Beach 0 0 3,454 0 3,548 2,346 894 0 33,995 65,2771 1,064 55,287 42,955 122,910 nge 0 0 12,971 0 15,951 8,723 11,244 0 120,093 281,4021 19,781 0 180,040 290.125 Clemente 0 0 21,502 0 16,062 13,165 18,471 13,908 90,349 1,137 18,718 392,742 165,1021 420,952 128.24 j Juan Capistrano 0 0 22,656 103,692 29,544 27,156 12,106 0 101,195 32,366 13,778 19,598 179,279 182,812 odnta Margarita 4,483 5,561 1,964 11,400 10,151 11,600 17,778 48,180 211,198 514,198 104,454 178,666 350,028 769,605 300.42 Seal Beach 0 0 01 0 3,611 0 0 0 15,178 504 2,159 0 20,948 504 6.72 Serrano 0 0 01 0 0 01 2,971 0 41,247 0 32,545 0 76,763 0 South Coast 0 16,324 6,8061 0 9,429 4,3951 15,162 116.719 84,282 191,853 46,342 0 162,021 329.291 165.41 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 272 0 1,542 22,440 2,651 0 14,771 0 5,436 66,964 24,672 89,404 Tustin 0 0 0 0 9,980 0 1,410 0 71,285 14,137 13,567 1,700 96,242 15,837 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,040 34,631 11,354 0 25,394 34,631 15.22 Yorba Linda 11,349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112,136 12,702 51,470 54,587 174,955 67,289 MWDOC Totalsi 23,9901 108,4211 183,524 -241,2241 216,1041 303,9231 238,9781 304,598 2,195,544 3,692,1531 643,1191 2,225,804 3,501,259 6,876,123 Anaheim 0 01 01 01 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 0 Fullerton 0 0 0 01 01 01 0[�-9,214 01 01 01 01 01 9,2141 3.87 Santa Ana 0 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 01 01 0 01 01 0 - Non-MWDOC Totals 01 01 01 01 0 -0. 0 -9,2141 01 0 01 01 01 9,214111�43.87 age County Totals 1 23,9901 108,4211 183,5241 241,2241 216,1041 303,9231 238,9781 313,812 2,195,544 3,692,1531 643,1191 2,225,804 3,501,259 6,885,337 2,982 ;tailed device numbers are listed as square feet J N N N CD HOME WATER SURVEYS PERFORMED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Cumulative N Agency Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Water Savings W Brea 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0.16 Buena Park 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.05 East Orange 19 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 1.39 El Toro 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0.14 Fountain Valley 3 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 0.40 Garden Grove 0 0 6 0 1 0 7 0 0.31 Golden State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Huntington Beach 2 0 5 0 2 0 9 0 0.42 Irvine Ranch 1 0 3 0 5 0 9 0 0.33 La Habra 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.05 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Laguna Beach 4 0 8 0 1 0 13 0 0.68 Mesa Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Moulton Niguel 4 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0.47 Newport Beach 2 0 8 0 3 0 13 0 0.59 Orange 2 0 18 0 1 0 21 0 1.01 San Clemente 15 0 13 0 0 0 28 0 1.67 San Juan Capistrano 4 0 13 0 2 0 19 0 0.94 Santa Margarita 15 0 40 1 12 0 67 1 3.22 Seal Beach 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0.07 Serrano 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0.09 South Coast 6 0 4 0 1 0 11 0 0.64 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0.19 Tustin 0 0 10 0 4 0 14 0 0.56 Westminster 01 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0.00 Yorba Linda 01 0 13 01 81 0 21 01 0.80 MWDOC Totalsi 781 01 1641 11 411 01 2831 1 14.18 Anaheim 01 01 01 01 0 01 01 0 0.00 Fullerton 01 01 171 0 1 01 18 0 0.82 Santa Ana 01 01 01 011 0 01 01 0 0.00 Non-MWDOC Totalsl 01 0 171 01 11 0 18 01 0.82 Orange County Totals 1 781 01 1811 11 421 01 3011 11 15.007 SYNTHETIC TURF INSTALLED BY AGENCY['' through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Total Program Cumulative Water Agency Savings across all Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Res Comm. Fiscal Years Brea 0 0 2,153 2,160 500 0 0 0 2,653 2,160 3.30 Buena Park 0 0 1,566 5,850 0 0 0 01 1,566 5,850 5.19 East Orange 0 0 0 0 983 0 0 qO 983 0 0.55 El Toro 3,183 0 2,974 0 3,308 0 895 10,360 0 6.98 Fountain Valley 11,674 0 1,163 0 2,767 0 684 16,288 0 12.46 Garden Grove 1,860 0 0 0 3,197 0 274 5,331 0 3.47 Golden State 6,786 0 13,990 0 15,215 0 2,056 38,047 0 24.88 Huntington Beach 15,192 591 12,512 0 4,343 1,504 0 32,047 2,095 25.29 Irvine Ranch 11,009 876 13,669 0 2,585 0 0 0 27,263 876 21.00 La Habra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Palma 429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429 0 0.36 x Laguna Beach 3,950 0 3,026 0 725 0 0 0 7,701 0 5.84 Cd Mesa Water 4,114 0 3,005 78,118 4,106 0 2,198 0 131423 78,118 63.46 Moulton Niguel 14,151 0 25,635 2,4201 7,432 0 0 0 47,218 2,420 35.69 Newport Beach 2,530 0 6,628 0 270 0 0 0 9,428 0 6.92 Orange 4,169 0 7,191 0 635 0 0 0 11,995 0 8.89 San Clemente 9,328 0 11,250 455 2,514 1,285 500 0 23,592 1,740 18.37 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 7,297 639 2,730 0 4,607 0 14,634 639 9.02 Santa Margarita 12,922 0 26,069 0 21,875 0 7,926 0 68,792 0 44.68 Seal Beach 0 0 817 0 0 0 0 01 817 0 0.57 Serrano 7,347 0 1,145 0 0 0 0 0 8,492 0 6.97 South Coast 2,311 0 6,316 0 17,200 0 1,044 0 26,871 0 16.43 Trabuco Canyon 1,202 0 9,827 0 0 0 0 0 11,029 0 7.89 Tustin 6,123 0 4,717 0 2,190 0 0 0 13,030 0 9.67 Westminster 2,748 16,566 8,215 0 890 01 0 0 11,853 16,566 22.47 Yorba Linda 1 11,7921 01 12,683 0 4,341 5,8351 01 01 28,816 5,835F 24.48 MWDOC Totalsi 132,8201 18,0331 181,8481 89,6421 97,8061 8,6241 20,1841 01 432,6581 116,299 384.83 --i Anaheim 4,5351 01 7,7351 20,093L 13,5551 65,3001 4,1221 01 29,9471 85,3931 69.18 Fullerton 4,865 876 5,727 0 6,223 0 105 0 16,920 876112.36 Santa Ana 0 0 2,820 0 525 0 0 0 3,345 0 2.27 Non-MWDOC Totals 9,400 876 16,282 20,093 20,303 65,300 4,227 0 50,212 86,269 83.81 J Orange County Totals 1 142,2201 18,9091 198,1301 109,7351 118,1091 73,9241 24,4111 01 482,8701 202,568 468.63 N [1]Installed device numbers are calculated in square feet lv -P r-r CD J tv ULF TOILETS INSTALLED BY AGENCY N through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Previous Cumulative Water Savings across all Agency Years FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY OO-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-06 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Total Fiscal Years Brea 378 189 299 299 122 144 867 585 341 401 26 48 17 4 0 3,720 1,692.64 Buena Park 361 147 331 802 520 469 524 1,229 2,325 1,522 50 40 18 9 0 8,347 3,498.37 East Orange CWD RZ 2 0 33 63 15 17 15 50 41 44 19 18 131 2 0 332 138.23 El Toro WD 1.169 511 6781 889 711 171 310 564 472 324 176 205 61 40 0 6,281 3,091.16 Fountain Valley 638 454 635 858 1,289 2,355 1,697 1,406 1,400 802 176 111 58 32 0 11,911 6,383.10 Garden Grove 1.563 1,871 1,956 2,620 2,801 3,556 2,423 3,855 3,148 2,117 176 106 67 39 0 26,298 12,155.41 Golden State WC 3.535 1,396 3,141 1,113 3,024 2,957 1,379 2,143 3,222 1,870 167 116 501 43 0 24,607 11,731.47 Huntington Beach 3,963 1,779 2,600 2,522 2,319 3,492 3,281 2,698 3,752 1,901 367 308 143 121 0 29,2461 13,854.70 Irvine Ranch WD 4.016 841 1,674 1,726 1,089 3,256 1,534 1,902 2,263 6,741 593 626 310 129 0 26,700 11,849.23 Laguna Beach CWD 283 93 118 74 149 306 220 85 271 118 32 26 291 6 0 1,810 845.69 La Habra 594 146 2541 775 703 105 582 645 1,697 1,225 12 31 6 7 0 6,782 2,957.73 La Palma 65 180 222 125 44 132 518 173 343 193 31 27 20 17 0 2,090 927.52 Mesa Water 1,610 851 1,052 2,046 2,114 1,956 1,393 1,505 2,387 988 192 124 56 14 0 16,208 7,654.27 Moulton Niguel WD 744 309 761 698 523 475 716 891 728 684 410 381 187 100 0 7,607 3,371.14 Newport Beach 369 293 390 571 912 1,223 438 463 396 1,883 153 76 36 16 0 7,219 3,166.77 Orange 683 1,252 1,155 1,355 533 2,263 1,778 2,444 2.682 1,899 193 218 88 53 4 16,600 7,347.93 San Juan Capistrano 1,234 284 193 168 323 1,319 347 152 201 151 85 1251 42 39 0 4,663 2,324.42 J San Clemente 225 113 191 65 158 198 667 483 201 547 91 66 37 34 0 3,076 1,314.64 Santa Margarita WD 577 324 5531 843 345 456 11258 790 664 260 179 143 101 29 0 6,522 3,001.01 Seal Beach 74 66 312 609 47 155 132 81 134 729 29 10 6 12 0 2,396 1,073.80 Serrano WD 81 56 68 41 19 52 95 73 123 98 20 15 141 2 0 757 338.66 South Coast WD 1101 176 177 114 182 181 133 358 191 469 88 72 32 22 0 2,305 990.05 Trabuco Canyon WD 10 78 42 42 25 21 40 181 102 301 17 20 12 14 0 634 273.02 Tustin 968 668 557 824 429 1,292 1,508 1,206 1,096 827 69 89 26 12 0 9,571 4,423.88 Westminster 747 493 969 1,0661 2,336 2,291 2,304 1,5231 2,492 1,1181 1451 105 70 24 0 15,683 7,064.28 Yorba Linda WD 257 309 417 4571 404 1,400 759 1,6901 1,155 6271 1581 136 81 41 0 7,891 3,409.49 IMWDOi�-Totalsj 24,2561 12,8791 18,7781 20,7651 21,1361 30,2421 24,9181 27,1751 31,8271 27,5681 3,654 3,242 2,0311 8611 41 249,3361 113,878.61 Anaheim 4471 1,0541 1,78al 3,6611 1,7551 7,5511 4,5931 6,346 9,7071 5,0751 4731 3711 4621 3411 11 43,625 18,359.52 Fullerton 1,4531 1,1431 6941 1,1931 1,364 2,138 1,926 2,130 2,2131 1,7491 1721 771 441 231 21 16,3211 7,435.23 Santa Ana mill 1,9641 1,2051 2,7291 2,0881 8,7881 51614 10,8221 10,7161 9.1641 2791 1341 251 51 01 54,6441 22,887.95 Non-MWDOC Totalsi 3,0111 4,1611 3,6871 7,5831 5,2071 18,4771 12,1331 19,2981 22.6361 15.9881 9241 5821 531F 3691 3 -114,590T 48,682.70 Orange County Totals 1 27,2671 17,0401 22,4651 28,3481 26,3431 48,7191 37,0511 46,4731 54,4631 43,5561 4,5781 3,8241 2,5621 1,2301 71 363,9261 162,561.30 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 VC r-. f.f;P A '47 �6+ a _ �x � � r h �j it MIA IP 13 xB -471- n sae w.,.. Item 17. — 226 Will be incorporated in future draft once available f � 3 / / l e g �x Item 17. - 227 ' HB -4722- C C ,ice lr a i.ca r I 1`^,:("t.a g e i"'. ;L-`.:'~�Lill r� c , A M � �.,--........_ .. .........._.... _._____ - —....._ �, ;. v la III y D c ` M..6 „ xB -473- s ;FItem 17. - 228 � Municipal Water District of Orange County � GE ce Xpo.. TY Water Supply Allocation Plan DRAFT Revised 2016 DRAFT Table of Contents Section1: Introduction.....................................................................................................3 Section 2: Metropolitan Water District's Water Supply Allocation Plan ............................4 Section 3: Development Process.....................................................................................6 ClientAgency Input.....................................................................................................6 Board of Directors Input..............................................................................................7 Section 4: Water Supply Allocation Formula....................................................................8 Step 1 — Determine Baseline Information....................................................................8 Step 2 — Establish Allocation Year Information............................................................9 Step 3 — Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Declared Shortage Level ....10 Step 4—Assign Allocation Adjustments and Conservation Credit.............................11 Step 5 — Sum Total Allocations and Calculate Retail Reliability.................................13 Section 5: Plan Implementation.....................................................................................15 Allocation Appeals Process.......................................................................................15 Allocation Surcharge Rates & Billing .............................................................................16 Trackingand Reporting.............................................................................................19 Key Dates for Implementation...................................................................................20 Revisitingthe Plan ....................................................................................................22 AppendixA........................................................................................................................ Listof Acronyms. .......................................................................................................... Definitions:................................................................................................. .................. Appendix B — Metropolitan's Draft Water Supply Allocation Plan....................................... Appendix C — MWDOC Growth Adjustment Table per Client Agency................................ Appendix D — MWDOC Conservation Hardening Credit Table per Client Agency ............. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 1 HB -475- Item 17. - 230 DRAFT List of Tables and Figures TABLES Table 3.1: Client Agency Meetings..................................................................................7 Table 4.1: Extraordinary Increased Production Adjustment...........................................11 Table 4.2: Wholesale ("Imported") Supply Minimum Allocation......................................12 Table 4.3: Retail Impact Adjustment..............................................................................13 Table 5.1: Metropolitan Water District Allocation Surcharge Rate Structure ..................17 FIGURES Figure 4.1: MWDOC's Water Supply Allocation Plan Stage 3 with a Regional Shortage of 15% .....................................................................15 Figure 5.2: Example of a Client Agency's Monthly Usage Report .................................20 Figure 5.3: Metropolitan Water District Adopted Allocation Timeline..............................21 MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 2 Item 17. - 231 1-Is -4 7h- DRAFT Section 1 : Introduction The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is dedicated to ensuring water reliability for the communities we serve. Hundreds of thousands of Orange County residents have taken advantage of our water conservation rebates to install water saving toilets, clothes washers, and other water saving devices. We continue to partner with our client agencies to develop new local supplies such as recycled water, brackish water desalting, ocean water desalination, and the Groundwater Replenishment System. However, a combination of water supply challenges have brought about the possibility that MWDOC may not have access to the imported supplies necessary to meet the demands of its client agencies in the coming years. The following factors have dramatically impacted water supply conditions not only in Orange County, but all of Southern California.- In CY 2013 many areas of California experienced the driest year on record. California received record low snowpack in FY 2014-15. On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown proclaimed a statewide drought emergency. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an emergency conservation regulations in accordance with the Governor's directive. The provisions of the emergency regulations went into effect on May 18, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the SWRCB will consider a resolution to extend the existing May 2015 Emergency Regulation as directed in the November 2015 executive order. • The Colorado River is recovering from a long-term drought. Reservoirs along the river are less than half full. In the summer of 2015, Lake Mead water levels reached record lows. Supplies from this source have been reduced since 2003 and will continue to be limited. To meet the imported water demands of its member agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) is quickly withdrawing supplies from surface and groundwater storage. Over the past three years, MET has drawn down 67% of its available reserves. The recent dry conditions and the uncertainty about future supplies from the State Water Project have raised the possibility that MET will not have access to the supplies necessary to meet the imported water demands of its member agencies. As a result, MET has developed a Water Supply Allocation Plan that allocates wholesale imported water supplies among its 26 member agencies throughout Southern California. To prepare for the possibility of an allocation of imported water supplies from MET, MWDOC has worked in collaboration with its 28 client agencies to develop this Water Supply Allocation Plan to allocate imported water supplies at the retail level. This document lays out the essential components of how MWDOC plans to determine and implement each agency's allocation during a time of shortage. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 3 HB -477- Item 17. - 232 DRAFT Section 2: Metropolitan Water District's Water Supply Allocation Plan In February 2008, MET approved a Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) designed to allocate imported water to all of its member agencies during a shortage. In June 2014 MET convened a member agency working group to revisit the WSAP. The purpose of the working group was to collaborate with member agencies to identify potential revisions to the WSAP in preparation for mandatory supply allocations in 2015. There were eight working group meetings and three discussions at the monthly Member Agency Managers' Meetings. The WSAP follows the principles and considerations identified in MET's Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan, which calls upon the allocation of water in a fair and equitable manner to all of MET's member agencies. To the extent possible, this means developing a plan that minimizes regional hardship during times of shortage. The MET WSAP seeks to balance the impacts of a shortage at the retail level while maintaining equity on the wholesale level. To achieve this, it takes into account: • The impact to retail customers and the economy • Allowance for population and growth • Change and/or loss of local supply • Reclamation/Recycling • Conservation • Investments in local resources • Investments in MET's facilities Recognize--PPP—WPPI • • - • Water • Recognize Resource • • Development E • • Impact MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 4 Item 17. - 233 HB -478- DRAFT The WSAP states that MET staff will go before the Board with a recommendation in April, from which the Board of Directors will make a determination on the level of the Regional Shortage. If the Board determines allocations are necessary, they will go into effect in July and remain for a twelve-month period. Note: This schedule is at the discretion of the MET Board, and is subject to change. The recommendation to declare a regional shortage will be based upon water supply availability from the State Water Project, the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the amount of surface and groundwater storage remaining in MET's reserves. It will also take into account the implementation of MET's water management actions i.e. Five Year Water Supply Plan, extraordinary conservation efforts, the acceleration of local resource projects, and the purchases of water transfers. A full copy of MET's Water Supply Allocation Plan as revised in December 2014 is available in Appendix B. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 5 HB -479- Item 17. - 234 DRAFT Section 3: Development Process In preparation for possible allocation of imported water supplies from MET, MWDOC's Board first adopted the following policy principles to help guide staff and the client agency technical workgroup to develop a plan that is fair and equitable for everyone within its service area: y Seek best allocation available from MET Develop MWDOC Plan in collaboration with client agencies y When reasonable, use similar method/approach as MET i= When MET's method would produce significant unintended result, use an alternative approach Develop accurate data on local supply, conservation, recycling, rate structures, growth and other relevant adjustment factors r Seek opportunities within MWDOC service area to provide mutually beneficial shortage mitigation Client Agency Input Between the months of September and January of 2014-15, MWDOC staff worked cooperatively with the client agencies through a series of technical workgroups to develop a formula and implementation plan to allocate imported supplies in the event that MET declares a regional shortage. These workgroups provided an arena for in- depth discussion of the objectives, mechanics, and policy aspects of the different parts of the Plan. MWDOC staff also met individually with a number of client agencies for detailed discussions on elements of the Plan. The discussions, suggestions, and comments expressed by the client agencies during this process played a key part in the development of this Plan. The following MWDOC client agencies participated in the Technical Workgroup: • City of Buena Park • City of Fountain Valley • City of Garden Grove • City of Huntington Beach • City of Newport Beach • City of Orange • City of San Clemente • City of San Juan Capistrano • City of Tustin • City of Westminster • East Orange County Water District • El Toro Water District • Golden State Water Co. • Irvine Ranch Water District • Laguna Beach County Water District MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 6 Item 17. - 235 HB -480- DRAFT • Mesa Water District • Moulton Niguel Water District • Orange County Water District • Serrano Water District • Santa Margarita Water District • South Coast Water District • Trabuco Canyon Water District • Yorba Linda Water District In addition to the workshops, individual meetings were held between MWDOC staff and the following MWDOC client agencies to address more specific and agency-related questions. These individual meetings provided MWDOC staff with a great deal of insight on exactly how a retail agency would implement allocations at the customer level. Such information was extremely valuable in our regional discussion at MET and in the development of this Plan. Board of Directors Input Throughout the Plan's development process, the MWDOC Board of Directors was provided with regular progress reports on the status of the Plan and the technical workgroup discussions. During the months the Plan was being developed, the Board Planning and Operations Committee was kept apprised of key issues regarding MET's and MWDOC's allocation plan. Moreover, the Committee played an integral part in the development of key implementation issues such as the appeal process and the surcharge rate structure. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 7 HB -481- Item 17. - 236 DRAFT Section 4: Water Supply Allocation Formula The MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Model follows five (5) basic steps to dete rmine an agency's imported supply allocation: • Step 1: Determine Baseline Information • Step 2: Establish Allocation Year Information • Step 3: Assess the Shortage Reduction Stage (Based on MET's Declared Shortage Level) • Step 4: Apply Allocation Adjustments and Credits in the areas of retail impacts, conservation, groundwater recharge. • Step 5: Sum total allocations and determine retail reliability A description of how the calculation is used in each step is described below: Step 1 — Determine Baseline Information In order to determine a client agency's retail demands and imported supply needs in the allocation year, the model needs to establish a historical base period for water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demands and supplies is calculated using data from fiscal years (July through June) ending 2013 and 2014. The following is a description of the base period calculations: Base Period Local Supplies: Local supplies for the base period are calculated using a two-year average (from fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014) of groundwater production, groundwater recovery, surface water production, and other non-imported supplies. Base Period Wholesale ("Imported') Firm Demands: Firm demands on MWDOC for the base period are calculated using a two-year average (from fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014) of full-service, and surface storage operating agreement demands. Base Period In-lieu Deliveries: Base period in-lieu deliveries to client agencies are calculated using a two year average (from fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014) of In-lieu deliveries to long-term groundwater replenishment, conjunctive use, cyclic, and supplemental storage programs. In-lieu deliveries are not calculated as imported supplies from MET. They are calculated as local supplies to account for the corresponding reduction in base year local production that was required to take In-lieu deliveries. Base Period Retail Demands: Total retail municipal and industrial demands for the base period are calculated by adding the Base Period Local Supplies, Base Period Wholesale Imported Firm Demands, and Base Period In-Lieu Deliveries. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 8 Item 17. - 237 HB -482- DRAFT Step 2 — Establish Allocation Year Information In this step, the model adjusts for each member agency's water need in the allocation year. To do so, it adjusts the base period estimates for population growth and changes in local supplies. The following is a description of how the allocation year information is established: Allocation Year Retail Demands: Total retail M&I demands for the allocation year are calculated by adjusting the Base Period Retail Demands for growth. The method in which MWDOC determines each client agency's growth is through population increases for the fiscal years ending 2013 to 2014'. Based on the data received from California State University of Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research, MWDOC prorates each agency's population increase share to MWDOC's growth adjustment received from MET 2, as shown in Appendix C. Growth Adjustment: The growth adjustment is calculated by taking the average percent of growth from fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014, as generated by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton. Allocation Year Local Supplies: Allocation year local supplies include groundwater production, groundwater recovery, surface water production, and other imported supplies not from MET. In-lieu deliveries are considered as local supplies to account for the corresponding reduction in base year local production that was required to take in- lieu deliveries. Allocation year local supplies reflect a more accurate estimate of actual supplies in the allocation year, and in turn more accurately estimates an agency's demand for imported supplies. Extraordinary Increased Production Adjustment: This adjustment accounts for extraordinary increases in local supplies above the base period. Extraordinary increases in production include such efforts as purchasing water transfers. In order not to discourage such extraordinary efforts, a percentage of the yield from these supplies is added back to Allocation Year Local Supplies in shortage levels as shown below. This has the effect of"setting aside" the majority of the yield for the agency who procured the supply. The percentage of the extraordinary increases in local supply corresponds according to the regional shortage level, as shown in Table 4.1. Although many options were discussed in the technical workgroup sessions,this option was chosen to best reflect the increase in water demand due to population growth as intended by MET's allocation formula for each client agency in the MWDOC service area. 2 MET's growth adjustment is calculated by using the average of the last two year County-wide population growth rates, which include not only MWDOC's service area but also the cities of Fullerton,Anaheim,and Santa Ana. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 9 IJB -483- Item 17. - 238 DRAFT Table 4.1 Extraordinary Increased Production Adjustment R�tona 2 � nal3 Extraordinary a� tadae, Increases ercenlage ` Percenjage 1 5% 5% 2 10% 10% 3 15% 15% 4 20% 20% 5 25% 25% 6 30% 1 30% 7 35% 35% 8 40% 40% 9 45% 45% 10 50% 1 50% Step 3 — Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Declared Shortage Level This step sets the initial allocation. After a regional shortage level is established, MWDOC will calculate the initial allocation as a percentage of adjusted Demand for Firm MET Supplies within the model for each client agency. Regional Shortage Levels: The model allocates shortages of supplies over ten levels: from 5 to 50 percent, in 5 percent increments. Initial (Wholesale Minimum) Allocation: The Wholesale Minimum Allocation is established to ensure a minimum level of imported supplies. The Wholesale Minimum Allocation ensures that client agencies will not experience shortages on the wholesale level that are greater than one-and-a-half times the percentage shortage of MET's regional water supplies. As illustrated in Table 4.2, the Wholesale Minimum Allocation percentage is equal to 100 minus one-and-a-half times the shortage level. The allocation is based on each agency's demand of firm MET water. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 10 Item 17. - 239 xB -48 - DRAFT Table 4.2 Wholesale ("Imported") Supply Minimum Allocation Regtona xi Whlesa(e. 'Sf€�ztar e r �;� � fV(MIMUM Leetel n A n 1 92.5% 2 85.0% 3 77.5% 4 70.0% 5 62.5% 6 55.0% 7 47.5% 8 40.0% 9 32.5% 10 25.0% Step 4 — Assign Allocation Adjustments and Conservation Credit In this step, the model assigns additional water to address disparate impacts at the retail level caused by an across-the-board cut of imported supplies. It also applies a conservation credit given to those agencies that have achieved additional water savings at the retail level as a result of successful implementation of water conservation devices, programs and rate structures. Retail Impact Adjustment: The Retail Impact Adjustment is the factor used to address major differences in retail level shortages associated with across-the-board cuts. The purpose of this adjustment is to ensure that agencies with a high level of dependence on MET do not experience highly disparate shortages compared to other agencies when faced with a reduction in imported supplies. The Retail Impact Adjustment is calculated as the difference between the Regional Shortage Percentage and the Wholesale Imported Minimum Allocation. The amount of the adjustment each client agency receives is prorated on a linear scale, based on its dependence on imported water at the retail level. The prorated amount of allocation is referred to as the Retail Impact Adjustment Allocation. Table 4.3 below illustrates the maximum adjustment an agency may receive according to the regional shortage level. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 11 HB -485- Item 17. - 240 DRAFT Table 4.3 Retail Impact Adjustment etail F eg�onal � Re c3na Site cartage p Leven ` F '�rce�ntag �djustmeanl .' Wa. °l axim m 1 5% 2.5% 2 10% 5.0% 3 15% 7.5% 4 20% 10.0% 5 25% 12.5% 6 30% 15.0% 7 35% 17.5% 8 40% 20.0% 9 45% 22.5% 10 1 50% 25.0% Unfortunately, the Retail Impact Adjustment MWDOC receives from MET may be less than the aggregate retail impact adjustment for its client agencies. To mitigate this difference, MWDOC decreases each client agency's retail impact adjustment according to their prorated share. Conservation Demand Hardening Credit: The Conservation Demand Hardening Credit addresses the increased difficulty in achieving additional water savings at the retail level that comes as a result of successful implementation of water conserving devices and conservation savings programs. To estimate conservation savings, each member agency has a historical baseline Gallons Per Person Per Day (GPCD) calculated by the maximum usage from fiscal year ending 2004 to fiscal year ending 2014. Reductions from the baseline GPCD to the Allocation Year are used to calculate the equivalent conservation savings in acre-feet. The Conservation Demand Hardening Credit is based on an initial 10 percent of the GPCD-based Conservation savings plus an additional 5 percent for each level of Regional Shortage set by the Board during implementation of the WSAP. The credit will also be adjusted for: • The overall percentage reduction in retail water demand • The member agency's dependence on Metropolitan The credit is calculated using the following formula: Conservation Demand Harding Credit = Conservation Savings x (10% + Regional Shortage Level Percentage) x (1 +((Baseline GPCD—Allocation Year GPCD)/Baseline GCPD))x Dependence on MIND Percentage. Minimum Per-Capita Water Use Credit:This adjustment creates a minimum daily gallons per capita (GPCD) water use threshold. Member agencies' retail-level water use is MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 12 Item 17. - 241 HB -486- DRAFT compared to a total water use of 100 GPCD. Agencies that fall below this threshold receive additional allocation to bring them up to the minimum GPCD water use level'. Step 5 — Sum Total Allocations and Calculate Retail Reliability This is the final step in calculating an agency's total allocation for imported supplies. The model sums an agency's total imported allocation with all of the adjustments and credits and then calculates each agency's retail reliability compared to its Allocation Year Retail Demand. Final Metropolitan Allocation: The final allocation of imported supplies to an agency for its retail demand is the sum of the Wholesale Imported Minimum Allocation, their Retail Impact Adjustment, their Conservation Demand Hardening Credit, and Per-Capita Adjustment Allocation (if applicable). Total Metropolitan Supply Allocations: In addition to the WSAP Allocation described above, agencies may also receive separate allocations of supplies for seawater barrier and groundwater replenishment demands. Allocations of supplies to meet seawater barrier demands are to be determined by the MET Board of Directors independently, but in conjunction with the WSAP. Separating the seawater barrier allocation from the WSAP allocation allows the MET Board to consider actual barrier requirements in the Allocation Year and address the demand hardening issues associated with cutting seawater barrier deliveries. According to the principles outlined for allocating seawater barrier demands, allocations should be no deeper than the WSAP Wholesale Minimum Percentage implemented at that time. The WSAP also provides a limited allocation for drought-impacted groundwater basins based on the following framework: 1. Metropolitan staff will hold a consultation with the requesting member agency and the appropriate groundwater basin manager to document whether the basin is in one of the following conditions: a. Groundwater basin overdraft conditions that will result in water levels being outside normal operating ranges during the WSAP allocation period; or b. Violations of groundwater basin water quality and/or regulatory parameters that would occur without imported deliveries. 2. An allocation is provided based on the verified need for groundwater replenishment. The allocation would start with a member agency's ten-year average purchases of imported groundwater replenishment supplies (excluding years in which deliveries were curtailed). The amount would then be reduced by the declared WSAP Regional Shortage Level. Agency's Retail Reliability: This calculates an agency's total MET allocation versus their allocation year retail demands to determine their overall reliability percentage (supplies 3 Per capita water used based on Total Retail-Level Use and population data received from California State University of Fullerton,Center for Demographic Research MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 13 11B -487- Item 17. - 242 DRAFT as a percentage of retail demand) under a regional shortage level. This percentage excludes recycled water supplies from an agency's total water supply. Figure 4.1 illustrates the MWDOC client agencies' reliability percentages under a stage 3 regional shortage level (15%). Figure 4.1 MWDOC's Water Supply Allocation Plan Stage 3 with a Regional Shortage of 15%* Retail Level Reliability I 105.0% 100.0% 990% 98.1% 96.6% !95.4% 95.1% 96.0% 95.7X 95.4X 95.0% gam% 9 94.4% 94.0% 93.0% 935% 893% 89.7% 94.1% 935% 69.7% 90.7X 2.4% 90.0% 98.7% 892% 87.2% 94.8% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% - ---.. - - _ ices Q�tF p yP ,,�?A� Goa° `3�' m�' S� �y'3e Q� G31� e`� S� �'ir Tc°'¢ �c`� y�� O eer' 1P �,�.L�O 1Q `Q �` ��� �� y� 0�r � c� r O` 10 . G 4 �g y�\@ � � r o de Source: MWDOC Allocation Model Version 3.1 and assumes a BPP of 75%. [*]These are estimated reliability percentages for MWDOC client agencies under a regional shortage stage 3 (15%) based on initial local supply data received from the client agencies and OCWD's projected BPP for 2015/16. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 14 Item 17. - 243 xB -498- DRAFT Section 5: Plan Implementation This section covers implementation issues which include: the appeal process, penalties rate structure and billing, tracking and reporting water usage, timeline and option to revisit the plan. Allocation Appeals Process The purpose of the appeals process is to provide client agencies the opportunity to request a change to their allocation based on new or corrected information. The grounds for appeal can include but are not limited to: • Adjusting errors in historical data used in the Base period calculations • Adjusting for unforeseen losses or gains in local supplies • Adjusting for extraordinary increases in local supplies • Adjusting for population growth rates • Adjusting for credits with the Conservation base data, including Conservation Rate Structure MWDOC anticipates that under most circumstances, a client agency's appeal will be the basis for an appeal to MET by MWDOC. MWDOC staff will work with client agencies to ensure that such an appeal is a complete and accurate reflection of the client agency's allocation and is properly reviewed by MET. To accomplish this, MWDOC will require the following information from the client agency submitting an appeal: Written letter (in the form of a letter or e-mail) from the client agency requesting an appeal Brief description of the type of appeal e.g. incorrect base data, loss/gain in local supply, extraordinary increase in local supply, adjustment in agency's conservation base data, or other Rationale for the appeal Quantity in acre-feet in question Verifiable documentation that supports the rationale i.e. billing statements, invoices for conservation device installations, Groundwater reports To provide clarity of the process and ensure your appeal is properly handled, the following steps will occur: Step 1 — Submit Appeal — Client agency will submit the necessary information, described above, to MWDOC. Step 2 — Notification of Response and Appeal Meeting —Once MWDOC staff receives the appeal information, MWDOC will send a response and schedule a meeting with MWDOC staff and the client agency, within two weeks of receiving the information, to discuss the appeal in further detail. Step 3 —Submittal to MET & MWDOC Board Notification — Using the information received from the client agency, MWDOC will prepare and submit the appeal to MET no later than one month of receiving the information. In addition, MWDOC staff will notify its Board of the submittal to MET. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 15 HB -489- Item 17. - 244 DRAFT Step 4— MET Appeal Process - MWDOC will follow the terms of MET's appeal process, as described in Appendix B. Client agencies will also be invited, as deemed appropriate, by MWDOC to attend any meetings with MET on their appeal. Step 5 —Client Agency Notification of MET's Decision — Once MET has made a determination of the appeal, MWDOC staff will notify the client agency of the decision and determine if additional actions are needed i.e. Appeal to MET Board. In the event that MET denies the appeal, MWDOC staff will continue to work with the appealing agency to resolve their issue(s). Any action that will result in adjustments to client agency's allocation will be submitted to the Board for review and approval. Allocation Surcharge Rates & Billing MET's Surcharge Rates MET will enforce its allocations through a tiered surcharge rate structure. MET will assess surcharge rates to a member agency that exceeds its total annual allocation at the end of the twelve-month allocation period, according to the rate structure below: Table 5.1: Metropolitan Water District Allocation Surcharge Rate Structure (FY2015/16 Rates)* 1 (2) 1 O OO ter''Use up to; Surcharge Base Rafe Rate** _ Total Rate 100% Allocation Tier 1 ($942/AF) - $942/AF 100% < = 115% Tier 1 ($942/AF) Tier 1 + $2,422/AF (1,480/AF)*** Use > 115% Tier 1 ($942/AF) Tier 1 + $3,902/AF (2,960/AF)*** [']The base rate shall be the applicable water rate for the water being purchased(Model shows CY 2016 rate). [**]If MWDOC exceeds its allocation limit but is within its equivalent preferential right amount, MET will decrease the surcharge rate by one level. [***]Surcharge rate is applied to water use in excess of an agency's WSAP allocation. These surcharge rates will be assessed according to MET water rates in effect at the time of billing. Any surcharge funds collected by MET will be invested back to the MET member agency through conservation and local resource development. MWDOC Surcharge Rates As a water wholesaler, MWDOC has the opportunity to assess penalties in many different ways. A number of options were discussed and analyzed with the client MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 16 Item 17. - 245 HB -490- DRAFT agencies and Board Committee members. The key components that helped guide development of a surcharge structure included: • A financial incentive to discourage water usage above a client agency's allocation • A surcharge rate structure that is administratively easy to understand and implement • Surcharge rates that are fair and appropriate during a 'shortage From these components and input received from both the MWDOC Board and the client agencies, a melded surcharge rate structure was recommended. This was mainly due to its "region-wide" style approach and similar structure to other MWDOC rates and charges. MWDOC Surcharge Rate Structure—At the end of the allocation year, MWDOC would charge a surcharge to each client agency that exceeded their allocation. This surcharge would be assessed according to the client agency's prorated share (acre-feet over usage) of MWDOC surcharge amount with MET. Below is an example of how this surcharge rate structure would apply: Under the melded surcharge rate structure, client agencies will only be assessed penalties if MWDOC exceeds its total allocation and is required to pay a surcharge to MET. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 17 HB -491- Item 17. - 246 DRAFT MWDOC Billing During the allocation period, MWDOC billing will remain the same. Only at the end of the twelve-month allocation period will MWDOC calculate each member agency's total potable water use based on the local supply certification and MWDOC allocation model and determine which agencies exceeded their annual allocation. From those agencies that exceeded their allocation, MWDOC will assess surcharge rates according to the melded surcharge rate structure on their next water invoice. Understanding that the penalties can be significant to a retail agency, MET and MWDOC will allow payment of these penalties to be spread over three monthly billing periods. Therefore, a third of the penalties will be applied each month to the agency's water invoice over a three-month period MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 18 Item 17. - 247 xB -492- DRAFT Tracking and Reporting In preparing for allocations, it is important to track the amount of water the region and each client agency is using monthly. This data is important to help MWDOC and client agencies project their annual usage, evaluate their current demands, and avoid any over usage that will result in allocation penalties. MWDOC will provide water use monthly reports upon request or when necessary that will compare each client agency's current cumulative imported usage to their allocation target (Based off historical monthly percentages of imported usage). In addition, MWDOC will provide quarterly reports on its cumulative retail usage compared to its allocation baseline. To develop these reports, MWDOC will need to work closely with each client agency to get their local supply data on a monthly basis. This data will not only be used by MWDOC to track monthly usage, but also by MET to assess MWDOC's total projected water demands. Below in Figure 5.2 is an example of the type of monthly report MWDOC will provide to each client agency during the allocation period. Figure 5.2 Example of a Client Agency's Monthly Usage Report ._—. -- .. Cumulative Imported Water Usage vs.Allocation Target YTD Imported Water Usage vs.Allocation Tar et 6,000 6,0D0 5,500 .�' S DDO « 4,500 _ v. 4,OD0 WSAP Level Gmk I < 3,500 30D0 3'DD0 ,PWSAF Z,50D 2,000 Yam.' 2,000 1,500 1000 1 DOD a - SDO D b 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN a Target Actual =Actual -,3-Target MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 19 HB -493- Item 17. - 248 DRAFT Key Dates for Implementation If a regional shortage is declared, the allocation period will cover twelve consecutive months, e.g. July 1st of a given year through June 30. Barring unforeseen large-scale circumstances, the Regional Shortage Level will be set for the entire allocation period, which will provide the client agencies an established water supply shortage allocation amount. Figure 5.3 Illustrates the Metropolitan timeline for allocations during a two year period. Figure 5.3: Metropolitan Water District Adopted Allocation Timeline s. Y.F+1!01, A a Z a 8 ' � E ' "� � Yea Board1f ear. E YearIlO OF � � Boar Year � Allocation A"l77 do I � Aloca#�onb �Allocat10r�Yearij ecision dear OF Mtll January Febn#ary March AP re Dei ciaratiaia,1 May � dune_ W July J September G , *, November y r December; IF- January February March ut �.• . Aprt# : Q_: � Declaration N May W July �- August Assess Penalties', .; September Octgber Y=J 4 November 3- '0ecernber.. ri ao January c� 'February z� � March A, , Q � , W May gr . MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 20 Item 17. - 249 xB -494- DRAFT It is important to note that MWDOC does not anticipate calling for allocation unless the MET Board declares a shortage through it WSAP, and no later than 30 days from MET's declaration will MWDOC announce allocation to its client agencies. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 21 xB -495- Item 17. - 250 DRAFT Revisiting the Plan Calculating the amount of imported water each client agency receives during a water shortage is not an easy task. The key objective in developing this allocation plan is to ensure that a proper and fair distribution of water is given to each client agency. However, due to the complexity of this issue and the potential for unforeseen circumstances that may occur during an allocation year, MWDOC offers the opportunity to review and refine components of this plan where deemed necessary. The MWDOC staff and client agencies have the opportunity to revisit the plan and offer any recommendations to the MWDOC Board that will improve the method, calculation, and approach of this plan. MET has a similar process which will allow opportunity to review their plan when deemed necessary. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 22 Item 17. - 251 HB -496- DRAFT Appendix A List of Acronyms: AF-Acre-feet M&I- Municipal and Industrial MET-Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SWRCB-State Water Resources Control Board WSAP-Water Supply Allocation Plan Definitions: Extraordinary Increases in Production: water production efforts that increase local supplies during an allocation year such as purchasing water transfers. Groundwater Recovery: The extraction and treatment of groundwater making it usable for a variety of applications by removing high levels of chemicals and/or salts. In-lieu deliveries: MET-supplied water bought to replace water that would otherwise be pumped from the groundwater basin. Overproducing groundwater yield: Withdrawal (removal) of groundwater over a period of time that exceeds the recharge rate of the supply aquifer. Also referred to as overdraft or mining the aquifer. Seawater Barrier: The injection of water into wells along the coast to protect the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion. The injected water acts like a wall, blocking seawater that would otherwise migrate into groundwater basins as a result of pumping inland. MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 23 HB -497- Item 17. - 252 DRAFT Appendix B Metropolitan's Draft Water Supply Allocation Plan MET Final Water Supply Allocation PI MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 24 Item 17. - 253 xB -498- Appendix C MWDOC Growth Adjustment Table per Client Agency Population of MWDOC Retail Water Agencies Water Agency Avg of 2013 &2014 Jan-13 Jan-14 Brea 41,129` . 42;181 41,655' Buena Park ,82, 53" 82,364 82,209 East Orange CWD Retail Zone 1,233_ 3,247 ` 3,240 El Toro WD 48,453- 48,628 48,541 Fountain Valley 57,129 57,590 57,360 Garden Grove 175,096'' 175,873 175,485 Golden State Water Company 167,779 168,561 168,170 Huntington Beach 193,873 196,0141 194,957 Irvine Ranch WD 357,781 369,724 ' 363,753 La Habra 60,989 61,455 61,222 La Palma 15,890 15,946 , 15,918 Laguna Beach CWD includ. Emerald Bay Service District 20,130 20,204 20,167 Mesa Water 105,779' '106,152- 105,966 Moulton Niguel WD 168,301 169;405 ` 168,853 Newport Beach 65,404 65,551 65,478 Orange 137,814 138,182 137,998 San Clemente 50,757 50,960 50,859 San Juan Capistrano 37,943 38,491 38,217 Santa Margarita WD 182,245 153,358 152,802 Seal Beach 23,543 23,618 23,581r Serrano WD 6,408 6,437 6,423 South Coast WD 34,672 34,816= 34,744 ' Trabuco Canyon WD 12,58$ 12,640'''' 12,614 Tustin 67,445 ,.67,700 67,573 Westminster 92;939'X 93.322_' 93,131 Yorba Linda WD 73,378 73,990 ' 73,684 Total of MWDOC Agencies 2,252,751 2,276,436' 2,264,594 Source:Center for Demographic Research,CSU Fullerton, December 2014- CDR's estimates were based on the 2010 Census. Water agency counts were made for the actual area served,which may be different than the political boundary. Numbers are tied to the State Dept. of Finance numbers for total population of Orange County. I�B _4y9_ Item 17. - 254 DRAFT Growth Avg Growth, Water Agency trorn 2012� %2013 to to 2013 to 2014 2014 Brea 13°ado 2 56,b 1.84°l0 X. ; Buena Park 62/, 0 38%"°�� 0.50% East Orange CWD Retail Zone 0 56% 0 43%` 0.50% El Toro WD {)5610` f,0.36°l0' 0.46% Fountain Valley 0 71�/0 ;.0.81°Jo 0.76% Garden Grove 0 19°0< „0.44°/a U20% Golden State Water Company 0.8 °�0' �0.47%'` 0.67% Huntington Beach 0 61% i1.12% 0.87% Irvine Ranch WD 2,68°lo'` 3.34% 3.01% La Habra 0.53% 0.76% 0.65% La Palma 0:75%A 0.35°la?' 0.55% Laguna Beach CWD includ. Emerald Bay Service District O.fiO°�o`` Q.137% ` 0.48% Mesa Water 0 58% 6 35°l0 0.47°l0 Moulton Niguel WD 0 780!°, 0.66°l0 U2%. Newport Beach 0 51% "`0.22% ; 0,37% Orange0 59�Jo 0 27°10 0.43% San Clemente 0.55 0.406'To 0.48% San Juan Capistrano 0$9alo1.44°I° 1.17°l0 Santa Margarita WD 0.5560 °0 73W� 0.64% Seal Beach 0.5191% Q.32% 0.45% Serrano WD 0 60% 0,45°l%„: 0.52% _ South Coast WD 0.61% 0.42°Ion`' 0.51% Trabuco Canyon WD 0.55°l0 0.41W" 0.48% Tustin 0 63%'; 0 38% 0.50% Westminster 0.64%, 041°l0'"-' 0.53% Yorba Linda WD1.11°fo '� 0.83°l0"`: 0.97% Total of MWDOC Agencies 0.95a/o 1.050,0 1.00°Io MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan - Revised 2016 Page 26 Item 17. - 255 xB - 00- Appendix D MWDOC Conservation Hardening Credit Table per Client Agency Member Agency GPCD GPCD for Change in AF Savings Baseline 2014 GPCD Brea 288.58 246.61 41.97 1,983 Buena Park 199.59 165.57 34.02 3,138 East Orange CWD includ. Tustin 196.19 170.20 25.99 2,065 El Toro WD 214.96 185.54 29.42 1,748 Fountain Valley 192.48 184.64 7.84 506 Garden Grove 166.11 133.16 32.95 6,491 Golden State Water Company 175.11 146.27 28.84 5,445 Huntington Beach 163.73 141.79 21.94 4,818 Irvine Ranch WD 304.13 244.30 59.83 24,778 La Habra 160.60 150.19 10.41 717 La Palma 154.88 123.75 31.13 556 Laguna Beach CWD includ. EBSD 203.74 173.46 30.28 685 Mesa WD 191.25 166.35 24.90 2,961 Moulton Niguel WD 236.66 194.91 41.75 7,922 Newport Beach 258.85 239.36 19.49 1,431 Orange 231.08 210.84 20.24 3,134 San Clemente 198.09 178.51 19.58 1,118 San Juan Capistrano 236.93 206.65 30.28 1,306 Santa Margarita WD 235.06 201.77 33.29 5,719 Seal Beach 157.34 147.07 10.27 272 Serrano WD 485.61 468.88 16.73 121 South Coast WD 205.86 196.91 8.95 349 Trabuco Canyon WD 314.13 270.88 43.25 612 Tustin 191.31 164.21 27.10 2,055 Westminster 145.76 120.75 25.01 2,614 Yorba Linda WD 299.73 272.75 26.98 2,236 [`] The "GPCD Baseline" is the highest Ten-year average from 2004 to present, and includes Recycled water in order to normalize the conservation savings Source: MWDOC 20% by 2020 OC Regional Alliance Model updated in 2014 WSAP GPCD.pdf HB -501- Item 17. - 256 POARCAD& Designs Consu f--e-r ltancy and 6uittassets Arcadis U.S., Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3650 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel 213 486 9884 Fax 213 486 9894 i"m.arcadis.corn Item 17. - 257 HB ->o-- Res. No. 2016-38 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on June 20, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Posey, O'Connell, Sullivan, Katapodis, Hardy, Delgleize, Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None & City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California