Direct Potable Reuse
Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) refers to the use of advanced treated municipal recycled water as a direct supply before or after a conventional water treatment plant. DPR does not require an environmental buffer. There are two distinct forms of DPR: raw water augmentation, and treated drinking water augmentation. Currently, there are no permitted DPR projects in California. The report to the Legislature on DPR feasibility is complete (December 2016). In addition, SWRCB issued a framework for regulating DPR (1st edition April 2018, 2nd edition August 2019).
Raw Water Augmentation
Raw Water Augmentation (RWA) refers to the use of advanced treated wastewater as a direct supply before a conventional water treatment plant. Metropolitan is considering RWA as part of the Regional Recycled Water Program. This DPR option would involve delivery of advanced treated water upstream of the Weymouth and/or Diemer water treatment plants.
Treated Water Augmentation
Treated Water Augmentation means the planned placement of recycled water into the water distribution system of a public water system.
Technical and Economic Issues of Recycled Water
Recycled water use is growing rapidly in Metropolitan’s service area. Further expansion depends on progress in research, regulatory change, public acceptance, water quality issues, cost, operational issues, and conflicting institutional objectives. Each of these challenges, as well as opportunities for recycled water use, lessons learned, and recommendations to enhance the development of recycled water, is discussed below.
Challenges
Lengthy and Variable Permitting Process
The SWRCB established the Recycled Water Policy (Policy). This Policy requires the SWRCB and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) to encourage the use of recycled water, consistent with state and federal water quality laws. The Policy provides additional direction to the Regional Boards on appropriate criteria to be used in regulating Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-61
recycled water projects. The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and the nine Regional Boards are responsible for setting the rules and permitting for recycled water projects. The timeline and roadmap for getting a permit are challenging and inconsistently implemented in different regions of the state. Limited history and technical information (e.g., on DPR) to inform regulations and limited staffing at DDW and other agencies have challenged the ability to propose, revise, and adopt new regulations in a timely manner. Agencies planning and designing DPR and IPR projects face delays because of regulatory uncertainty. In addition, many project proponents seeking grant or loan funding have identified lengthy CEQA review as a challenge.
IPR projects face regulatory constraints such as treatment, blend water, retention time, and Basin Plan Objectives, which are the designated uses assigned by the SWRCB and which may limit how much recycled water can feasibly be recharged into the groundwater basins. For example, the Basin Plan Objective for TDS of a particular basin may be lower than the quality of the tertiary water effluent available, resulting in the need for more blended water or advanced levels of treatment. These treatment requirements impact the economic feasibility of a project.
Public Perception/Conflicting Messaging
Public acceptance of recycled water is critical in implementing water reuse projects, especially potable reuse projects. In the past, public opposition halted a number of recycled water projects, citing concerns about the source of the water and resulting water quality.
The public does not have a clear understanding of the difference between non-potable reuse, IPR, and DPR. The public is most familiar with non-potable reuse as they see recycled water in use at parks, golf courses, schools, and other large landscapes. Signage for non-potable reuse projects at parks, schools, and golf courses that read, “Using recycled water; do not drink” can adversely affect the public’s acceptance of DPR and IPR even though IPR has been used in some areas for over 50 years.
With effective outreach, public understanding and acceptance of potable reuse have improved. Projects such as Orange County’s Groundwater Replenishment System conduct tours and presentations to thousands of people, raising awareness of the project, addressing water quality concerns that may be associated with recycling wastewater, and gaining support.
Metropolitan’s Regional Recycled Water Program also involves extensive outreach to the communities impacted by the program.
Education and public outreach are still needed. Any water reuse effort must include public engagement to build awareness of the project and acceptance of recycled water as a new supply.
Cost
Cost, including up-front capital and ongoing operation and maintenance, remains a concern to recycled water development for some agencies. The cost for expanding recycled water distribution systems remains a significant consideration to full implementation of non-potable reuse projects, as these projects require pipelines connecting the treatment plants and the individual users. Some non-potable reuse and IPR projects and all DPR projects require advanced treatment facilities, which are comparatively expensive. Advanced treatment may also require additional concentrate disposal facilities (e.g., a brine line) and extensive infrastructure for injection wells/spreading facilities, or for delivery of the product water to a spreading ground, surface reservoir, or water treatment plant for potable uses. Ultimately, end users play a very important role for recycled water advancement. Site conversion costs (borne by the customer) and additional conveyance infrastructure for new customers can also be significant considerations in reaching full non-potable reuse project capacity. Some agencies 3-62 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
may be challenged with cash flow issues or inability to secure the funding needed to implement projects.
In addition, with the increasing prospect of statewide regulations, some agencies pursuing IPR may be hesitant to extend their existing distribution system for non-potable reuse projects for fear of stranded facilities. Similarly, some agencies pursuing DPR may delay their planned indirect potable reuse projects to prevent stranded distribution facilities.3 Source Control and Effluent Water Quality Needs
Source water quality and flow control is essential to help safeguard the water recycling treatment process and the end use of the water by placing controls on the type, timing, and amount of wastewater that comes into the plant. A good source control program limits wastewater treatment plant disruptions and ensures treatment processes are capable of handling spikes in volume, industrial influent, and high salinity influent. When it comes to the treatment process, recycled water policy requires that the effluent meets certain water quality standards. Salt and nutrient management plans protect groundwater beneficial uses and prevent excess degradation, which may limit expanded IPR applications if the agency does not have funds for advanced treatment to remove salts to meet the Basin Plan Objectives. In some cases, existing source control plans may need to be updated to deal with constituents of emerging concern and with more stringent needs of the users.
Source water quality for non-potable reuse can be affected by drought patterns in Southern California. Drought years with low State Water Project allocations will increase potable water salinity and, as a result, increases the salinity of source water for water reclamation plants. High salinity in wastewater decreases the viability of recycled water for irrigation uses and may also cause NPDES discharge violations for local agencies.
Water use efficiency helps conserve water, but also incidentally reduces wastewater volume resulting in an increase in the concentration of wastewater. As a result, additional treatment is needed, which increases operation and maintenance costs of the system. Source water quality is especially important for implementing IPR and DPR projects to protect potable water systems.
Operational Issues
While each agency is different, it is important to recognize the possible operational issues that may occur with the use of recycled water, including:
• Reduction in wastewater flows due to ongoing conservation and drought • Lack of seasonal storage to address diurnal and seasonal demands; construction of storage facilities may be needed for flow equalization
• Concentrate disposal needs
• Environmental flow or stream discharge requirements may limit the ability to deliver recycled water during high demand periods
• Regulatory issues such as blend requirements and water quality objectives may impact the effectiveness of IPR
• Need for multiple barriers to ensure recycled water quality and for monitoring techniques that provide feedback in real-time to respond to plant disruptions, especially with DPR projects • Need for additional operator training and certification 3 Indirect potable reuse projects usually require injection wells or a distribution system to a surface reservoir or recharge basin, and may also require improvements to a surface reservoir, recharge basin, or treatment facility.
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-63
Opportunities
Progress Towards New Regulatory Process
The State of California has made progress in developing permit standards that provide opportunities to expand recycled water use.
In December 2018, the State Recycled Water Policy was amended to further encourage use of recycled water from municipal wastewater, promote standardized state-wide implementation, and provide directions for Regional Boards, proponents, and the public when issuing permits. The amended policy included standardized annual reporting requirements and updated recycled water categories for better tracking. The Policy also included baseline monitoring requirements for emerging contaminants.
Non-potable reuse: The SWRCB adopted a general permit (Order WQ 2016-0068) for most nonpotable beneficial reuse of treated municipal wastewater in June 2016. The permit provides an opportunity for non-potable reuse projects to come online sooner with standardized conditions and conditionally delegated authority for an Administrator to manage a local water recycling program. Revisions to the Recycled Water Policy in 2018 further standardized statewide implementation requiring most regional non-potable reuse permits be moved to the statewide general permit.
On-site treated non-potable water systems legislation (SB 996, Chaptered September 2018), requires the SWRCB to adopt risk-based water quality regulations by December 1, 2022. The legislation also requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances and requires treatment systems to comply with adopted water quality standards.
IPR and DPR: The SWRCB adopted uniform water recycling criteria for IPR for groundwater recharge in June 2014 and reservoir (surface water) water augmentation in March 2018. The SWRCB is facing a December 31, 2023 deadline from AB 574 to develop regulations for DPR through raw water augmentation. AB 574 also requires the establishment and administration of a science advisory panel to provide DPR guidance and assurance of protection of public health.
Per the State's August 2019 DPR framework, the State will be developing a regulatory package for both treated and raw water augmentations concurrently.
Metropolitan continues to work with the WateReuse Association and other agencies on legislative and regulatory issues to streamline permitting processes and to provide needed funding and support for increased use of recycled water.
New Funding Opportunities
Proposition 1 provided $625 million for water recycling projects. Grants and loans for planning and construction are administered through the SWRCB’s Water Recycling Funding Program. An additional $100 million was available through DWR for desalination.
Proposition 13, approved by voters is 2000, is also used to fund grants and loans for planning and construction of recycled water projects. Repayment of low-interest loans from previous projects allows limited funding from this program to continue.
Proposition 68, approved by the voters in 2018, provided $72 million in grants and loans for recycled water planning and construction activities. The remaining funding has been committed by the SWRCB for disadvantaged community projects. The SWRCB has committed to spend the remaining available Prop 1 and Prop 68 funding on approved projects on the FY 2020-21 Intended Use Plan.
3-64 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides low-interest loans to public agencies for planning, design, and construction of water recycling projects. There is currently a substantial backlog of CWSRF projects on the FY20-21 Intended Use Plan (~$7 billion) that could limit the number of new projects approved over the next several years.
The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2014. The program is similar to the State Revolving Fund programs like the CWSRF program but is intended to provide federally subsidized low-interest loans for up to 49 percent of large regional projects.
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program was established in 1992 and provides grant funding up to 25 percent of project costs or $20 million for selected projects in the western U.S.
Title XVI requires projects be either congressionally authorized or competitively selected after USBR approval of a feasibility study.
In 2014, Metropolitan increased the financial incentives under its LRP for agencies to develop recycled water. Metropolitan also established the On-site Retrofit Pilot Program to provide rebates to customers that convert their irrigation and industrial system from potable water to recycled water. In addition, Metropolitan established the Reimbursable Services Program to provide technical and construction assistance to its member agencies for local project development. Under this program, Metropolitan advances funds and is reimbursed by the agency.
Improving Public Perception
Recent droughts have heightened water awareness in the region and have provided momentum for water conservation and reuse. The public is more willing to accept alternative supplies such as recycled water. Extensive public outreach and education have also helped improve the public’s perception of recycled water. Public sharing of information, open door stakeholder meetings, and focus groups have been very effective at distributing information and addressing public concerns. Case studies and demonstration projects are used to educate and improve public acceptance of recycled water.
Agencies are working together to share best practices for public outreach, create consistent messaging, simplify water reuse terminology, and ensure effective communications with the public. One such group is the WateReuse California Communications Collaborative Group, which provides a forum to discuss and collaborate on water reuse communications. The group offers resources for communications professionals, including a terminology document to provide consistent and simple water reuse terminology, for use with the public.
New Technologies, Research, and Information Sharing
New technologies, research, and information sharing greatly enhance the development of recycled water. Programs such as Metropolitan’s Future Supply Actions (FSA) Funding Program focus on technical studies and pilot projects that reduce barriers to future local production.
Projects under this program include optimizing new treatment techniques for recycled water, exploring new monitoring methodologies, and testing innovative brine concentration technology. In addition to the technical portions of this program, the FSA Funding Program supports collaboration between agencies and regional sharing of information.
Metropolitan is also conducting cutting-edge research at the Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification Center. The demonstration facility is testing the effectiveness of membrane bioreactors followed by reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection/advanced oxidation in the advanced water treatment process. During testing, Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts are analyzing water quality for removal of various contaminants, especially Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-65
microorganisms. The agencies are also working closely with state regulators and an independent scientific advisory panel to oversee the work. Once regulators approve the process, it may be used throughout California. Additional research on membrane bioreactors and potential purification processes to address raw water augmentation are also planned at the demonstration facility. The studies will help further potable reuse in California and across the globe.
Research is especially critical in advancing new water supply options, such as DPR. WateReuse, in partnership with other agencies (including Metropolitan), is leading the California Direct Potable Reuse Initiative 4 to advance DPR as a water supply option in California and to address regulatory, utility, and community concerns. WateReuse’s report Direct Potable Reuse: A Path Forward 5 provides an overview of DPR and identifies research needs.
Regional studies can also examine the needs of multi-jurisdictional areas and foster communication among agencies to promote the use of recycled water. For example, sharing regional information such as GIS data can identify areas of recycled water surpluses and needs.
Partnerships
Drinking water, wastewater, and groundwater management agencies share some common objectives, including access to source water, cost minimization, and protection of the environment. Many agencies are successfully cooperating and developing recycled water projects. These partnerships can allow sanitation districts to reduce the cost of disposing treated wastewater in the ocean, reduce impacts to the marine environment, and provide a source of reclaimed water to water agencies for recycling. At the same time, groundwater basin management agencies could be the recipients of final recycled water, helping maintain or increase groundwater levels.
Lessons Learned
There have been many success stories on recycled water development. Focusing on public outreach and education has improved public perception. Partnerships and joint efforts among water and wastewater agencies proved to be an effective way to remove barriers and make progress. Numerous studies and research funded by federal, state, and local agencies are benefitting local and regional efforts.
Public Outreach is Important
Public outreach and education have helped improve the public’s perception of recycled water.
Both experience and research have shown that when the public is informed and takes part in the decision-making process, they will likely accept and support recycled water as a new supply in their community.
Water shortages raise awareness for alternate ways to conserve. As a result, the public is more willing to accept alternative supplies such as recycled water, support the more expensive projects, and tolerate rate increases. Potable reuse projects throughout Southern California are advancing due to this increased public awareness and support. Non-potable reuse is also increasing. Some residential property owners are interested in using recycled water for watering plants to help with the drought. For example, residents have access to recycled water from “residential recycled water fill stations” in the Irvine Ranch Water District. Programs like these improve public acceptance of recycled water, increase recycled water use, and conserve potable supplies.
4 https://www.watereuse.org/foundation/research/direct potable reuse-Initiative 5 https://www.watereuse.org/product/direct-potable-reuse-path-forward 3-66 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Standard practice for water reuse projects now includes robust outreach. Many projects dedicate considerable resources towards public engagement. For example, Metropolitan’s Regional Recycled Water Program features a learning center at its demonstration facility to provide a platform for public outreach. The facility and learning center are used to conduct tours, introducing the public to the program and potential new source of water.
Additional Funding is Needed
LRP incentives and onsite retrofit program funding have increased use of recycled water in the region by almost 200 percent. However, incentives alone may not be enough to spur project development - capital funding is also necessary because the LRP pays for project performance; in other words, it provides funding after a project begins operation. Metropolitan increased its LRP incentive rate in 2014, and also offers three options for an agency to receive funding.
Agencies select the option that allows the project to receive incentives when they are needed, recognizing the higher costs borne by the agency and lower cost recovery at the start of operation. Although available construction funding for recycled water projects has increased under Proposition 1, projects generally still require a 50 percent local match. One source of funding is typically not enough to fund a recycled water project.
Partnerships Can Be Successful
History shows us that partnerships among agencies help advance use of recycled water and provide tangible benefits to each participating agency. A good example of partnerships working well is the agreement between Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District. This partnership began in the 1970s, when OCWD built the Water Factory 21 to produce recycled water to mitigate seawater intrusion in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Twenty years later, the two agencies decided to jointly build the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) recycled water project. The GWRS is the largest planned IPR facility in the world with a current capacity of 100 TAF per year and future expansion to 130 TAF per year.
Other examples of cooperation between agencies to further recycled water use include partnerships between the city of Los Angeles and West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin Water Recycling Program), the City of Los Angeles and the City of Burbank (North Hollywood Water Recycling Project), City of Long Beach and the Water Replenishment District (Alamitos Barrier Water Recycling Project), and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Central Basin Municipal Water District (Century and Rio Hondo Water Recycling Project).
In addition, Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts have been in partnership since 2009 to develop a regional recycled water project for groundwater replenishment and raw water augmentation. The Regional Recycled Water Program (RRWP) would produce up to 150 MGD of purified water from the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant in Carson. As a first step toward full implementation, Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts cooperated to complete the Advanced Purification Center in 2019. The Advanced Purification Center is a 0.5 million gallon per day demonstration facility that will generate information needed for the potential future construction of a full-scale recycled water facility. It uses a unique application of membrane bioreactors designed to significantly increase efficiency in water recycling. Scientists and engineers will test the process, utilizing full-scale treatment modules, to ensure the resulting purified water meets the highest water quality standards. Once approved by regulators, this innovative process could be used throughout California and even applied around the globe.
Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts are continuing to move forward with the program, to enhance their partnership and begin the next phase of the program. Metropolitan’s Board approved proceeding with the environmental planning phase of the project in November 2020.
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-67
Metropolitan is also in partnership with many other organizations to collaborate on this program.
Potential recipients of the water, such as groundwater basin managers and member agencies, are partners. The Southern Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Project and Arizona Department of Water Resources are also partners, collaborating on how the project could support Colorado River water use. Metropolitan is also partnering with LADWP to work together to develop recycled water. LADWP’s Operation Next Program to reuse wastewater from Hyperion is also a key project in development and could provide a potable supply for the region.
Water Industry Organizations and Regional Collaboration Help Advance Recycled Water Recent advancements to recycled water development are due, in large part, to cooperation and collaboration among water and sanitation districts, as well as other water industry organizations. Historically, the WateReuse Association was one of the main advocates for recycled water development in the state. Their activities initially focused on permitting issues, public outreach/education, conferences for information sharing, and research related to recycled water. As recycled water became a core resource for water and wastewater agencies, they started to ramp up their activities to help advance recycled water and utilized partnerships with academia along with other trade organizations such as the Association of California Water Agencies, California Urban Water Agencies, WateReuse Association, and California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Professional organizations such as American Water Works Association are another vehicle to promote recycled water through research, technical seminars, and operator training and certification. These organizations have proven to be effective in promoting regional collaboration on research and leveraging resources. Recently, the Southern California Water Coalition (SCWC) has launched the Recycled Water Task Force with the goal of addressing barriers, gaining acceptance, and educating stakeholders on recycled water.
Recommendations
Explore Opportunities to Improve Permitting Process
• Streamline and simplify water recycling regulations with uniform administration consistent with operations, public health, and the environment
• Support legislation and regulation that expand the types of recycled water uses consistent with the protection of public health and help achieve the state’s recycled water goal • Convene a forum to discuss projects, permitting, and treatment technologies Improve Public Education and Awareness of Water Recycling • Continue to pursue unified, consistent messaging
• Consider updating signage for non-potable reuse, expanding residential fill stations, and other public outreach strategies to further advance public acceptance of recycled water • Use demonstration facilities and learning centers like the Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification Center to educate the public and key stakeholders about recycled water
Explore Various Investment Strategies, Such as Incentives, Ownership, and Partnerships • Promote collaboration among stakeholders and agencies to facilitate implementation of recycled water projects in California
3-68 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
• Promote development of new financing to increase water recycling, advance research in science and technology, assess health effects, develop additional regional planning, and study innovative technologies
• Explore the development of recycled water partnerships or ownership • Pursue the RRWP as a showcase of recycled water development • Consider additional end user programs to replace potable water systems with recycled water • Collaborate on pursuing grant funding
Consider Joint Technical Studies and Projects
• Explore integration approaches
• Investigate programs for the development of new technologies, such as comprehensive realtime monitoring devices and techniques that improve water quality and ensure public health, and maintain public confidence
• Study opportunities to protect or improve the quality of wastewater source supplies, as well as optimizing wastewater treatment for use in potable reuse applications • Explore development of a regional study to help identify opportunities for seasonal storage • Advance research that supports timely development of DPR regulations in California Groundwater Recovery
All Southern California groundwater basins experience varying degrees of water quality challenges as a result of urban and agricultural uses. The accumulation of high-salinity water and degradation from volatile organics are two common constraints to the economic use of groundwater for urban applications. In some cases, the threat of increased salt buildup can also complicate conjunctive use of groundwater basins and imported supplies.
Use of degraded groundwater normally requires high levels of treatment. Membrane processes used to recover the majority of severely degraded water have a high capital cost and incur a high operational cost for power. Once treated, however, recovered groundwater may be integrated into potable water systems. Metropolitan initiated its Groundwater Recovery Program (GRP) in 1991 to encourage local agencies to treat and use degraded groundwater for municipal purposes. The GRP was open to all technologies that recovered and used degraded groundwater. The GRP was retired in 1998 and folded into Metropolitan’s LRP.
Seawater Desalination
The constant availability of ocean water regardless of weather or climate is one of the key benefits of seawater desalination. Countries with arid or Mediterranean climates and/or growing populations with developing economies have embraced seawater desalination as a drought and climate resistant option for meeting water needs. In the past 20 years, water agencies in Australia, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, China, Israel, and other countries throughout the middle east have implemented large-scale seawater desalination plants in response to droughts and to meet growing demands. Within Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, the City of Santa Barbara, and communities on Catalina Island have supplemented their water supplies with seawater desalination.
Seawater desalination projects provide unique benefits as part of a diversified water resource portfolio. In California, they also present unique development challenges compared to other alternative resources. Table 3-10 provides a summary of the primary benefits and challenges:
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-69
Table 3-10
Summary of Benefits and Challenges of Seawater Desalination Projects Benefits Challenges
• Highly reliable potable supply resistant to
weather variations and climate change
• Low salinity, high-quality resource improves
supply blends and supports reuse
• Locally controlled
• Does not affect and is not affected by
upstream or downstream water rights –
truly a new supply
• Located near coastal population centers
• Supports Southern California’s desalination
industry cluster and innovation centers
• Expensive compared to many alternative
existing supplies and some new alternative
supplies
• Potential marine life impacts
• Local community and environmental
opposition
• Permitting uncertainty and development
risk
• Energy intensive and thus increased
exposure to energy rate uncertainty
• Demand risk in wet years
Metropolitan and its member agencies have been considering seawater desalination as a potential new supply source since the 1960s. Up until the 1990s, seawater desalination was considered expensive compared to other resource alternatives, especially imported water.
Advances in membrane technology, energy recovery, and process design in the 1990s lowered desalination costs compared to other new supply alternatives.
By the early 2000s, several member agencies began pursuing local projects to diversify their resource portfolios. In 2001, Metropolitan created an incentive program, the Seawater Desalination Program (SDP), to support these projects. Soon after, the Board approved Metropolitan’s role as a regional facilitator for seawater desalination with the purpose of assisting the member agencies with state and regional development issues. Metropolitan signed SDP agreements with Long Beach, MWDOC and West Basin in 2006. In 2014, Metropolitan merged seawater desalination projects into the LRP to promote development of additional local supplies in the region. Metropolitan’s SDP agreements with the three member agencies expired in June 2020.
In order to protect California’s coastal and marine resources, seawater desalination projects in the State must meet stringent environmental regulations. Relevant regulations include the California Ocean Plan and Marine Life Protected Area restrictions. Additionally, projects located near coastal generating stations are affected by the California’s Once Through Cooling regulations. Each of these is discussed below:
Ocean Plan Regulations
In May 2015, the SWRCB updated California’s Ocean Plan with regulations for new seawater desalination projects. The regulations include requirements for ocean water intakes, outfalls, brine discharges, mitigation, monitoring and permitting. Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for implementing the regulations and have broad powers over project design elements.
3-70 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Marine Life Protected Areas
In 2011, the California DFW adopted a system of 50 Marine Life Protected Areas (MLPAs) covering approximately 15 percent of Southern California’s coastline6. MLPAs are defined zones along the coast where certain commercial and recreational activities are restricted. Most construction and operational activities associated with seawater desalination are prohibited in MLPAs with the exception of certain types of subsurface intakes. MLPAs are located along the Channel Islands, the mainland coast, and locations surrounding the Channel Islands. The MLPA network includes areas near planned seawater desalination projects. In October 2020, Governor Newsom announced a 30 percent by 2030 initiative. The initiative calls for preserving 30 percent of the California’s lands and coastal waters by 2030. Implementation of the initiative may increase MLPAs within Southern California’s coastal waters and could affect potential sites for seawater desalination projects. Additional MLPAs may also provide marine life mitigation opportunities for potential projects.
Once-Through Cooling Regulations
Prior to the revised Ocean Plan regulations, the SWRCB in 2010 adopted regulations requiring coastal power plants to phase out the use of once-through-cooling (the use of seawater to cool generators in a single-pass system) by 2030. As once-through-cooling is phased out, many of the environmental and operational benefits of co-locating seawater desalination projects with coastal power plants have been diminished. However, coastal power plants remain attractive sites for development due to the presence of coastal-dependent industrial zoned land, power infrastructure, and the potential to repurpose existing infrastructure.
Changed Conditions
The status of locally planned projects changes from year to year. Metropolitan periodically surveys its member agencies for planned projects to coordinate local supply projections and plans. Recent changes in long-term strategies, regulations, and funding priorities could provide new opportunities to develop these resources.
Recycled Water
Several recent state policies and adopted codes help recycled water development as described below.
SWRCB adopted the State Recycled Water Policy (Policy) in February 2009 after several years of negotiation and amended it in 2013 to include the monitoring and analytical requirements for constituents of emerging concern (CEC). The Policy supports the SWRCB Strategic Plan to promote sustainable local water supplies and establishes a mandate to increase the use of recycled water in California by 1 MAF per year over 2002 levels (approximately 525 TAF) by 2020 and by an additional 3 MAF per year by 2030. The Policy is organized into recycled water goals, roles of agencies, salt and nutrient management plans, landscape irrigation, groundwater replenishment, anti-degradation, emerging constituents, and recycled water incentives.
SWRCB’s General Permit for Recycled Water Use was adopted June 4, 2014, in response to the Governor’s drought declaration and to facilitate the use of recycled water to offset potable water demands. Coverage is available to most treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses, but specifically excludes groundwater replenishment. Monitoring for CECs is not required for non-potable uses. Application of recycled water for irrigation sites is limited to agronomic rates.
6 http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network/Southern-California Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-71
On November 18, 2009, the Building Standards Commission unanimously voted to approve the California Dual Plumbing Code that establishes statewide standards for installing both potable and recycled water plumbing systems in new commercial, retail, and office buildings, theaters, auditoriums, condominiums, schools, hotels, apartments, barracks, dormitories, jails, prisons, and reformatories. The code was adopted January 15, 2010, with an effective date of January 1, 2011.
Assembly Bill 2071 (Levine 2014) directed the SWRCB, in consultation with other agencies, to determine if the voluntary use of disinfected treated recycled water for watering animals would pose a significant risk to the public and animal health. Use of recycled water would be prohibited for dairy animals that are producing items for human consumption. An expert panel provided recommendations in 2018 including source control, ultraviolet light disinfection, and animal health surveys. The SWRCB will require these conditions in proposed projects and update the Title 22 Water Recycling Criteria. Permit conditions for a use of recycled water not addressed by the uniform statewide water recycling criteria shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The SWRCB shall update the uniform statewide criteria for non-potable recycled water uses by January 1, 2023.
Assembly Bill 2282 (Gatto 2014) directed the California Building Standards Commission to adopt mandatory building standards for the installation of recycled water systems for newly constructed commercial and residential buildings in areas where there is access to a water recycling facility.
These standards became effective in July 2018 but were invalidated in 2019 for not complying with the Administrative Procedure Act. The California Building Standards Commission is expected to hold new workshops to address requirements.
Assembly Bill 574 (Quirk 2017) specifies that “direct potable reuse” includes “raw water augmentation” and “treated drinking water augmentation.” The bill also changed the term “surface water augmentation” to “reservoir water augmentation” and redefined that term to mean the planned placement of recycled water into a raw surface water reservoir used as a source of domestic drinking water supply for a public water system or into a constructed system conveying water to such a reservoir. This bill mandates the following: 1) requires the SWRCB, on or before December 31, 2023, to adopt uniform water recycling criteria for DPR through raw water augmentation, 2) requires the SWRCB to establish and administer an expert review panel, and would require the SWRCB, before adopting the uniform water recycling criteria, to submit the proposed criteria to the expert review panel; 3) prohibits the SWRCB from adopting the uniform water recycling criteria until the expert review panel adopts a finding that the proposed criteria would adequately protect public health; 4) allows the SWRCB to extend the date by which the uniform water recycling criteria are to be adopted if certain criteria are met; and 5) authorizes the SWRCB, after it has adopted the initial uniform water recycling criteria, to reconvene or reestablish the expert review panel.
Groundwater Recovery Brine Disposal
The management of existing regional brine lines and the development of new brine line systems will be a critical factor in the continued growth in brackish groundwater desalination. Brine lines will also be applicable for disposing brine from advanced treatment of wastewater for recycled water use. All processes that recover degraded groundwater also produce concentrated waste flows for which disposal can be problematic. Most importantly, membrane processes such as reverse osmosis—the predominant desalting technology used in Southern California—produce significant volumes of brine that can account for about 15 percent of the treated water. In Southern California, brines generated from brackish water desalination are typically disposed through dedicated brine lines to ocean outfalls or sanitary sewers. 3-72 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
The region currently has two operating brine lines: the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI line) and the Calleguas Regional Salinity Management Pipeline. The SARI line collects brine from desalters in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties and discharges to a treatment plant operated by the Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD), with final discharge through the OCSD ocean outfall. A key benefit of the SARI line is that it has allowed inland water agencies to recover impaired groundwater resources which would otherwise be unusable.
A lower portion of the Calleguas Regional Salinity Management Pipeline is in operation while the upper reach is still under construction. The Calleguas Regional Salinity Management Pipeline delivers brine from recycled water plants and groundwater desalination facilities in Ventura County to the ocean.
A third regional line is in the planning phase in San Diego County. The Southern California Salinity Coalition, a coalition of water and wastewater agencies, has advocated for state and federal financial assistance to build these regional brine lines.
Seawater Desalination
Changed conditions for seawater desalination include sustained operations of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination plant, state and federal funding opportunities, and increased permitting uncertainty.
Carlsbad Desalination Project Operations
In 2015, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) started taking delivery of supplies from the Carlsbad Desalination Project (Carlsbad Project). The Carlsbad Project is the largest seawater desalination in the United States with a capacity of 50 MGD, or 56 TAF per year. The SDCWA developed the Carlsbad Project under a Public-Private Partnership with Poseidon Resources Inc. Production from the project is guided by a Water Purchase Agreement which specifies minimum and maximum purchases and also determines the price SDCWA pays for the supplies from the project. The following Table shows production from the Carlsbad Project since 2015.
Table 3-11
Claude Bud Lewis Carlsbad Seawater Desalination
Program Production1
Fiscal Year Ending Production (AF)
2016 27,349
2017 40,421
2018 40,907
2019 46,036
2020 (est.) 43,868
1 Source: SDCWA
State and Federal Funding Opportunities
Several State and Federal funding opportunities exist to promote the development of seawater desalination projects. Within California, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides funding through the Water Desalination Grant Program. DWR taps limited funds for the Grant Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-73
Program from Proposition 1 and in the past from Proposition 50. As of January 2020, the Grant Program has funded over $100 million in grants for 70 projects. The program funds new construction, demonstration projects, and research studies. It also covers brackish water desalination projects. In 2018, DWR converted the program to a continuous application process.
Federal funding for desalination projects includes programs administered by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the Department of Energy (DOE).
USBR promotes desalination through its Desalination and Water Purification Research Program (DWPRP). Under DWPRP, USBR funds research, pilot tests and demonstration projects to improve technologies for desalination and brine management. Program goals include reducing desalination costs, energy use and environmental impacts. USBR operates the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility and other desalination technology testing laboratories as part of the program. Several member agencies have received DWPRP grants for local desalination projects.
The DOE established a new Water-Energy desalination hub called the National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI). NAWI’s focus is to accelerate the development of early-stage desalination technologies in order to lower desalination’s costs and energy use. Led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NAWI is a consortium of national laboratories, university researchers, private companies and water industry stakeholders. DOE is funding NAWI with $100 million over a fiveyear period starting in 2020. While the focus of NAWI is early-stage pre-commercial technologies, water agencies will have opportunities to participate in research projects and pilot tests. Water agencies will also help guide NAWI’s research agenda. Metropolitan joined NAWI in 2020.
Implementation Approach
Local Resources Program
The Local Resources Program (LRP) is the primary tool for Metropolitan to incentivize local resources development. The success of the LRP is due to its adaptability to changed conditions.
Periodically, Metropolitan and its member agencies review and update the LRP in response to water supply conditions.
In October 2018, Metropolitan’s Board authorized an interim program target of 170 TAF since the program target established in 2007 of 174 TAF was nearly subscribed. The executed agreements, in combination with submitted and proposed LRP applications, exceeded the remaining program capacity under the 2007 LRP target. By establishing an interim target, Metropolitan continues to encourage and support development of local supplies. The interim target may be revised upon completion of the 2020 IRP.
On-Site Retrofit Program
Metropolitan continues to explore ways to help increase recycled water use. In order for a site to receive recycled water, the potable water systems must be retrofitted for recycled water use.
In July 2014, to catalyze an increase in recycled water use, Metropolitan established the On-site Retrofit Program to provide financial incentives directly to public or private property owners to convert potable water irrigation or industrial water systems to recycled water service. The goal of this program is to alleviate some of the costs borne by property owners to retrofit their sites.
The program offers a rebate of up $195/AF for five years of estimated water savings, capped at actual retrofit costs. Eligible items include retrofit costs related to project design, permitting, construction, connection fees, and required recycled water signage. The program currently has an annual budget of $2 million and is accepting applications on a first-come, first-served basis until funding is exhausted.
3-74 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Stormwater Pilot Programs
Metropolitan’s 2015 IRP Update called for the development of a diverse resource portfolio through local supply projects – including recycled water, groundwater recovery, seawater desalination, and stormwater capture. Metropolitan has played an active role in the development of those local supplies through different approaches and programs developed over the years. Since 1982, Metropolitan has provided incentives to its member agencies to develop local projects through the LRP. Local stormwater capture projects currently are not funded through the LRP in part due to the need to have a better understanding of the connection between captured stormwater and yield.
In 2018, the SCWC published a white paper that detailed benefits and challenges associated with stormwater development. Although stormwater projects deliver multiple benefits, such as supply yield, flood mitigation, habitat creation, and water quality improvements, some of the main challenges with developing stormwater projects are related to costs, metering, data collection, and water supply yield. The relationship between stormwater capture and yield has not been extensively analyzed. In addition, most projects do not demonstrate a direct link to increased groundwater production or yield. This limits the ability to fully characterize stormwater capture project costs or to quantify the water supply benefit.
To better understand the actual costs and potential benefits associated with stormwater capture, yield, and reuse, Metropolitan developed two Stormwater Pilot Programs. The Direct Use Pilot Program aims to develop costs and benefits associated with capture and direct reuse of stormwater. Under this pilot, projects are required to capture stormwater onsite or through storm drain diversion. In addition, projects must meter both captured and reused stormwater.
The Recharge Pilot Program was initiated to further examine the relationship between stormwater capture and yield. The Recharge Pilot requires participants to measure both stormwater capture and how much of the captured water reaches the primary pumping and subsequently allows for increased groundwater production or yield. Proposed methods for measuring how stored water recharges the primary pumping aquifers must use at least one physical method and one modeling method. This pilot will help collect data to better understand how stormwater recharge affects usable groundwater. Both pilots provide funding for new construction and installation of monitoring equipment. Additionally, both pilots provide funding for collecting three years of monitoring data. The Direct Use Pilot launched in January of 2020 with a $5.0 million budget, while the Recharge Pilot launched shortly after in March 2020, with a budget of $7.5 million.
The data collected from the pilot programs will provide a better understanding of stormwater projects and their performance. Providing funding to offset construction and monitoring costs alleviates a key constraint in project development and the ability to quantify stormwater volumes. Furthermore, the data collected from the pilot programs will help evaluate the water supply benefits delivered by stormwater projects and provide a basis for potential future funding approaches.
Regional Recycled Water Program
The Regional Recycled Water Program, a partnership with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, will purify wastewater that currently flows to the ocean to produce high quality water that could be used again. On November 10, 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized Metropolitan to enter into an agreement with the Sanitation Districts to implement a demonstration-scale recycled water treatment plant and to establish the framework of terms and conditions for development of a regional recycled water supply program. Under this agreement, Metropolitan has the opportunity to work collaboratively with the Sanitation Districts to develop a potential regional recycled water supply program that would purify and reuse water. Metropolitan and Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-75
the Sanitation Districts would jointly develop this program to purify effluent from the Sanitation Districts’ Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) using advanced treatment technologies to produce water that is near-distilled in quality and that would be equal to or better than the quality of water currently used to replenish groundwater basins in the Southern California region.
The purified water would be delivered to Metropolitan’s member agencies to meet their groundwater replenishment and storage requirements. A collaboration between the two districts could advance the reuse of water at a scale, timing, and strategic location to serve the direct needs of multiple member agencies for recharge of groundwater basins in Southern California, and to augment regional supplies for Metropolitan’s service area. In addition, with the development of regulations for raw water augmentation, purified water may eventually be blended with imported supplies at Metropolitan’s treatment plants and delivered to additional member agencies.
In October 2019, the agencies began operating the Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification Center, a 0.5 million gallon per day demonstration facility. The facility will generate information needed for the potential future construction of a full-scale advanced water plant. It uses a unique application of membrane bioreactors designed to significantly increase efficiency in water recycling. Scientists and engineers will test the process, utilizing full-scale treatment modules, to ensure the resulting purified water meets the highest water quality standards. Once approved by regulators, this innovative process could be used throughout California and even applied around the globe. Following approval, additional treatment trains will be tested to determine the needed purification processes for a full-scale program.
The full-scale regional RRWP would produce up to 150 million gallons daily, enough to serve more than 500,000 homes. Purified water from the advanced treatment facility would be delivered through 60 miles of new pipelines to the region’s groundwater basins, industrial facilities, and potentially two of Metropolitan’s treatment plants. Metropolitan prepared feasibility analyses for the RRWP (the Feasibility Study, Report No. 1530) in November 2016 and Conceptual Planning Studies Report (Report 1618, February 21, 2019) in preparation for environmental review and preliminary design. Letters of intent have also been executed with key partners.
In November 2020, Metropolitan’s Board of Directors approved the next phase of the program, environmental planning. In addition, the Board also approved an updated agreement with the Sanitation Districts, which further expands the partnership and allows for additional shared responsibilities and resources.
Future Supply Actions
Metropolitan supports the development of local supplies through the FSA Funding Program. FSA are low cost, low risk investments Metropolitan can take now to remove barriers to new supplies so that they can be accelerated in the future, if when needed. The FSA Funding Program is Metropolitan’s primary vehicle for promoting innovative new approaches to local supply development. Under the FSA Funding Program, Metropolitan funds member agency studies addressing development challenges for groundwater, recycled water, stormwater and seawater desalination supplies. The goals of the FSA Funding Program include:
• Reduce barriers to future resource production
• Provide results that are unique, yet transferable to other areas in the region • Advance the field of knowledge
• Represent a critical path to water resource implementation 3-76 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Metropolitan implemented an initial round of FSA funding in 2013 and launched a second round of funding in 2019. Both rounds have funded a mix of white papers, pilot tests and demonstration studies. The program funds a maximum of $500,000 per study or per agency. In 2018, Metropolitan also co-funded six potable reuse projects and one agricultural reuse study under the FSA Funding Program with the Water Research Foundation. Metropolitan’s nearly $1.0 million in co-funding supports WRF’s $8.0 million Advancing Potable Reuse Initiative and helped match $4.5 million in State Water Resource Control Board grant funds. Table 3-12 provides a summary of the FSA funding.
Table 3-12
Summary of FSA Funding
2013 FSA Member
Agency Studies
2018 FSA Member
Agency Studies
2018 WRF Potable
Reuse Studies
Studies Funding Studies Funding Studies Funding
Groundwater 4 $900,000 3 $661,000
Recycled Water 5 $810,000 5 $1,265,000 7 $975,000
Stormwater 2 $814,000 4 865,000
Seawater Desalination 2 $325,000 2 $365,000
Total Funding 13 $2,939,000 14 $3,156,000 7 $975,000
Metropolitan also supports local supply development as a regional facilitator for seawater desalination and related resource issues. This includes assisting member agencies with technical issues, supporting member agency projects during permit hearings, coordinating responses to proposed regulations, and collaborating with the member agencies to address development challenges. Metropolitan helped launch and now participates in CalDesal, a consortium of water utility and private stakeholders promoting desalination as an element of California’s future supply portfolio.
Achievements to Date
Metropolitan has continued to develop and refine its programs to encourage the involvement of its member agencies in water recycling, groundwater recovery, and desalination. Developing and managing these programs requires considerable coordination and refinement. Changing conditions over the last five years have reduced the costs of these options and allow Metropolitan to rely on these sources for future water supply.
Table 3-13 provides a summary of the status of local agency seawater desalination projects that are under development within Metropolitan’s service area. Local agencies are considering several projects with the potential to produce up to 131 TAF, if developed.
Metropolitan is committed to providing financial assistance to the development of water recycling projects throughout its service area. Since 1982, Metropolitan has executed LRP contracts for 85 recycled water projects, 75 of which produced about 138 TAF in 2019. Local projects not receiving funding from Metropolitan provide an additional 370 TAF of recycled water to the region.
Since 1991, Metropolitan has executed GRP and LRP contracts for 27 recovered groundwater projects, 24 of which produced about 50 TAF in 2019. In addition to the projects under Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-77
Metropolitan’s programs, about 62 TAF of degraded groundwater is recovered by agencies in Metropolitan’s service area without Metropolitan’s financial assistance.
Table 3-14 provides a summary of recycled water use and groundwater recovery in FY 2019-20.
To date, Metropolitan has invested $510 million in recycling programs and $173 million for groundwater recovery. Table 3-15 provides a summary of the groundwater and recycled water production and incentive payments under Metropolitan’s programs to date.
Table 3-13
Seawater Desalination Projects Under Development
within Metropolitan's Service Area1
Project
Member Agency
Service Area
Planned Capacity
AF per Year
Status as of
September 2020
Huntington Beach Seawater
Desalination Project
Orange County Water
District / Municipal Water
District of Southern California
56,000 Permitting
West Basin Ocean
Desalination Project
West Basin Municipal Water
District
20,000 to 60,000 Environmental
Impact Report
Doheny Desalination Project South Coast Water District / Municipal Water District of
Orange County
5,000 to 15,000 Permitting
Total: Potential Projects 81,000 – 131,000
1 Does not include potential seawater desalination projects in Mexico which could supply Metropolitan’s service area through direct deliveries or through exchanges.
Table 3-14
FY 2019-20 Water Production from Recycling
and Groundwater Recovery
(TAF)
Type of Project
With
Metropolitan
Funding
Without
Metropolitan
Funding Total
Recycled Water1 71 370 441
Groundwater Recovery 50 62 112
Total 121 432 553
1 Excluding Santa Ana River baseflow.
3-78 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Table 3-15
Local Resources Program
Recovered
Groundwater
Recycled
Water Total
Projects
Contracted 27 85 112
In Operation 24 76 100
Ultimate Yield (TAF) 124 348 472
Deliveries (TAF)
FY 2019-2020 50 71 121
Since Inception 1,052 2,972 4,024
Payments ($ millions)
FY 2019-2020 $4 $13 $17
Since Inception $173 $510 $683
Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region 3-79
3.6 Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region Since the 1950s, local water management in Metropolitan's service area has included the surface water storage and conjunctive use of groundwater. Conjunctive use of water refers to the use and storage of imported surface water supplies in groundwater basins and reservoirs during periods of abundance. This stored water is available for use during periods of low surface water supplies as a way of augmenting seasonal and multiyear shortages.
Background
Metropolitan established general long-term storage guidelines in its Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan. The WSDM Plan provides for flexibility during dry years, allowing Metropolitan to use storage for managing water quality, hydrology, SWP, and Colorado River issues. Dry-year surface storage yields have been characterized in several ways, including delivery capabilities over two- and three-year dry periods. The approach used in Metropolitan’s resource planning assumes that dry-year surface storage can be used as needed and as available within the WSDM planning framework. In addition to surface reservoirs in the region, storage capacity in the region’s groundwater basins allows for conjunctive use programs. In 2000, the Association of Ground Water Agencies (AGWA) published Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California: A Guide to Conjunctive Use that estimated the potential for dryyear or long-term conjunctive use in Metropolitan’s service area at approximately 4.0 MAF. In 2007, Metropolitan published the Groundwater Assessment Study that estimated 3.2 MAF of space in groundwater basins available for storage within Metropolitan’s service area.
Metropolitan’s 1996 IRP calls for the development of conjunctive use programs with member agencies and groundwater basin managers to store surplus imported supplies in wet years to provide dry-year supplies.
To prepare for supply disruptions, Metropolitan and its member agencies have adopted goals for water storage within the region. Metropolitan has identified in-region storage that should be set aside for use in emergencies, such as a disruption to imported supplies due to a major seismic event at the San Andreas Fault.
Implementation Approach
Surface Storage
Since the beginning of Metropolitan’s planning process, two significant changes have occurred to regional surface storage: (1) the construction of DVL, and (2) Metropolitan receiving operational control of 218,940 AF in Castaic Lake and Lake Perris.
Diamond Valley Lake
Construction of Southern California’s newest and largest reservoir nearly doubled the area’s surface water storage capacity. Transport of imported water to the lake began in November 1999, and the lake reached capacity in early 2003. DVL holds up to 810 TAF, some of which is for dry-year or seasonal storage, and the remainder for emergency storage.
SWP Terminal Reservoirs
Under the 1994 Monterey Agreement and Amendment, Metropolitan is permitted to withdraw up to 218,940 AF in the reservoirs at the southern terminals of the California Aqueduct. Access to this storage capacity in Castaic Lake (153,940 AF) and Lake Perris (65,000 AF) gives Metropolitan greater flexibility in handling supply shortages. Any amount of water withdrawn in a year must be replaced with supplies available to Metropolitan within five years. 3-80 Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region Groundwater Storage
Many local groundwater storage programs have been implemented over the years to maximize the use of local water supplies. These programs have included the diversion of water flows into percolation ponds for recharging groundwater basins and the recovery of degraded groundwater.
• For many years, flood control agencies within Metropolitan's service area have captured and spread stormwater for groundwater replenishment. Local runoff and reclaimed water have been conserved via spreading grounds, injection wells, reservoirs, and unlined river channels.
In addition, flood control agencies have operated seawater barrier projects in Los Angeles and Orange Counties to prevent seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater basins. • Water quality issues have raised serious concerns about the ability to sustain average annual production levels in some groundwater basins. For example, recently recognized threats to groundwater basins posed by emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have affected groundwater production in many areas. Groundwater levels have been augmented by groundwater water recovery projects discussed in Section 3.5.
Conjunctive use of the aquifers offers an important source of dry year supplies. Unused storage in Southern California groundwater basins can be used to optimize imported water supplies, and the development of groundwater storage projects allows effective management and regulation of the region’s major imported supplies from the Colorado River and SWP. Over the years, Metropolitan has implemented conjunctive use through various programs. Typically, this storage takes place in one of two ways:
• Direct deliveries to storage – Metropolitan delivers recharge water directly to water storage facilities, including spreading sites and injection wells. • In-lieu deliveries to storage – Metropolitan delivers water directly to a member agency’s distribution system for use by the member agency rather than, or in-lieu of, pumping the groundwater it otherwise would have taken out of storage. The deferred local production results in water being left in local storage (surface or groundwater) for future use.
Metropolitan has developed a number of local programs to work with its member agencies to increase stored water in groundwater basins through conjunctive use. Conjunctive use agreements provide for storage of imported water that can be called for use by Metropolitan during dry, drought, or emergency conditions. During a dry period, Metropolitan has the option to call water stored in the groundwater basins pursuant to its contractual conjunctive use agreements. At the time of the call, the member agency pays Metropolitan the prevailing rate for that water. Metropolitan has drawn on dry-year supply from nine contractual conjunctive use storage programs to address shortages from the SWP and the Colorado River.
Metropolitan has also made use of the basins to manage its water supply resources through programs such as its cyclic agreements. Cyclic programs allow Metropolitan to deliver water into groundwater basin or surface water reservoir before the agency has a demand for water.
Advanced deliveries allow Metropolitan to manage high-supply availability when its own storage capacity is limited. The member agency purchases the delivered water based on a long-term schedule agreed by the parties. Although cyclic programs do not hold stored water for Metropolitan, they provide water resource management flexibility, especially when storage capacity is restricted.
Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region 3-81 Achievements to Date
In 2000, Metropolitan entered an agreement with DWR to administer $45 million of Proposition 13 state bond funds for Metropolitan’s Southern California Water Supply Reliability Projects Program.
Metropolitan paired the $45 million of state funds with $35 million of Metropolitan capital funds to develop nine groundwater storage programs in partnership with member and retail agencies and groundwater basin managers. These nine contractual storage programs have an initial 25-year term and provide for storage of up to 212 TAF and dry-year yield of up to 70 TAF. These programs are summarized in Table 3-16. Since inception, the conjunctive use program has been exercised to store water in groundwater basins during wet periods and relied upon to extract that water during dry periods. For example, during the recent drought period from 2012 to 2016, the conjunctive use program provided 64,000 AF of dry year supply to help Metropolitan meet regional demands. As of January 2020, the conjunctive use storage balance is 61,000 AF.
In 2007, Metropolitan prepared the Groundwater Assessment Study Report in collaboration with its member agencies and with groundwater basin managers. The report finds that while there is substantial storage space in service area groundwater basins that could be used for conjunctive use, there are significant challenges that must be overcome in order to implement additional storage programs. Use of additional storage opportunity requires:
• Capture, delivery, and recharge of additional local and imported surface supplies; • Improved capability to store available surplus surface supplies with adequate conveyance and recharge capacity; and
• Resolution of constraints including: remediation of contamination, institutional and legal issues, funding for significant investment in capital infrastructure, and incongruity between aquifer capability with overlying demand for water supplies.
To follow up on the findings of the Groundwater Assessment Study Report, Metropolitan initiated a series of seven groundwater workshops beginning in July 2008 among Metropolitan, member agencies, groundwater basin managers, and stakeholders to discuss challenges for increasing conjunctive use and to develop recommendations for addressing the challenges.
The workgroup’s recommendations were submitted as a Board Report to Metropolitan’s Board of Directors and provided as input to Metropolitan’s current planning process. The recommendations are as follows:
1. Enhance groundwater replenishment with increased stormwater, recycled water, and imported water recharge.
2. Streamline requirements, remove policy constraints, clarify procedures, increase coordination and sharing of information to accomplish recharge goals.
3. Develop flexible regional policies and programs that can be tailored to meet specific local needs of each groundwater basin.
4. Increase integration of local groundwater and regional water supplies with a proposal for a comprehensive modeling study to initiate review of innovative opportunities.
5. Use appropriate price signals to encourage conjunctive use and investments for storage.
6. Increase coordination among Metropolitan, member agencies, basin managers, groundwater producers, and stakeholders inclusive of collaboration for legislative, regulatory, and educational efforts in support of specific initiatives and funding needed for sound groundwater management.
Metropolitan has given updates of the Groundwater Assessment Study to the Board in 2011, 2015, and 2018.
3-82 Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region Since 2013, Metropolitan has also been working with the SCWC Stormwater Task Force to evaluate the feasibility of further supporting groundwater production with increases in stormwater capture for groundwater replenishment. Metropolitan remains actively involved in the SCWC Stormwater Task Force. In 2019, the Stormwater Task Force developed a white paper that discussed innovative project implementation and enhanced operation and maintenance strategies. Metropolitan staff gave a presentation on the stormwater pilot program at the annual workshop on September 27, 2019. The workshop brought together more than 200 participants, including local agencies, regional planners, and non-government agencies for a discussion on regional stormwater issues. In 2020, due to the global pandemic, the Stormwater Task Force hosted a series of short informational webinars related to water resources development and innovative stormwater projects.
Table 3-16
Contractual Conjunctive Groundwater Projects
Project and Project Proponents
Storage
Capacity
(TAF)
Dry-Year
Yield
(TAF/Year)
Storage
Account
Balance
as of
01/01/2020
(TAF)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Long Beach Conjunctive Use Project
Long Beach 13.0 4.3 3
Foothill Area GW Storage Project
Foothill MWD 9.0 3.0 0
Long Beach CUP: Expansion in Lakewood
Long Beach 3.6 1.2 0
City of Compton Conjunctive Use Program
City of Compton 2.3 0.8 0
Upper Claremont Heights Conjunctive Use
Three Valleys MWD 3.0 1.0 1
ORANGE COUNTY
Orange County GW Conjunctive Use
Program
OCWD, MWDOC
66.0 22.0 0
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Chino Basin Programs
IEUA, TVMWD, Chino Basin Watermaster 100.0 33.0 49
Live Oak Basin Conjunctive Use Project
Three Valleys MWD 3.0 1.0 0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Elsinore Groundwater Storage Program
Western MWD, Elsinore Valley MWD 12.0 4.0 8
Total 211.9 70.3 61
Water Use Reduction 3-83
3.7 Water Use Reduction
In November 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) into law as part of the historic comprehensive water package designed to address the State’s growing water challenges. The Act represented the culmination of efforts by water industry leaders (including Metropolitan), the environmental community, and the Legislature to enact legislation that would answer the governor’s call for the state to reduce per capita water use 20 percent by the year 2020 (referred to as “20x2020”) as part of a larger effort to ensure reliable water supplies for future generations and restore the Bay-Delta.
The 20x2020 legislation requires urban retail water suppliers to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction in water use by 2020, with interim targets for 2015. The legislation provides flexibility in how targets are established and achieved. Per capita reductions can be accomplished through any combination of increased water conservation, improved water use efficiency, and increased use of recycled water to offset potable demand. Potable demand offsets can occur through direct reuse of recycled water, such as for irrigation, or IPR through groundwater replenishment and reservoir water augmentation. Retail water suppliers receive partial credit for past efforts in conservation and recycled water; therefore, not all agencies need to reduce demand by 20 percent in order to comply with the law.
Achievement as of 2020
As a wholesale water agency, Metropolitan is not required to establish or report an urban water use reduction target. However, Metropolitan’s regional conservation programs and local resource programs are designed to assist member agencies and retail water suppliers in the service area to comply with SB X7-7. These programs are described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.
Therefore, Metropolitan monitors the progress of its service area.
Based on an analysis of population, demand, and the methodologies for setting targets described in the legislation, Metropolitan’s baseline per capita water use is 182 GPCD and the 2020 reduction target is 146 GPCD. From 2011 to 2014, there was a slight increase in per capita water use explained in part by continued economic recovery and drier weather as compared to previous years. With mandatory restrictions from the state and water supply allocation from Metropolitan, Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP reported an interim water use reduction achievement of 131 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is a 28 percent reduction from the baseline.
Over the last five years, Metropolitan continued to provide support for retail agency water use reduction efforts through technical assistance, legislation, code and standards updates, and financial incentives where needed to increase water use efficiency. Based on best available data as of January 2021, Metropolitan estimates a 2019 per capita water use of 121 GCPD, well exceeding Metropolitan’s 2020 water use target of 146 GPCD with a 34 percent reduction from the baseline of 182 GPCD.
3-84 Water Use Reduction
Figure 3-4 Potable Per Capita Water Use: 20% Reduction by 2020 Metropolitan's Service Area {Calendar Year)
- Potable GPCD (20x2020) - Baseline: 1996-2005 Average
Gallons per
220
200
180
Capita 160
Per Day
140
120
100
Notes:
1. Calendar year data.
Lr\ r-- CX) CX) °' CX)
°' °' °'
a:; ...,., Lr\ r-- ~ 5 ...,., Lr\
°' °' °' 0 0
°' °' °' °' °' 0 0 0 N N N
2. 2019 GPCD based on best available data as of January 2021 and is subject to change.
3. Baseline per capita water use based on 1996-2005 average (182 GPCD).
4. Target GPCD for 2020 based on 20% red uction from baseline (146 GPCD). r-- 3 ...,., Lr\ 0 ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N
121
r-- °' ~
0 0
N N
Energy Management Initiative 3-85
3.8 Energy Management Initiative
Metropolitan’s mission is to provide its service area with an adequate and reliable supply of highquality water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way. The conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water is an energy-intensive and energy-dependent process, and as such, Metropolitan has goals of controlling operational costs and conserving valuable natural resources.
Metropolitan’s net energy use and costs are dominated by the pumping (transport) required to import water via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and State Water Project (SWP) systems (Figure 3-5). Given that Metropolitan does not have direct control over operations of the SWP, its energy strategy focuses exclusively on the energy use and cost for CRA operations (wholesale power) and for Metropolitan’s distribution, treatment, and office facilities (retail power), which on average total $43.1 million per year.
Figure 3-5
Metropolitan's overall electricity requirements and cost (average 2013-2018) Over the past several decades, Metropolitan has implemented many energy initiatives that have reduced energy costs and use, while diversifying its energy portfolio. These have included 130 megawatts (MW) of small hydropower generating facilities, 5.5 MW of solar power generation installations7, and a 50-year agreement executed in 2017 to receive low-cost carbon-free hydropower from Hoover Dam for CRA operations. Despite these efforts, external factors have resulted in increased energy costs. Five major drivers influence the future energy market and Metropolitan’s corresponding energy sustainability strategy, including:
• Progression of environmental regulations. California is leading the nation with energy and environmental policy initiatives that are driving electrical grid changes. In particular, California’s shift to renewables and carbon-free energy by 2045 (Senate Bill 100) is a primary 7 This includes 5 MW of solar power capacity located at three of Metropolitan’s treatment plants and 0.5 MW located at Diamond Valley Lake.
Figure 3-5 Metropolitan's overall electricity requirements and cost (average 2013 - 2018)
■ Colorado River Aqueduct ■ Distribution
75GWh
(2%) (75%)
■ State Water Project
$31 .9M
(18%)
$11.2M
(7%)
3-86 Energy Management Initiative
driver in future energy dynamics and will impact both the cost and volatility of energy markets.
• Energy market pricing uncertainty. Approximately 50 to 85 percent of Metropolitan’s energy for CRA pumping is supplied from low-cost federal hydropower, and the balance is supplied from supplemental purchases of wholesale energy from the market. The adoption of recent policies and state goals in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and environmental protection are fundamentally changing the wholesale electric grid and its operation. The high penetration of renewable generation across the state resulted in the “duck curve” effect which has shifted peak prices from periods when demand is highest (typically midday) to periods in which solar generation declines (typically evening hours) (CAISO load minus solar generation is shown in Figure 3-6). In certain times of the year, a significant net load increase occurs when solar generation decreases at the end of the day. This increase must be mitigated by conventional fossil fired energy generators. This effect also creates overgeneration during the middle of the day, which produces a “belly” appearance, and a steep ramp for fossil fuel generators during the late afternoon and evening, creating an “arch.” The consequent changes in wholesale and retail energy price and structures are impacting hourly energy costs and operations at Metropolitan.
Figure 3-6
CAISO's duck curve of average net electric load for a spring day in California Source: IEA, 2019
Figure 3-6 CAISO's duck curve of average net electric load for a spring day in California
- 2013
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
---• 2014
3 ---• 2015
5 7
---• 2016 ---• 2017
............. __________ __
9 11 13 15
Hour
---• 2018 - 2019
17 19 21 23
Energy Management Initiative 3-87
• Grid reliability. California has historically depended on fossil-fired generation to provide for the bulk of its energy needs, as well as peaking capacity and operating reserves to balance the system and compensate for system contingencies. The state’s environmental policies to reduce fossil generation emissions and cooling water impacts have and will continue to result in the retirement of fossil generation throughout the state and the region. The transition to renewable, non-emitting generation creates challenges for grid operators without the traditional sources of on-demand, fast-ramping capacity. • Climate change and natural disasters. Natural disasters and a changing climate pose substantial risks to the availability and price of energy for Metropolitan. While the timing and extent of these events are unpredictable, their effects can be anticipated and estimated.
The main challenge for Metropolitan and its energy providers will be to develop and nimbly execute energy management initiatives that preserve a high degree of long‐term flexibility and stable costs.
• Technological advances and incentives. New technological advancements and improved practices in the renewable energy and energy storage sectors provide viable options for Metropolitan’s long-term energy management goals. For example, energy storage systems are able to capture the energy generated by renewables and store it until the energy is needed. Energy storage can address the power intermittency challenges from renewables and effectively increase utility resiliency and reliability. Several incentive and credit programs are also available, such as the California Public Utilities Commission Self-Generation Incentive Program, to further improve the economic feasibility of battery energy storage projects.
The evolution in California’s energy mix and resulting uncertainty in the reliability and cost of energy supplies affect the affordability and reliability of Metropolitan’s water supply operations.
Metropolitan’s review of its energy strategies, practices and projects is an important step to help position itself as a leader in energy sustainability.
In 2020, Metropolitan developed a new Energy Sustainability Plan (ESP) and an updated implementation roadmap, to formulate actions and strategies that best position Metropolitan to adapt to future wholesale and retail energy market changes for its CRA operations and conveyance and distribution system. The ESP’s purpose is to foster informed energy management decisions through a framework of sustainable actions focused on energy cost containment, reliability, affordability, conservation and adaptation – now and into the future.
The ESP incorporates an adaptive energy management strategy and project implementation roadmap resulting in projects and initiatives that:
• Contain costs and reduce Metropolitan’s exposure to energy price volatility • Increase operational reliability and flexibility
• Move Metropolitan towards energy independence and sustainability • Support Metropolitan’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) effort to meet proposed GHG emissions reduction targets
Metropolitan’s adaptive energy management strategy addresses issues surrounding energy management and cost mitigation. The energy strategy roadmap addresses near- to long-term energy issues and achieves Metropolitan’s overarching goals by including projects that address both retail and wholesale energy markets, and energy management best practices. The recommended actions are impacted by numerous factors, considered as indicators in this plan, that will signal the acceleration or change of course for certain actions. The magnitude, nature, 3-88 Energy Management Initiative
and timing of these signals will result in different responses and actions for Metropolitan in the long‐term and will be continuously monitored over time.
Selected near-term actions (1-3 years) identified are:
• Implement reconfiguration of the Yorba Linda Power Plant feed to serve the Diemer water treatment plant (WTP) retail load behind the Southern California Edison meter. • Implement battery storage projects at the Weymouth, Skinner, Jensen, and Mills WTPs and the OC-88 Pumping Plant.
• Evaluate implementation of islanded operations using battery storage for possible future microgrid operations.
• Monitor wholesale energy market developments for major changes to CRA energy costs and evaluate appropriate options, such as generation or energy storage. • Assess pump modifications at Intake and Gene pumping plants to implement targeted application of variable-speed pump drives.
• Continue to monitor third-party developer projects for opportunities in retail and large-scale wholesale renewable energy and energy storage opportunities.
Metropolitan has made progress on two near-term actions. This includes initiating projects for battery storage at the Skinner, Jensen, and Weymouth treatment plants, as well as OC-88. To support implementation, Metropolitan has applied for $10.3 million in state incentives for these projects. The battery storage facilities will be configured as microgrids to optimize on-site solar generation and increase energy resilience.
Selected mid-term actions (4-7 years) include:
• Assess the performance of implemented Battery Energy Storage System projects and later implement the previously deferred project options based on first phase performance results. • Implement renewable energy and/or energy storage projects with third-party developers, if determined feasible.
• Continue evaluating low/no carbon power for CRA pumping operations to hedge against rising carbon prices.
• Reevaluate small hydropower opportunities within the distribution system if project economics become favorable.
Metropolitan engages in several energy best practices to reduce Metropolitan’s overall energy consumption. These practices focus on energy auditing, monitoring and benchmarking, cost optimization of process and pumping operations, energy efficient design and rehabilitation measures, and providing staff training and communication strategies for energy management.
Energy efficiency opportunities that reduce energy usage are evaluated on a continuous basis for short- and long-term benefits to help reduce energy-related costs and GHG emissions.
Long-term planning over the next 10 years will adapt relevant actions and strategies to current conditions. The key goal for Metropolitan’s long-term energy management plan is to continuously update the ESP, monitor implemented projects and initiatives, reassess the main market drivers to better understand potential project and energy management opportunities, and adjust the ESP and roadmap accordingly.
The framework is intended to be flexible by accommodating future projects, preferences, and localized needs, and to be adaptable as Metropolitan’s goals and technology evolve. The Energy Management Initiative 3-89
roadmap provides a plan for implementation of the recommended energy projects and initiatives, while accounting for changes in the future. Signals assigned to each action will be monitored over time by Metropolitan staff to indicate when these actions and their economic and operational benefits can serve Metropolitan’s needs.
Climate Action Plan
In 2016, California signed into law the country’s most stringent GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030, as well as a long-term goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2017, then Governor Brown signed EO B-55-18, which set an even more progressive long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. While the state has not imposed specific GHG reduction requirements for public water agencies, its 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan suggests that water agencies should move towards low carbon or net-zero carbon water management systems.
To help California achieve this ambitious goal, Metropolitan is in the process of developing its first ever Climate Action Plan (CAP), which will serve as a road map for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its operations and future construction projects. The CAP will meet the goals of the state by identifying and implementing a number of actions that will reduce Metropolitan’s future GHG emissions. In addition, it will serve as a vehicle to streamline project evaluation of GHG impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) Plans for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The CAP will include the following elements:
• A complete inventory of GHG emissions, both existing and projected • A GHG reduction target aligned with state goals
• A strategy to reduce emissions to meet the GHG reduction target • A plan to monitor and verify results
• Adoption of the plan in a public process
Emissions Inventory
Using standard accounting protocols from The Climate Registry (TCR)8 and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)9, Metropolitan completed an emissions inventory of three source categories or scopes related to the operational control the organization has over the emission source.
• Scope 1 emissions consist of direct GHG emissions associated with fuel use, such as emissions from gasoline and diesel consumption by Metropolitan’s vehicle fleet, propane and natural gas use at its facilities, and unintended fugitive emissions10. • Scope 2 emissions consist of indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase and consumption of electricity used primarily for the transmission, treatment and distribution of water. Scope 2 also includes electricity transmission and distribution losses. 8 The Climate Registry. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/tools-resources/reporting-protocols/generalreporting-protocol/. Metropolitan’s reported GHG emissions to The Climate Registry are shown in Appendix 10. 9 ICLEI. 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol. http://icleiusa.org/ghg-protocols/. 10 Fugitive emissions are emissions of gases or vapors from industrial equipment due to leaks or other unintended releases.
3-90 Energy Management Initiative
• Scope 3 emissions consist of other indirect GHG emissions not captured in Scope 1 or 2, such as those associated with employee commutes, waste generation, water consumption occurring at Metropolitan facilities, and emissions associated with construction projects.
Figure 3-7 illustrates the Metropolitan emissions by scope for calendar years 2008 and 2017.
Figure 3-7
Metropolitan Emissions by Scope 2008 and 2017.
Emissions Forecast
In order to estimate the level of GHG emissions reductions necessary for Metropolitan to achieve its selected GHG reduction target and be consistent with the requirements for a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan, an emissions forecast was prepared based on Metropolitan projected energy demand and energy sources, the anticipated impact of future Metropolitan projects, the anticipated impact of existing energy efficiency and GHG reduction programs, and regional population growth assumptions.
As noted above, Metropolitan does not have direct control over operations of the SWP. Thus, Metropolitan’s strategy focuses exclusively on reducing the GHG emissions associated with operation of the CRA, and operation and maintenance of Metropolitan’s distribution, treatment, and office facilities. Water deliveries from the CRA require substantial electricity usage, as the water must be pumped up a total lift of 1,614 feet from the Colorado River before flowing by gravity into Metropolitan’s distribution system.
CRA water deliveries vary significantly year-to-year based on water needs, rainfall, and availability of water from the SWP. To account for this variability in electricity use and related GHG emissions, three forecast scenarios were modeled to estimate the range of GHG emissions that will need to be reduced to reach Metropolitan’s adopted GHG reduction target. A high emissions scenario represents a worst case scenario with extended drought and maximum pumping capacity from the CRA, an average emissions scenario is modelled by averaging pumping data from 2008 through 2017, and a low emissions scenario represents Metropolitan’s lowest single year CRA pumping from 2008 through 2017 and high deliveries from the SWP. The results of the potential range of emission that will need to be offset in future years is shown in Figure 3-8. Baseline emissions for 1990 were estimated using the best available data. It is important to note that in all projections, GHG emissions taper off as a result of new California Figure 3-7 Metropolitan Emissions by Scope 2008 and 2017 2008 2017
Energy Management Initiative 3-91
regulations that require all retail energy sold in California to be from 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2045.
Figure 3-8
GHG Emissions Forecast and Potential Range of Emission
GHG Reduction Target
Metropolitan is committed to achieving the state’s GHG reduction goals. Therefore, Metropolitan has set its GHG reduction target to be consistent with the state target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In addition, Metropolitan is committing to achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045. Metropolitan is well-situated to meet this goal.
Strategy to Meet GHG Reduction Goals
In conjunction with Metropolitan’s Energy Management Initiative described above, a number of projects have been identified that will not only ensure Metropolitan’s energy reliability, but also further Metropolitan’s efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, including developing solar and battery storage facilities, negotiating wholesale carbon-free energy contracts, improving pump efficiency, purchasing zero emission fleet vehicles, and implementing waste recycling techniques. Metropolitan may also leverage extensive land holdings to implement potential carbon sequestration programs that could generate carbon credits. Additional actions will depend on many variables that are not yet quantified, such as the rate of energy storage deployed by the State of California and its utilities, the cost of renewable energy, and the costs associated with infrastructure. Not only do many of these projects ensure energy reliability and reduce GHG emissions, but they may also provide a substantial net cost savings to Metropolitan through reduced energy costs and reduced costs to offset GHG emissions.
Figure 3-8 GHG Emissions Forecast and Potential
Range of Emission
800,000
•
700,000
600,000
ai 500,000 o~
V
....
0 400,000 I-
~ 300,000
200,000
100,000
0 o,cfi
' -- Baseline
- - - High Emissions Scenario
1-----Forecasted Emissions -------t
Average Emissions Scenario
Low Emissions Scenario
3-92 Energy Management Initiative
Monitoring and Reporting
Ensuring that Metropolitan is meeting its GHG reduction target is a cornerstone of an adopted GHG reduction plan. As such, Metropolitan will track its GHG emissions annually and update the CAP every five years to revise and refine the plan to capture any new measures and ensure Metropolitans is meeting its goals. Metropolitan currently reports verified GHG emissions to TCR’s open and transparent GHG Registry. Appendix 10 of this plan contains additional information on Metropolitan’s GHG emissions and overall energy intensity.
CAP Adoption
The CAP will be released for public review in spring 2021, with an expected Board adoption of the completed CAP in summer 2021. Metropolitan’s unique emissions profile and commitment to environmental and energy sustainability ensure that it is situated to meet not only the state’s adopted target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, but also the state’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, guaranteeing that Metropolitan remains an industry leader.
Water Quality 4-1
Water Quality 4
Metropolitan’s planning efforts recognize the importance of the quality of its water supplies. To the extent possible, Metropolitan responds to water quality concerns by protecting the quality of the source water and developing water management programs that maintain and enhance water quality. Contaminants that cannot be sufficiently controlled through protection of source waters must be handled through changed water treatment protocols or blending. These practices can increase costs and/or reduce operating flexibility. This section discusses source water quality and issues of concern affecting water management strategies and water supply reliability.
Background
Metropolitan’s planning efforts for groundwater storage, recycled water, and other water management strategies require meeting specific water quality targets for imported water.
Metropolitan has two major sources of water: the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Groundwater inflows are also received into the SWP through groundwater banking programs in the Central Valley. Each source has specific water quality issues, which are summarized in this section. For example, the water industry has had to respond to constituents of emerging concern (CECs). To date, Metropolitan has not identified any water quality risks that cannot be mitigated. However, based on current knowledge, a water quality issue that could potentially affect water management strategies and supply reliability in the future might be increases in the salinity of water resources. Under California’s current drought conditions, decreased flows have altered Delta flow patterns and, while the effects of the drought have not been fully studied, there have been some observable changes in water quality such as increased salinity due to increased seawater intrusion. However, even under drought conditions, SWP salinity is significantly lower than Colorado River water salinity, and Metropolitan relies on blending imported water sources to mitigate for the higher salinity Colorado River water. During recent periods of drought, Metropolitan’s SWP allocation has been reduced, including to a historical low of five percent in 2014 and twenty percent in 2015 and 2020, which affected blending operations. Metropolitan increased its deliveries of Colorado River water in 2014, 2015, and 2020, and subsequently, salinity in treatment plant influent increased overall from the higher Colorado River salinity levels. Metropolitan anticipates no significant reductions in water supply availability from imported sources due to water quality concerns, such as salinity, over the next five years.
Colorado River
High salinity levels remain a significant issue associated with Colorado River supplies. In addition, Metropolitan has been engaged in efforts to protect its Colorado River supplies from threats of uranium, perchlorate, and chromium-6, which are discussed later in this section. Metropolitan has also been active in efforts to protect these supplies from potential increases in nutrient loading due to agriculture and urbanization, as well as tracking the occurrence of CECs.
Metropolitan fully expects its source water protection efforts to be successful, so the only foreseeable water quality constraint to the use of Colorado River water will be the need to blend (mix) it with SWP supplies to meet Metropolitan’s Board-adopted salinity standards. 4-2 Water Quality
State Water Project
The key water quality issues for the SWP are disinfection byproduct precursors, in particular, total organic carbon, bromide, and low alkalinity. Metropolitan is working to protect the water quality of this source, but it has needed to upgrade its water treatment plants to deal adequately with disinfection byproducts. Disinfection byproducts result from total organic carbon and bromide in the source water reacting with disinfectants at the water treatment plant, and they may place some near-term restrictions on Metropolitan’s ability to use SWP water. Low alkalinity water requires a higher percentage of total organic carbon removal in order to reduce disinfection byproduct formation. Metropolitan is overcoming these treatment restrictions through the use of ozone disinfection at its treatment plants, which has been implemented at all five of Metropolitan’s treatment plants and blending SWP water with higher alkalinity Colorado River water. Arsenic is also of concern in some groundwater storage programs. Groundwater inflows into the California Aqueduct are managed to comply with regulations and protect downstream water quality while meeting supply targets. Additionally, nutrient levels are significantly higher in the SWP than within the Colorado River, leading to the potential for algal related concerns that can affect water management strategies. Metropolitan is engaged in efforts to protect the quality of SWP water from potential increases in nutrient loading from wastewater treatment plants.
Local Agency Supplies and Groundwater Storage
Drinking water standards for contaminants, such as arsenic, chromium-6, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, and other emerging constituents, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), may add costs to the use of groundwater storage and may affect the availability of local agency groundwater sources. Although Metropolitan has not analyzed the direct effect of these water quality issues on local agency supply, these contaminants are not expected to significantly impact the availability of Metropolitan supplies, but may affect the availability of local agency supplies. This could affect demands on Metropolitan supplies if local agencies abandon impacted supplies in lieu of treatment options or use Metropolitan water to blend with their sources.
In summary, the major regional water quality concerns include the following:
• Salinity
• Perchlorate
• Total organic carbon and bromide (disinfection byproduct precursors) • Nutrients (as they relate to algal productivity)
• Arsenic
• Uranium
• Chromium-6
• 1,2,3-trichlorpropane
• Constituents of emerging concern (e.g., NDMA, microplastics, and PFAS) Metropolitan has taken several actions and adopted programs to address these contaminants and to ensure a safe and reliable water supply. These actions, organized by contaminant, are discussed below, along with other water quality programs that Metropolitan has been engaged in to protect its water supplies.
Water Quality 4-3
Issues of Potential Concern
Salinity
The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) Division of Drinking Water (DDW), formerly the California Department of Public Health, established a secondary drinking water standard for salinity, commonly expressed as total dissolved solids (TDS), with a recommended maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and upper limit MCL of 1,000 mg/L.
Imported water from the Colorado River has high salinity levels, so it must be blended (mixed) with lower-salinity water from the SWP to meet salinity management goals. Higher salinity levels in Colorado River water would increase the proportion of SWP supplies required to meet Metropolitan’s Board-adopted imported water salinity objectives. High levels of salinity can impact various water uses such as limiting groundwater and recycled water uses, reducing the lifespan of household appliances, and reducing crop yields. These salinity impacts affect various sectors including residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, utility, groundwater, and recycled water. Metropolitan adopted an imported water salinity goal because higher salinity could increase costs and reduce operating flexibility. For example,
1. If diminished water quality causes a need for membrane treatment to remove TDS, the process typically results in losses of up to 15 percent of the water processed. These losses would result in both an increased requirement for additional water supplies and environmental constraints related to brine disposal. In addition, the process is costly.
However, only a portion of the imported water would need to be processed, so the possible loss in supplies is small.
2. High TDS in water supplies leads to high TDS in wastewater, which lowers the usefulness and increases the cost of recycled water.
3. Water quality degradation of imported water supply could limit the use of local groundwater basins for storage because of standards controlling the quality of water recharged to the basins.
In addition to the link between water supply and water quality, Metropolitan has identified economic benefits from reducing the TDS concentrations of water supplies. Estimates show that a reduction in salinity concentrations of 100 mg/L in both the Colorado River and SWP supplies will yield economic benefits of $95 million per year (1999 dollars) within Metropolitan’s service area.1 This economic benefit provides an additional incentive to reduce salinity concentrations within the region’s water supplies.
The Salinity Management Policy
Considering all of these factors, Metropolitan’s Board approved a Salinity Management Policy on April 13, 1999. The policy set a goal of achieving salinity concentrations in delivered water of less than 500 mg/L TDS when practical, understanding that hydrologic conditions will make this infeasible at times. It also identified the need for both local and imported water sources to be managed comprehensively to maintain the ability to use recycled water and groundwater. To achieve these targets, lower TDS SWP water supplies are blended with Colorado River supplies.
Using this approach, the salinity target could be met an estimated seven out of ten years. In the other three years, hydrologic conditions would result in a reduced volume of SWP supplies and increased salinity. Due to drought conditions, the target goal was exceeded between 2008 and 2011 and again between 2013 and 2018. Metropolitan has alerted its local agencies that high 1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salinity Management Study: Final Report (June 1999)
4-4 Water Quality
salinity levels are inevitable under these drought conditions despite its best efforts. Metropolitan has also urged its member agencies to structure the operation of their local projects and groundwater supplies so they are prepared to mitigate the effect of higher salinity levels in imported waters.
The adoption of the Salinity Management Policy resulted from the completion of a Salinity Management Study in 1999. Metropolitan worked collaboratively with multiple stakeholders to complete the salinity study which assessed regional salinity problems and developed management strategies. Metropolitan is currently working with the USBR and Southern California Salinity Coalition to update the study. The current study objectives include updating the impact functions of the economic impact model and revising the salinity economic damage assessment for the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum Triennial Review; developing regional salinity indicators to increase awareness and facilitate salinity management in groundwater basins; and assessing Metropolitan’s long-term capability of delivering low-salinity water supplies and determining whether new salinity operational goals should be established. In 2020, USBR completed a study updating the economic impact functions of the salinity model. The new model will be used to generate revised estimates for the Lower Colorado River Basin and can be used to update the estimates for Metropolitan’s service area. The impacts estimated by the model are based on the change in economic costs from a 500 mg/L baseline condition and the projected elevated salinity concentrations from the Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) long term planning model which incorporates current and future salinity control projects mainly in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Within Metropolitan’s service area, local water sources account for approximately half of the salt loading, and imported water accounts for the remainder. All of these sources must be managed appropriately to sustain water quality and supply reliability goals. The following sections discuss the salinity issues relevant to each of Metropolitan’s major supply sources and other resources.
Colorado River
Colorado River water has the highest level of salinity of all of Metropolitan’s sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 1976. Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for many years.
To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River, in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974. High TDS in the Colorado River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven basin states regarding the quality of Colorado River water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster interstate cooperation on this issue, the seven basin states formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the basin that were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is designed to prevent a portion of this abundant salt supply from moving into the river system. The program targets the interception and control of non-point sources, such as surface runoff, as well as wastewater and saline hot springs. Examples of salinity control measures include improved irrigation practices, rangeland management, and the operation of a deep well brine injection project.
The Forum proposed, the states adopted, and the USEPA approved water quality standards in 1975, including numeric criteria and a plan for controlling salinity increases. The standards require Water Quality 4-5
that the plan ensure that the flow-weighted average annual salinity remain at or below the 1972 levels, while the Basin states continue to develop their 1922 Colorado River Compactapportioned water supply. The Forum selected three points on the main stream of the lower Colorado River to measure the river’s salinity. These points and numeric criteria are: (1) below Hoover Dam, 723 mg/L; (2) below Parker Dam, 747 mg/L; and (3) at Imperial Dam, 879 mg/L.
Per the Forum, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause approximately $454 million in quantified damages (2019 dollars) in the lower Basin each year.2 The salinity control program has proven to be very successful and cost-effective. Salinity control projects remove over a million tons of salts from the Colorado River water annually, resulting in reduced salinity concentrations of over 100 mg/L as a long-term average.
During the high-water flows of 1983-1986, salinity levels in the Colorado River dropped to a historic low of 525 mg/L. However, during the 1987-1992 drought, higher salinity levels of 600 to 650 mg/L returned. TDS in Lake Havasu was measured at 662 mg/L in October 2015 and was 592 mg/L in October 2019. Salinity is projected to continue increasing as water development occurs throughout the Colorado River basin, particularly as the Upper Colorado River Basin States continue to develop their apportioned water reducing dilution in the Colorado River. Also, under drought conditions, Lake Powell has received higher salinity water, and as the system normalizes, salinity is expected to increase in the lower Colorado River as water from Lake Powell is released downstream.
State Water Project
Water supplies from the SWP have significantly lower TDS concentrations than the Colorado River, averaging approximately 250 mg/L in water supplied through the East Branch and 325 mg/L on the West Branch over the long-term, with short term variability as a result of hydrologic conditions.3 Because of this lower salinity, Metropolitan blends SWP water with high salinity Colorado River water to reduce the salinity concentrations of delivered water. However, both the supply and the TDS concentrations of SWP water can vary significantly in response to hydrologic conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin watersheds.
As indicated above, the TDS concentrations of SWP water can vary widely over short periods of time. These variations reflect seasonal and tidal flow patterns, and they pose an additional problem for use of blending as a management tool to lower the higher TDS from the Colorado River supply. For example, during the 1977 drought, the salinity of SWP water reaching Metropolitan increased to 430 mg/L, and supplies became limited. During this same event, salinity at the SWP’s Banks pumping plant exceeded 700 mg/L. Under similar circumstances in the future, Metropolitan’s 500 mg/L TDS objective could only be achieved by reducing imported water from the Colorado River. Thus, it may be infeasible to maintain both the salinity objective and water supply reliability unless salinity concentrations of source supplies can be reduced.
A federal court ruling on a biological opinion issued in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addressing the effects of the water supply pumping operations on sensitive fish species in the Delta has limited SWP exports at specified times of the year since December 2007. These restrictions have increased reliance on higher salinity Colorado River water, impacting the ability at times to meet Metropolitan’s goal of 500 mg/L TDS at its blending plants. Drought conditions leading to lower SWP water supply allocations in recent years also affect Metropolitan’s ability to meet its salinity goal. The target goal was exceeded between 2008 and 2011 when water supply 2 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program–Briefing Document (March 20, 2019) 3 The higher salinity in the West Branch deliveries is due to salt loadings from local streams, operational conditions, and evaporation at Pyramid and Castaic Lakes. 4-6 Water Quality
allocations were reduced to 35-50 percent. Similarly, the target goal was exceeded between 2013 and 2015 when restricted annual water supply allocations were reduced to 5-35 percent and were briefly reduced to a historical zero percent allocation in January 2014.
The SWP Water Service Contract Article 19 TDS objectives specify a ten-year average of 220 mg/L and a maximum monthly average of 440 mg/L. These objectives have not been met, and Metropolitan is working with DWR and other agencies on programs aimed at reducing salinity in Delta supplies. These programs aim to reduce salinity on the San Joaquin River through modifying agricultural drainage and developing comprehensive basin plans. In addition, operable gates and channel barriers have been placed in strategic locations in the Delta to impede transport of seawater derived salt. For the first time since 1977, in response to California’s drought emergency, DWR installed a temporary rock barrier across False River in May 2015 to help limit salt intrusion from the San Francisco Bay into the central Delta. DWR is also leading the development of the Delta Conveyance Project, which involves water delivery upgrades that could reduce SWP salinity levels by diverting a greater percentage of lower salinity Sacramento River flows to the South Delta export pumps.
Recycled Water
Wastewater flows always experience significantly higher salinity concentrations than the potable water supply. Typically, each cycle of urban water use adds 250 to 400 mg/L of TDS to the wastewater. Salinity increases tend to be higher where specific commercial or industrial processes add brines to the discharge stream or where brackish groundwater infiltrates into the sewer system.
Where wastewater flows have high salinity concentrations, the use of recycled water may be limited or require more expensive treatment (e.g., reverse osmosis). Landscape irrigation and industrial reuse become problematic at TDS concentrations over 1,000 mg/L. Some crops such as strawberries and avocados are particularly sensitive to high TDS concentrations, and the use of high-salinity recycled water may reduce crop yields. In addition, water quality objectives in basin plans may lead to restrictions on the use of recycled water on lands overlying those groundwater basins.
These issues are exacerbated during times of drought, when the salinity of imported water supplies may increase salinity in wastewater flows and recycled water. Basin management plans and recycled water customers may restrict the use of recycled water at a time when its use would be most valuable. Therefore, to maintain the cost-effectiveness of recycled water, the salinity level of the region’s potable water sources and wastewater flows must be controlled.
In May 2009, the SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy to help streamline the permitting process and to help establish uniform statewide criteria for recycled water projects. The policy was amended in January 2013 and again in December 20184 to include baseline monitoring requirements for CECs. The amended policy includes updated annual volumetric reporting requirements for influent, effluent, and recycled water uses. This policy promotes the development of watershed- or basin-wide salt management plans (to be adopted by the respective Regional Boards) to meet water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses, rather than imposing project-by-project restrictions. The Recycled Water Policy identifies several criteria to guide recycled water irrigation or groundwater recharge project proponents in developing a Salt (and Nutrient) Management Plan (SNMP).
4 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2018/121118_7_final_amendment_oal.pdf Water Quality 4-7
Groundwater Basins
Increased TDS in groundwater basins occurs either when basins near the ocean are overdrafted, leading to seawater intrusion, or when agricultural and urban return flows add salts to the basins.
Much of the water used for agricultural or urban irrigation infiltrates into the aquifer, so where irrigation water is high in TDS or where the water transports salts from overlying soil, the infiltrating water will increase the salinity of the aquifer. In addition, wastewater discharges in inland regions may lead to salt buildup from fertilizer and dairy waste. In the 1950s and 1960s, high-TDS Colorado River water was used to recharge severely overdrafted aquifers and prevent saltwater intrusion, resulting in significant salt loadings to the region’s groundwater basins.
In the past, these high salt concentrations have caused some basins within Metropolitan’s service area to be unsuitable for municipal uses if left untreated. The Arlington Basin in Riverside and the Mission Basin in San Diego required demineralization before they could be returned to municipal service. The capacity of the larger groundwater basins makes them better able to dilute the impact of increasing salinity. While most groundwater basins within the region still produce water of acceptable quality, this resource must be managed carefully to minimize further degradation.
Even with today’s more heightened concern regarding salinity, approximately 600,000 tons of salts per year accumulate within the region, leading to ever-increasing salinity concentrations in many groundwater basins.5 Drought conditions have further impacted salinity levels in recycled water, reflective of increased salinity levels in source water. Increased recycled water salinity levels make it difficult for dischargers to comply with water quality objectives for groundwater basins.
To protect the quality of groundwater basins, Regional Boards often place restrictions on the salinity concentrations of water used for basin recharge or for irrigation of lands overlying the aquifers. Those situations may restrict water reuse and aquifer recharge, or they may require expensive mitigation measures. SNMPs offer an opportunity for stakeholders to work with Regional Boards to address salt and nutrient issues regionally. The SNMP development process is locally driven and focuses on addressing all sources of salts and nutrients, instead of only regulating individual recycled water projects which may not address all sources impacting groundwater. The SNMP objectives include: optimizing recycled water use, protecting groundwater supply and beneficial uses, protecting agricultural beneficial uses, and protecting human health. SNMPs were to be completed by May 2014 with a possible two-year extension.
After completion, SNMPs may be adopted in a Basin Plan Amendment.
Several SNMPs were completed by the completion deadline, while other plans were granted an extension for completion in 2016. The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan updated its TDS and Nitrogen Management Plan with a subsequent SNMP amendment in 2014. This SNMP highlights efforts to implement extensive groundwater recharge projects using recycled water in the Chino Basin and expansion of the GWRS in Orange County. The Central Basin and West Coast Basin SNMP was approved as an amendment to the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan in February 2015. This SNMP highlights existing and planned implementation measures to ensure future compliance with water quality objectives including increased recharge at seawater intrusion barriers, increased groundwater pump and treat by the Goldsworthy and Brewer Desalters, and increased recycled water use for irrigation. Multiple SNMPs have been completed in the San Diego Region, and basin plan amendments are being considered. SNMPs have also been approved for the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin. 5 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salinity Management Study:
Final Report (June 1999)
4-8 Water Quality
Perchlorate
Perchlorate compounds are used as a main component in solid rocket propellant and are also found in some types of munitions and fireworks. Perchlorate compounds quickly dissolve and become highly mobile in groundwater. Unlike many other groundwater contaminants, perchlorate neither readily interacts with the soil matrix nor degrades in the environment.
Conventional drinking water treatment (as utilized at Metropolitan’s water treatment plants) is not effective for perchlorate removal.
The primary human health concern related to perchlorate is its effect on the thyroid. Perchlorate can interfere with the thyroid’s ability to produce hormones required for normal growth and development. Pregnant women who are iodine deficient and their fetuses, infants and small children with low dietary iodide intake, and individuals with hypothyroidism may be more sensitive to the effects of perchlorate.
DDW established a primary drinking water standard for perchlorate in 2007 with an MCL of 6 micrograms per liter (µg/L), and a detection limit for purposes of reporting (DLR) of 4 µg/L. In February 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) lowered the public health goal (PHG)6 for perchlorate from 6 µg/L to 1 µg/L. In response to the new PHG,7 DDW reviewed the perchlorate MCL, but there was a lack of occurrence data below the DLR of 4 µg/L. In July 2020, due to improved analytical methods, and in order to evaluate a lower MCL, DDW proposed lowering the DLR for perchlorate initially to 2 µg/L, and subsequently to the PHG of 1 µg/L in a second phase effective January 1, 2024. On October 6, 2020, the SWRCB approved the proposal. There is currently no federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. On June 18, 2020, the USEPA withdrew its 2011 determination to regulate perchlorate under the SDWA and decided not to develop a federal MCL for perchlorate at the present time. Whether the USEPA should issue a national drinking water standard for perchlorate is the subject of ongoing litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The case is currently on hold while EPA is reviewing its prior decision not to set a federal MCL for perchlorate for compliance with the President’s Executive Order on “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Perchlorate was first detected in Colorado River water in June 1997 and was traced back to Las Vegas Wash. The source of contamination was found to be emanating from two chemical manufacturing facilities in Henderson, Nevada: (1) the former Tronox, Inc. site, and (2) a facility owned by American Pacific Corporation (AMPAC).
Following the detection of perchlorate in the Colorado River, Metropolitan, along with USEPA and agencies in Nevada including the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), organized the forces necessary to successfully treat and decrease the sources of perchlorate loading. Under NDEP oversight, remediation efforts began in 1998, and treatment operations became fully operational in 2004. These efforts have reduced perchlorate loading into Las Vegas Wash from over 1,000 lbs/day (prior to treatment) to 50-90 lbs/day since early 2007.
This has resulted in over 90 percent reduction of the perchlorate loading entering the Colorado River system. As of December 2020, remediation activities in Southern Nevada have resulted in the removal of more than 6,800 tons of perchlorate from the environment. In January 2009, Tronox filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection citing significant environmental liabilities taken from the previous site owner. A settlement was reached in February 2011 which resulted in the 6 A PHG is a concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that does not pose a significant risk to health. 7 MCLs are required to be established at a level as close to a chemical’s PHG as is technologically and economically feasible, placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health.
Water Quality 4-9
formation of the Nevada Environmental Response Trust (NERT). NERT initially received $81 million for cleanup efforts while pursuing additional funding sources.
In April 2014, Tronox reached a $5.15 billion settlement with its predecessors which awarded approximately $1.1 billion, directed to NERT, to clean up perchlorate and certain other contaminants at the former Tronox site in Henderson. The settlement, which represents one of the largest environmental recoveries in history, went into effect in January 2015 and helps to ensure adequate funds are available for site cleanup and protection of the downstream Colorado River. In December 2020, NERT’s assets totaled approximately $1.28 billion. NERT is currently investigating remedial options for long-term soil and groundwater cleanup, as well as conducting a regional investigation of downgradient perchlorate-contaminated areas to further reduce loading into Las Vegas Wash. This would help ensure compliance with a potential reduction of California’s perchlorate MCL of 6 µg/L, in light of the 1 µg/L PHG.
As a result of the aggressive clean-up efforts, perchlorate levels in Colorado River water at Lake Havasu have decreased significantly in recent years from a peak of 9 µg/L in May 1998.
Levels have remained less than 6 µg/L since October 2002 and have been typically less than 2 µg/L since June 2006. Metropolitan routinely monitors perchlorate at over 30 locations within its system, and levels currently remain below 2 µg/L. Metropolitan has not detected perchlorate in the SWP since monitoring began in 1997.
Perchlorate has also been found in groundwater basins within Metropolitan’s service area, largely from local sources. The vast majority of locations where perchlorate has been detected in the groundwater are associated with the manufacturing or testing of solid rocket fuels for the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), or with the manufacture, storage, handling, or disposal of perchlorate (such as Aerojet in Azusa in the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA in the Raymond Basin). Past agricultural practices using fertilizers laden with naturally occurring perchlorate have also been implicated in some areas. As of October 2020, per SWRCB’s water quality database, reported monitoring results from 2011 to present indicate that 358 wells in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura have detected perchlorate in their service areas at levels greater than 4 µg/L, while 219 wells have detected levels greater than 6 µg/L.8 Water systems may have installed treatment or removed wells from service due to perchlorate concentrations.
Metropolitan has investigated technologies to mitigate perchlorate contamination. Perchlorate cannot be removed using conventional water treatment. Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis do work effectively, but at a very high cost. Endeavour, LLC (which was formed in 2015 to continue operation of AMPAC’s groundwater treatment system) and NERT utilize a biological fluidized bed reactor (FBR) process train for the cleanup of their Henderson sites. A number of sites in Southern California have successfully installed ion exchange systems to treat perchlorate impacted groundwater. In November 2009, a study of biological treatment for perchlorate removal in the City of Pasadena’s groundwater was completed with funding provided through a Congressional mandate from USEPA to Metropolitan. The City of Pasadena decided to continue using ion exchange treatment for perchlorate removal and expanded treatment to two well sites.
Treatment options are available to recover groundwater supplies contaminated with perchlorate. However, it is very difficult to predict whether treatment will be pursued to recover all lost production because local agencies will make decisions based largely on cost 8 DDW data reported from the SWRCB Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Program’s web site:
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/. Numbers reported may change as the website is frequently updated. Also, the website includes additional source data reported by other entities. 4-10 Water Quality
considerations, ability to identify potentially responsible parties for cleanup, and the availability of alternative supplies.
Total Organic Carbon and Bromide
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form when source water containing high levels of total organic carbon (TOC) and bromide is treated with disinfectants such as chlorine or ozone. Studies have shown a link between certain cancers and DBP exposure. In addition, some studies have shown an association between reproductive and developmental effects and chlorinated water. While many DBPs have been identified and some are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, there are others that are not yet known. Even for those that are known, the potential adverse health effects may not be fully characterized.
Water agencies began complying with new regulations to protect against the risk of DBP exposure in January 2002. This rule, known as the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule, required water systems to comply with new MCLs and a treatment technique to improve control of DBPs. USEPA then promulgated the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule in January 2006 requiring systems to comply at terminus locations in the distribution system to be more representative of maximum residence time and to protect the public. Metropolitan has been in compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule since it became effective.
Existing levels of TOC and bromide in Delta water supplies present challenges for water utilities to maintain safe drinking water supplies and comply with regulations. Levels of these constituents in SWP water increase several-fold due to agricultural drainage and seawater intrusion as water moves through the Delta.
SWP water has also experienced lower alkalinity concentrations during years with increased snowmelt, particularly in 2017 and 2019. Low alkalinity requires higher TOC removal by treatment plants and potentially contributes to increased water corrosivity. As a corrosion control strategy, Metropolitan may blend low alkalinity SWP water with Colorado River Water, adjust effluent pH, and increase plant effluent alkalinity.
Source water quality improvements must be combined with cost-effective water treatment technologies to ensure safe drinking water at a reasonable cost. Metropolitan has five treatment plants: two that receive SWP water exclusively, and three that receive a blend of SWP and Colorado River water. In 2003 and 2005, Metropolitan completed upgrades to its SWP-exclusive water treatment plants, Mills and Jensen, respectively, to utilize ozone as its primary disinfectant.
This ozonation process minimizes the production of certain regulated disinfection byproducts that would otherwise form in the chlorine treatment of SWP water. The non-ozone plants utilizing blended water met federal guidelines for these byproducts through managing the blend of SWP and Colorado River water. To maintain the byproducts at a level consistent with federal law, Metropolitan limited the percentage of water from the SWP for plants utilizing chlorine as the primary disinfectant. In 2010, 2015, and 2017, Metropolitan completed ozone upgrades at Skinner, Diemer, and Weymouth water treatment plants, respectively. The estimated ozone retrofit cost for all five treatment plants is over $1.1 billion.
Nutrients
Elevated levels of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen compounds) can stimulate nuisance algal and aquatic weed growth that affects water system operations and consumer acceptability, including the production of noxious taste and odor compounds and algal toxins. In addition to taste and odor and toxin concerns, increases in algal and aquatic weed biomass can impede flow in conveyances, shorten filter run times, increase solids production at drinking water Water Quality 4-11
treatment plants, and add to organic carbon loading. Further, nutrients can provide an increasing food source that may lead to the proliferation of quagga and zebra mussels, and other invasive biological species. Studies have shown phosphorus to be the limiting nutrient in both SWP and Colorado River supplies. Therefore, any increase in phosphorus loading has the potential to stimulate algal growth, leading to the concerns identified above.
SWP supplies have significantly higher nutrient levels than Colorado River supplies. Wastewater discharges, agricultural drainage, and nutrient-rich soils in the Delta are primary sources of nutrient loading to the SWP. Metropolitan and other drinking water agencies receiving Delta water have been engaged in efforts to minimize the effects of nutrient loading from Delta wastewater plants. The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD), the primary discharger to the Sacramento River, is in the process of constructing wastewater treatment plant upgrades to comply with its 2010 discharge permit requirements for ammonia and nitrate removal. Excessive levels of ammonia are suspected to be altering the Delta’s food web which, in turn, has implications for SWP supply reliability. SRCSD expects to complete its EchoWater Project by mid-2022, in compliance with the 2023 deadline, and has stated that the project will serve multiple benefits including improving water quality in the Sacramento River, protecting the fragile Delta ecosystem, and expanding recycled water use opportunities. The improvements include a biological nutrient removal process for ammonia and nitrate removal. The project also includes tertiary treatment processes for filtration and enhanced disinfection. In 2014, the City of Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant, a discharger to the San Joaquin River, was issued a draft permit with a more stringent nitrate discharge limit consistent with the final discharge limits issued in SRCSD’s permit. Due to the lower limit, the City of Stockton began to make plans to implement similar plant upgrades as SRCSD to comply with discharge permit requirements. Construction is planned to be completed in March 2023.
Metropolitan reservoirs receiving SWP water have experienced several taste and odor episodes in recent years. For example, between 2015 and June 2020, Metropolitan reservoirs experienced 13 taste and odor events requiring treatment. A taste and odor event can cause a reservoir to be bypassed and potentially have a short-term effect on the availability of that supply.
Metropolitan has a comprehensive program to monitor and manage algae in its source water reservoirs. This program was developed to provide an early warning of algae related problems and taste and odor events to best manage water quality in the system.
The issue of cyanotoxins has become a growing concern as a result of increasing occurrences both nationally and internationally. For example, in August 2014, an algae bloom producing Microcystin in Lake Erie significantly affected the water supply for Toledo, Ohio, prompting the city to issue urgent notices to residents to not drink or boil the drinking water. This event stimulated state and federal legislation to develop health advisories and strategic plans for algal toxins. In June 2015, USEPA issued health advisories for two cyanobacterial toxins: Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin. The health advisories serve as recommended precautionary levels and are not enforceable federal water quality standards. Cyanotoxins are included on the current Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4), which identifies contaminants considered for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. USEPA has developed improved analytical methods for cyanotoxins to support nationwide monitoring for Microcystins, Anatoxin-a, and Cylindrospermopsin through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 4 program, which was published in 2016 and required monitoring to be conducted between 2018 and 2020.
Metropolitan is complying with Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule monitoring and reporting requirements. Although phosphorus levels are much lower in the Colorado River than in the SWP, this nutrient is still of concern. Despite relatively low concentrations (Colorado River has been considered an oligotrophic, or low-productivity, system), any additions of phosphorus 4-12 Water Quality
to Colorado River water can result in increased algal growth. In addition, low nutrient Colorado River water is relied upon by Metropolitan to blend down the high nutrient SWP water in Metropolitan’s blend reservoirs. With population growth expected to continue in the Las Vegas area in the future, ensuring high levels of treatment at wastewater treatment plants to maintain existing phosphorus levels will be critical in minimizing the operational, financial, and public health impacts associated with excessive algal growth and protecting downstream drinking water uses. Metropolitan and other affected drinking water agencies collaborate with wastewater dischargers in the Las Vegas area to protect the phosphorus-limited Colorado River.
Since 2001, wastewater dischargers have undertaken considerable efforts to improve treated effluent water quality by removing phosphorus on a year-round basis. In 2005, dischargers also began optimizing their treatment processes to remove greater amounts of phosphorus, maintaining levels well below current permit requirements.
Although current nutrient loading is of concern for Metropolitan and is anticipated to have cost implications, with its comprehensive monitoring program and response actions to manage algal related issues, there should be no impact on availability of water supplies. Metropolitan’s source water protection program will continue to focus on preventing future increases in nutrient loading as a result of urban and agricultural sources.
Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, soil, water, and air. It is used in wood preservatives, alloying agents, certain agricultural applications, semi-conductors, paints, dyes, and soaps. Arsenic can get into water from the natural erosion of rocks, dissolution of ores and minerals, runoff from agricultural fields, and discharges from industrial processes. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of arsenic in drinking water has been linked to certain cancers, skin pigmentation changes, and hyperkeratosis (skin thickening).
In April 2004, OEHHA set a PHG for arsenic of 0.004 µg/L, based on lung and urinary bladder cancer risk. The MCL for arsenic in domestic water supplies was lowered to 10 µg/L, with an effective date of January 2006 in the federal regulations, and an effective date of November 2008 in the California regulations. Monitoring results submitted to California Department of Public Health (now DDW) since 2010 showed that arsenic is ubiquitous in drinking water sources, reflecting its natural occurrence. They also showed that many sources have arsenic detections above the 10 µg/L MCL. Southern California drinking water sources, by county, that contain concentrations of arsenic over 10 µg/L include San Bernardino (113 sources), Los Angeles (82 sources), Riverside (52 sources), San Diego (5 sources), Orange (10 sources), and Ventura (3 sources).9
The arsenic drinking water standard impacts both groundwater and surface water supplies.
Historically, Metropolitan’s water supplies have had low levels of this contaminant and did not require treatment changes or capital investment to comply with the standard. However, some of Metropolitan’s water supplies from groundwater storage programs are at levels near the MCL.
These groundwater storage projects are called upon to supplement flow only during low SWP allocation years. Under drought conditions, Metropolitan has further relied on groundwater storage programs and continues to participate in the California Aqueduct Pump-in Facilitation Group to ensure that water quality in the SWP is not adversely affected when considering water supply decisions. Metropolitan has had to restrict flow from one program to limit arsenic increases in the SWP. Implementation of an arsenic treatment facility, which is operated by a groundwater 9 DDW data reported from the SWRCB Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Program’s web site:
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/. Numbers reported may change as the website is frequently updated. Also, the website includes additional source data reported by other entities.
Water Quality 4-13
banking partner, has increased groundwater supply costs. Moreover, Metropolitan has invested in solids handling facilities at its treatment plants and implemented operational changes to manage arsenic in the treatment process residual solids.
The DLR for arsenic is 2 µg/L. Between 2010 and June 2020, arsenic levels in Metropolitan’s water treatment plant effluents ranged from non-detect (< 2 µg/L) to 3.3 µg/L. For Metropolitan’s source waters, levels in Colorado River water have ranged from 2.2 to 2.8 µg/L, while levels in SWP water have ranged from non-detect to 4.8 µg/L. Increasing coagulant doses at water treatment plants can reduce arsenic levels for delivered water.
Some member agencies may face greater problems with arsenic compliance due to naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater. Per the Water Replenishment District’s 2018-2019 Regional Groundwater Monitoring Report, arsenic concentrations greater than the 10 µg/L MCL were detected in 9 of 220 Central Basin production wells.10 Water supplies imported by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power may also contain arsenic above the MCL. The cost of arsenic removal from these supplies could vary significantly.
Uranium
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed about 66 percent of a project to move a 16-million-ton pile of uranium mill tailings near Moab, Utah, which lies approximately 750 feet from the Colorado River. Due to the proximity of the pile to the Colorado River, there is a potential for the tailings to enter the river as a result of a catastrophic flood event or other natural disaster. In addition, contaminated groundwater from the site is slowly seeping into the river. The DOE is responsible for remediating the site, which includes removal and offsite disposal of the tailings and onsite groundwater remediation.
Previous investigations have shown uranium concentrations contained within the pile at levels significantly above the California MCL of 20 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Metropolitan has been monitoring for uranium in the CRA and at its treatment plants since 1986. Monitoring at Lake Powell began in 1998. Uranium levels measured at Metropolitan’s intake have ranged from 1 to 6 pCi/L, well below the California MCL. Conventional drinking water treatment, as employed at Metropolitan’s water treatment plants, can remove low levels of uranium; however, these processes would not be protective if a catastrophic event washed large volumes of tailings into the Colorado River. Public perception of drinking water safety is also of particular concern as to uranium.
Remedial actions at the site since 1999 have focused on removing contaminated water from the pile and groundwater. To date, over 5,300 pounds of uranium in contaminated groundwater have been removed. In July 2005, DOE issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement with the preferred alternative of permanent offsite disposal by rail to a disposal cell at Crescent Junction, Utah, located approximately 30 miles northwest of the Moab site.
Rail shipment and disposal of the uranium mill tailings pile from the Moab site began in April 2009 using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 funding which helped to accelerate initial cleanup efforts. Through September 2020, DOE has shipped over 10.9 million tons of mill tailings to the Crescent Junction disposal cell. DOE estimates completing movement of the tailings pile by 2034, depending on annual appropriations. Metropolitan continues to track progress of the remediation efforts and work with Congressional representatives to support increased annual appropriations and expedite cleanup.
10 Regional Groundwater Monitoring Report Water Year 2018-2019, Los Angeles County, California, prepared by Water Replenishment District, March 2020.
4-14 Water Quality
Another uranium-related issue began receiving attention in 2008 due to a renewed worldwide interest in nuclear energy and a resulting increase in uranium mining claims filed throughout the western United States. Of particular interest were thousands of mining claims filed near Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River. Metropolitan sent letters to the Secretary of the Interior to highlight source water protection and consumer confidence concerns related to uranium exploration and mining activities near the Colorado River, and advocate for close federal oversight over these activities. In 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a two-year hold on new mining claims on 1 million acres adjacent to the Grand Canyon to allow necessary scientific studies and environmental analyses to be conducted. In January 2012, Secretary Salazar formally signed a 20-year moratorium on new uranium and other hard rock mining claims. The moratorium has been challenged by a number of industry groups and was most recently upheld by a U.S. District Court in September 2014. Meanwhile, local conservation groups continue to defend the moratorium and are seeking additional protection of lands with mines that have been inactive for long periods of time but may resume operations. Although of no direct impact to Metropolitan due to its upstream location and resulting dilution, in August 2015, an accidental release of wastewater from an abandoned mine in southwest Colorado demonstrated the potential threat that mining activities can have on public health and the environment. In 2020, the DOE released a strategy to revive and expand nuclear fuel production which would be of interest to Metropolitan if projects are in proximity to the Colorado River.
Chromium-6
Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, soil, plants, and animals. Chromium-3 is typically the form found in soils and is an essential nutrient that helps the body use sugar, protein, and fat. Chromium-6 is used in electroplating, stainless steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing, dyes and pigments, wood preservation, and as an anti-corrosion agent.
Chromium occurs naturally in deep aquifers and can also enter drinking water through discharges of dye and paint pigments, wood preservatives, chrome plating liquid wastes, and leaching from hazardous waste sites. In drinking water, chromium-6 is very stable and soluble, whereas chromium-3 is not very soluble. Chromium-6 is the more toxic species and is known to cause lung cancer in humans when inhaled, but the health effects in humans from ingestion are still in question. There is evidence that when chromium-6 enters the stomach, gastric acids may reduce it to chromium-3. However, recent studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program have shown that chromium-6 can cause cancer in animals when administered orally.
Effective July 1, 2014, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved a primary drinking water standard of 10 µg/L for chromium-6. In May 2017, the Superior Court of Sacramento County issued a judgment invalidating California’s MCL of 10 µg/L for chromium-6 on the basis that CDPH (now DDW), had not properly considered the economic feasibility of complying with the MCL.
DDW therefore rescinded the chromium-6 MCL. However, chromium-6 remains regulated as part of total chromium. California’s MCL for total chromium is 50 µg/L. In February 2020, DDW released a white paper discussion on an updated economic feasibility analysis of chromium-6 treatment for the consideration of a new chromium-6 MCL. USEPA regulates chromium-6 as part of the total chromium drinking water standard of 100 µg/L and is currently evaluating whether a new federal drinking water standard for chromium-6 is warranted based on new health effects information.
Metropolitan utilizes an analytical method with a minimum reporting level of 0.03 µg/L, which is less than the State DLR of 1 µg/L. In the past 5 years, the results from all of Metropolitan’s source and treated waters are less than the State DLR. The following summarizes chromium-6 levels found in Metropolitan’s system:
Water Quality 4-15
In the past 5 years, results of source and treated water monitoring for chromium-6 indicate the following:
• Levels in Colorado River water are mostly not detected (<0.03 µg/L), but when detected, levels range from 0.03 to 0.085 µg/L. SWP levels range from 0.03 to 1.0 µg/L. Treated water levels range from 0.03 to 0.8 µg/L.
• There is a slight increase in chromium-6 in the treated water from the oxidation (chlorination and ozonation) of natural background chromium (total) to chromium-6. • Colorado River monitoring results upstream and downstream of the site of a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) gas compressor station located along the Colorado River near Topock, Arizona (discussed below) have ranged from not detected (<0.03 µg/L) to 0.06 µg/L. • Chromium-6 in Metropolitan’s groundwater pump-in storage programs in the Central Valley has ranged from not detected (< 1 µg/L) to 8.9 µg/L in 2014, with the average for the different programs ranging from < 1 µg/L to 3 µg/L.
PG&E used chromium-6 as an anti-corrosion agent in its cooling towers at the Topock site from 1951 to 1985. Wastewater from the cooling towers was discharged from 1951 to 1968 into a dry wash next to the station. Monitoring wells show the plume concentration has peaked as high as 16,000 µg/L in groundwater. Since 2004, PG&E has operated an interim groundwater extraction and treatment system that is protecting the Colorado River. This interim treatment system will be taken offline in September 2021 and replaced by the long-term groundwater remedy system.
Quarterly monitoring of the river has shown levels of chromium-6 less than 1 µg/L, which are considered background levels. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U. S. Department of the Interior are the lead state and federal agencies overseeing the cleanup efforts. Metropolitan participates through various stakeholder workgroups and partnerships that include state and federal regulators, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders (e.g., Colorado River Board) involved in the corrective action process. In January 2011, a final treatment remedy was selected, and an Environmental Impact Report was certified. In November 2015, PG&E completed the final remedy design based on the selected remedy which involves the installation of an in-situ bioremediation treatment system. In April 2015, DTSC required the preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address new design details. The Subsequent EIR was certified in April 2018. Construction of Phase 1, consisting of an In-situ reduction zone, began in October 2018 and is expected to be completed in 2021. Phase 2, consisting of a freshwater injection system, is anticipated to begin construction in 2023 and last about one year. Operation of the treatment system will run for an estimated 30 years.
The federal- and state-approved technologies for removing total chromium from drinking water include coagulation/filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and lime softening. For several years, the cities of Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles have been voluntarily limiting chromium6 levels in their drinking water to 5 µg/L, even after the MCL was rescinded in 2017. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP)
1,2,3-TCP is a chlorinated hydrocarbon with high chemical stability. It is a manmade chemical found at industrial or hazardous waste sites. It has been used as a cleaning and degreasing solvent and also is associated with pesticide products.
At its July 18, 2017 public meeting, the SWRCB adopted an MCL of 5 parts per trillion (ppt) for 1,2,3-TCP, and related requirements, including establishing a DLR, identifying the best available technology for treatment, and setting public notification and consumer confidence report language. The regulations also included a method for public water systems to substitute existing 4-16 Water Quality
water quality data for initial monitoring requirements under certain circumstances. Under the new regulation, drinking water agencies are required to perform quarterly monitoring of 1,2,3- TCP. There have been no detections of this chemical in Metropolitan’s system. However, 1,2,3- TCP has been detected above the new MCL in groundwater wells of three of Metropolitan’s groundwater storage program partners through monitoring performed by these agencies. Levels detected in groundwater wells of the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District are the highest and impact the ability of Metropolitan to put water and take return water under that program.
Metropolitan has temporarily suspended operation of this program until the water quality concerns can be further evaluated and managed. The levels of 1,2,3-TCP detected in Metropolitan’s other groundwater storage programs are much lower and impact fewer groundwater wells. Metropolitan is evaluating the effects of TCP on the return capability of those programs. Southern California counties that have detected concentrations of 1,2,3-TCP in drinking water sources at or over 5 ppt since 2010 include San Bernardino (48 sources), Los Angeles (63 sources), Riverside (24 sources), San Diego (10 sources), and Ventura (3 sources).11 Constituents of Emerging Concern
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is part of a family of organic chemicals called nitrosamines.
NDMA is a chloramine disinfection by-product, and it is the most abundantly detected nitrosamine in drinking water systems. Metropolitan utilizes chloramines as a secondary disinfectant at its treatment plants. Wastewater treatment plant discharges can contribute organic matter into source waters, which react with chloramines to form NDMA at drinking water treatment plants. Certain coagulation aid polymers used in water treatment, e.g., polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride (polyDADMAC), can also contribute to NDMA formation.
Some NDMA control measures are being used to avoid adverse impacts on Southern California drinking water supplies. Metropolitan is involved in several projects to understand the impact of different treatment processes on NDMA and its precursors at drinking water treatment plants and in distribution systems. Certain pre-oxidation processes, such as chlorine and ozone, have been shown to destroy NDMA precursors. Additional studies are being conducted to better understand how polyDADMAC contributes to NDMA formation and to identify measures to reduce polymer-derived NDMA formation.
USEPA considers NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen. USEPA placed NDMA on the Contaminant Candidate List 4 (CCL4). Although there is no federal regulation for nitrosamines in drinking water, DDW set a notification level of 0.01 µg/L each for NDMA and two other nitrosamines. Occurrences of NDMA in treated water supplies at concentrations greater than
0.01 µg/L are recommended to be included in a utility’s annual Consumer Confidence Report.
In December 2006, OEHHA set a PHG for NDMA of 0.003 µg/L. Since 1999, Metropolitan has conducted voluntary monitoring of the five treatment plant effluents and representative distribution system locations semi-annually. NDMA is the only detected nitrosamine in Metropolitan’s treated water systems, and it is in the range of non-detect (<0.002 µg/L) to 0.006 µg/L. NDMA or a broader class of nitrosamines may likely be the next class of disinfection byproducts to be regulated by USEPA. 11 DDW data reported from SWRCB Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Program’s web site:
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/. Numbers reported may change as the website is frequently updated. Also, the website includes additional source data reported by other entities.
Water Quality 4-17
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are a growing concern to the water industry. Numerous studies have reported the occurrence of these emerging contaminants in treated wastewater, surface water, and sometimes, in finished drinking water in the United States and around the world. The use of ozone in treatment processes may have a beneficial effect on PPCP removal in drinking water. The sources of PPCPs in the aquatic environment include (but may not be limited to) treated wastewater and industrial discharge, agricultural run-off, and leaching of municipal landfills. Currently, there is no evidence of human health risks from longterm exposure to the low concentrations (low ng/L; parts per trillion) of PPCPs found in some drinking water. Furthermore, there are no regulatory requirements for PPCPs in drinking water.
USEPA included 14 PPCPs on the CCL3 and 10 PPCPs on the CCL4, nine of which are carried over from the CCL3; however, currently there are no standardized analytical methods for these compounds. USEPA’s strategy for addressing PPCPs involves strengthening analytical methods, conducting source studies, improving public understanding of PPCPs in water, building partnerships and promoting stewardship opportunities, and taking regulatory action when appropriate.
In 2007, Metropolitan implemented a short-term monitoring program to determine the occurrence of PPCPs and other organic wastewater contaminants in Metropolitan’s treatment plant effluents and selected source water locations within the Colorado River and SWP watersheds. Currently, PPCP monitoring is conducted on an annual basis for Metropolitan’s source waters and treatment plants. Some PPCPs have been detected at very low ng/L levels, which is consistent with reports from other utilities. However, analytical methods are still being refined, and more work is required to fully understand occurrence issues. Metropolitan has been actively involved in studies related to PPCPs, including analytical methods improvements, and characterization of drinking water sources in California.
Microplastics
In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1422 added Section 116376 to the Health and Safety Code, which required the SWRCB to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water on or before July 1, 2020.
Section 116376 also requires the SWRCB on or before July 1, 2021, to: (1) adopt a standard methodology to be used in the testing of drinking water for microplastics; (2) adopt requirements for four years of testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water, including public disclosure of those results; (3) if appropriate, consider issuing a notification level or other guidance to help consumer interpretations of the results of the testing required; and (4) accredit qualified laboratories in California to analyze microplastics. No other states have defined microplastics.
Knowledge in the microplastics field has been primarily provided by the European Union. On June 16, 2020, the SWRCB adopted a definition, acknowledging the definition is a work in progress, and stated the SWRCB will re-visit the microplastic definition as knowledge in the field progresses. The definition reads: ‘Microplastics in Drinking Water’ are defined as solid polymeric materials to which chemical additives or other substances may have been added, which are particles which have at least three dimensions that are greater than 1nm and less than 5,000 micrometers (µm). Polymers that are derived in nature that have not been chemically modified (other than by hydrolysis) are excluded. Metropolitan is participating in a study with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project to develop analytical methods for microplastics.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Drinking water containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – and the larger family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – has become an increasing 4-18 Water Quality
concern due to the persistence of these chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater.
In August 2019, the SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) updated its guidelines for local water agencies to follow in detecting and reporting the presence of these chemicals in drinking water. The guidelines lower the notification levels from 14 parts per trillion (ppt) to 5.1 ppt for PFOA and from 13 ppt to 6.5 ppt for PFOS. These levels are based on updated health recommendations from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Notification levels are non-regulatory, precautionary health-based measures for concentrations of chemicals in drinking water that warrant notification and further monitoring and assessment. If a chemical concentration is greater than its notification level in drinking water that is provided to consumers, DDW recommends that the utility inform its customers and consumers about the presence of the chemical and about health concerns associated with exposure to it. The SWRCB also set new response levels (RLs) of 10 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS based on a running four quarter average. Previously, the RL was 70 ppt for the total concentration of the two contaminants combined. A response level is set higher than a notification level and represents a chemical concentration level at which DDW recommends a water system consider taking a water source out of service or providing treatment if that option is available to them. In March 2021, DDW issued an NL of 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) and an RL of 5 ppb for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), another PFAS chemical. The NL for PFBS is 100 times higher than the NLs for PFOA and PFOS. Metropolitan sources have not been affected by PFBS, but Metropolitan has not yet evaluated potential PFBS impacts on its member agencies’ sources. DDW has also asked OEHHA to recommend NLs for six other PFAS compounds consistently detected in California drinking water sources: perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), and 4,8-dioxia-3H-perflourononanoic acid (ADONA). Legislation which took effect on January 1, 2020 (California Assembly Bill 756), requires that water systems that receive a monitoring order from the SWRCB and detect levels of PFAS that exceed their respective RLs must either take the drinking water source out of use or provide specified public notification if they continue to supply water above the RL.
In addition to the updated notification levels, DDW has requested that OEHHA develop PHGs for both PFOA and PFOS, the next step in the process of establishing MCLs in drinking water. As of the writing of this UWMP, draft PHGs have not been released. Other chemicals in the broader group of PFAS may be considered later, either individually or grouped, as data permits. On March 19, 2021, OEHHA announced its intent to list PFOA as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). On March 26, 2021, OEHHA announced its review of the carcinogenic hazard of PFOS for possible listing under Proposition
65. That same day, OEHHA also announced its assessment of the reproductive toxicity of PFDA, PFHxS, PFNA, and perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) for possible listing under Proposition 65.
Comments regarding whether PFOA meets the criteria to be listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 were due by May 3, 2021. The public had until May 10, 2021, to submit information relevant to the assessment of the carcinogenicity of PFOS and the reproductive toxicity of PFDA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFUnDA. In November 2017, OEHHA listed PFOA and PFOS as chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.
Water Quality 4-19
On the federal level, U.S. EPA announced on January 19, 2021 that it is considering whether to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility and Liability Act (CERCLA) and/or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On February 22, 2021, U.S. EPA announced its proposed revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) for public water systems which includes monitoring for 29 PFAS in drinking water. The proposal would require pre-sampling preparations in 2022, sample collection from 2023-2025, and reporting of final results through 2026. Comments on U.S. EPA’s proposal will be due within 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. On March 3, 2021, U.S. EPA published its final regulatory determination to regulate PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. EPA has 24 months to propose maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) and MCLs for PFOA and PFOS. Following that deadline, EPA has 18 months to publish final MCLGs and MCLs for PFOA and PFOS.
PFOA and PFOS were introduced in the 1940s and widely used in firefighting foams and in grease and stain-resistant, non-stick coatings in a variety of consumer products such as food paper packaging, carpets, furniture and cookware. The main route of exposure to PFOA and PFOS is through ingestion. While consumer products have been a large source of exposure to these chemicals for most people, drinking water has become an increasing concern due to the persistence of PFAS chemicals in the environment and their tendency to accumulate in groundwater. Groundwater contamination typically has been associated with an industrial facility where these chemicals were manufactured or used in other products, such as airfields and military bases where the chemicals have been used for firefighting or in areas near landfills that accept items containing PFAS.
Metropolitan has not detected PFOA or PFOS in its raw water. In 2019, Metropolitan detected in its supplies low levels of PFHxA, which is not acutely toxic or carcinogenic and is not currently regulated in California or at the federal level. No other PFAS have been detected in Metropolitan’s imported or treated supplies. However, some of its member agencies have experienced detections in their groundwater wells. As DDW moves to establish MCLs for PFOA and PFOS, Metropolitan’s member agencies may be confronted with the choice of implementing treatment or inactivating their affected sources to remain in compliance with DDW regulations. This may cause those systems to supplement their water needs with increased purchases of Metropolitan water.
1,4-Dioxane
1,4-dioxane has been used as a stabilizer for solvents, in particular 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA), and a solvent in its own right, as well as in a number of industrial and commercial applications. 1,4-dioxane is an emerging contaminant. In response to the occurrence data and potential adverse health effects, a notification level for 1,4-dioxane of 1 μg/L was established. The response level for 1,4-dioxane is 35 μg/L.
The SWRCB set a notification level of 1 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water in November 2010, revising an earlier notification level of 3 µg/L set in March 1998 that was based on a risk determination by the U.S. EPA and concurrence from OEHHA. In August 2010, U.S. EPA revised its 1,4-dioxane risk evaluation, lowering the recommended levels in drinking water by nearly 10-fold to 0.35 µg/L. Following U.S. EPA’s reevaluation of risk, the SWRCB revised the notification level to 1 µg/L in November 2010, considering analytical limitations at the time. On January 22, 2019, the SWRCB asked OEHHA to establish a PHG for 1,4-dioxane. OEHHA’s PHG will be used by the SWRCB to set an MCL for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water.
4-20 Water Quality
Advanced oxidation treatment is currently the water industry’s preferred treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. However, DDW has not yet adopted a Best Available Technology for 1,4-dioxane treatment.
There are currently 90 wells in Los Angeles County and 21 wells in Orange County that have detected 1,4-dioxane over the NL in the last three years.12 Other Water Quality Programs
In addition to monitoring for and controlling specific identified chemicals in the water supply, Metropolitan has undertaken several programs to protect the quality of its water supplies. These programs are summarized below.
Source Water Protection
Source water protection is the first step in a multi-barrier approach to provide safe and reliable drinking water. In accordance with California’s Surface Water Treatment Rule, Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, DDW requires large utilities delivering surface water to complete a Watershed Sanitary Survey every five years to identify possible sources of drinking water contamination, evaluate source and treated water quality, and recommend watershed management activities that will protect and improve source water quality. The most recent sanitary surveys for Metropolitan’s water sources are the Colorado River Watershed Sanitary Survey – 2015 Update and the State Water Project Watershed Sanitary Survey – 2016 Update. 13 The next Sanitary Surveys for the watersheds of the Colorado River and the SWP will report on watershed and water quality issues through 2020.
Metropolitan has an active source water protection program and continues to advocate on numerous issues to protect and enhance SWP and Colorado River water quality. As part of its source water protection program, Metropolitan monitors and forecasts source water quality, including closely monitoring the biology and limnology of lakes and aqueducts. Monitoring is conducted to comply with regulatory requirements, respond to water quality events, assess temporal variability, advise operations, and investigate emerging constituents and invasive species.
Colorado River Water Quality Partnerships
Metropolitan collaborates with external partners to asses and manage watershed threats to Colorado River water quality. Metropolitan is a member of the Clean Colorado River Sustainability Coalition, which was formed in 1997 and focuses on protecting and enhancing the Colorado River through monitoring and analysis of water quality to assure and sustain high quality water for all users of the Colorado River. In 2011, Metropolitan formed the Lower Colorado River Water Quality Partnership with SNWA and Central Arizona Project to identify and implement collaborative solutions to address water quality issues facing the Colorado River. Metropolitan also participated in the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum, which was formed in 2012, and its Lake Mead Ecosystem Monitoring Workgroup subcommittee. The Lake Mead Water Quality Forum’s goals were to support the protection of human health and the environment and to preserve and improve the water quality of the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead (and as a 12 DDW data reported from SWRCB Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Program’s web site:
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/. Numbers reported may change as the website is frequently updated. Also, the website includes additional source data reported by other entities. 13 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Colorado River Watershed Sanitary Survey, 2015 Update. For the State Water Project, the sanitary survey report was prepared on behalf of the State Water Project Contractors Authority, in 2016, and was titled California State Water Project 2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update.
Water Quality 4-21
result, the Colorado River). In addition, as discussed earlier, Metropolitan is a member of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum which facilitates coordination between Basin states and federal agencies on salinity matters and the implementation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
SWP Water Quality Programs
Metropolitan supports DWR policies and programs aimed at maintaining or improving the quality of SWP water delivered to Metropolitan. In particular, Metropolitan supported the DWR policy to govern the quality of non-project water conveyed by the California Aqueduct. In addition, Metropolitan has supported the expansion of DWR’s Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program beyond its Bay-Delta core water quality monitoring and studies to include enhanced water quality monitoring and forecasting of the Delta and SWP. These programs are designed to provide early warning of water quality changes that will affect treatment plant operations both in the short-term (hours to weeks) and up to seasonally. The forecasting model is currently suitable for use in a planning mode. It is expected that with experience and model refinement, it will be suitable to use as a tool in operational decision making.
Metropolitan has implemented selective withdrawals from storage programs and exchanges to improve water quality. Although these programs were initially designed to provide dry-year supply reliability, they can also be used to store SWP water at periods of better water quality so the stored water may be withdrawn at times of lower water quality, thus diluting SWP water deliveries. Although elevated arsenic levels have been a concern in one groundwater banking program, there are also short-term water quality benefits that can be realized through storage programs, such as groundwater pump-ins into the California Aqueduct with lower TOC levels (as well as lower bromide and TDS, in some programs).
Regulatory and Legislative Actions
Metropolitan conducts technical reviews of regulatory and legislative actions that may have an effect on the quality of Metropolitan’s source waters. These may include changes in federal and state water quality standards; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for projects or programs within Metropolitan’s source watersheds; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for wastewater discharges into the Delta or Colorado River systems; and regulations or statewide policies and permits affecting source water quality or reservoir management issues.
In addition, Metropolitan advocates and provides funding requests for key source water protection priorities, including the Moab uranium tailings cleanup and Colorado River salinity control. In 2020, Metropolitan also co-sponsored SB 996 with the California Municipal Utilities Association to establish a statewide CEC program, which has been re-introduced as SB 230 in 2021’s legislative session.
4-22 Water Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-1
Coordination and
Public Outreach 5
Collaborative Regional Planning
Southern California meets its water challenges through collaborative long-range planning, bringing local perspectives and data together with expert knowledge of hydrology, climate change, demographics, and economics. Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was developed as part of the ongoing 2020 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) planning process and provides a representation of Metropolitan’s planning elements reported under the conditions required by the Act. Together, these plans serve as the reliability road map for the region. The planning process involved extensive coordination with Southern California’s wholesale and retail water agencies, as well as municipal service providers and public planning agencies. Outreach efforts sought to engage the general public, businesses, environmental organizations, diverse communities, cities, counties, and other stakeholders with an interest in the future of Southern California’s water supplies.
This chapter describes how Metropolitan’s process to develop the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) complies with the provisions for coordination and public outreach in the Urban Water Management Planning Act included as part of the California Water Code (CWC) §10610, et seq.
Concurrent Planning with the 2020 Integrated Water Resources Plan Metropolitan and its member agencies used a scenario planning approach for the 2020 IRP.
Instead of focusing on a target for future water supply needs, this approach encouraged broader thinking and discussion on possible future conditions for local and imported water supply and retail demand, and the policy implications for Metropolitan. Adaptive management during implementation will allow flexibility in how the region prepares for the supply and demand conditions that are becoming more likely. The planning started with identifying drivers of change for water supply and demand, understanding how they interact, and then assessing the potential scale of impact in the future. Data sources were identified that could be used for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The detailed analyses of future local and imported water supplies; economic growth, demographics and water demands; and changing hydrology were incorporated into the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP. The IRP planning effort and policy discussions continued into 2021.
Board of Directors Oversight
Metropolitan’s Board of Directors provided oversight throughout the ongoing process for the development of the 2020 IRP that informed the preparation of the 2020 UWMP. The Board established the Integrated Resources Plan Special Committee (IRP Committee) to provide focused involvement of the Metropolitan Board for the preparation of these plans. The IRP Committee has 14 members, and all Board members are invited to attend and participate in discussions. The meetings are held online due to COVID-19 concerns. They are open to the public, and the public is invited to provide comments at each meeting. The IRP Committee held 12 meetings between February 2020 and March 2021, as summarized in Table 5-1. 5-2 Coordination and Public Outreach
Table 5-1
Summary of Metropolitan Board of Directors IRP Committee Meetings Date Committee Topic
February 25, 2020 IRP Committee Overview of the planning process, introduction to scenario planning, identify major policy areas
April 28, 2020 IRP Committee Review process and scenario planning, identify relevant policy questions
May 26, 2020 IRP Committee Review schedule, overview of stakeholder outreach
June 23, 2020 IRP Committee Discuss drivers of change and method for constructing scenarios
July 28, 2020 IRP Committee Qualitative and quantitative assessment for scenarios, collaboration with member agencies
August 17, 2020 IRP Committee IRP purpose and benefit; development of an example scenario
September 22, 2020 IRP Committee Draft scenarios and analysis October 27, 2020 IRP Committee Scenario assumptions and preliminary analysis of drivers
December 15, 2020 IRP Committee Draft retrospective of the 2015 IRP, preliminary gap analysis and policy implications of the 2020
IRP
January 26, 2021 IRP Committee Comments and feedback on 2015 IRP retrospective report, 2020 IRP policy discussion
February 23, 2021 IRP Committee Policy discussion on portfolio development, preparation for workshops with demand and
climate experts
March 23, 2021 IRP Committee Workshop with water demand experts Coordination with Member Agencies and Other Organizations Metropolitan coordinated the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and the WSCP with its 26 member agencies, wastewater management agencies, municipal service providers, groundwater management agencies, cities and counties within which Metropolitan provides water supplies, and regional planning agencies. The extensive regional coordination is consistent with the requirements of CWC Sections 10610.2(a)(4), 10620(d)(3), 10621(b), 10641, and 10642. With the WSCP initially included as part of the 2020 UWMP and the content of Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP the same as the content of Appendix 11 to the 2020 UWMP, the required coordination, notification, hearing, and adoption of the WSCP and Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP were accomplished side by side and concurrently with the 2020 UWMP process. Additionally, the WSDM Plan and WSAP, which are planning components included as part of the WSCP, were previously developed through extensive coordination with member agencies and various stakeholders and adopted by Metropolitan’s Board in 1999 and 2008, respectively, and subsequent revisions to the WSAP were adopted in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014.
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-3
Metropolitan collaborated with its member agencies through the Member Agency Managers meetings and an IRP Member Agency Technical Workgroup, as well as the UWMP Coordination Meetings with member agencies and other appropriate agencies. These meetings provided an opportunity to share information, discuss scenario development and data analysis, and review draft analyses of future supply and demand. A summary of the meetings is provided in Table 5-2. In addition, Metropolitan staff met with member agency staff individually and provided presentations to member agency boards upon request.
Work with the member agencies was structured to complement presentations and discussions with the IRP Committee. Presentations and discussions with the Member Agency Technical Workgroup were incorporated into the following Member Agency Managers meetings. The feedback from the Member Agency Managers was then used to develop the presentations for the upcoming IRP Committee meetings. The Committee discussion and direction provided to staff informed the preparation of analysis and materials for the next Member Agency Technical Workgroup. This iterative process allowed for regular input and discussion, an essential element of scenario planning.
The first step in the planning process was to identify the drivers of change, those external factors that could impact future water supply and demand for the region. Over several months, Metropolitan worked with the Board, member agencies, stakeholders and the public to identify a broad range of drivers, understand how the drivers interact, and assess the potential scale of impact on water supply and demand. An important part of the discussion focused on how the impact of drivers could be evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. The member agencies made recommendations on data and methodologies that could be used, and the draft analyses led to refinements.
Using the requirements for the UWMP, Metropolitan analyzed the data provided by the member agencies, other regional planning organizations such as SCAG and SANDAG, the California Department of Water Resources, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Local and imported water supplies were included, as well as demand management programs, regulations, and public acceptance of conservation as a way of life. Metropolitan prepared the data in five-year increments for conditions under normal water year, single dry year, and for droughts lasting at least five years as required in CWC Section 10631. The analyses were shared with the member agencies for their feedback, and to assist with their preparation and adoption of their plans.
When requested, Metropolitan staff met individually with the member agencies to review the data sets and discuss any agency-specific questions or issues. Regional issues and analysis methodologies were discussed during the technical workgroup meetings and the Member Agency Managers meetings. Preliminary estimates of demand and supply were included in the Final Draft 2020 UWMP and draft Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP distributed to the member agencies in December 2020. Further refinements of demand and supply estimates were included in the Public Review drafts of the 2020 UWMP and draft Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP that were prominently posted on Metropolitan’s website in February 2021, March 2021, and April 2021.
Public Outreach during IRP/UWMP/Appendix 11/WSCP Preparation Metropolitan involved environmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, academia, diverse communities, and the public in the preparation of the IRP, 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP. Public outreach provides an invitation and a means for the public to provide input on the region’s future water supply reliability. Metropolitan’s three key objectives for public involvement in the preparation of the 2020 IRP, 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP are as follows:
5-4 Coordination and Public Outreach
• Ensure that the planning process is understandable and accessible to anyone who has an interest in Southern California’s water resources and water supply reliability • Provide opportunities for learning, dialogue, and input • Create a pathway to encourage continued engagement in future policy discussions “Water Tomorrow” is Metropolitan’s brand to build awareness of long-range planning efforts and programs for water reliability. The website MWDWaterTomorrow.com links the IRP, 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP. It provides key information on the IRP and IRP Committee presentations, as well as notice of stakeholder workshops. Metropolitan shares news and updates about the IRP and UWMP through Metropolitan’s e-newsletter and social media on several platforms. Metropolitan also provides speakers for community, governmental and business organizations throughout its service area.
To encourage public involvement during the planning process, Metropolitan held two public workshops in May 2020 using an online platform due to COVID-19 concerns. The workshops introduced the scenario planning approach and focused on drivers of change, opening up dialogue and discussion among stakeholders across the region. Over 500 stakeholders participated, sharing their ideas on what could drive future water supply and demand conditions. Throughout the planning process the public was invited to provide comments at each IRP Committee meeting and to view the presentations and listen to the board discussions.
The third outreach objective looks to the future. One of Metropolitan’s overarching communication goals is to develop the general public’s knowledge of water resource issues and the range of solutions available to Southern California. An informed public is better able to contribute to the discussions and understand the implications and opportunities afforded by decisions. Metropolitan is building on the momentum for the IRP, 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP planning efforts to encourage continued public involvement in water issues. Stakeholders will continue to receive updates through MWDWaterTomorrow.com, social media, and e-news.
2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP Public Notice and Adoption CWC Section 10632 requires urban water suppliers to prepare a detailed WSCP. While the WSCP is its own independent plan that may be revised at any point in time, it is initially included as part of the 2020 UWMP.
Metropolitan provided notice of the availability of the draft 2020 UWMP (including Appendix 11 which will also be a new Appendix 11 to its 2015 UWMP) and the WSCP, and notice of the public hearing to consider adoption of both plans and Appendix 11 as an addendum to its 2015 UWMP, in accordance with CWC Sections 10621(b) and 10642, and Government Code Section 6066, and Chapter 17.5 (starting with Section 7290) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. The public review drafts of the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and the WSCP were posted prominently on Metropolitan’s website, mwdh2o.com, on February 1, 2021, more than 60 days in advance of the public hearing on April 12, 2021. The notice of availability of the documents was sent to Metropolitan’s member agencies, as well as to cities and counties in Metropolitan’s service area. In addition, a public notice advertising the public hearing in English and Spanish was published in 12 Southern California newspapers. The notification in English language newspapers was published on February 1 and 8, 2021. The notification was also published on January 28-30, 2021 and February 1, 4-6, and 8, 2021 in Spanish language newspapers, satisfying the requirement for non-English language notification. Copies of: (1) the notification letter sent to the member agencies, cities and counties in Metropolitan’s service area, and (2) the notice published in the newspapers are included in this section. Table 5-3 Coordination and Public Outreach 5-5
provides a list of participating member agencies and other appropriate agencies that Metropolitan coordinated with in its regional planning, as well as the cities and counties that were notified about the preparation of its 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP. In addition, the list of newspaper publications is included in Table 5-4.
Metropolitan held the public hearing for the draft 2020 UWMP, draft Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and draft WSCP on April 12, 2021, at the Board’s Water Planning and Stewardship Committee meeting, held online due to COVID-19 concerns. On May 11, 2021, Metropolitan’s Board determined that the 2020 UWMP and the WSCP are consistent with the Act and accurately represent the water resources plan for Metropolitan’s service area. In addition, Metropolitan’s Board determined that Appendix 11 to both the 2015 UWMP and the 2020 UWMP includes all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003) which need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action. As stated in Resolutions 9279, 9280, and 9281, the Board adopted the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and the WSCP, and authorized their submittal to the State of California. Copies of Resolutions 9279, 9280, and 9281 are included in this section.
Submission and Availability of Final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to 2015 UWMP, and WSCP In fulfillment of CWC Sections 10632(c) and 10645(a) and (b), Metropolitan’s final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to its 2015 UWMP, and its WSCP were posted on the mwdh2o.com website in May 2021, following their adoption by the Metropolitan Board. This satisfies the requirement to make the plans available for public review and to make the WSCP available to Metropolitan’s customers (which are its member agencies).
In fulfillment of CWC Sections 10632(c), 10635(c), and 10644(a)(1), Metropolitan also mailed copies of the final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and the WSCP (in electronic pdf format) to the California State Library and all cities and counties within Metropolitan’s service area within 30 days of Board adoption.
In fulfillment of CWC Section 10621(f) and Sections 10644(a)(1), (2), and (b), Metropolitan’s final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP were electronically submitted to the State of California through DWR’s WUE data website https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/secure/ in June 2021.
5-6 Coordination and Public Outreach
Table 5-2
2020-2021 Member Agency Participation
Date Group Topic
May 5, 2020 Member Agency UWMP
Coordinators and Consultants
UWMP Member Agency Coordination
Meeting #1 – Kickoff of UWMP Process
May 13, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
IRP schedule and process, drivers of
change brainstorm
May 15, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
IRP schedule and process, drivers of
change brainstorm
June 10, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Drivers of change survey, process for
constructing scenarios
June 12, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Drivers of change survey, process for
constructing scenarios
June 30, 2020 Member Agency UWMP
Coordinators and Consultants
UWMP Member Agency Coordination
Meeting #2 – Coordination with DWR on
Guidebook Development and Reduced
Delta Reliance Reporting
July 15, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Drivers of change, qualitative and
quantitative assessment
July 17, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Drivers of change, qualitative and
quantitative assessment
August 5, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Qualitative and quantitative assessment
August 6, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Qualitative and quantitative assessment
August 12, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Qualitative and quantitative assessment
August 21, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
IRP progress, draft scenario framework
August 24, 2020 Member Agency Meeting: IEUA Coordination meeting on IEUA UWMP preparation
September 10, 2020 Member Agency Meeting:
MWDOC
Kickoff meeting on UWMP preparation
with MWDOC Retail Agencies
September 16, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Draft scenario framework, narrative
summaries
September 18, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Draft scenario framework, assumptions
September 28, 2020 Member Agency Meeting:
SDCWA
Coordination meeting on UWMP
preparation (Reduced Delta Reliance)
October 8, 2020 Member Agency UWMP and IRP
Coordinators and Consultants
Technical Meeting on IRP Analysis, Local
Supply Information Exchange, Reduced
Delta Reliance Reporting
October 14, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Draft scenario assumptions, preliminary
analysis
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-7
Table 5-2 (continued)
2020-2021 Member Agency Participation
Date Group Topic
October 16, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Draft scenario assumptions, preliminary
analysis
November 13, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Imported water supply analysis;
preliminary results for UWMP and IRP
scenarios
November 24, 2020 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Preliminary assumptions and gap analysis
for IRP scenarios
November 30, 2020 Member Agency UWMP
Coordinators, Sanitation Districts,
Groundwater Managers, and
Stakeholders
UWMP Member Agency Coordination
Meeting #3 – Discussion of Final Draft
UWMP
December 11, 2020 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
IRP update and preliminary results for
UWMP
January 15, 2021 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
UWMP update and discussion of
reliability for IRP
February 12, 2021 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Scenario refinements, engaging local
agencies for groundwater, surface water
and local projects
February 22, 2021 Member Agency Technical
Workgroup
Scenario and gap analysis refinements,
engaging local agencies for
groundwater, surface water and local
projects; preparation for workshops with
demand and climate experts
March 12, 2021 Member Agency Managers
Meeting
Discussion on workshops with water
demand and climate change experts
March 18, 2021 Member Agency UWMP
Coordinators and Consultants
UWMP status update, Reduced Delta
Reliance reporting, Understanding
Alternative Forecasts and Projections for
Demand on Metropolitan
5-8 Coordination and Public Outreach
Table 5-3
Water Supplier Information Exchange
6 Counties
Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino
San Diego Ventura
136 Cities
Agoura Hills Fillmore Long Beach Rosemead
Aliso Viejo Fontana Los Alamitos San Clemente
Arcadia Fountain Valley Lynwood San Dimas
Artesia Fullerton Malibu San Fernando
Azusa Garden Grove Manhattan Beach San Gabriel
Bell Gardens Gardena Maywood San Jacinto
Bellflower Glendale Menifee San Marcos
Bradbury Glendora Mission Viejo San Marino
Buena Park Hawaiian Gardens Monrovia Santa Ana
Burbank Hermosa Beach Monterey Park Santa Fe Springs
Calabasas Hidden Hills Moorpark Santa Monica
Camarillo Huntington Beach Murrieta Seal Beach
Carson Imperial Beach National City Sierra Madre
Chino Industry Newport Beach Signal Hill
Chino Hills Inglewood Norco Simi Valley
Chula Vista Irvine Norwalk Solana Beach
Claremont Irwindale Ontario South El Monte
Compton La Canada Flintridge Oxnard South Gate
Corona La Habra Palos Verdes Estates South Pasadena
Covina La Habra Heights Paramount Stanton
Cudahy La Mesa Pasadena Temecula
Culver City La Mesa Perris Temple City
Cypress La Mirada Pico Rivera Thousand Oaks
Dana Point La Palma Placentia Torrance
Del Mar La Puente Pomona Upland
Diamond Bar La Verne Port Hueneme Ventura
Downey Laguna Beach Poway Villa Park
Duarte Laguna Hills Rancho Cucamonga Vista
Eastvale Laguna Niguel Rancho Palos Verdes Walnut
El Cajon Laguna Woods Rancho Santa
Margarita West Hollywood
El Monte Lake Elsinore Redondo Beach Westlake Village
El Segundo Lake Forest Riverside Westminster
Encinitas Lakewood Rolling Hills Whittier
Escondido Lawndale Rolling Hills Estates Wildomar
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-9
Table 5-3
Water Supplier Information Exchange (continued)
26 Member Agencies
Anaheim Foothill MWD
Municipal Water
District of Orange
County
Three Valleys MWD
Beverly Hills Fullerton Pasadena Torrance
Burbank Glendale San Diego County
Water Authority
Upper San Gabriel
Valley MWD
Calleguas MWD Inland Empire Utilities
Agency San Fernando West Basin MWD
Central Basin MWD Las Virgenes MWD San Marino Western MWD Compton Long Beach Santa Ana
Eastern MWD Los Angeles Santa Monica
9 Groundwater Basin Management Organizations
Santa Margarita River
Watermaster
Ventura County
Watershed Protection
District
Water Replenishment
District
Upper Los Angeles
River Area
Watermaster
San Bernardino
County Flood Control
District
Chino Basin
Watermaster
Main San Gabriel
Basin Watermaster/
Orange County
Water District
Raymond Basin
Management Board
Other Agencies / Planning Organizations
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
City of Los Angeles
Bureau of Sanitation
Southern California
Association of
Governments
Western Riverside
Council of
Governments
Orange County
Sanitation District
City of San Diego
Metropolitan
Wastewater
Department
City of San Diego
Recycled Water
Section Public Utilities
Department
San Diego
Association of
Governments
California State
Water Contractors
5-10 Coordination and Public Outreach
Table 5-4
Newspaper Publication of Public Hearing Notification
English Language Newspapers
Los Angeles County Los Angeles Times February 1 and 8, 2021 Orange County Orange County Register February 1 and 8, 2021 San Bernardino Inland Valley Daily Bulletin February 1 and 8, 2021 Ventura County Ventura County Star February 1 and 8, 2021 Riverside County Press Enterprise February 1 and 8, 2021 San Diego County San Diego Union Tribune February 1 and 8, 2021 Spanish Language Newspapers
Los Angeles County La Opinion February 1 and 8, 2021
Orange County Excelsior January 29, 2021 and February 5, 2021 San Bernardino El Chicano January 28, 2021 and February 4, 2021 Ventura County VIDA Ventura County January 28, 2021 and February 4, 2021 Riverside County La Prensa Hispana January 29, 2021 and February 5, 2021 San Diego County Fronteras January 30, 2021 and February 6, 2021 Coordination and Public Outreach 5-11
(Notification per California Water Code § 10621(b) and § 10642) Letter Notifying Cities and Counties
February 1, 2021 [Sent via US Mail to Member Agencies, City Managers, and County Administrators] Notice of Public Hearing on The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Draft Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and Draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) cordially invites you to participate and provide comments at a public hearing on the draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), draft Appendix 11 as an addendum to the 2015 UWMP, and draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The UWMP presents Metropolitan’s long-term plan for ensuring water supply reliability and water quality for the region. The draft 2020 UWMP complies with California state law requiring urban water suppliers to prepare and update urban water management plans every five years. The draft WSCP includes Metropolitan’s efficient management and planned actions to respond to actual water shortage conditions. Metropolitan’s WSCP satisfies the requirements of the California Water Code. The draft Appendix 11 to both the 2015 UWMP and the 2020 UWMP includes all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003) which need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action. The hearing will be held as part of the meeting of the Water Planning and Stewardship Committee whose board members are helping to shape a public dialogue on the future of water management and conservation in the region. The meeting details are as follows:
Water Planning and Stewardship Committee Meeting
Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM
(expected time; please confirm time 7 days prior to meeting) Teleconference Participation Only
No Physical Meeting Location
As a result of the COVID-19 emergency and the Governor’s Executive Orders to protect public health by limiting public gatherings and requiring social distancing, at this time, this meeting is scheduled to occur via remote presence.
The Water Planning and Stewardship Committee meeting will be live streamed and recorded and may be accessed using the following link:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Pages/default.aspx. (Please check this website for final time of the Public Hearing.) The draft 2020 UWMP, draft Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and draft WSCP are posted on Metropolitan’s website, mwdh2o.com, for your review. Public input is encouraged and will be considered during finalization of the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP. Written comments are due by April 12, 2021.
If you would like to get more information or send comments, please contact Edgar Fandialan at [email protected].
Very Truly Yours,
Brad Coffey
Manager, Water Resource Management Group
5-12 Coordination and Public Outreach
(Published on February 1 and 8, 2021 for English language newspapers and January 28-30, 2021 and February 1, 4-6, and 8, 2021 for Spanish language newspapers per California Water Code § 10642, Government Code § 6066, and Chapter 17.5 of the Government Code)
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED ON
DRAFT 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, DRAFT APPENDIX 11 TO 2015 URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND DRAFT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 12, 2021 to receive comments on its draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), draft Appendix 11 as an addendum to its 2015 UWMP, and its draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
The hearing will be held as part of the meeting of the Water Planning and Stewardship Committee whose board members are helping to shape a public dialogue on the future of water management and conservation in the region. The meeting is at:
Water Planning and Stewardship Committee Meeting
Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Teleconference Participation Only
No Physical Meeting Location
As a result of the COVID-19 emergency and the Governor’s Executive Orders to protect public health by limiting public gatherings and requiring social distancing, at this time, this meeting is scheduled to occur via remote presence.
The Water Planning and Stewardship Committee meeting will be live streamed and recorded and may be accessed using the following link:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Board/Board-Meeting/Pages/default.aspx. (Please check this website for final time of the Public Hearing.) The UWMP presents Metropolitan’s long-term plan for ensuring water supply reliability and water quality for the region. The draft 2020 UWMP complies with California state law requiring urban water suppliers to prepare and update urban water management plans every five years. The draft Appendix 11 to both the 2020 UWMP and the 2015 UWMP includes all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003) which need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action. The draft WSCP includes Metropolitan’s efficient management and planned actions to respond to actual water shortage conditions. Metropolitan’s draft WSCP satisfies the requirements of the California Water Code.
The draft 2020 UWMP, draft Appendix 11, and the draft WSCP are available on Metropolitan’s website, mwdh2o.com. Public input is encouraged and will be considered during finalization of the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11, and the WSCP. Metropolitan will accept written comments on the draft plans and draft Appendix 11. All written comments must be received by April 12, 2021.
To send comments or for more information on the draft 2020 UWMP, draft Appendix 11, and draft WSCP, please contact Edgar Fandialan of Metropolitan’s Water Resource Management Group at [email protected].
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-13
Resolution Adopting the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Resolution 9279
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acrefeet of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban water management plan every five years; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and procedures for adopting such urban water management plans; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has duly reviewed, discussed, and considered the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and has determined the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan to be consistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and to be an accurate representation of the water resources plan for The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that, on May 11, 2021, this District hereby adopts this 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for submittal to the State of California.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, at its meeting held on May 11, 2021.
Secretary of the Board of Directors
of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
5-14 Coordination and Public Outreach
Resolution Adopting the Appendix 11 Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Resolution 9280
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADOPTING APPENDIX 11 AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2015 URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acrefeet of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban water management plan every five years; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and procedures for amending and adopting such urban water management plans; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has duly reviewed, discussed, and considered Appendix 11 as an addendum to Metropolitan’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and has determined Appendix 11 to be consistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and includes all of the elements described in Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5003, subd. (c)(1)) which need to be included in a water supplier’s urban water management plan to support a certification of consistency for one or more future water supply covered actions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that, on May 11, 2021, this District hereby adopts this Appendix 11 to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for submittal to the State of California.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, at its meeting held on May 11, 2021.
Secretary of the Board of Directors
of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
Coordination and Public Outreach 5-15
Resolution Adopting the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Resolution 9281
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING THE WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, a water shortage contingency plan;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies the requirements and procedures for adopting such Water Shortage Contingency Plans;
WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment (Annual Assessment) each year and to include in their water shortage contingency plans the procedures they use to conduct the Annual Assessment; WHEREAS, the procedures used to conduct an Annual Assessment include, but are not limited to, the written decision-making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine its water supply reliability;
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (Metropolitan’s) water shortage contingency plan provides that by June of each year, Metropolitan staff will present a completed Annual Assessment for approval by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors or by the Board’s authorized designee with expressly delegated authority for approval of Annual Assessment determinations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has duly reviewed, discussed, and considered such Water Shortage Contingency Plan and has determined the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to be consistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act and to be an accurate representation of the planned actions during shortage conditions for The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that, on May 11, 2021, this District hereby adopts this Water Shortage Contingency Plan for submittal to the State of California and expressly authorizes the General Manager of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to approve the Annual Assessment each year.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, at its meeting held on May 11, 2021.
Secretary of the Board of Directors
of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
5-16 Coordination and Public Outreach
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 1
DEMAND FORECAST
Demand Forecast A.1-1
Appendix 1
DEMAND FORECAST
Forecast Overview
Retail water demand forecasting is essential for planning total water requirements in Metropolitan’s service area. Retail water demand can be met with conservation, local supplies, or imported supplies. As a wholesale imported water supplier, Metropolitan’s long-term plans focus on the future demands for Metropolitan’s supplies. In order to project the need for resources and system capacity, Metropolitan begins with a long-term projection of retail water demands.
Total retail demands include:
• Retail Municipal and Industrial (M&I) ― Retail M&I demands represent urban water use within the region including residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water uses. To forecast retail M&I demands, Metropolitan uses econometric models that have been adapted for conditions in Southern California. The econometric models are statistical models that can capture and explain the impacts of long-term socioeconomic trends on retail M&I demands. The econometric models incorporate projections of demographic and economic variables from regional transportation planning agencies to produce forecasts of water demand.
• Retail Agricultural Demand ― Retail agricultural demands consist of water use for irrigating crops. Metropolitan’s member agencies provide projections of agricultural water use based on many factors, including farm acreage, crop types, historical water use, and land use conversion. Metropolitan relies on member agencies’ projections of agricultural demands. • Seawater Barrier Demand ― Seawater barrier demands represent the amount of water needed to hold back seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater basins. Groundwater management agencies determine the barrier requirements based on groundwater levels, injection wells, and regulatory permits.
• Replenishment Demand ― Replenishment demands represent the amount of water member agencies plan to use to replenish their groundwater basins in order to maintain sustainable basin health and production.
Retail M&I Demand Forecast
In forecasting retail M&I water demand, Metropolitan utilizes an econometric model (the Metropolitan Water District – Econometric Demand Model or MWD-EDM) developed by The Brattle Group (January 2015). MWD-EDM utilizes multiple regression, which is generally favored by academics and practitioners for long-term water demand analysis. It uses demand relationships based on actual observed behavior to consider the effect of anticipated changes in demand factors on long-term demand.
MWD-EDM is comprised of three separate regression models described below. Each model is developed using historical water consumption, socio-demographic, and economic data specific to the sector:
• Single-Family Residential (SFR) Model ― SFR water demand is modeled as a function of price, weather, retailer level housing, socio-demographic characteristics, and member agency A.1-2 Demand Forecast
level fixed effects. The model used water consumption data from 153 retailers with 3,000 accounts or more in Metropolitan’s service area. The dataset, ranging from 1994 to 2011, consisted of 1,225 observations and represented 80 percent of all SFR accounts from all 26 Metropolitan member agencies.
• Multi-family Residential (MFR) Model ― MFR demand is modeled as a function of price, retailer level housing, socio-demographic characteristics, and member agency level fixed effects.
Water consumption data, ranging from 1994 to 2011, was collected from 53 water retailers consisting of 469 observations and representing 23 out of 26 Metropolitan member agencies. • Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Model ― CII demand is modeled as a function of price, weather, employment, the share of employment in the manufacturing sector, and member agency level fixed effects. Water consumption data, ranging from 1994 to 2011, was collected from 75 water retailers consisting of 709 observations and representing 25 out of 26 Metropolitan member agencies.
The SFR and MFR models forecast average monthly household consumption before conservation, while the CII model forecasts average monthly consumption per employee.
Table A.1-1 shows the dependent and the covariates uses in the econometric models for each sector.
Table A.1-1
MWD-EDM Variables
Sector Dependent Variable Independent Variable (Covariate) SFR Water-Use Per
Household
Total Average Cost
Total Average Cost x Median Lot Size
Annual precipitation
Average Max Temperature
Median Income
Average Household Size
Median Lot Size
MFR Water-Use Per
Household
Median Tier Price
Median Income
Median Lot Size
Average Household Size
CII Water-Use Per
Employee
Median Tier Price
Cooling Degree Days
Average Max Temperature
Share of Employment In Manufacturing
Median Tier Price x Share of Manufacturing
Total retail M&I demand is the product of projected household/employee and the average monthly consumption.
Price Elasticity
Price elasticity of demand is a measure used in economics to show the responsiveness of the quantity of water demanded to a change in its price. The assumed price increase reduces the Demand Forecast A.1-3
water use. This reduction can be assessed in MWD-EDM and is considered a conservation savings due to price or “price-effect.” Consumers can respond to price increases by installing waterconserving fixtures and appliances such as high-efficiency toilets. However, many of the fixturebased conservation savings options are already factored into Metropolitan’s Conservation Savings Model. As more water efficient fixtures are installed, the impact of changing water using behavior through price or rates is reduced. Consider consumers who respond to rate increases by taking shorter showers. Their behavior adjustment will save less water if they use a waterefficient low-flow showerhead compared to a regular showerhead. This effect is known as demand hardening. In order to avoid double-counting conservation savings and account for demand hardening, the impact of price elasticity is reduced. In MWD-EDM, price elasticity is adjusted by 33 percent in 2019 and 66 percent by 2045. Price-effect savings are reduced (and demands increased) as a result of this adjustment. The elasticity is reduced in proportion to increases in conservation savings from the conservation model. Reducing price elasticity to 1/3 of its originally estimated levels is based on professional judgment, assuming that much of the easily obtained water use efficiencies will be achieved by 2020 but allowing for new conservation technologies.
Fixed Effects
MWD-EDM forecasts retail M&I demand for each of the 26 member agencies. To account for the differences observed between each agency, MWD-EDM uses the fixed effects or the constant term that represents the member agency specific intercepts that account for all timeinvariant unobserved factors common to an agency.
Demographics
Demographics are recognized by the water industry as drivers of water demand. Metropolitan’s retail demand modelling is driven by key demographics such as projected population, households, employment, and median household income.
Metropolitan uses demographic growth projections produced by two regional transportation planning agencies: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Together they represent more than 200 cities in Southern California and produce long-term transportation plans for sustainable communities. Among other responsibilities, SCAG and SANDAG also prepare projections of population, households, income, and employment for their regions. Both planning agencies update their regional growth forecasts approximately every four years, at different times. SCAG is the regional planning agency for six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
SANDAG is the regional planning agency for San Diego County. Significantly, SCAG’s and SANDAG’s official growth projections are backed by environmental reports. These regional growth forecasts provide the core assumptions underlying Metropolitan’s retail demand forecasting model.
In May 2020, SCAG approved the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for federal transportation conformity purposes, certified the Connect SoCal program environmental impact report (PEIR), and delayed for up to 120 days approval of the plan for other purposes primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This enabled SCAG to submit the plan to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration for review prior to the June 1, 2020, deadline, as required by the federal Clean Air Act. SCAG subsequently approved Connect SoCal in its entirety in September 2020. SCAG’s related growth forecast (RTP-20) projects growth in employment, population, and households at the regional, county, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels. The regional and county growth forecasts reflect recent and past trends and expert-derived demographic and economic A.1-4 Demand Forecast
assumptions for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties.
Metropolitan uses the forecast for every county except Imperial, which is outside of Metropolitan’s service area. In preparing its demographic and growth forecast, Metropolitan relied on SCAG’s 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast Proposed Final Technical Report to the RTP/SCS. The report includes information on social factors affecting water management such as race, ethnicity, and cultures. As noted in SCAG’s report, Southern California is one of the most diverse regions in the nation in race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are important for demographers to consider while forecasting since fertility and household formation have strong cultural underpinnings that vary based on these categories.
In October 2019, SANDAG adopted the San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan that utilized Version 17 of the SANDAG Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast (SANDAG Series 14). The forecast is a comprehensive projection of the regional demographic, economic, and housing trends for the San Diego region that was developed through a collaborative effort with experts in demography, housing, the economy and other disciplines, and the close cooperation of the local planning directors and their staff. Metropolitan uses the forecast for the San Diego County Water Authority’s service area in the retail demand forecast.
Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on SCAG’s and SANDAG’s Forecasts Both SCAG and SANDAG’s forecasts were developed prior to the advent of the COVID-19 global pandemic. For this reason, assumptions about the pandemic’s effects on future growth are not reflected in the demographic forecast data used in this UWMP. Although long-term impacts are extremely uncertain, the region is currently experiencing acute and potentially lasting disruptions across a wide range of economic and lifestyle activities that in turn may unsettle pre-pandemic expectations for future household formation, migration, fertility, and life expectancy.
After approving Connect SoCal in May 2020 for the limited purpose of federal air quality conformity, SCAG engaged in a stakeholder outreach process to learn more from stakeholders about how they have been impacted by COVID-19 and learn how Connect SoCal could be better positioned as a tool for recovery and regional resilience. Activities included engagement with regional planning working groups, direct outreach to stakeholders, focus groups with community-based organizations, a public survey, and a public virtual townhall. Given the living nature of Connect SoCal and its existing focus on the need to develop regional resilience strategies targeting vulnerable communities, SCAG staff did not recommend specific modifications or clarifications to Connect SoCal in response to the pandemic at the time. Rather, staff recommended that policy changes and plan updates be considered through future board action informed by its implementation planning and regular processes for updating the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. With its September 2020 final adoption, SCAG accepted the Connect SoCal in its entirety without substantive changes to the growth forecast.
Forecasts Used by Metropolitan
Metropolitan uses the forecast approved by SCAG in May 2020. During the period between May and September 2020, the cities of Anaheim, Chino, Duarte, Malibu, and some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties made adjustments to the forecast to reflect changes in their general plan capacities and entitlements. The total household change resulted in 0.29% of the region’s Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) and jobs were shifted in 0.77% of TAZs.
Given the timing and the small scale change in the forecast, Metropolitan continues to use the May 2020 release for its planning activities. For the San Diego region, Metropolitan uses a version of SANDAG Series 14 provided by the San Diego County Water Authority.
Demand Forecast A.1-5
Trends in Southern California
Population
According to the California Department of Finance, the population in Metropolitan’s service area was approximately 19.0 million in 2020. SCAG and SANDAG estimate the population in Metropolitan’s service area will reach 20.1 million in 2025 and 22.0 million by 2045. The historical and projected population for the service area, by county, is shown in Figure A.1-1. While Los Angeles County leads in total population, the inland areas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to grow at the fastest rates over the next ten years. Generally speaking, however, annual growth rates will slow for all counties between 2010 and 2045. In part, this is due to changing patterns of migration, as well as aging of the overall population. It also reflects the effects of the recession of the late 2000s and the ongoing restructuring of the Southern California economy.
Employment
Within Metropolitan’s service area, employment growth is likely to occur unevenly across the six counties. Over the 25-year period between 2020 and 2045, the greatest employment increases are expected to occur in Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties with estimated increases of 208, 375, and 237 thousand jobs respectively. Relative to existing employment, Riverside and San Bernardino counties are expected to have the highest rates of employment growth.
Figure A.1-2 and Table A.1-3 summarize the projected growth of commercial, industrial, and institutional employment in Metropolitan's service area. The 2020 urban employment number includes the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic based on analysis by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The EDD estimated a 7 percent decrease in employment in Metropolitan’s service area from 2019 to 2020. Employment projections for 2021 through 2023 are based on recovery rates from the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Long-term employment is based on SCAG and SANDAG’s forecasts. Total urban employment is expected to increase from
8.6 million in 2020 to about 10.3 million in 2045. This increase of about 12 percent is less than the projected population increase of 14 percent, suggesting a slight decrease in the employed population over time due to aging population.
Figure A.1-1 Actual and Projected Population
■ Los Angeles County ■ Orange County ■ Riverside County ■ San Bernardino County ■ San Diego County ■ Ventura County 25 Actual Projected
20 Millions 15 of
People
10 5
0 19~ 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 A.1-6 Demand Forecast
Residential Consumers
Southern California’s regional planning agencies have forecast residential housing growth in all parts of the Metropolitan service area. These forecasts are shown in Figure A.1-3 and Table A.1-4. The total occupied housing stock is expected to increase more than 20 percent between 2020 and 2045, growing from 6.3 to around 7.6 million households. Much of this growth will likely occur in hotter inland areas of Southern California. Within the service territory, the household occupancy size (household population divided by total occupied dwelling units) is projected to decline slightly from about 3.0 persons per unit currently to 2.9 persons per unit by 2045.
Permits for new residential housing construction are another indicator of the future growth in water demand. Figure A.1-4 shows the pattern of historical growth in residential housing permits between 1970 and 2019. The effect of economic cycles can clearly be seen over time with the precipitous fall in housing construction during the 2007 to 2010 recession being most notable.
Overall housing construction has made a modest recovery since 2011. However, in a departure from the previous trend since the late 1980s that favored single-family homes, new dwellings built since 2011 have been mostly multifamily units.
Figure A.1-2 Actual and Projected Urban Employment
■ Los Angeles County ■ Orange County ■ Riverside County ■ San Bernardino County ■ San Diego County ■ Ventura County 12 Actual Interpolated Projected
10 8
Urban
Employment 6
(Millions)
4 2
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Forecast A.1-7
Water Demands
As shown in Figure A.1-5, actual retail municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands in 2019 were
2.92 million acre-feet (MAF), which is approximately the same as in 1983. This is due to a number of factors including a higher than normal precipitation, an aggressive outreach campaign and mandatory water use restriction in 2015. Water demand in 2020 is estimated to be 3.1 MAF. In addition, agricultural water use is estimated to be 144 TAF. Similar to M&I demand, agricultural Figure A.1-3 Actual and Projected Households
■ Los Angeles County ■ Orange County ■ Riverside County ■ San Bernardino County ■ San Diego County ■ Ventura County 8,000,000 -----------------~ --~ -----------
7,000,000 ----~~~----------~~~~~;;;;;;~~~~:.iiiiiiii
6,000,000 ----------:=:::::::;~ :::;;;;;=:;;;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 L------------------'----....... -------------J
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Figure A.1-4 Residential Housing Permits in Six-County Region 250,000
200,000
Housing Unit 150,000
Permits
(Thousand)
100,000
50,000
0 *Data not available
1970 1975
■ Single Family ■ Multifamily
I I I 111
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
2030 2035 2040 2045
I II 11
2005 2010 2015 2020*
A.1-8 Demand Forecast
demand was also impacted ty the 2015 drought restriction. By 2045, under average conditions, retail agricultural demand is expected to be about 123 TAF.
Retail Demand
It is estimated that total M&I water use will grow from 3.1 MAF in 2020 to 3.5 MAF in 2045. All water demand projections assume normal weather conditions. Future changes in estimated water demand assume continued water savings due to conservation measures such as water savings resulting from plumbing codes, price effects, and the continuing implementation of utility-funded conservation BMPs. Retail demand was greatly reduced in 2015 due to extraordinary response to statewide calls for a 25 percent reduction in water use in light of historic drought conditions.
Between 2020 and 2045, regional water use will grow slowly as driven by population and economic growth while water use efficiency increases.
By County
M&I water demand is not expected to grow uniformly across counties. Consistent with the general pattern of future demographic distributions, the largest absolute increases in urban water demands are expected to occur in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties, with respective estimated increases of about 109 TAF and 108 TAF between 2020 and 2045.
By Sector
Water use can also be broken down by sector. Between 2020 and 2045, single-family residential water use is expected to increase by 9 percent (Table A.1-8), while multifamily water use is estimated to increase by 28 percent (Table A.1-9). Table A.1-10 shows estimated nonresidential water use decreasing by 5 percent between 2020 and 2045.
Residential Water Use
While single-family homes are estimated to account for about 60 percent of the total occupied household in 2020, they are responsible for about 75 percent of total residential water demands (Tables A.1-8 and A.1-9). This is consistent with the fact that single-family households are known to use more water than multifamily households (e.g., those residing in duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings and condo developments) on a per housing-unit basis. This is because single-family households tend to have more persons living in the household; they are likely to have more water-using appliances and fixtures; and they tend to have more landscaping.
Nonresidential Water Use
Nonresidential water use represented approximately 18 percent of the total M&I demands in Metropolitan's service area in 2020 (Table A.1-10). This includes water that is used by businesses, services, government, institutions (such as hospitals and schools), and industrial (or manufacturing) establishments. Within the commercial/institutional category, the top water users include schools, hospitals, hotels, amusement parks, colleges, laundries, and restaurants. In Southern California, major industrial users include electronics, aircraft, petroleum refining, beverages, food processing, and other industries that use water as a major component of the manufacturing process.
Demand Forecast A.1-9
Conservation Savings
Table A.1-12 shows estimated conservation savings resulting from active conservation programs (“Active”), ongoing conservation from natural replacement of plumbing fixtures (“CodeBased”), and conservation induced by projected increases in the real price of water (“Price").
Code-Based savings account for the largest share of total conservation. However, aggressive utility-funded conservation programs have made a significant contribution in this area. For example, Metropolitan-assisted programs were responsible for an estimated 213 TAF in savings during FY 2019-20 and nearly 3.27 MAF in cumulative conservation savings since FY 1990/91.
Projected M&I Demand by Sector
Table A.1-13 provides a summary of municipal and industrial demands, broken down by sector, along with each sector’s share of total retail demand. In 2020, residential use accounted for about 82 percent of total projected M&I demand, while non-residential use constituted nearly 18 percent of projected M&I demand. These shares are projected to have a slight increase on residential and a slight decrease on CII by about 2 percent in 2045. System losses and unmetered use are expected to remain relatively constant over this period at about 5 percent.
Figure A.1-5 Actual and Projected Retail Water Demand
■ Reported M&I Demand ■ Projected M&I Demand After Conservation ■ Reported Agricultural Demand ■ Projected Agricultural Demand
4.5 ----------------------------------
4.0 ------------...-----------..1,,, ...... --------------------
3.5 - --.- -
Acre-Feet 3.o
(Millions) 2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5
0.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 A.1-10 Demand Forecast Table A.1-2 Population Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area (July) (Acre-feet) Actual Estimated Projected County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 8,833,000 9,025,000 9,010,000 9,277,000 9,275,000 9,692,000 9,894,000 10,118,000 10,332,000 10,538,000 Orange County 2,854,000 2,954,000 3,012,000 3,148,000 3,184,000 3,353,000 3,433,000 3,491,000 3,524,000 3,527,000 Riverside County 1,120,000 1,409,000 1,620,000 1,719,000 1,813,000 1,987,000 2,105,000 2,191,000 2,271,000 2,344,000 San Bernardino County 706,000 783,000 810,000 843,000 872,000 946,000 987,000 1,031,000 1,075,000 1,119,000 San Diego County 2,730,000 2,863,000 2,989,000 3,169,000 3,261,000 3,442,000 3,536,000 3,624,000 3,709,000 3,789,000 Ventura County 541,000 583,000 616,000 635,000 630,000 669,000 679,000 690,000 699,000 709,000 Metropolitan’s Service Area 16,784,000 17,617,000 18,057,000 18,791,000 19,035,000 20,089,000 20,634,000 21,145,000 21,610,000 22,026,000 Source: US Census, CA Department of Finance, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP-20) and SANDAG's Series 14 Growth Forecast (version 17). Growth forecasts do not include COVID-19 impacts. Note: Totals may not foot due to rounding differences Table A.1-3 Urban Employment Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area (July) (Acre-feet) Actual Estimated Projected County 2000 2005 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 4,180,000 4,163,000 3,945,000 4,351,000 4,164,000 4,602,000 4,696,000 4,795,000 4,900,000 4,977,000 Orange County 1,498,000 1,618,000 1,482,000 1,677,000 1,656,000 1,833,000 1,884,000 1,926,000 1,958,000 1,979,000 Riverside County 346,000 451,000 401,000 488,000 582,000 641,000 675,000 711,000 752,000 787,000 San Bernardino County 255,000 322,000 302,000 366,000 402,000 422,000 441,000 459,000 478,000 497,000 San Diego County 1,258,000 1,358,000 1,296,000 1,450,000 1,531,000 1,558,000 1,626,000 1,700,000 1,766,000 1,822,000 Ventura County 218,000 235,000 221,000 238,000 239,000 251,000 257,000 263,000 268,000 272,000 Metropolitan's Service Area 7,755,000 8,147,000 7,647,000 8,570,000 8,574,000 9,307,000 9,579,000 9,854,000 10,122,000 10,334,000 Source: US Census, CA Department of Finance, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP-20) and SANDAG's Series 14 Growth Forecast (version 17). Growth forecasts do not include COVID-19 impacts. Note: Totals may not foot due to rounding differences Demand Forecast A.1-11 Table A.1-4 Occupied Housing Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area (Acre-feet) Actual Estimated Projected County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 2,909,000 2,944,000 2,981,000 3,017,000 3,113,000 3,300,000 3,408,000 3,520,000 3,622,000 3,720,000 Orange County 937,000 974,000 993,000 1,017,000 1,057,000 1,089,000 1,103,000 1,124,000 1,143,000 1,154,000 Riverside County 357,000 432,000 484,000 504,000 539,000 609,000 655,000 688,000 719,000 746,000 San Bernardino County 204,000 220,000 232,000 238,000 249,000 269,000 282,000 295,000 309,000 323,000 San Diego County 963,000 1,016,000 1,045,000 1,081,000 1,131,000 1,195,000 1,265,000 1,335,000 1,389,000 1,427,000 Ventura County 170,000 185,000 195,000 199,000 203,000 209,000 213,000 218,000 221,000 224,000 Metropolitan's Service Area 5,540,000 5,771,000 5,930,000 6,056,000 6,292,000 6,671,000 6,926,000 7,180,000 7,403,000 7,594,000 Source: US Census, CA Department of Finance, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP-20) and SANDAG's Series 14 Growth Forecast (version 17). Growth forecasts do not include COVID-19 impacts. Note: Totals may not foot due to rounding differences Table A.1-5 Total Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area with Conservation (Acre-feet) Actual Projected County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 1,740,000 1,655,000 1,432,000 1,314,000 1,347,000 1,391,000 1,404,000 1,427,000 1,441,000 1,457,000 Orange County 660,000 631,000 553,000 510,000 541,000 543,000 545,000 547,000 548,000 547,000 Riverside County 474,000 492,000 472,000 423,000 474,000 506,000 531,000 550,000 563,000 579,000 San Bernardino County 250,000 261,000 253,000 203,000 225,000 227,000 225,000 228,000 230,000 237,000 San Diego County 659,000 621,000 533,000 558,000 559,000 578,000 591,000 604,000 616,000 626,000 Ventura County 132,000 156,000 152,000 125,000 140,000 141,000 141,000 142,000 142,000 143,000 Metropolitan's Service Area 3,915,000 3,816,000 3,395,000 3,133,000 3,286,000 3,386,000 3,437,000 3,498,000 3,540,000 3,589,000 A.1-12 Demand Forecast Table A.1-6 Total Retail M&I Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area with Conservation (Acre-feet) Actual Projected County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 1,738,000 1,653,000 1,431,000 1,313,000 1,346,000 1,389,000 1,403,000 1,426,000 1,440,000 1,455,000 Orange County 643,000 621,000 551,000 506,000 537,000 540,000 543,000 545,000 546,000 545,000 Riverside County 360,000 417,000 409,000 380,000 416,000 450,000 475,000 493,000 508,000 524,000 San Bernardino County 247,000 250,000 224,000 176,000 201,000 209,000 215,000 222,000 229,000 236,000 San Diego County 554,000 530,000 506,000 542,000 521,000 531,000 545,000 559,000 570,000 581,000 Ventura County 124,000 144,000 140,000 109,000 122,000 123,000 123,000 124,000 124,000 125,000 Metropolitan's Service Area 3,666,000 3,615,000 3,261,000 3,026,000 3,143,000 3,242,000 3,304,000 3,369,000 3,417,000 3,466,000 Table A.1-7 Total Retail Agricultural Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area (Acre-feet) Actual Projected County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles County 1,800 1,700 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Orange County 17,000 9,600 1,800 3,900 4,500 3,300 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Riverside County 113,500 75,200 63,200 43,000 57,500 56,100 56,600 57,100 54,600 55,000 San Bernardino County 2,100 11,300 28,900 26,500 23,800 18,200 9,800 5,800 1,100 1,100 San Diego County 105,600 91,300 27,100 16,800 38,400 47,100 46,400 45,700 45,600 45,600 Ventura County 7,500 12,600 11,800 15,600 18,400 18,300 18,400 18,700 18,400 18,400 Metropolitan's Service Area 247,500 201,700 133,800 107,100 143,900 144,300 134,500 130,600 123,000 123,400 Demand Forecast A.1-13
Table A.1-8 Single Family Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area Average Year (Acre-feet)
Projected
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Los Angeles County 740,000 766,000 765,000 767,000 771,000 776,000 Orange County 294,000 295,000 296,000 297,000 299,000 300,000 Riverside County 297,000 320,000 339,000 352,000 362,000 373,000 San Bernardino County 113,000 117,000 122,000 126,000 131,000 137,000 San Diego County 320,000 327,000 327,000 329,000 332,000 337,000 Ventura County 85,000 87,000 87,000 88,000 88,000 89,000 Metropolitan’s Service Area 1,849,000 1,912,000 1,936,000 1,959,000 1,983,000 2,012,000 Table A.1-9 Multi-family Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area Average Year (Acre-feet)
Projected
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Los Angeles County 317,000 338,000 353,000 377,000 392,000 409,000 Orange County 93,000 95,000 96,000 99,000 101,000 102,000 Riverside County 47,000 51,000 53,000 57,000 60,000 63,000 San Bernardino County 27,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 33,000 34,000 San Diego County 110,000 117,000 128,000 140,000 149,000 156,000 Ventura County 11,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Metropolitan’s Service Area 605,000 641,000 671,000 716,000 747,000 776,000 Table A.1-10 Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area
Average Year (Acre-feet)
Projected
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Los Angeles County 219,000 213,000 211,000 208,000 201,000 195,000 Orange County 122,000 122,000 123,000 121,000 118,000 115,000 Riverside County 47,000 51,000 53,000 54,000 55,000 56,000 San Bernardino County 47,000 48,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 San Diego County 73,000 70,000 71,000 71,000 70,000 68,000 Ventura County 18,000 18,000 18,000 17,000 17,000 16,000 Metropolitan’s Service Area 526,000 522,000 525,000 520,000 510,000 499,000 A.1-14 Demand Forecast
Table A.1-11 Unmetered Use in Metropolitan’s Service Area Average Year (Acre-feet)
Projected
County 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Los Angeles County 70,000 72,000 73,000 74,000 75,000 76,000 Orange County 27,000 27,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 Riverside County 25,000 27,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 San Bernardino County 14,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 16,000 17,000 San Diego County 17,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 19,000 19,000 Ventura County 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Metropolitan’s Service Area 160,000 166,000 170,000 173,000 176,000 179,000 Table A.1-12 Conservation Savings in Metropolitan’s Service Area – 1980 Base Year (Acre-feet)
Estimated Projected
County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Los Angeles 166,000 235,000 297,000 368,000 440,000 467,000 485,000 499,000 521,000 546,000 Orange County 55,000 81,000 107,000 132,000 151,000 155,000 157,000 162,000 168,000 173,000 Riverside 22,000 37,000 52,000 66,000 78,000 89,000 97,000 106,000 116,000 126,000 San Bernardino 10,000 16,000 22,000 28,000 32,000 35,000 38,000 40,000 44,000 48,000 San Diego 56,000 78,000 96,000 116,000 137,000 149,000 165,000 183,000 202,000 220,000 Ventura 9,000 13,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 25,000 27,000 29,000 31,000 32,000 Active, Code, Price 317,000 460,000 590,000 729,000 862,000 920,000 968,000 1,020,000 1,081,000 1,145,000 Pre-1990
Conservation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Total Conservation 567,000 710,000 840,000 979,000 1,112,000 1,170,000 1,218,000 1,270,000 1,331,000 1,395,000 Table A.1-13 Projected Municipal and Industrial Demands by Sector (Acre-feet)
Historical Projected
Sector 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single-Family 2,269,000 2,237,000 2,018,000 1,872,000 1,849,000 1,911,000 1,935,000 1,959,000 1,984,000 2,011,000 Multi-Family 743,000 732,000 660,000 613,000 605,000 641,000 672,000 715,000 747,000 775,000 Non-Residential 655,000 646,000 583,000 541,000 527,000 520,000 524,000 520,000 510,000 499,000 System Losses/Unmetered 198,000 195,000 176,000 163,000 161,000 166,000 169,000 173,000 176,000 178,000 Metropolitan Total 3,865,000 3,810,000 3,437,000 3,189,000 3,142,000 3,239,000 3,301,000 3,367,000 3,416,000 3,464,000 Appendix 2
EXISTING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-1
Appendix 2
EXISTING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES
Water used in Metropolitan's service area comes from both local and imported sources. Local sources include groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. Sources of imported water include the Colorado River, the State Water Project (SWP), and the Owens Valley/Mono Basin.
On average over the last 10 years (from 2011 to 2020), local sources met about 49 percent of the water needs, while imported sources supplied the remaining 51 percent.
The City of Los Angeles imports water from the Owens Valley/Mono Basin east of the Sierra Nevada through the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA). This water currently meets about 5 percent of the region's water needs based on a ten-year average from 2011 to 2020 but is dedicated for use by the City of Los Angeles. Metropolitan provides imported water supplies to meet the remaining 46 percent of the region's water needs based on the same ten-year period. These imported supplies are received through Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the SWP's California Aqueduct. Table A.2-1 and Figure A.2-1 show the historical sources of local and imported supplies within Metropolitan's service area.
Table A.2-2 shows the quantities of Metropolitan water used by member agencies during the last ten years (2011 to 2020). Metropolitan's largest water customers are the San Diego County Water Authority (25 percent), City of Los Angeles (16 percent), and Municipal Water District of Orange County (12 percent).
The following sections describe the current supply sources in more detail. The main body of the Urban Water Management Plan contains descriptions of planned future supplies.
Local Water Supplies
Local sources of water available to the region include surface water, groundwater, recycled water, and seawater desalination. Some of the major river systems in Southern California have been developed into systems of dams, flood control channels, and percolation ponds for supplying local water and recharging groundwater basins. For example, the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers capture over 90 percent of the runoff in their watersheds. The Los Angeles River system, however, is not as efficient in capturing runoff. In its upper reaches, which make up 25 percent of the watershed, most runoff is captured with recharge facilities. In its lower reaches, which comprise the remaining 75 percent of the watershed, the river and its tributaries are lined with concrete, so there are no recharge facilities. The Santa Clara River in Ventura County is outside of Metropolitan's service area, but it replenishes groundwater basins used by water agencies within Metropolitan's service area. Other rivers in Metropolitan's service area, such as the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey, are essentially natural replenishment systems.
A.2-2 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Table A.2-1
Sources of Water Supply to the Metropolitan Service Area (Acre-Feet)1
Calendar
Year
Local
Supplies4 L.A. Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct2
State Water
Project3 Total
1976 1,424,000 430,000 778,000 638,000 3,270,000
1977 1,432,000 275,000 1,277,000 209,000 3,193,000
1978 1,339,000 472,000 710,000 576,000 3,096,000
1979 1,512,000 493,000 784,000 532,000 3,321,000
1980 1,551,000 515,000 791,000 560,000 3,416,000
1981 1,593,000 465,000 791,000 827,000 3,676,000
1982 1,504,000 483,000 686,000 737,000 3,410,000
1983 1,551,000 519,000 850,000 410,000 3,329,000
1984 1,762,000 516,000 1,150,000 498,000 3,926,000
1985 1,698,000 496,000 1,018,000 728,000 3,939,000
1986 1,679,000 515,000 1,001,000 756,000 3,952,000
1987 1,608,000 428,000 1,175,000 763,000 3,974,000
1988 1,659,000 360,000 1,199,000 957,000 4,175,000
1989 1,676,000 274,000 1,189,000 1,215,000 4,355,000
1990 1,595,000 107,000 1,183,000 1,458,000 4,343,000
1991 1,547,000 181,000 1,252,000 625,000 3,605,000
1992 1,631,000 177,000 1,153,000 744,000 3,704,000
1993 1,546,000 289,000 1,144,000 663,000 3,642,000
1994 1,649,000 133,000 1,263,000 845,000 3,890,000
1995 1,719,000 444,000 933,000 451,000 3,546,000
1996 1,842,000 422,000 1,089,000 663,000 4,016,000
1997 1,902,000 436,000 1,125,000 724,000 4,187,000
1998 1,902,000 467,000 941,000 521,000 3,830,000
1999 2,034,000 309,000 1,072,000 792,000 4,206,000
2000 1,899,000 255,000 1,217,000 1,473,000 4,845,000
2001 1,846,000 267,000 1,245,000 1,119,000 4,477,000
2002 1,844,000 179,000 1,198,000 1,415,000 4,636,000
2003 1,790,000 252,000 676,000 1,561,000 4,278,000
2004 1,760,000 203,000 741,000 1,802,000 4,506,000
2005 1,758,000 369,000 707,000 1,525,000 4,358,000
2006 1,861,000 379,000 514,000 1,695,000 4,448,000
2007 1,984,000 129,000 696,000 1,648,000 4,457,000
2008 1,942,000 147,000 896,000 1,037,000 4,023,000
2009 1,959,000 137,000 1,044,000 908,000 4,048,000
2010 1,839,000 251,000 837,000 1,129,000 4,071,000
2011 1,779,000 355,000 445,000 1,379,000 3,991,000
2012 1,979,000 167,000 455,000 1,252,000 3,794,000
2013 1,963,000 65,000 986,000 974,000 4,019,000
2014 1,923,000 64,000 1,168,000 607,000 3,729,000
2015 1,714,000 33,000 1,178,000 593,000 3,480,000
2016 1,795,000 96,000 961,000 1,009,000 3,812,000
2017 1,751,000 380,000 282,000 1,473,000 3,833,000
2018 1,816,000 246,000 757,000 845,000 3,633,000
2019 1,735,000 345,000 298,000 1,232,000 3,611,000
2020 1,787,000 183,000 687,000 588,000 3,245,000
1. Not including system losses.
2. Colorado River Aqueduct supplies are gross Havasu diversions less return flows, deliveries to USBR, Mexico, and storage.
3. State Water Project Supplies include Table A, Art. 21, Art. 14(b), Art. 12(d), Art. 12(e), Art. 55, draws from storage & carryover, DWCV & other exchanges, transfers, Drought Water Bank and Dry Year Pool Purchases, Pools A&B, Flood Water, wheeling, Port Hueneme lease, and SBVMWD Purchases.
4. Local Supplies includes local groundwater, surface water, recycled water, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination used for MI, AG, SW or GW recharge in MWD service area. Include Santa Ana River Baseflow at Prado Dam for groundwater recharge. Based on best available data at the time of publication, subject to updates without notice. Data for 2020 not available and is estimated based on historical data.
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-3 Table A.2-2 Historical Metropolitan Water Deliveries to Member Agencies (Acre-feet) Calendar Year Member Agency 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 City of Anaheim 29,000 20,000 20,000 18,000 14,000 13,000 26,000 15,000 13,000 39,000 City of Beverly Hills 10,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 10,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 City of Burbank 18,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 12,000 12,000 19,000 12,000 18,000 6,000 Calleguas Municipal Water District 97,000 106,000 112,000 96,000 77,000 86,000 92,000 93,000 90,000 90,000 Central Basin Municipal Water District 67,000 38,000 36,000 30,000 58,000 61,000 24,000 24,000 17,000 21,000 City of Compton 2,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 20 40 0 Eastern Municipal Water District 90,000 99,000 98,000 102,000 76,000 84,000 89,000 93,000 94,000 93,000 Foothill Municipal Water District 8,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 7,000 7,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 9,000 City of Fullerton 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 6,000 City of Glendale 18,000 18,000 19,000 19,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 14,000 16,000 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 76,000 57,000 64,000 68,000 38,000 44,000 62,000 67,000 66,000 44,000 Las Virgenes Municipal Water District 20,000 21,000 24,000 20,000 17,000 18,000 18,000 20,000 17,000 20,000 City of Long Beach 43,000 30,000 35,000 37,000 35,000 28,000 24,000 26,000 25,000 30,000 City of Los Angeles 120,000 328,000 439,000 403,000 384,000 318,000 115,000 218,000 103,000 244,000 Municipal Water District of Orange County 262,000 207,000 216,000 263,000 178,000 196,000 237,000 213,000 143,000 134,000 City of Pasadena 18,000 18,000 21,000 21,000 17,000 17,000 18,000 20,000 20,000 18,000 San Diego County Water Authority 407,000 455,000 492,000 571,000 501,000 436,000 358,000 374,000 319,000 308,000 City of San Fernando 20 110 70 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of San Marino 310 840 1,050 1,110 970 970 960 950 960 1,600 City of Santa Ana 16,000 12,000 15,000 11,000 10,000 4,000 14,000 9,000 7,000 8,000 City of Santa Monica 6,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 5,000 Three Valleys Municipal Water District 65,000 64,000 69,000 67,000 53,000 67,000 60,000 67,000 71,000 62,000 City of Torrance 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 14,000 16,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 15,000 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District 35,000 16,000 30,000 22,000 50,000 46,000 46,000 56,000 103,000 15,000 West Basin Municipal Water District 112,000 117,000 121,000 118,000 109,000 109,000 113,000 117,000 113,000 111,000 Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County 72,000 79,000 76,000 82,000 58,000 65,000 71,000 73,000 54,000 68,000 Total of All Agencies 1,618,000 1,756,000 1,956,000 2,018,000 1,744,000 1,660,000 1,450,000 1,558,000 1,327,000 1,374,000 A.2-4 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Local supplies fluctuate in response to variations in rainfall. During prolonged periods of belownormal rainfall, local water supplies decrease. Conversely, prolonged periods of above-normal rainfall increase local supplies. Sources of groundwater basin replenishment include local precipitation, runoff from the coastal ranges, and artificial recharge with imported water supplies. In addition to runoff, recycled water provides an increasingly important source of replenishment water for the region.
Major Groundwater Basins
From 2011-2020, groundwater sources accounted for an average of about 92 percent of the local water supplies, which are found in many basins throughout the Southern California region and provide an annual average total production of about 1.27 MAF per year. Figure A.2-2 shows the locations of the groundwater basins within Metropolitan’s service area. Groundwater yield comes from passive recharge from the percolation of rainfall and stream runoff and active recharge from spreading and injection of captured stormwater, recycled water, and imported water. In certain major drainage areas, runoff is retained in flood control reservoirs and released into spreading basins for percolation into the ground. In Los Angeles County, many groundwater recharge facilities located along the upper reaches of the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River systems provide recharge to San Fernando, Raymond, Main San Gabriel, Central, and West Coast groundwater basins. The Orange County Water District operates a system of diversion structures and recharge basins along the Santa Ana River that captures much of the storm runoff, as well as water from reclamation facilities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Storm runoff Figure A.2-1 Sources of Supply to Metropolitan's Service Area ■ Local Supplies ■ L.A. Aqueduct ■ Colorado River Aqueduct ■ State Water Project 6,000,000 ------------------------------------
5,000,000 ------------------------------------
4,000,000
3,000,000 I
2,000,000
~ .
. ~
1,000,000
0 Notes:
1. Not including system losses.
2. Colorado River Aqueduct supplies are gross Havasu diversions less return flows, deliveries to USBR, Mexico, and storage.
3. State Water Project Supplies include Table A, Art. 21, Art. 14(b), Art. 12(d), Art. 12(e), Art. 55, draws from storage & carryover, DWCV & other exchanges, transfers, Drought Water Bank and Dry Year Pool Purchases, Pools A&B, Flood Water, wheeling, Port Hueneme lease, and SBVMWD Purchases.
4. Local Supplies includes local groundwater, surface water, recycled water, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination used for Ml, AG, SW or GW recharge in MWD service area. Include Santa Ana River Baseflow at Prado Dam for groundwater recharge.
Based on best available data at the time of publication, subject to updates without notice. Data for 2020 not available and is estimated based on historical data.
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-5
is also diverted to recharge basins in the Chino Basin. This water, which would otherwise flow into the Pacific Ocean, is allowed to percolate into the underlying aquifers so it may be pumped for local use when needed. Recycled water use for groundwater recharge has increased steadily.
The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) has spread recycled water at the Montebello Forebay to recharge Central and West Coast basins for many years and has expanded this practice with the completion of the WRD Albert Robles Center for Water Recycling and Environmental Learning in 2019. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provides recycled water for recharge of the Chino Basin. Orange County Water District has implemented the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) to recharge over 100 TAF per year of highly-treated recycled water to the Orange County Basin. Highly treated recycled water is also used at seawater barriers in the West Coast, Central, and Orange County basins and has largely replaced use of imported water for this purpose.
Almost all major groundwater basins in Southern California are either adjudicated or managed by special districts or agencies. Over 95 percent of the groundwater used in Metropolitan’s service area is produced from adjudicated or managed groundwater basins. Adjudicated basins in the region include: Raymond Basin, Upper Los Angeles River Area basins (which include San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, and Eagle Rock Basins), Main San Gabriel Basin, Puente Basin, Central Basin, West Coast Basin, Six Basins, Hemet-San Jacinto Basin, Chino Basin, and Cucamonga Basin. The Orange County Groundwater Basin is managed by Orange County Water District; portions of the Ventura County Basins are managed by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency; and the West San Jacinto Basins are managed by Eastern Municipal Water District. In general, these basins have management plans that include protection from seawater intrusion in the coastal region, water quality deterioration, and excessive lowering of water levels. Groundwater basin managers address treatment of contamination, manage recharge and storage programs, and monitor extraction, water levels, and water quality.
Major River Systems and Reservoirs
Local surface water resources consist of runoff captured in storage reservoirs and diversions from streams. Reservoirs hold the runoff for later direct use, and diversions from streams are delivered directly to local water systems. As Table A.2-3 shows, local water agencies currently own and operate 33 reservoirs. These reservoirs provide a storage capacity of approximately 862 TAF. The historic average yield of these local surface supplies, which come from reservoir releases and stream diversions, is about 87 TAF per year from 2011-2020. The annual yield varies widely between wet and dry years, and most reservoirs that capture local surface runoff are operated with minimal carry-over storage. San Diego County has the greatest storage capacity for these types of reservoirs, with approximately 84 percent of the total local agency storage capacity in Metropolitan's service area.
In addition to the storage that is owned and operated by local agencies, Metropolitan operates DVL, Lake Skinner, and Lake Mathews. DVL stores water imported during years of ample supply.
DVL’s 810 TAF capacity is used to augment supplies to meet dry year and seasonal needs, and also provides supply for the region during an emergency period. While Lake Skinner and Lake Mathews are largely used for system operations, they may also be used to augment supplies during dry years and emergencies, if necessary and available. Table A.2-4 lists the Metropolitanowned reservoirs with significant storage capacity.
A.2-6 Existing Regional Water Supplies Figure A.2-2 Major Groundwater Basins in Metropolitan’s Service Area s II, aks Area ' ' \ idden.Yalley· _ 1l---- 'V~ -Malibu Valley LOS ANGELES Lower Clare i \ canyon I ' per ,:e ·emont "- ,htc::. ""\_ , camonga ,AN BERNARDINO ,, Teme'sC31
'\
r-::,ldwater ORANGE :
L
__ _
' side North
Jff« ',"j ~ \ ':,, Menifee ~~:;~t . / =~~·.]""' IC' Temecula ~r«tf / Elsinore ~ Aquifer •• .__ F an~n / \ CJ ;:,. _______ l Pauba
""
'\_ ) ----- Aqu,f=-~-------~-------- \ '"-~-· --
San Mateo' {; Pala'-<--._ ,1\
San Onofre,, I Bonsall ~ arner \\ Moosa Pauma r ;,
LFlas ores Canyon
\ ·ta San 'd Lower Santa Marga~~, •Mission Marcos Escond1 o \ Area ,),,Valley San Pasqual
Baliquitos \ \ [;::> ~ Valley . Lagoon Valier $ Santa Mana San.Eli~- /
Valley~ _,.ff,,. Santee/ /
San Dieguito Poway r ?: El Monte } Valley \ Valley .
l
_
• El CaJon
SAN DI
I II ~ Mid e ,.; ~Mission D-::Valley . di
\ Va ey .rJ Sweetwater )llJ p,-s 1~ .. k \~1~ , \ ~ Lower Sanl Diego Formation
Aquifer
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-7
Table A.2-3
Local Storage Reservoirs in Metropolitan’s Service Area (Acre-feet)
Member Agency/Sub-agency Reservoir Storage Capacity
Eastern MWD
Rancho California WD Vail Lake 45,207
Lake Hemet MWD Lake Hemet 12,750
Las Virgenes MWD Westlake
Reservoir
9,500
City of Los Angeles Los Angeles 10,170
Encino 9,800
Stone Canyon 10,800
Hollywood 4,200
MWD of Orange County
Irvine Ranch WD & Serrano ID Santiago 25,000
San Diego County Water Authority
Carlsbad MWD Maerkle 600
Escondido, City of Dixon 2,606
Wohlford 2,783
Fallbrook PUD Red Mountain 1,335
Helix WD Cuyamaca 8,195
Jennings 9,790
Poway, City of Poway 3,432
Morro Hill 465
Ramona MWD Ramona 12,000
San Diego County Water Authority Olivenhain – CWA 24,774 San Diego, City of Barrett 34,806
El Capitan 112,807
Hodges 13,401
Lower Otay 47,067
Miramar 6,682
Morena 50,694
Murray 4,684
San Vicente 249,358
Sutherland 29,508
San Dieguito WD San Dieguito 883
Sweetwater Authority Loveland 25,400
Sweetwater 28,079
Valley Center MWD Turner 1,612
Vista Irrigation District Henshaw 51,774
Western MWD of Riverside
Temescal Water Company Railroad Canyon 12,000
Total 862,162
A.2-8 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Table A.2-4
Total Storage Capacity of Metropolitan’s Reservoirs
(Thousands Acre-feet)
Reservoir Capacity
Diamond Valley Lake 810
Lake Skinner1 44
Lake Mathews1 182
1 These are used for operations and not primarily for dry year storage.
Lastly, Castaic and Perris are the terminal reservoirs to the West Branch and East Branch of the California Aqueduct operated by DWR. Through the Monterey Amendment to its SWP water service contract, Metropolitan has access to 219 TAF of flexible storage capacity in these SWP terminal reservoirs.
Water Recycling and Groundwater Recovery
Water recycling projects involve treating wastewater to a level that is acceptable and safe for many non-potable applications. This resource is providing an increasing level of local water. In 1982, Metropolitan began helping to fund its member agencies’ recycled water projects. Since that time, Metropolitan has invested approximately $510 million. In fiscal year 2019-20, water recycling projects in which Metropolitan has invested produced over 71 TAF. Local agency projects that did not receive financial assistance from Metropolitan produced an additional 320 TAF, and approximately 50 TAF of Santa Ana River base flow were used to recharge the Orange County basin. This brings the regional total to 441 TAF of recycled water use. Figure A.2- 3 demonstrates the increase in this regional supply for direct use.
Figure A.2-3 Recycled Water
■ Total Recycled Water
600
500
Thousand 400
Acre-Feet
300
200
100
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-9
In addition, local agencies have implemented several projects to recover contaminated or degraded groundwater for potable uses. The groundwater recovery projects use a variety of treatment technologies to remove nitrates, volatile organic compounds, perchlorate, color, and salt. In 1991, Metropolitan began helping fund its member agencies’ groundwater recovery projects. Since that time, Metropolitan has invested approximately $173 million. In FY 2019-20, these groundwater recovery projects produced 50 TAF. Other member agency projects that did not receive funding from Metropolitan produced another 62 TAF, for a regional total of 112 TAF.
Figure A.2-4 shows this increase in supply.
Imported Water
Most member agencies and retail water suppliers depend on imported water for a portion of their water supply. For some member agencies, Metropolitan supplies most of the water used within that agency's service area, while others obtain varying amounts of water from Metropolitan to supplement local supplies. For example, Los Angeles and San Diego (the largest and second largest cities in the state) have historically obtained up to 85 percent of their water from imported sources. These imported water requirements are similar to those of other metropolitan areas within the state, such as San Francisco and other cities around the San Francisco Bay.
Figure A.2-5 shows the conveyance facilities for the state’s imported water supplies. Descriptions of each of the imported sources of water available to Metropolitan's service area follow.
Justification for projected water supplies from these sources is provided in Appendix 3.
Colorado River
A number of water agencies within California have rights to divert water from the Colorado River. Through the Seven Party Agreement (1931), seven agencies recommended apportionments of California’s share of Colorado River water within the state. Table A.2-5 shows the historic apportionment of each agency, and the priority accorded that apportionment.
Figure A.2-4 Groundwater Recovery
■ Tota l Groundwater Recovery
140
120
100
Thousand
Acre-Feet 80
60 40
20 0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
A.2-10 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Table A.2-5
Priorities in Seven Party Agreement and Water Delivery Contracts Priority Description
TAF
Annually
1 Palo Verde Irrigation District – gross area of 104,500 acres of land in the Palo Verde Valley
2 Yuma Project (Reservation Division) – not exceeding a gross area of 25,000 acres in California
3(a) Imperial Irrigation District and land in Imperial and Coachella Valleys1 to be served by All American Canal
3,850
3(b) Palo Verde Irrigation District –16,000 acres of land on the Lower Palo Verde Mesa
4 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for use on the coastal plain of Southern California
550
Subtotal 4,400
5(a) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for use on the coastal plain of Southern California
550
5(b) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for use on the coastal plain of Southern California2
112
6(a) Imperial Irrigation District and land in Imperial and Coachella Valleys1 to be served by the All American Canal
6(b) Palo Verde Irrigation District –16,000 acres of land on the Lower Palo Verde Mesa
300
7 Agricultural Use in the Colorado River Basin in California Total Prioritized Apportionment 5,362
1 The Coachella Valley Water District now serves Coachella Valley. 2 In 1946, the City of San Diego, the San Diego County Water Authority, Metropolitan, and the Secretary of the Interior entered into a contract that merged and added the City of San Diego’s rights to store and deliver Colorado River water to the rights of Metropolitan. The conditions of that agreement have long since been satisfied.
Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-11
LEGEND
Figure A.2-5
MAJOR WATER CONVEYANCE
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
- FEDERAL AQUEDUCT
- STATE AQUEDUCT
LOCAL AQUEDUCT
A.2-12 Existing Regional Water Supplies
The water is delivered to Metropolitan’s service area by way of the CRA, which has a rated capacity of approximately 1,700 cfs. The CRA conveys water 242 miles from its Lake Havasu intake to its terminal reservoir, Lake Mathews, near the City of Riverside. Conveyance losses along the CRA of 10 TAF per year reduce the amount of Colorado River water received in the coastal plain.
Since the date of the original contract, several events have occurred that changed the dependable supply that Metropolitan expects from the Colorado River. The most significant event was the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California that reduced Metropolitan's dependable supply of Colorado River water to 550 TAF per year. The reduction in dependable supply occurred with the commencement of Colorado River water deliveries to the Central Arizona Project. In 1987, Metropolitan entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for an additional 180 TAF per year of surplus water when surplus water is available. In addition, Metropolitan has obtained a minimum of approximately 85 TAF per year of Colorado River water since 1996 through a conservation program with the Imperial Irrigation District.
In 1979, the Present Perfected Rights (PPRs) of certain Indian reservations, cities, and individuals along the Colorado River were quantified. These PPRs predate the Seven Party Agreement, but the rights holders were not included in the Seven Party Agreement prioritizing California’s use and storage of Colorado River water.
In 1999, under the auspices of the Colorado River Board of California, a draft plan, “California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan,” was developed. The Colorado River Board of California protects California’s rights and interests in the resources provided by the Colorado River and represents California in discussions and negotiations regarding the Colorado River and its management.
The overall purpose of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan is to provide Colorado River water users with a framework by which programs, projects, and other activities may be coordinated and cooperatively implemented. This framework specified how California would make the transition from relying on surplus water supplies from the Colorado River to living within its normal (basic) water supply apportionment.
To implement these plans, a number of agreements have been executed. In October 2003, representatives from Metropolitan, IID, and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) executed the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and several other related agreements. Parties involved include the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties. The QSA quantifies the use of water under the third priority of the Seven Party Agreement and allows for implementation of agricultural conservation, land management, and other programs identified in Metropolitan’s 1996 IRP. Quantification of the third priority provides the needed numeric baseline from which conservation and transfer programs may be measured. The QSA has helped California reduce its reliance on Colorado River down to its normal apportionment (4,400 TAF).
The quantification of the agricultural priorities under the QSA provided for the water saved under the Palo Verde Land Management and Crop Rotation Program to be made available to Metropolitan. This program provides up to 133 TAF of water to be available to Metropolitan in certain years and will supply a minimum of 33 TAF per year.
SDCWA is participating in QSA-related projects that are providing additional water supplies that the agency exchanges with Metropolitan for receipt of Metropolitan deliveries. First, the water conserved by these projects is made available to Metropolitan. In exchange, Metropolitan is delivering an amount of Metropolitan water equal to the amount of Colorado River water Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-13
conserved by IID for SDCWA. Second, federal law allocates a portion of the water available as a result of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and the All-American Canal Lining Project for the benefit of parties, including five Indian Bands, and two non-Indian municipal water purveyors (San Luis Rey Settlement Parties) involved in litigation over water rights to the San Luis Rey River in San Diego County. Metropolitan has agreed to exchange that water and provide an equal amount of water to the United States for use by the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties, and SDCWA has agreed to convey the water when capacity is available for use within the Settlement Parties’ service areas. The remainder of the water available as a result of the canal lining projects, up to the cap specified in the Metropolitan-SDCWA exchange agreement, is exchanged with SDCWA.
In October 2004, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and Metropolitan entered into a storage and interstate release agreement. Under this program, SNWA can request that Metropolitan store unused Nevada apportionment. The amount of water which Metropolitan diverted through 2015 under this agreement was over 422 TAF. In subsequent years, SNWA may request return of approximately 330 TAF. It is expected that SNWA will not request return of stored water until after 2026.
In December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior approved the adoption of specific interim guidelines for reductions in Colorado River water deliveries during declared shortages and coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. These guidelines provide water release criteria from Lake Powell and water storage and water release criteria from Lake Mead during shortage, normal, and surplus conditions in the Lower Basin; provide a mechanism for the storage and delivery of conserved system and non-system water in Lake Mead; and modify and extend interim surplus guidelines through 2026. The Record of Decision and accompanying agreement among the Colorado River Basin States protect reservoir levels by reducing deliveries during drought periods, encourage agencies to develop conservation programs, and allow the states to develop and store new water supplies. The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 insulates California from shortages in all but the most extreme hydrologic conditions.
In May 2006, Metropolitan and the USBR executed an agreement for a demonstration program that allowed Metropolitan to leave conserved water in Lake Mead that Metropolitan would otherwise have used in 2006 and 2007. The water left in Lake Mead must have been made available through extraordinary conservation measures, which was accomplished in 2006 and 2007 through savings realized under the Palo Verde Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program. This demonstration program was an activity eligible for creation of Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) under the provisions of the December 2007 federal guidelines for the operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
Metropolitan continued to store water in Lake Mead through extraordinary conservation measures as provided in the December 2007 federal guidelines in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Metropolitan took delivery of a portion of its extraordinary conservation ICS in 2013, 2014, and 2015. As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan had approximately 866 TAF of extraordinary conservation ICS water in Lake Mead.
The December 2007 federal guidelines provided Colorado River contractors the ability to create System Efficiency ICS through development and funding of system efficiency projects. To that end, in 2008 the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, SNWA, and Metropolitan contributed funds for the construction of the Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir by the USBR. The purpose of the Drop 2 reservoir is to increase the capacity to regulate deliveries of Colorado River water at Imperial Dam, reducing the amount of water released downstream, and therefore lost from storage in Lake Mead, by approximately 70 TAF annually. In return for funding one-sixth of the project cost, 100 TAF of water stored in Lake Mead was assigned to Metropolitan as System A.2-14 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Efficiency ICS in 2008. Metropolitan also created approximately 24 TAF of System Efficiency ICS by contributing to a one-year pilot operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. Overall, from 2008- 2011, Metropolitan created over 124 TAF of System Efficiency ICS As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan had approximately 89 TAF of System Efficiency ICS water in Lake Mead.
In November 2012, as part of the implementation of Minute 319 to the 1944 water treaty between the U.S. and Mexico, Metropolitan executed an agreement with the USBR and other Lower Colorado River Basin stakeholders to fund a pilot water conservation program in the Mexicali Valley region of Mexico in exchange for a portion of the conserved water received as Binational ICS (BICS) stored in Lake Mead, converted from Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation (ICMA). The Minute 319 pilot program was completed in 2017, and Metropolitan received 23,750 AF of BICS, which remained stored in Lake Mead as of January 1, 2020. In September 2017, Metropolitan executed a similar agreement as part of the implementation of Minute 323, through which Metropolitan expects to receive up to 27,275 AF of BICS between 2020 and 2026.
In May 2019, in response to ongoing conditions in the Colorado River Basin and concern over water levels in Lake Mead, Metropolitan, the Secretary of the Interior, and representatives of state governments and water agencies throughout the Colorado River Basin executed the Agreement Concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations (DCP). Exhibit 1 of Attachment B to the DCP—Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations (LBOps)—specifies certain changes to the management of Lake Mead. Key provisions include increases in the cumulative allowable ICS storage in Lake Mead for each state, greater flexibility in annual ICS storage limits, and the requirement for Lower Basin states to make contributions to Lake Mead storage (“DCP contributions”) when water levels drop below elevation 1075 feet. California DCP contributions are required when Lake Mead levels drop below elevation 1045 feet.
Metropolitan is undertaking ongoing efforts to maintain and improve the flexibility and quality of its water supply from the Colorado River. Section 3.1 of this Plan describes current programs and plans related to flexibility, and Section 4 describes water quality programs.
State Water Project
The State Water Project, which is owned by the state and operated by DWR, is the second source of Metropolitan’s imported water supplies. The SWP comprises 32 storage facilities (reservoirs and lakes), 662 miles of aqueduct, and 25 power and pumping plants.
The SWP conveys water from Northern California to the north and south of the San Francisco Bay Area and areas south of the Bay Delta region. Water from the SWP originates at Lake Oroville, which is located on the Feather River in Northern California. That water, along with all additional unused water from the watershed, flows into the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.
Water from the Delta is then either pumped to water users in the San Francisco Bay area or transported through the California Aqueduct to water users in Central and Southern California.
DWR contracted to deliver water in stages to 32 SWP contractors, with an ultimate delivery of 4,172 TAF per year. Three contractors have had their contract amounts taken on by other contractors; currently, DWR is delivering water to 29 SWP contractors. Metropolitan is the largest, with a contractual amount of 1,911 TAF per year, or approximately 46 percent of the total contracted amount. Metropolitan receives deliveries of SWP supplies via the California Aqueduct at Castaic Lake in Los Angeles County, Devil Canyon Afterbay in San Bernardino County, and Box Springs Turnout and Lake Perris in Riverside County. The first delivery of SWP water to Metropolitan occurred in 1972.
The initial facilities of the SWP, completed in the early 1970s, were designed to meet the original needs of the SWP contractors. It was intended that additional SWP facilities would be built over Existing Regional Water Supplies A.2-15
time to meet projected increases in contractors' delivery needs. Each contractor's SWP contract provided for a buildup in contractual amount over time, with most contractors reaching their maximum annual contractual amount by the year 1990. Since the completion of the initial SWP facilities in the early 1970s, major improvements to the system have included: four new pumps added to the Banks Pumping Plant at the Delta, the completion of the Coastal Branch, and the East Branch enlargement. Even with these improvements, however, there are still significant capacity constraints within the SWP that limit the delivery capability of the full contracted amount. During the same time, the contractors' needs for water from the SWP have increased.
As a result, the contractors' demands for SWP water currently exceed the dependable yield.1 Metropolitan has developed groundwater storage programs with Semitropic Water Storage District, Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District, and Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency to supplement the available water supply.
The amount of contractual supplies DWR approves for delivery varies annually with contractor demands and projected water supplies from tributary sources to the Delta, based on snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, reservoir storage, operational constraints, and demands of other water users. Deliveries to Metropolitan reached a high of 1,802 TAF in calendar year 2004. Metropolitan experienced shortages in SWP supplies in fiscal years 1991 and 1992, with reduced deliveries of 391 TAF and 710 TAF, respectively.2 SWP deliveries were limited to a record low 5 percent of contractual amount in 2014 and 20 percent of contractual amount in 2015. For calendar year 2021, the SWP allocation decreased from an initial allocation of 10 percent to 5 percent based on on-going dry conditions. The five percent SWP allocation for Metropolitan in 2014 and 2021 represents the lowest in the history of the SWP.
In recent years, the listing of several fish species in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) under both state and federal Endangered Species Acts has constrained SWP operations and created more uncertainty in SWP supply reliability. These listed species include Delta smelt, winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon, and Longfin smelt (state-listed only). In August 2020, DWR released the SWP Delivery Capability Report. The report shows that current SWP delivery capability has been negatively impacted by two significant factors. The first is the 2018 Addendum to the Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA), which increased State Water Project obligations to meet in-basin uses and decreased the ability of the State Water Project to export water relative to the Central Valley Project. The second major factor is operational changes by DWR to maintain higher levels of storage in Lake Oroville, made in part to ensure sufficient supplies to meet increased COA obligations. Additionally, the report shows a reduction in future delivery capability because of climate change, which is altering the hydrologic conditions in the State.
Metropolitan is undertaking ongoing efforts to maintain and improve the reliability and quality of its water supply from the State Water Project. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 in this Plan describe current programs and plans for reliability, and Chapter 4 addresses water quality issues.
Los Angeles Aqueduct
The City of Los Angeles imports water from the eastern Sierra Nevada through the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA). The original LAA, completed in 1913, imported water from the Owens Valley.
In 1940, the aqueduct was extended to the Mono Basin. A second aqueduct, which parallels the original, was completed in 1970.
1 The dependable yield of the existing SWP facilities is considered to be the delivery capability during a critically dry seven-year period. 2 These numbers are Metropolitan’s allocated contractual amount. Total water deliveries to Metropolitan’s service area are shown in Table A.2-1.
A.2-16 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Prior to the 1990-1991 drought, the City of Los Angeles had imported an average of 440 TAF of water annually from the combined Owens Valley/Mono Basin system, of which about 90 TAF came from the Mono Basin. In 1986, the aqueduct delivered a record 520 TAF of water.
In the late 1980s, a series of court injunctions limited the amount of water that Los Angeles could receive from its aqueduct system. In 1990, these limitations, along with a persistent drought, limited the delivery from the aqueduct to only 106 TAF. The Mono Lake Water Rights Decision (Decision) in September of 1994 ended the litigation in the Mono Basin, while negotiations continued with Inyo County on the fate of the Owens Valley water supply. In the Decision, the state ruled that Mono Lake should rise 17 feet over the next 25 years. During this time, Los Angeles would only be permitted to divert a fraction of its historical amounts. After the lake had risen, the City of Los Angeles would still be allowed only significantly reduced diversions. However, the high precipitation during the 1990s allowed increased diversions of water to the LAA to occur at a much earlier time frame than had been foreseen at the time of the Decision.
More recently, the LAA diversions of water from the Owens Valley came under additional pressure. Diversion of water from the Owens River had led to the drying up of Owens Lake by the end of the 1920s. This dry lakebed became a major source of windblown dust, resulting in EPA pressure to develop a State Implementation Plan to bring the region into compliance with federal air quality standards. In 1998, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District that specified actions needed to control the problem. These actions included shallow flooding and managed vegetation at various lakebed locations. An estimated 54 TAF per year will be required to maintain the dust control measures, further restricting the water available for diversion through the LAA. More recently, the city has been required to restore portions of the Owens River, which could further restrict the water that can be provided from this source. During the last 5 years (2015 to 2019), LAA supplies ranged from a high of 380 TAF in 2017 to a low of 33 TAF in 2015.
Historic Total Regional Water Supplies
The previous sections have presented the various sources of Metropolitan and the region's water supply. The amount of water supplied by each local and imported source from 1976 through 2020 appears in Table A.2-1. The imported supplies represent the amount of water imported into Metropolitan's service area, not the amount delivered to member agencies, which is shown in Table A.2-2. The difference between Metropolitan's imports and deliveries is water placed into or withdrawn from storage.
Appendix 3
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-1
Appendix 3
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
The California Water Code (CWC) Section 10631 requires that urban water suppliers identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to them over five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. This CWC section further requires urban suppliers to include a detailed description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken to meet the total projected water use. This Appendix provides the basis for the water supply available to Metropolitan as contained in this plan, by each major source of supply. Such bases and proofs are required for supply verification under the legislation.
Throughout this Appendix, references are made to Metropolitan’s operating budget and its long-term capital investment plan. The most recent operating budget (for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22) was adopted at the April 14, 2020 meeting of Metropolitan’s Board of Directors. A copy of the budget summary and the Capital Investment Plan for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021- 22 can be found at:
http://mwdh2o.com/PDF_Who_We_Are/Biennial%20Budget%20–%20Fiscal%20Years%202020- 21%20and%202021-22.pdf.
Another document of interest related to Metropolitan’s water supply planning is its annual report to the state Legislature in compliance with Senate Bill 60 of 1999 (Hayden). 1 Senate Bill 60 requires
that Metropolitan report on its progress in increasing its emphasis on cost-effective conservation, recycling, and groundwater recharge.
A.3.1. Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries
A. Colorado River Supplies
Metropolitan obtains water from the Colorado River under its Boulder Canyon Project Section 5 water delivery contract with the Secretary of the Interior providing for permanent service. A number of programs have been developed over the years to enhance and manage Colorado River supplies available under its water delivery contract. Appendix 2 describes the history of water supplies and the expected availability from this source, and Section 3.1 of the 2020 UWMP describes the agreements for water supplies.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
Water supply under Metropolitan’s Boulder Canyon Project Section 5 water delivery contract has been delivered since 1939. By existing contract, it is expected to be available in perpetuity because of California’s senior water rights to use of Colorado River water. 1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature:
Achievements in Conservation, Recycling and Groundwater Recharge (February 2021), which can be found at http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/Annual_Achievement_Report.pdf. The legislation requiring this information can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0051- 0100/sb_60_bill_19990916_chaptered.pdf. Similar reports have been filed with the Legislature since 2000.
A.3-2 Justifications for Supply Projections
The historical record for available Colorado River water indicates that Metropolitan’s contracted Colorado River supply has been available in every year and can reasonably be expected to be available over the next 20 years. Through 2002 the volume of water available and diverted from the Colorado River has been up to the annual capacity of the Colorado River Aqueduct of approximately 1.25 MAF. Since 2003, increased use by the other Colorado River basin states and persistent dry conditions in the Colorado River Basin has reduced the firm available supply to its 550 TAF Priority 4 entitlement.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s entitlement to Colorado River water is based on a series of interstate compacts, federal laws, agreements, court decrees, and guidelines collectively known as “The Law of the River,” 2 which govern the distribution and management of Colorado River water. The following documents specifically determine Metropolitan’s dependable supplies:
1931 Seven Party Agreement. 3 The 1931 Agreement recommended California’s Colorado River use priorities and has no termination date. The priorities to water available for use in California held by Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), Yuma Project (Reservation Division), Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), and Metropolitan are shown in Table A.2-5.
These priorities are incorporated into the water delivery contracts that the Secretary of the Interior executed with the California agencies in the 1930s for water from Lake Mead. Metropolitan holds Priority 4 to California’s basic apportionment of Colorado River water and utilizes this water – 550 TAF per year. Metropolitan also holds Priority 5 to 662 TAF per year. Appendix 2 describes the current status of water available under these priorities.
Metropolitan’s Basic Contracts. 4 Metropolitan’s 1930, 1931, and 1946 basic contracts with the Secretary of the Interior permit the delivery of 1.212 MAF per year when sufficient water is available. Metropolitan's 1987 surplus flow contract for up to 180 TAF with USBR permits the delivery of water to fill the remainder of the Colorado River Aqueduct when water is available.
Consolidated Court Decree. 5 The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decree confirmed the Arizona, California, and Nevada basic apportionments of 2.8 MAF per year, 4.4 MAF per year, and 300 TAF per year, respectively. The 1964 Decree also permits the Secretary of the Interior to make water available that is unused by one of the states for use in the other two states. In addition, it permits the Secretary of the Interior to make surplus water available. The Consolidated Decree issued on March 27, 2006, by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California consolidated into one decree the initial 1964 decree, the 1979 supplemental decree, the 1984 second supplemental decree, the 2000 third supplemental decree, and the 2006 approval of settlements reached on the water rights claim of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. The Consolidated Decree quantified present perfected rights (PPRs) to the use of Colorado River water by certain Indian reservations, federal wildlife refuges, and other users. 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The QSA and several other related agreements were executed in October 2003. 6 The QSA quantifies the use of water under the third priority of the Seven Party Agreement, and further allocates 38 TAF of the sixth priority to 2 A description of many of these documents can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html. 3 This agreement among the seven California agencies was dated August 18, 1931, and was codified in federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior on September 28, 1931. 4 Including contract number IIr-645 dated April 9, 1930, supplemented September 28, 1931. 5 The Consolidated Decree entered by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27, 2006, in Arizona v. California, et al., can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/scconsolidateddecree2006.pdf. 6 These agreements can be found at http://www.iid.com/water/library/qsa-water-transfer.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-3
Metropolitan. The QSA provides the numeric baseline needed to measure conservation and transfer programs, and it allows for implementation of agricultural conservation, land fallowing, and other programs identified in Metropolitan’s IRP. Although this agreement does not directly impact Metropolitan’s entitlements, Metropolitan agreed to forbear consumptive use when necessary so that the Secretary of the Interior can satisfy the uses of holders of miscellaneous and Indian present perfected rights in excess of 14.5 TAF.
2005 Settlement Agreement with Quechan Indian Tribe. In 2005, Metropolitan entered into a settlement agreement in Arizona v. California with the Quechan Indian Tribe and other parties.
The Tribe uses Colorado River water on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. Under the settlement agreement, the Tribe, in addition to the amounts of water decreed for the benefit of the Reservation in the 1964 decree in Arizona v. California, is entitled to (a) 20 TAF of diversions from the Colorado River, or (b) the amount necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of a specified number of acres, and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever is less.
Of the additional diversions, 13 TAF became available to the Tribe in 2006. An additional 7 TAF becomes available to the Tribe in 2035. Metropolitan agreed to provide annual incentive payments to the Tribe if the Tribe forbore diversion of the additional water, thereby allowing Metropolitan to divert it.
Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. In December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior approved a Record of Decision establishing specific interim guidelines for reductions in Colorado River water deliveries in the Lower Basin during declared shortages and coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. These guidelines provide water release criteria from Lake Powell and water storage and water release criteria from Lake Mead during shortage, normal, and surplus conditions in the Lower Basin, and provide a mechanism for Metropolitan to store and take delivery of conserved system and non-system water in Lake Mead. In December 2020, the seven Colorado River Basin States sent a letter to the Secretary of Interior giving notice that the Basin States have begun the process of reconsultation regarding the 2007 interim guidelines. The Basin States and major water contractors, including Metropolitan, will be involved in reconsultation and development of new guidelines for the management and operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead after the term of the 2007 interim guidelines ends in 2026.
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. In April 2019, the President signed legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to sign and implement four DCP agreements related to the Upper and Lower Basin DCPs without delay. The agreements were executed and became effective on May 20, 2019 and will continue to be effective through 2026. The Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement requires California, Arizona and Nevada to contribute defined volumes of water to Lake Mead (“DCP Contributions”) when lake elevations drop below certain levels. California would begin making these contributions if USBR modeling projects Lake Mead’s elevation to be at or below 1,045 feet (relative to mean sea level) on January 1. Lake Mead elevation in January 2020 was 1,090 feet. Depending on the lake’s elevation, California’s annual contributions would range from 200 to 350 TAF. Pursuant to intrastate implementation agreements that terminate in 2026, Metropolitan is responsible for 93 percent of any California DCP Contribution that may be required under the Lower Basin DCP. CVWD is responsible for 7 percent of California’s required DCP Contributions.
Implementation of the Lower Basin DCP enhances Metropolitan’s ability to store water in Lake Mead and to ensure that water in storage can be delivered at a later date. The Lower Basin DCP increases the total volume of water that California may store in Lake Mead as ICS by 200 TAF. Water stored as ICS will be available for delivery as long as Lake Mead’s elevation remains above 1,025 feet. Previously, that water would likely have become inaccessible below A.3-4 Justifications for Supply Projections
a Lake Mead elevation of 1,075 feet. DCP Contributions may be made through conversion of existing ICS. These types of DCP Contributions become DCP ICS. DCP Contributions may also be made by leaving water in Lake Mead to which there was a legal right of delivery. This type of DCP Contribution becomes system water and may not be recovered. Rules are set for delivery of DCP ICS through 2026 and between 2027 to 2057.
Financing
Metropolitan’s operating budget (referenced at the beginning of this appendix) includes the cost of delivering Colorado River water and the payment to the Quechan Indian Tribe, which is paid from water sales revenue.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Metropolitan’s fourth priority Colorado River water is currently available, and this priority assures delivery of the basic apportionment.
B. IID - Metropolitan Conservation Program
Source of Supply
The IID-Metropolitan Conservation Program provides an annual supply that is delivered to Metropolitan’s service area via its Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). In 1988, Metropolitan executed a Conservation Agreement to fund water efficiency improvements within IID’s service area in return for the right to divert the water conserved by those improvements. The program consists of structural and non-structural measures, including the concrete lining of existing canals, the construction of local reservoirs and spill-interceptor canals, installation of non-leak gates, and automation of the distribution system. Other implemented projects include the delivery of water to farmers on a 12-hour basis rather than a 24-hour basis and improvements in on-farm water management.
Expected Supply Capability
The IID-Metropolitan Conservation Program activity began in 1990, has been fully operational since 1998, and makes available 105 TAF of conserved water annually from 2016 onward. The initial program agreement provided CVWD the option to call up to about 45 TAF per year if needed to meet its demands. Execution of the QSA reduced CVWD’s option to a maximum of 20 TAF. This water is available to Metropolitan if not required by CVWD, but the minimum supply to Metropolitan has been increased to 85 TAF from 2016 onward through a second amendment to the agreement, and the clarification on the number of 12-hour deliveries that would be included in the program through a letter agreement. This amount was further increased to 90 TAF from 2020-2026 under the 2019 Second Amendment to the Delivery and Exchange Agreement with CVWD, with the remainder of CVWD’s option (15 TAF) available for Metropolitan’s delivery to CVWD at Whitewater.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The IID-Metropolitan Conservation Program has been fully operational since 1998. Existing agreements have extended the initial term to at least 2041 or 270 days after the termination of the QSA, whichever is later, and they guarantee Metropolitan a minimum of 85 TAF per year from 2016 onward. A 2019 amendment increases the minimum to 90 TAF from 2020 to 2026.
With operations beginning in 1990, the program has conserved as much as 109.46 TAF per year to date. By an amendment to the program agreement beginning in 2007 and a 2014 letter agreement, the annual conserved water yield will be 105 TAF. The historical record indicates that Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-5
Metropolitan’s expected minimum supply of 85 TAF per year (and 90 TAF from 2020 to 2026) would be available over at least the next 26 years.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s annual supply from the IID-Metropolitan Conservation Program is based on three agreements and amendments to those agreements.
1988 IID-Metropolitan Conservation and Use of Conserved Water Agreement. This Agreement was executed in December 1988 by IID and Metropolitan for a 35-year term following completion of program implementation (1998–2033).
1989 Approval Agreement. This Agreement secured the approval of PVID and CVWD to not divert an amount of water equal to the amount conserved except under limited circumstances.
The Agreement was executed in December 1989.
1989 Supplemental Approval Agreement. This Agreement was executed in December 1989 between Metropolitan and CVWD to coordinate Colorado River diversions and the use of the conserved water provided by the Program.
2003 Amendments to 1988 Agreement and 1989 Approval Agreement. These amendments revise Metropolitan’s potential obligation to reduce its use of the conserved water yield in favor of its use by CVWD down to 20 TAF annually. Any of this water not used by CVWD would be available to Metropolitan. The amendments also extended the term of the IID-Metropolitan conservation program through December 31, 2041, or 270 days beyond the termination of the QSA.
2007 Amendments to 1988 Agreement and 1989 Approval Agreement. These amendments specify that beginning in 2007, the annual conserved water yield has and will be 105 TAF with continued operation of 24 tailwater pump back systems, of which up to 20 TAF would be made available to CVWD upon its request.
2014 Letter Agreement Related to the 1988 Agreement. This letter agreement specifies that beginning in 2016, the annual conserved water yield has and will be 105 TAF, of which up to 20 TAF would be made available to CVWD upon its request. This amendment also removes tailwater recovery systems from the conservation actions and quantifies the yield and number of 12-hour deliveries that are included in the program.
2019 Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement Between Metropolitan and Coachella for 35 TAF. The second amendment was executed in December 2019 between Metropolitan and CVWD for the exchange of additional water during the period from 2020 through 2026. Metropolitan will be guaranteed 90 TAF per year from 2020 to 2026, with the remaining amount that CVWD could call (15 TAF) available for Metropolitan’s delivery to CVWD at whitewater.
Financing
Construction of the water efficiency improvements under this Program have been funded and put into operation. Metropolitan’s five-year financial forecast in the budget includes the cost of operating, maintaining, and delivering the conserved water under the IID--Metropolitan Conservation Program.
A.3-6 Justifications for Supply Projections
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
A comprehensive environmental review process supported implementation.
EIR for Program. The IID Board certified the final EIR for the Program in December 1986. 7 Supplemental EIR for Program. The IID Board certified the final EIR for the Completion Program in June 1994. 8
Program EIR for Quantification Settlement Agreement. Metropolitan's Board certified the final Program EIR for the QSA in June 2002.
9 Addendums to the QSA Final Program EIR. Metropolitan's Board adopted the Addendum to the QSA Final Program EIR in December 2002 and a second addendum in September 2003.
Metropolitan's Board also adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program at that time.
C. Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program Source of Supply
At its May 11, 2004 meeting, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a 35-year land management, crop rotation, and water supply program with the PVID. Under the program, participating landowners in PVID are being paid to reduce their water use by not irrigating a portion of their land. A maximum of 29 percent of lands within PVID can be fallowed in any given year. Under the terms of the QSA, water savings within the PVID service area are made available to Metropolitan. PVID has the first priority for Colorado River water under the water delivery contracts with the USBR.
Implementation of the program began in January 2005. The agreement also specifies that the participating landowners will fallow land in an amount equal to 25% of the landowner’s total maximum fallowing commitment during each year.
Expected Supply Capability
It is estimated that the PVID/Metropolitan Program would provide up to 133 TAF per year of additional Colorado River water. This water would be available in any year as needed and in accordance with the provisions described in the agreements with Palo Verde Valley landowners and PVID.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
Metropolitan and PVID tested the concept of developing a water supply for Metropolitan by entering into an agreement in 1992. 10 Agreements were signed with landowners and lessees in the Palo Verde Valley to forego irrigation for a two-year period from August 1992 to July 1994.
Water unused by PVID, in the amount of 186 TAF, was stored in Lake Mead for Metropolitan. Both PVID and Metropolitan signed approved Principles of Agreement in 2001. PVID issued the Final 7 Imperial Irrigation District, Final EIR, Proposed Water Conservation Program and Initial Water Transfer, Imperial Irrigation District, October, 1986. SCH Number: 1986012903. 8 Imperial Irrigation District, Final EIR for Modified East Lowline and Trifolium Interceptors, and Completion Projects, May 1994. SCH Number: 1992071061.
9 Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan, San Diego County Water Authority, Final Program EIR, Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement, June 2002, SCH Number 2000061034.
10 Presented to Metropolitan’s Board at its regular meeting on January 14, 1992.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-7
EIR for the Proposed Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program in September 2002. 11
Implementation of the program began in January 2005. In March 2009, Metropolitan and PVID entered into a one-year supplemental fallowing program within PVID that provided for the fallowing of additional acreage, with savings of 24.1 TAF in 2009 and 32.3 TAF in 2010.
Calendar Volume of
Year Water Saved (TAF)
2005 108.7
2006 105.0
2007 72.3
2008 94.3
2009 120.2
2010 116.3
2011 122.2
2012 73.7
2013 32.8
2014 43.0
2015 94.5
2016 125.4
2017 119.4
2018 95.7
2019 44.5
2020 50.0 (estimated)
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Contracts for this program are listed below.
August 2004 Forbearance and Fallowing Program Agreement. This agreement establishes the PVID/Metropolitan Program, which provides for a solicitation of and provisional approval of landowner participation offers, specifies the process for incorporating offers into agreements with landowners, and states the terms and conditions for fallowing, including payments made by Metropolitan.
Landowner Agreements for Fallowing in PVID. These agreements specify an escrow process to consummate the transaction, an easement deed to encumber land for fallowing, a tenant agreement to subordinate a tenant's lease to the agreement and easement, and an encumbrance agreement to subordinate any encumbrance (e.g., a mortgage) to the easement. These agreements also state the landowner's fallowing obligation, payments to be made by Metropolitan, and land management measures to be implemented. 11 SCH Number 2001101149.
A.3-8 Justifications for Supply Projections
Financing
Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget (referenced above) includes the cost of the PVID/Metropolitan Program.
Federal, State and Local Permits
EIR for Program. A Notice of Preparation for the PVID/Metropolitan Program was published on October 29, 2001. PVID issued the Final EIR for the Proposed Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program in September 2002 (see reference above).
D. Land Management of Metropolitan Owned Lands in Palo Verde Valley Source of Supply
In 2017 and 2018, Metropolitan executed new farm leases on 20,478 irrigable acres that it owns in the Palo Verde valley. These leases provide economic incentives for farmers leasing the land to grow less water-intensive crops, generating additional water savings beyond what is achieved by the Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program. The leases also allow Metropolitan and its lessees to collaborate on other types of conservation, such as highefficiency irrigation and precision irrigation practices. Under the terms of the QSA, water savings within the PVID service area are made available to Metropolitan.
Expected Supply Capability
Metropolitan’s lands in PVID generate water savings through the existing PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program. Changes in land management through cropping and irrigation practices generate an additional 14 - 25 TAF annually, compared to a baseline of 2015-16 water use. Because all Metropolitan-owned lands are enrolled in the fallowing program, the savings from agricultural practices depend on the fallowing call for each year, with a high call resulting in lower savings due to lower baseline usage.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Field water use in PVID is currently measured as applied water rather than consumptive use. The baseline applied water use on Metropolitan’s lands was 10.6 AF per acre in 2015-16. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the applied water use was 8.0 to 8.5 AF per acre, representing a 20% to 25% decrease below baseline. If the consumptive water use is assumed to be half of the applied water use, then the consumptive savings on Metropolitan lands are 1.1 – 1.3 AF per acre.
Metropolitan leases 20,478 irrigable acres in the valley, but depending on the fallowing call, only 13,152 to 19,001 acres are in production in any given year. A 1.1 – 1.3 AF per acre decrease results in 14 to 25 TAF of additional supply per year, depending on the call.
Financing
Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget includes the cost of the PVID land management program.
Federal, State and Local Permits
This program is not subject to any permits or environmental impact reviews under federal, state, or local laws.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-9
E. Metropolitan-CVWD Delivery and Exchange Agreement for 35,000 Acre-Feet Source of Supply
Metropolitan delivers to CVWD up to 35 TAF from Metropolitan’s available State Water Project (SWP) Table A supply without condition on the actual Department of Water Resources (DWR) allocation for that year. As CVWD does not have a connection to the SWP, the water is delivered to CVWD by an exchange with Colorado River water. Metropolitan takes delivery of the Table A supply in conjunction with forgoing diversion of an equal volume of its Colorado River supply, effectively leaving this water in the River for diversion by CVWD at Imperial Dam. Exchange deliveries may also be made at the CRA Whitewater service connection or through the Metropolitan-CVWD-Desert Water Agency Advance Delivery Agreement. This program represents a net debit to Metropolitan’s supplies.
A second source of supply governs an additional 15 TAF a year obligation from 2020-2026 under the 2019 Second Amendment to the Delivery and Exchange Agreement. However, the source of the increase is water CVWD can call from the IID/MWD Conservation Program, which is Colorado River water. Therefore, this portion of the exchange is described in greater detail in the IID/MWD Conservation Program section. This water is a one-for-one exchange and does not represent a net change to Metropolitan’s supplies.
Expected Capability
Up to 35 TAF of Metropolitan’s SWP Table A supply will be delivered annually to CVWD by exchange.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
This program is undertaken pursuant to the Delivery and Exchange Agreement between Metropolitan and Coachella for 35 TAF dated October 10, 2003 and is a QSA-related agreement.
Program Facilities
Metropolitan takes delivery of the Table A supply from the East Branch of the California Aqueduct at Devil Canyon Afterbay. At Metropolitan’s request, the USBR releases a portion of Metropolitan’s available Colorado River supply from Lake Mead for diversion by CVWD at Imperial Dam and conveyance through the All-American Canal System.
Historical Record
Since the 2003 execution of the QSA and the Delivery and Exchange Agreement, the following volumes of exchange water were delivered to CVWD at Imperial Dam:
Calendar Volume of Exchange
Year Water (AF)
2003 0
2004 0
2005 0
2006 34,958
2007 0
2008 0
2009 0
2010 10,000
2011 0
A.3-10 Justifications for Supply Projections
Calendar Volume of Exchange
Year Water (AF)
2012 0
2013 0
2014 0
2015 313
2016 0
2017 0
2018 0
2019 0
2020 0
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2003 Delivery and Exchange Agreement. This agreement between Metropolitan and CVWD provides for the delivery of up to 35 TAF of Metropolitan SWP Table A supply by exchange with Colorado River water.
2019 Second Amendment to Delivery and Exchange Agreement Between Metropolitan and Coachella. The second amendment was executed in December 2019 between Metropolitan and CVWD for the exchange of additional water during the period from 2020 through 2026.
Metropolitan will exchange an average of 15 TAF per year with CVWD between 2020 and 2026.
The source of this water is the portion of the IID/MWD Conservation Program that is subject to call by CVWD.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Program EIR for Quantification Settlement Agreement. Metropolitan's Board certified the final Program EIR for the QSA in June 2002. 12
Addendums to the QSA Final Program EIR. Metropolitan's Board adopted the Addendum to the QSA Final Program EIR in December 2002 and a second addendum in September 2003.
Metropolitan's Board also adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program at that time.
September 2002 Final Program EIR for Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and State Water Project Entitlement Transfer. The final Program EIR for the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and SWP Entitlement Transfer was certified by the CVWD on October 8, 2002.
F. SNWA and Metropolitan Storage and Interstate Release Agreement Source of Supply
The source of supply is SNWA’s unused Nevada apportionment of Colorado River water made available to Metropolitan for diversion and storage. In later years, Metropolitan would return water through reduced diversions of Colorado River water made at the request of SNWA. 12 Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan, San Diego County Water Authority, Final Program EIR, Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement, June 2002, SCH Number 2000061034.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-11
Expected Supply Capability
As of January 1, 2020, over 422 TAF had been diverted by Metropolitan since 2004. Of the amount that has been stored, 330 TAF is available for return to SNWA.
Returns to SNWA are limited to no more than 30 TAF annually unless Metropolitan agrees to a larger amount. In 2020 and 2021, SNWA may request return of an amount equal to the shortage allocated by the Secretary of the Interior to Nevada, though they are not expected to do so. If the Secretary of the Interior apportions less than 280 TAF of basic apportionment for use in Nevada, SNWA may request the return of up to 50 TAF, 1 acre-foot for each acre-foot less than Nevada’s 280 TAF basic apportionment.
If less than 75 TAF has been returned, then during each year prior to 2027 for which Lake Mead begins the year at or below elevation 1,045 feet, Metropolitan will create 50 TAF of Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) in Lake Mead, until the combined sum of ICS and the amount of water returned to SNWA equals 75 TAF. Prior to 2027, Metropolitan would be able to request delivery of this ICS during a year in which Lake Mead begins the year at or above elevation 1,080 feet.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Program Facilities
Water is diverted through the CRA by Metropolitan. To return the water to SNWA, Metropolitan would reduce its CRA diversions, and the Secretary of the Interior would make water available to SNWA at Lake Mead.
Historical Record
The annual volumes of water diverted into the CRA, and the volume of water stored for SNWA by Metropolitan are as follows:
Calendar Volume of Volume of Water Stored
Year Water Diverted (AF) for SNWA (AF)
2004 10,000 10,000
2005 10,000 10,000
2006 5,000 5,000
2007 0 0
2008 45,000 45,000
2009 0 0
2010 0 0
2011 0 0
2012 62,839 41,892
2013 75,000 50,000
2014 65,000 43,333
2015 150,000 125,000
2016 0 0
2017 0 0
2018 0 0
2019 0 0
2020 0 0
No water has been returned to SNWA.
A.3-12 Justifications for Supply Projections
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2004 Storage and Interstate Release Agreement. This agreement among Metropolitan, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, SNWA, and the United States provides for the Secretary of the Interior to make available to Metropolitan for diversion and storage unused Nevada apportionment. In subsequent years, the agreement provides for Metropolitan to make water available to SNWA by forgoing diversion of a portion of its available Colorado River supply.
Operational Agreement. As amended on August 11, 2009, on October 24, 2012, and on October 19, 2015, the Operational Agreement specifies the conditions under which Metropolitan would divert and store unused Nevada apportionment through 2026 and the return of water to SNWA.
G. Lower Colorado Water Supply Project
Source of Supply
Groundwater is pumped by the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project wells near the AllAmerican Canal and is discharged to the Canal. IID reduces its net diversions of Colorado River water by an amount equal to the amount of Project water discharged into the Canal, permitting entities along the Colorado River that do not have rights or have insufficient rights to divert Colorado River water to obtain a supply of water. In 2007, Metropolitan entered into a contract with the USBR and the City of Needles to utilize the unused Project capacity.
Expected Capability
Metropolitan estimates that it received 8.8 TAF of Lower Colorado Water Supply Project water in 2020.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Program Facilities
Two Lower Colorado Water Supply Project wells pump water into the All-American Canal. The groundwater level in one of the wells declined to the point that it could not operate at capacity with existing equipment. Replacement equipment to restore pumping capacity was installed.
Two new Project wells became operational in 2016 and brought the pumping capacity to the full 10,000 AFY project capacity.
Historical Record
Metropolitan has received the following amounts of Lower Colorado Water Supply Project water:
Calendar Year Volume of Water (AF)
2007 5,011
2008 6,300
2009 2,349
2010 3,872
2011 3,611
2012 3,253
2013 4,208
2014 6,109
2015 6,722
2016 6,647
2017 6,851
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-13
Calendar Year Volume of Water (AF)
2018 9,469
2019 9,554
2020 8,800 (estimated)
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2007 Lower Colorado Water Supply Project Contract among the United States, the City of Needles, and Metropolitan. This contract, as amended in 2010 and 2020, provides for the United States to deliver Colorado River water to Metropolitan, the availability of which results from the pumping of Lower Colorado Water Supply Project groundwater and the exchange of such water.
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget includes the cost associated with receipt of Lower Colorado Water Supply Project water.
H. Lake Mead Storage Program, Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir Funding, Yuma Desalting Plant Pilot Project, Binational Intentionally Created Surplus, and the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Source of Supply
Water has been and will be stored in Lake Mead as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) through extraordinary conservation measures, such as water saved through the Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program.
Water has been and will be stored in Lake Mead as ICS through system efficiency measures, such as Metropolitan’s funding contributions toward construction of the Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir near the All-American Canal and pilot operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant.
Water will be stored in Lake Mead as Binational ICS through implementation of pilot conservation projects in Mexico.
Water has been stored in Metropolitan’s service area for IID as excess conservation.
Expected Capability
Metropolitan may create as much as 400 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS water in a single year less the amount that may be created by IID, which could be as much as 25 TAF. In any given year, if Arizona and Nevada create less than their respective maximums, according to provisions in the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Metropolitan may create above 400 TAF, provided that all entities in the Lower Basin create no more than 625 TAF combined.
As stipulated in the DCP, upon creation, 10 percent of the Extraordinary Conservation ICS is deducted, resulting in additional system water stored in Lake Mead and leaving 90 percent of the water available for release to Metropolitan, without additional annual evaporation losses.
Under the DCP, the amount of Extraordinary Conservation ICS accumulated in Lake Mead for Metropolitan is limited to 1.7 MAF less the amount accumulated by IID which could be as much as 50 TAF and less the amount of Binational ICS stored by both IID and Metropolitan. Per the DCP, Arizona is also allowed to request 50 TAF of California Extraordinary Conservation ICS accumulation space. It is expected that Arizona will do so by the end of 2021.
A.3-14 Justifications for Supply Projections
Metropolitan may take delivery of as much as 400 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS from Lake Mead in a year less the amount delivered to IID, which could be as much as 50 TAF, as long as Lake Mead’s elevation remains above 1,025 feet.
Under the DCP, Metropolitan must also store defined volumes of water in Lake Mead at specified lake levels. California would begin making contributions if Lake Mead’s elevation is projected to be at or below 1,045 feet (relative to mean sea level) on January 1. Depending on the lake’s elevation, California’s contributions would range from 200 to 350 TAF a year (“DCP Contributions”). Pursuant to intrastate implementation agreements that terminate in 2026, Metropolitan is responsible for 93 percent of any California DCP Contribution that may be required under the Lower Basin DCP. CVWD is responsible for 7 percent of California’s required DCP Contributions.
As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan has 89 TAF of System Efficiency ICS stored in Lake Mead.
There are no evaporation losses charged to stored System Efficiency ICS. Metropolitan may take delivery of as much as 24 TAF of this System Efficiency ICS resulting from pilot operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant and 25 TAF of this System Efficiency ICS resulting from construction of the Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir annually. The USBR may reduce this delivery if it determines a reduction is necessary to avoid a shortage.
Binational ICS is provided for through domestic agreements related to Minutes to the 1944 Treaty between the United States and Mexico. Metropolitan received 23.75 TAF of Binational ICS in Lake Mead in 2017 under Minute 319. Under Minute 323 Metropolitan will receive 27,275 AF of Binational ICS in Lake Mead between 2020 and 2026.
Additionally, under the California ICS Agreement, rather than storing conserved water in Lake Mead, IID may, with the written consent of Metropolitan, have up to 25 TAF of this water delivered to Metropolitan for storage in any one calendar year. Upon request by IID, Metropolitan would return 90 percent of the stored water to IID with the remaining 10 percent left for Metropolitan’s use. A 2015 Amendment allowed IID to increase the amount of water it could deliver to Metropolitan for storage from 2015 to 2017. Metropolitan would return 95 percent of the stored water to IID, with additional 3 percent reductions in return obligation each year starting in 2020. Also, Metropolitan may make temporary use of IID’s Extraordinary Conservation ICS accumulated in Lake Mead. As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan has stored approximately 168 AF of IID’s conserved water.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Program Facilities
This program makes use of Lake Mead and the CRA.
Historical Record
From 2006 to 2010, Metropolitan created approximately 201.5 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS.
In 2008, the USBR assigned to Metropolitan 100 TAF of water stored in Lake Mead as System Efficiency ICS due to Metropolitan’s contributions to the Drop 2 Reservoir project, and Metropolitan diverted 34 TAF of that water.
In 2010 and 2011, the USBR assigned to Metropolitan 16.75 TAF and 7.647 TAF of water stored in Lake Mead as System Efficiency ICS, respectively, due to Metropolitan’s contributions to the Yuma Desalting Plant pilot project.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-15
From 2011 to 2012, Metropolitan created approximately 348.7 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS.
From 2013 through 2015, Metropolitan took delivery of approximately 475.6 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS.
From 2016 to 2019, Metropolitan created approximately 896.7 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS.
In 2017, Metropolitan received 23.75 TAF of Binational ICS.
As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan’s Extraordinary Conservation ICS, System Efficiency ICS, and Binational ICS volumes in Lake Mead were approximately 866 TAF, 89.4 TAF, and 23.8 TAF respectively, and no DCP Contributions to Lake Mead have been required.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2007 Lower Colorado River Basin Intentionally Created Surplus Forbearance Agreement among the Arizona Department of Water Resources, PVID, IID, the City of Needles, CVWD, Metropolitan, SNWA, and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. This agreement sets forth the rules under which ICS water is developed, stored in, and delivered from Lake Mead. It also provides for IID storing conserved water with Metropolitan under certain conditions. 2007 California Agreement for the Creation and Delivery of Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus among Metropolitan, PVID, IID, CVWD, and the City of Needles. This agreement determines the conditions under which California contractors receiving Colorado River water may store and deliver water from Lake Mead. 2007 Agreement among the United States, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, and the SNWA for the Funding and Construction of the Lower Colorado River Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project. This agreement provides for: the United States to design and construct the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project; SNWA to fund the capital cost of the Project; the United States to credit SNWA’s ICS account with 600 TAF of System Efficiency ICS; and allows Metropolitan to become a party to the agreement, requiring that Metropolitan provide funding for a portion of the capital cost.
2007 Delivery Agreement between the United States and Metropolitan. This agreement provides the procedures for creating ICS water and guarantees delivery of the water to Metropolitan. 2008 Metropolitan Notice of Election to Participate as a Party to the Drop 2 Funding Agreement.
This notice requires Metropolitan to provide funding for a portion of the capital cost of the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project, and the United States to credit Metropolitan’s ICS account with 100 TAF of System Efficiency ICS, reducing the amount of System Efficiency ICS in SNWA’s account by an equal amount.
2009 Agreement among the United States, Metropolitan, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, SNWA, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for a Pilot Project for Operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. This agreement provides for the allocation of the costs for the preparation and pilot operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. 2010 Yuma Desalting Plant Pilot Project Delivery Agreement between the United States and Metropolitan. This agreement secures delivery of the ICS water created and specifies the manner in which this water will be accounted.
2012 Agreement among the United States, Metropolitan, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, SNWA, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for a Pilot Program for the Conversion of Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation to Intentionally Created Surplus. This A.3-16 Justifications for Supply Projections
agreement provides for the allocation of the costs among the agencies for the implementation of pilot conservation projects within Mexico and the allocation of 95 TAF of conserved water among the non-federal agencies as Binational ICS in Lake Mead. 2012 Interim Operating Agreement for Implementation of Minute No. 319 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. This agreement among the United States, the Upper Basin states, and Lower Basin states’ agencies, including Metropolitan, sets forth the rules under which Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation is to be converted to Binational ICS for storage in and delivery from Lake Mead.
2012 Lower Colorado River Basin Forbearance Agreement for Binational Intentionally Created Surplus. This agreement among the state of Arizona, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and SNWA, and California Colorado River water contractors, including Metropolitan, ensures that the Binational ICS made available to a contractor that invests in a project in Mexico cannot be claimed by another contractor in another state.
2012 Binational ICS Delivery Agreement. This agreement between Metropolitan and the United States secures delivery of the Binational ICS water made available by exchange and specifies the manner in which this water would be accounted.
2013 Agreement between Metropolitan and IID Regarding Binational Intentionally Created Surplus. This agreement allows IID to provide a payment to Metropolitan of up to 50 percent of the financial contribution to be made to the United States by Metropolitan for the implementation of pilot conservation projects within Mexico. As a result of IID’s payment, Metropolitan received 23.75 TAF and IID received 23.75 TAF of Binational ICS in 2017. 2015 Amendment 2 to the California Agreement for the Creation and Delivery of Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus. This agreement between Metropolitan, PVID, IID, CVWD, and the City of Needles increased both IID’s put capacity and cumulative capacity limits on storing conserved water with Metropolitan during the three-year period from 2015-2017. 2017 Agreement among the United States, Metropolitan, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, SNWA, IID, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for a Pilot Program for the Conversion of Mexico’s Water Reserve to Binational ICS. This agreement provides for the allocation of the costs among the agencies for the implementation of pilot conservation projects in Mexico and the allocation of 109.1 AF of conserved water to the non-federal agencies as Binational ICS in Lake Mead.
2017 Interim Operating Agreement for Implementation of Minute No. 323. This agreement between the United States, the Upper Basin states, and Lower Basin states’ agencies, including Metropolitan, sets forth the rules under which Intentionally Created Mexican allocation is to be converted to Binational ICS for storage in and delivery from Lake Mead. 2017 Binational ICS Agreement. This agreement between the state of Arizona, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and SNWA, and California Colorado River water contractors, including Metropolitan, ensures that the Binational ICS made available to a contractor that invests in a project in Mexico cannot be claimed by another contractor in another state. 2017 Binational ICS Delivery Agreement. This agreement between Metropolitan and the United States secures delivery of the Binational ICS water made available by exchange and specifies the way this water would be accounted for.
2019 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. This agreement creates additional guidelines under which ICS water is developed, stored in, and delivered from Lake Mead.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-17
I. Metropolitan/Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program
Source of Supply
At its December 2019 meeting, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a 7-year seasonal fallowing program with the Bard Water District (Bard). Under the program, participating farmers in Bard are being paid to reduce their water use by not irrigating a portion of their land. A maximum of 3,000 acres can be fallowed in any given year. Under the terms of the QSA, water savings within the Bard service area are made available to Metropolitan. Bard Unit, as part of the Yuma Project, has the first priority for Colorado River water under the water delivery contracts with the USBR.
Implementation of the program began in March 2020.
Expected Supply Capability
It is estimated that the Seasonal Fallowing Program would provide up to 6 TAF per year of additional Colorado River water. This water would be available in any year as needed and in accordance with the provisions described in the agreements with Bard Unit farmers and Bard.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
Metropolitan and Bard tested the concept of developing a water supply for Metropolitan by entering into agreements for a two-year Metropolitan/Bard Water District Land Management and Seasonal Fallowing Pilot Program. Agreements were signed with farmers, with written consent from landowners if leasing land, in the Bard Unit to forego irrigation for two summers between March and July in 2016 and 2017. Water unused by Bard was about 2.3 TAF and was stored in Lake Mead for Metropolitan. Bard was issued a categorical exemption for the Proposed Metropolitan/Bard Seasonal Fallowing Pilot Program in January 2016. 13 Implementation of the program began in March 2016.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
December 2019 Agreement for the Implementation of a Seasonal Land Fallowing Program. This agreement establishes the Bard/Metropolitan Program, which provides for a solicitation of farmer interest in participation in the program, specifies the process for incorporating eligible lands into agreements with farmers, and states the terms and conditions for fallowing, including payments made by Metropolitan.
Agreement for Seasonal Fallowing in Bard Unit (Farmer Fallowing Agreements). These agreements specify the process for farmers in the Bard Unit to participate in the Program. These agreements establish the fallowing period, the eligibility criteria for the fallowed land, the farmers’ fallowing obligations, payments to be made by Metropolitan, and the land management measures to be implemented.
May 2020 First Amendment Agreement for the Implementation of a Seasonal Land Fallowing Program. This amendment clarifies Metropolitan’s method of calculating fallowed acreage for the Program. To ensure Metropolitan only provides funding to lands that could have been otherwise irrigated, the amendments defines which acres within the Bard Unit are “fallowable” and therefore eligible for participation in the Program. The parties did not make changes to the Metropolitan Board-approved terms of the original December 2019 agreement. 13 SCH Number 2001101149.
A.3-18 Justifications for Supply Projections
Financing
Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget (referenced above) includes the cost of the Metropolitan/Bard Program. Metropolitan will provide an annual incentive per acre of irrigable land fallowed. The agreement provides for escalating the incentive every year using the Consumer Price Index. Metropolitan will pay for 75 percent of the incentive to the participating farmer and 25 percent to Bard.
J. Exchange with SDCWA
Source of Supply
SDCWA has acquired conserved Colorado River water reaching an annual volume of 277.7 TAF by 2023. SDCWA makes this water available at Lake Havasu for Metropolitan diversion, where Metropolitan takes possession of the water and provides a matching volume from Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA by exchange in equal monthly amounts. The conserved water is acquired by SDCWA through its transfer agreement with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and from the lining of the All-American and Coachella canals.
Under the transfer agreement with IID, the stabilized annual transfer volume of 200 TAF is generated from conservation of water through on-farm efficiency conservation arrangements made by IID with its customers and other system efficiency measures.
The Coachella Canal Lining Project consists of a 35-mile concrete-lined canal, including siphons, which replaced an earthen canal. The project was completed in December 2006 and conserves 30,850 AF annually. The All-American Canal Lining Project consists of a concrete-lined canal constructed parallel to 23 miles of earthen canal, was completed in 2009 conserving 67,700 AF annually.
Pursuant to the QSA and related agreements, the 98,550 AF of water resulting from these projects annually is allocated as follows: 16,000 AF to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties in San Diego County, 77,700 AF to SDCWA, and 4,850 AF for Coachella Canal Lining Project mitigation, with the amount not needed for mitigation becoming available to SDCWA.
Expected Supply Capability
In 2021, the IID transfer to SDCWA reaches 205 TAF, reduces to 202.5 TAF in 2022, then stabilizes at 200 TAF per year in 2023, which will be made available to Metropolitan for exchange each year through 2047. At least 77.7 TAF of canal lining water will be made available to Metropolitan for exchange each year through 2112. After 2022, the annual volume SDCWA will make available to Metropolitan is limited to 277.7 TAF.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The IID transfers to SDCWA began in 2003 for a volume of 10,000 AF and have ramped up each year thereafter according to a defined schedule, reaching 192.5 TAF in 2020.
Conserved water from the All-American Canal Lining Project first became available in 2008 when 7,385 AF was allocated to SDCWA, increased to 54,429 AF in 2009, reached 56,200 AF in 2010, and has continued at that volume through 2020.
Conserved water from the Coachella Canal Lining Project first became available in 2006 when 687 AF was allocated to SDCWA and ranged from 21,511 AF to 25,759 AF from 2007 through 2019.
SDCWA has made available to Metropolitan all of this conserved water at Lake Havasu, where Metropolitan took possession and managed the water at its complete discretion for the benefit Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-19
of all member agencies. Of the volume received at Lake Havasu Metropolitan delivered an equal volume to SDCWA by exchange from a blend of sources that were available to Metropolitan at a price that is less than its full service rate.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Amended and Restated Agreement between The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority for the Exchange of Water. This October 10, 2003, agreement provides for Metropolitan delivery of Exchange Water to SDCWA in exchange for conserved Colorado River water SDCWA makes available to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu.
Agreement Between Imperial Irrigation District And San Diego County Water Authority For Transfer Of Conserved Water. This April 9, 1998, agreement, as amended, provides for IID to conserve water for transfer to SDCWA and establishes the price SDCWA pays to IID for the conserved water.
Allocation Agreement. This October 10, 2003, agreement among the United States, CVWD, IID, SDCWA, Metropolitan, and the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties provides for the allocation of water conserved from the All-American Canal Lining Project and the Coachella Canal Lining Project, and Metropolitan’s assignment to SDCWA of it rights to both canal lining projects.
Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement. By this October 10, 2003, agreement, among the Secretary of the Interior. CVWD, IID, SDCWA, and Metropolitan, the Secretary agreed to deliver IID-SDCWA transfer water and canal lining water allocated to SDCWA to Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct Intake at Lake Havasu for diversion by Metropolitan.
Financing
Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget (referenced above) incorporates the price that SDCWA pays for Metropolitan delivery of Exchange Water, which is less than Metropolitan full service rate.
K. Exchange with the United States
Source of Supply
The Coachella Canal Lining Project consists of a 35-mile concrete-lined canal, including siphons, which replaced an earthen canal. The project was completed in December 2006 and conserves 30,850 AF annually. The All-American Canal Lining Project consists of a concrete-lined canal constructed parallel to 23 miles of earthen canal, was completed in 2009 conserving 67,700 AF annually.
Pursuant to the QSA and related agreements, the 98,550 AF of water resulting from these projects annually is allocated as follows: 16,000 AF to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties in San Diego County, 77,700 AF to SDCWA, and 4,850 AF for Coachella Canal Lining Project mitigation, with the amount not needed for mitigation becoming available to SDCWA.
The United States furnishes the 16 TAF allocated to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties at Metropolitan’s Colorado River Intake on Lake Havasu. Metropolitan takes possession of the water and by exchange delivers an equal volume of Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA. By separate agreement SDCWA conveys the water to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties.
A.3-20 Justifications for Supply Projections
Expected Supply Capability
So long as water conserved by the All-American Canal Lining Project and Coachella Canal Lining Project is allocated to and available for use by the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties, the United States will make 16 TAF available for diversion by Metropolitan in perpetuity.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The allocation of canal lining water to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties was 172 AF in 2006, 4,500 AF in 2007, 6,013 AF in 2008, 15,648 AF in 2009, and 16,000 AF each year thereafter. The United States has made this water to available for diversion by Metropolitan. Through May 31, 2017, all water furnished by the United States at Lake Havasu was available for use by Metropolitan for the benefit of all member agencies. Beginning June 1, 2017, Metropolitan took possession of the water furnished by the United States and managed that water at its complete discretion for the benefit of all member agencies and delivered an equal volume to SDCWA by exchange from a blend of sources that were available to Metropolitan at a discounted price paid by the United States.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Allocation Agreement. This October 10, 2003, agreement among the United States, CVWD, IID, SDCWA, Metropolitan, and the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties provides for the allocation of water conserved from the All-American Canal Lining Project and the Coachella Canal Lining Project, and Metropolitan’s assignment to SDCWA of it rights to both canal lining projects.
Agreement Relating to Supplemental Water Among The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, The San Luis Rey Settlement Parties, and The United States. This October 10, 2003, agreement provides that the United States will furnish to Metropolitan up to 16 TAF per year of water conserved by the canal lining projects for the benefit of the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties.
Financing
Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget (referenced above) incorporates the price that United States pays for Metropolitan delivery of Exchange Water, which is less than Metropolitan full service rate, and the delivery of an equal volume by exchange to SDCWA.
L. Programs Under Development
Expansion of the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) Land Management Program: Additional fallowing agreements may be developed in subsequent years as needed.
Quechan Seasonal Fallowing Program: The Quechan Indian tribe has expressed interest in participating in a fallowing program similar to the Bard Water District Seasonal Fallowing Program.
Such a program is under consideration.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-21
A.3.2 California Aqueduct Deliveries
A. State Water Project Deliveries
Source of Supply
The State Water Project (SWP) provides imported water to the Metropolitan service area and has provided from 25 to 50 percent of Metropolitan’s supplies. In accordance with its contract with the Department of Water Resources (DWR), Metropolitan has a Table A allocation of 1,911,500 AF per year under contract from the SWP. Actual deliveries have never reached this amount.
The availability of SWP supplies for delivery through the California Aqueduct over the next 18 years is estimated according to the historical record of hydrologic conditions, existing system capabilities as may be influenced by environmental permits, requests of the SWC, and the SWP contract provisions for allocating Table A, Article 21 supplies, and other SWP deliveries including San Luis carryover to each contractor. As shown in this 2020 UWMP, the estimates of SWP deliveries to Metropolitan are based on DWR’s 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report.
As part of its contract with DWR, Metropolitan pays both the fixed costs of financing SWP facilities construction and the variable costs of operations, maintenance, power, and replacement costs for water delivered each year. SWP water is delivered to Metropolitan through the East Branch at Devil Canyon Power Plant afterbay, along the Santa Ana Valley Pipeline, and at Lake Perris.
Metropolitan takes delivery from the West Branch at Castaic Lake.
Expected Supply Capability
The Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct transports Metropolitan’s supplies from the SWP. The quantity of water available for export through the California Aqueduct can vary significantly year to year. The amount of precipitation and runoff in the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds, system reservoir storage, regulatory requirements, and contractor demands for SWP supplies impact the quantity of water available to Metropolitan.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Metropolitan and 28 other public entities have contracts with the State of California for SWP water. These contracts require the state, through DWR, to use reasonable efforts to develop and maintain the SWP supply. SWP contractors have the right to participate in the system, with an entitlement to water service from the SWP and the right to use the portion of the SWP conveyance system necessary to deliver water to them. The state has made significant investment in infrastructure. It has constructed 28 dams and reservoirs, 26 pumping and generation plants, and about 660 miles of aqueducts. More than 25 million California residents benefit from SWP water. DWR estimates that with current facilities and regulatory requirements, the project will deliver approximately 2.4 MAF under average hydrology considering regulatory requirements from the SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan, the USFWS and NMFS biological opinions and the CDFW Incidental Take Permit. In addition, these estimates incorporate 2018 amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the SWP and CVP.
On a yearly basis, DWR estimates the amount of supplies that are available for that year.
Metropolitan uses a forecasting method for SWP deliveries based on historical patterns of precipitation, runoff, and actual deliveries of water.
Further, under the water supply contract, DWR is required to use reasonable efforts to maintain and increase the reliability of service to Metropolitan. As discussed in a subsequent section, DWR is participating in the Bay-Delta process to achieve these requirements.
A.3-22 Justifications for Supply Projections
Historical Record
The historical record shows significant accomplishments by DWR in providing its contractors with SWP water supplies. Through 2018, the SWP has delivered over 103 MAF to its contractors. The maximum annual water supply was delivered in 2017, and totaled 3.77 MAF, exceeding the previous record delivery of 3.75 MAF in 2005. In 2006 and 2011 the project delivered 3.7 MAF.
DWR has continued to invest in SWP facilities to deliver water to its contractors.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
1960 Contract between the State of California and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for a Water Supply. This contract, initially executed in 1960 and amended numerous times since, is the basis for SWP deliveries to Metropolitan. It requires DWR to make reasonable efforts to secure water supplies for Metropolitan and its other contractors. The contract expires in 2035. In December 2018, Metropolitan signed a Contract Extension Amendment that would extend the contract term to 2085. The amendment is not effective until approval of the December 2018 validation action filed by DWR in Sacramento County Superior Court, which is still pending.
Financing
Metropolitan’s payments for its State Water contract obligation are approved each year by its Board of Directors and currently constitute approximately a third of the annual budget.
Federal, State and Local Permit/Approvals
Operation of the SWP. The DWR is responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and complying with numerous federal and state permits for operation of the SWP. Metropolitan has been active in monitoring the issues affecting its contract with DWR.
EIR for the East Branch Enlargement. In April 1984, DWR prepared and finalized an EIR for the Enlargement of the East Branch of the Governor Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct.
EIR for the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant. In January 1986, DWR prepared and finalized an EIR for the additional pumping units at Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant.
EIR for the Mission Hills Extension. In 1990, DWR prepared and finalized an EIR for the SWP Coastal Branch, Phase II and Mission Hills Extension.
East Branch Extension Project Phase 1. In 1998, DWR completed an EIR to extend the East Branch of the California Aqueduct to provide service to San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. Phase 1 was completed in 2002.
State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta WQCP), Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary Revised Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641), March 2000.
National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on Long Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, October 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, October 2019.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental Take Permit for Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, March 2020.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-23
B. Port Hueneme Lease of Ventura Table A
Source of Supply
Metropolitan has a right to delivery of up to 1,850 AF of Table A from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (Ventura), one of 29 SWP contractors, via a sublease agreement with the Port Hueneme Water Agency (Port Hueneme). United Water Conservation District, one of three agencies holding a contract right to Ventura Table A supply, leases this portion of their total 5,000 AF of Table A to Port Hueneme, who in turn subleases the Table A to Metropolitan. The long-term lease is a condition of the 1996 annexation of the Port Hueneme service area to Calleguas Municipal Water District and Metropolitan.
Expected Supply Capability
The amount of supply available to Metropolitan under the long-term lease is up to 1,850 AF of Ventura Table A. This water supply is in addition to Metropolitan's Table A, and the amount available each year is determined by the SWP allocation, with 1,850 AF available at a 100 percent allocation.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
The DWR estimates the amount of supplies that are available each year. Metropolitan uses a forecasting method for SWP deliveries based on historical patterns of precipitation, runoff and actual deliveries of water.
Historical Record
Metropolitan has taken delivery of Port Hueneme Lease water since 1997. These supplies are delivered to Metropolitan from the West Branch of the California Aqueduct and have ranged from 93 AF under a 5 percent allocation to 1,850 AF under a 100 percent allocation.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Port Hueneme Water Agency Annexation. By Minute Item 41728, dated January 9, 1996, Metropolitan’s Board adopted Resolution 8487 granting the concurrent annexation of Annexation No. 32 to Calleguas Municipal Water District and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and fixing Metropolitan's terms and conditions for the annexation. 1996 Sublease Agreement. The Port Hueneme and Metropolitan executed a sublease agreement to facilitate annual delivery to Metropolitan of up to 1,850 AF of Ventura Table A that is leased to Port Hueneme by United Water Conservation District.
Financing
Financial obligations to DWR related to the 1,850 AF Port Hueneme Lease supply, including variable transportation charges for delivery, remain the responsibility of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
DWR is responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and complying with numerous Federal and State permits for operation of the SWP.
A.3-24 Justifications for Supply Projections
C. Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District/Metropolitan Water Exchange and Advance Delivery Programs
Source of Supply
The Desert Water Agency (DWA) and CVWD, both in Riverside County, have rights to SWP deliveries, but do not have any physical connections to the SWP facilities. Both agencies are adjacent to the CRA. For DWA and CVWD to obtain water equal to their SWP allocations, Metropolitan has agreed to exchange an equal quantity of its Colorado River water for DWA and CVWD’s SWP water. DWA has a SWP Table A contract right of 55.75 TAF per year, and CVWD has a SWP Table A contract right of 138.35 TAF per year, for a total of 194.1 TAF per year.
Additionally, CVWD has a long-term water supply agreement for 9.5 to 16.5 TAF annually from Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District.
Expected Supply Capability
Under the existing agreements, Metropolitan provides water from its CRA to DWA and CVWD in exchange for SWP deliveries. Metropolitan can deliver additional water to its DWA/CVWD service connections, permitting these agencies to store water. When supplies are needed, Metropolitan can then receive its full Colorado River supply, as well as the SWP allocation from the two agencies, while the two agencies can rely on the stored water for meeting their water supply needs. The amount of DWA and CVWD SWP Table A water available to Metropolitan depends on total SWP deliveries and varies from year to year.
In addition to their Table A and long-term water supplies, DWA and CVWD, subject to available capacity, may take delivery of SWP supplies available under Article 21, the Turn-back Pool Program, and non-SWP water supplies they may acquire and convey through the SWP facilities.
These other supplies are delivered to DWA and CVWD by exchange with Metropolitan in the same manner as Table A deliveries. DWA and CVWD are participants in the Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program. Additionally, DWA participated in the 2009 Drought Water Bank and the 2015-2016 Multi-Year Water Pool Demonstration Program.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
The DWR estimates the amount of supplies that are available each year. Metropolitan uses a forecasting method for SWP deliveries based on historical patterns of precipitation, runoff and actual deliveries of water.
Historical Record
DWA and CVWD Exchange Program is currently in operation. The Advance Delivery Agreement has been in place since 1984. Since 1973, Metropolitan has been taking delivery of these agencies’ SWP Table A water and has provided equivalent water to those agencies from Metropolitan’s Colorado River supplies. Metropolitan has also been delivering water in advance of the amount needed under the exchange agreements. With water having been delivered in advance, Metropolitan can reduce deliveries to DWA and CVWD as needed. The Advance Delivery Account is a key tool for managing abundant SWP supplies. In 2017, Metropolitan managed an 85 percent SWP allocation in part by making 245 TAF of advance deliveries, bringing the account balance up to 325 TAF by the end of the year.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
1967 and 1983 Water Exchange Contract and Agreements. The DWA and CVWD Program is currently in operation. The DWA and CVWD water exchange contract has been in place since 1967, was amended in 1972, and was modified with execution of additional agreements in 1983.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-25
1984 Advance Delivery Agreement. The Advance Delivery Agreement allows Metropolitan to supply DWA and CVWD with Colorado River water in advance of the time these agencies are entitled to receive water under the exchange agreements. In future years, Metropolitan can recover this water by reducing its deliveries under the exchange agreements.
The 2003 Exchange Agreement. DWA, CVWD, and Metropolitan executed the 2003 Exchange Agreement under which Metropolitan transferred 88.1 TAF and 11.9 TAF of its SWP Table A water to DWA and CVWD, respectively, reducing Metropolitan’s Table A volume from 2,011.5 TAF to 1,911.5 TAF. The 2003 Exchange Agreement became operational in calendar year 2005 with the execution of letter agreements among DWA, CVWD, and Metropolitan governing its implementation. The exhibits to the November 9, 2004, and November 19, 2007, letter agreements also modify certain provisions of the Water Exchange Contract and Agreements and the Advance Delivery Agreement.
November 2012 Letter Agreement. CVWD and Metropolitan executed the letter agreement to deliver non-SWP water in exchange for Colorado River water under which CVWD arranged for the delivery of up to 16.5 TAF per year of water to Metropolitan provided by Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District to CVWD. Metropolitan delivers to CVWD an equal amount of Colorado River water.
2019 Amended and Restated Agreement for Exchange and Advance Delivery. In December 2019, CVWD, DWA, and Metropolitan executed an amendment to the exchange and delivery agreements in order to provide greater certainty for water supply and financial planning, simplify implementation of the exchange, provide Metropolitan with additional revenue, and improve dry-year water supply reliability.
Financing
The funds for deliveries under this Program are included in Metropolitan’s O&M budget and LongRange Finance Plan (referenced above).
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
DWR is responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and complying with numerous Federal and State permits for operation of the SWP.
July 26, 1983, CVWD Negative Declaration, Whitewater River Spreading Area expansion Phase 1.
February 1983, DWA Final EIR for the proposed extension of time for utilizing Colorado River water to recharge the upper Coachella Valley groundwater basins to the year 2035, Volume I and II, April 1983, Volume III.
September 2002, Final Program EIR for Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and SWP Entitlement Transfer was certified by CVWD on October 8, 2002.
In 2020, an application was filed with the Bureau of Land Management to renew and amend the existing Right-of-way grant for groundwater replenishment purposes on the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility.
D. Semitropic Water Banking and Exchange Program
Source of Supply
The agreement between Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic) and Metropolitan was executed in February 1994. Semitropic obtains water from the SWP through its contracts with the Kern County Water Agency. SWP supplies irrigate an area of 161,200 acres within Semitropic’s service area. When this surface water is not available, these growers withdraw water from the A.3-26 Justifications for Supply Projections
underlying aquifer. The agreement between Semitropic and Metropolitan allows Metropolitan to make use of 350 TAF of storage in Semitropic’s groundwater basin. In years of plentiful supply, Metropolitan can deliver available SWP supplies to Semitropic through the California Aqueduct.
During dry years, Metropolitan can withdraw this stored water. Five other banking partners participate in this Program and use 650 TAF of storage in Semitropic’s groundwater basin.
Expected Supply Capability
The Semitropic-Metropolitan Program provides Metropolitan with the capacity to store up to 350 TAF of water under the current agreement. During dry years, Metropolitan can recover its stored water through a combination of direct pumping of the groundwater and delivery of Semitropic’s SWP Table A water in the California Aqueduct. In 2014, Metropolitan amended the program to increase the return yield by an additional 13.2 TAF per year that has since been reduced to 6.7 TAF. The minimum annual yield available to Metropolitan from the program is currently 38.2 TAF, and the maximum annual yield is 229.77 TAF depending on the available unused capacity and the SWP allocation. The average annual supply capability for a single dry year similar to 1977 is 45 TAF. For a five-year consecutive drought condition similar to the period of 1988-1992, the expected supply capability is 50 TAF.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The Semitropic-Metropolitan Water Banking and Exchange Program has been operational since 1994. With existing agreements, it will continue to operate over the term of 41 years (1994 to 2035). By the end of 2020, the program had 261 TAF in its storage account.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
1992 Turn-in/out Construction, Operation and Maintenance Agreement. This Agreement was executed in 1992 by DWR and Semitropic to allow construction, operation, and maintenance of the Semitropic California Aqueduct Turn in/out.
1993 Temporary Semitropic-Metropolitan Water Banking Agreement. This Agreement was executed in February 1993 by Semitropic and Metropolitan to allow the storage of available Metropolitan supplies in advance of execution of the long-term agreement. 1994 Semitropic/Metropolitan Water Banking and Exchange Agreement. This Agreement was executed in December 1994 by Semitropic and Metropolitan to implement the program for a 41-year term (1994-2035).
1995 Point of Delivery Agreement. This agreement, with DWR, Kern County Water Agency, and Metropolitan, allows Metropolitan to divert water from the California Aqueduct into Semitropic’s service area.
1995 Introduction of Local Water into the California Aqueduct. This agreement, with DWR, Kern County Water Agency, and Semitropic, allows Metropolitan to receive water from the program into the California Aqueduct.
2014 Amendment to Increase Program Yield. The amendment increased Metropolitan’s minimum return yield by 13,200 acre-feet per year.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-27
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above) includes payments for the Semitropic Program.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Final EIR. Semitropic acting as the lead agency under CEQA and Metropolitan acting as a responsible agency jointly completed the EIR for the Program. The EIR was certified by Semitropic in July 1994 and adopted by Metropolitan in August 1994.
Regulatory Approvals. All regulatory approvals are in place, and the program is operational.
E. Arvin-Edison Water Management Program
Source of Supply
The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison) manages the delivery of local groundwater and water imported into its service area from the Central Valley Project’s (CVP) Millerton Reservoir via the Friant-Kern Canal. The surface water service area consists of 132,000 acres of predominantly agricultural land, and to a minor degree, municipal and industrial uses. It is situated in Kern County. Arvin-Edison operates its supplies conjunctively, storing water in the underlying aquifer when imported supplies are available and withdrawing that water when the availability of imported supplies is reduced. In 1997, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District. The agreement allows Metropolitan to store available water in Arvin-Edison's groundwater basin, either through direct spreading operations, or through deliveries to growers in Arvin-Edison's service area. Similar to Arvin-Edison’s own usage, this previously stored water could be withdrawn when the availability of imported supplies to Metropolitan is reduced.
Expected Supply Capability
The Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Program provides Metropolitan with the capacity to store up to 350 TAF of water under the current agreement. During dry years, Metropolitan can recover its stored water either through direct pumping of the groundwater or through exchange. Based on the terms and conditions of the program agreement, the return of water to Metropolitan ranges from a minimum of 40 TAF per year (peak 4-month summer period) up to 110 TAF (over a 12-month period). Metropolitan staff are currently working to overcome a new challenge of detections of 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of five parts per trillion (ppt) in wells that are part of the Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Program. These levels of TCP impact Metropolitan’s ability to put water and take return water under that program. As a result, Metropolitan has temporarily suspended operation of the program until the water quality concerns can be further evaluated and managed.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Water Management Program has been operational since 1997.
With existing agreements, it will continue to operate over the term of 38 years (1997 to 2035). By the end of 2020, the program had 142 TAF in its storage account.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
1997 Arvin-Edison/Metropolitan Water Management Agreement. This Agreement was executed in December 1997 by Arvin-Edison and Metropolitan to implement the program for a 30-year term (1997-2027).
A.3-28 Justifications for Supply Projections
1998 Turn-in/out Construction and Maintenance Agreement. This Agreement was executed in 1998 by DWR, Kern County Water Agency, Arvin-Edison, and Metropolitan to allow construction, operation and maintenance of the Arvin-Edison California Aqueduct Turn in/out. 1998-2002 Water Delivery and Return Agreements. These agreements, with DWR, Kern County Water Agency, Arvin-Edison, and Metropolitan, allow Metropolitan to divert water from, and introduce water to, the California Aqueduct.
2004 Point of Delivery Agreement. This agreement, with DWR, Kern County Water Agency, and Metropolitan, allows Metropolitan to divert water from the California Aqueduct into ArvinEdison’s service area. 2004 Introduction of Water into the California Aqueduct. This agreement, with DWR, Kern County Water Agency, and Arvin-Edison, allows Metropolitan to receive water from the program into the California Aqueduct.
2007 First Amended and Restated Agreement Between Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for a Water Management Program. This amendment increased the maximum storage level to 350 TAF, extended the agreement term to 2035, and provided for the construction of the South Canal Improvement Project. The project increases the reliability of Arvin-Edison returning higher water quality to the California Aqueduct.
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above) includes payments for the Arvin-Edison Program.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was completed in 1996.
An Addendum to the 1996 Negative Declaration was completed in 2003.
A Negative Declaration for the Arvin-Edison South Canal Improvement Project was completed in 2007.
Regulatory Approvals: All regulatory approvals are in place, and the program is operational.
F. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Program Source of Supply
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Program allows Metropolitan to purchase a dependable annual supply, as well as an additional supply for dry year needs. Under this program, Metropolitan purchases water provided to San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) from its annual SWP water allocation. Valley District delivers the purchased supplies to Metropolitan’s service area through the coordinated use of facilities and interconnections within the water conveyance system of the two districts.
The purchased SWP supply is provided to Metropolitan as direct deliveries of annual SWP water through the California Aqueduct to Metropolitan’s service area, as well as deliveries of SWP water to the San Bernardino groundwater basin that will subsequently be delivered to Metropolitan’s service area. Under this program, Metropolitan purchases surplus Valley District supplies on a fixed price schedule based on the final SWP allocation each calendar year.
To facilitate the transfer, the program also provides the coordinated use of existing facilities, including the Valley District’s Foothill Pipeline and the Inland Feeder, to improve the conveyance capabilities of the delivery of SWP water to the service areas of both districts. The intertie Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-29
between the Foothill Pipeline and the Inland Feeder has been constructed and was operational as of December 2002. This intertie allows Metropolitan to move SWP water from the East Branch of the California Aqueduct through the Foothill Pipeline and Inland Feeder, into DVL and the CRA. As a result of this intertie, Metropolitan has an alternative conveyance capacity of 260 cfs into Metropolitan’s system should an outage occur on the upper section of the Inland Feeder.
Expected Supply Capability
The program changed from the minimum purchase program to a surplus program. Valley District will provide Metropolitan surplus SWP supplies likely in higher than normal SWP allocations. The historical average for the program is expected to be around 13 TAF per year.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Program began operations in 2001 and ended in 2016. Since its inception in 2001, this program has delivered 200 TAF to Metropolitan.
Metropolitan and Valley District approved a new Coordinated Operating Agreement in 2021 that will provide Metropolitan surplus Valley District supplies and emergency mutual aid.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s annual and dry-year supplies from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Program are based on Metropolitan Board actions and agreements. 2000 Board Approval of Coordinated Operating Agreement. In June 2000, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into a Coordinated Operating Agreement between Metropolitan and Valley District to develop projects that could provide benefits to both districts through the coordinated use of facilities and SWP supplies.
2000 Coordinated Operating Agreement. The Coordinated Operating Agreement between Metropolitan and Valley District was executed in July 2000. 2001 Board Approval of the Coordinated Use Agreement. In April 2001, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into the Coordinated Use Agreement for Conveyance Facilities and SWP Water Supplies between Metropolitan and Valley District for the purchase of dependable annual and dry year supplies by Metropolitan.
2001 Coordinated Use Agreement. The Coordinated Use Agreement for Conveyance Facilities and SWP Water Supplies between Metropolitan and Valley District for the purchase of dependable annual and dry year supplies by Metropolitan was executed May 2001. The Agreement is effective as of July 1, 2001, for an “evergreen” term (10-years with automatic annual extensions unless otherwise notified).
2021 Coordinated Operating Agreement. The Coordinated Operating Agreement between Metropolitan and Valley District was approved by Metropolitan’s Board in March 2021. The agreement will terminate on December 31, 2035 unless there is an extension of the SWP Contract.
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above) includes the funds to purchase Program water.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The Program became effective July 1, 2001. An environmental review process and regulatory approval supported implementation.
A.3-30 Justifications for Supply Projections
Final EIR. Final Regional Water Facilities Master Plan EIR dated February 1, 2001, was certified by Valley District, as lead agency, and by Metropolitan, as responsible agency. Notices of determinations were filed by Valley District and Metropolitan on May 29, 2001, and April 18, 2001, respectively.
State Water Contractors’ Review. In May 2001, the SWC reviewed and issued a letter supporting the program.
DWR Review. DWR agreed to the program in December 2001.
G. San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program
Source of Supply
The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program allows Metropolitan to exchange supplies to provide additional water for normal and dry year needs. Under this program, Metropolitan delivers supplies to the City of Sierra Madre, a San Gabriel Valley MWD member agency. In exchange for Metropolitan delivering one acre-foot, San Gabriel Valley MWD returns two acre-feet to Metropolitan in the Main San Gabriel Basin, up to 5 TAF. For any exchange amount less than 5 TAF, Metropolitan purchases the balance of the 5 TAF. The program provides increased reliability to Metropolitan by allowing additional water to be delivered to Metropolitan’s member agencies Three Valleys MWD and Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD that rely upon the Main San Gabriel Basin for their supplies.
Expected Supply Capability
The average annual supply capability for a single dry year similar to 1977 is a net 2 TAF. For a fiveyear consecutive drought condition similar to the period of 1988-1992, the expected supply capability is 2 TAF.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program began operations in 2013 and is expected to be renewed continually in the future. Since its inception in 2013, the program has completed the exchange and purchase of 30.66 TAF, with a net increase to Metropolitan’s supply by an additional 19.5 TAF.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s dependable annual and dry-year supplies from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program are based on Metropolitan Board action and agreement. 2013 San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase Agreement. The agreement between Metropolitan and San Gabriel Valley MWD was executed in September 2013. 2013 Board Approval of the San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase Agreement. In August 2013, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into the agreement with San Gabriel Valley MWD.
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above) includes the funds to purchase water.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The Program became effective as of September 2013. An environmental review process supported implementation.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-31
CEQA Compliance. The proposed action involved an exchange and purchase agreement associated with the leasing, licensing, and operating of existing public water conveyance facilities with negligible or no expansion of use and no possibility of significantly impacting the physical environment.
H. Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency Exchange and Storage Program Source of Supply
The Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) Program allows Metropolitan to both exchange and store SWP supplies to provide additional water for normal and dry year needs.
Under this program, AVEK provides Metropolitan its unused SWP supplies. For every two acre-feet provided by AVEK, Metropolitan will return one acre-foot. The exchange program when implemented is expected to deliver 30 TAF over ten years, with 10 TAF available in dry years. At this time, the Department of Water Resources has not approved the exchange program element. Metropolitan has storage capability in the groundwater basin, with a capacity of 30 TAF, and a dry year return capability of 10 TAF.
Expected Supply Capability
The average annual supply capability for a single dry year similar to 1977 is 3 TAF for each program. For a five-year consecutive drought condition similar to the period of 1988-1992, the expected supply capability is 4 TAF for each program.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The AVEK Program started providing benefits in 2017. By the end of 2020, the program had 27 TAF in its storage account.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s dependable annual and dry-year supplies from the AVEK Exchange and Storage Program are based on Metropolitan Board action and proposed agreement. 2015 Board Approval of the AVEK Exchange and Storage Agreement. In November 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into the agreement with AVEK.
Financing
Metropolitan’s Board authorized up $16.6 million for the program with additional funds, if needed, from Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above).
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The storage element of the Program became effective after the agreement was executed in 2016. The Department of Water Resources has not approved the exchange program element at this time.
CEQA Compliance. The proposed action involved an exchange and purchase agreement associated with the leasing, licensing, and operating of existing public water conveyance facilities with negligible or no expansion of use and no possibility of significantly impacting the physical environment.
A.3-32 Justifications for Supply Projections
I. High Desert Water Bank
Source of Supply
The High Desert Water Bank with Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) allows Metropolitan to store supplies to provide additional water for normal and dry year needs.
Metropolitan has a storage capability in the groundwater basin, with a capacity of 280 TAF, and a dry year return capability of 70 TAF. The program is planned to be fully operational in 2024.
Expected Supply Capability
The High Desert Water Bank is currently under design and construction. When the High Desert Water Bank is completed, the program would provide 70 TAF of additional water supply capability in a dry year.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
The High Desert Water Bank is expected to be fully operational in 2024. The program may be providing recharge capability earlier. By the end of 2020, the program has yet to store water in its storage account.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2019 Board Approval of the High Desert Water Bank Agreement. In April 2019, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into the agreement with AVEK.
Financing
Metropolitan’s Board authorized up $131 million for construction of the program with additional funds for program operation.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
CEQA Compliance. The Metropolitan Board reviewed and considered AVEK’s adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and took related CEQA action.
J. Bay-Delta Improvements
Source of Supply
Improving the water supply reliability of the State Water Project (SWP) is a primary focus of Metropolitan’s long-term planning efforts. Metropolitan’s strategy is to reduce its dependence on SWP supplies during dry years, when risks to the Bay-Delta ecosystem are greatest, and to maximize its deliveries of available SWP water during wetter years to store in surface reservoirs and groundwater basins for later use during droughts and emergencies.
State resource agencies and various water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP), which would include new diversion and conveyance facilities in the Delta necessary to restore and protect the reliability of SWP water deliveries and, potentially, Central Valley Project (CVP) water deliveries south of the Delta, consistent with the State’s Water Resilience Portfolio. The DCP objectives are to address sea level rise, climate change and extreme weather events; minimize the potential for public health and safety impacts from reduced quantity and quality of SWP water deliveries, and potentially CVP water deliveries, south of the Delta resulting from a major earthquake that causes breaching of Delta levees; protect the ability of the SWP, and potentially the CVP, to deliver water when hydrologic conditions result in the availability of sufficient amounts, consistent with the Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-33
requirements of state and federal law and contractual commitments; and to provide operational flexibility to improve aquatic conditions in the Delta and better manage risks of further regulatory constraints on project operations.
The SWP conveys water from the western slope of the Sierra Nevada to water users both north and south of the Bay-Delta. Specifically, SWP water is delivered to Metropolitan’s service area through a system of reservoirs, the Bay-Delta, pumping plants, and the California Aqueduct.
Owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the SWP provides municipal and agricultural water to 29 State Water Contractors. Annual deliveries for the SWP average about 1.96 MAF. Municipal uses account for about 60 percent of annual deliveries, with the remaining 40 percent going to agriculture.
SWP supplies are estimated using the 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report distributed by DWR in August 2020. The 2019 Delivery Capability Report presents the current DWR estimate of the amount of water deliveries for current (2019) conditions and conditions 20 years in the future.
These estimates incorporate regulatory requirements in accordance with the SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan, the USFWS and NMFS biological opinions and the CDFW Incidental Take Permit. In addition, these estimates incorporate 2018 amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the SWP and CVP. Future capability estimates also reflect the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise. Under the 2019 Delivery Capability Report, the delivery estimates for the SWP for 2019 conditions as percentage of Table A amounts are seven percent, equivalent to 134 TAF for Metropolitan, under a single dry-year (1977) condition and 58 percent, equivalent to 1.1 MAF for Metropolitan, under long-term average conditions.
In dry, below-normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs.
The goal of these storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry-year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Banks pumping capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions.
Delta Conveyance Project
In 2000, several State and federal agencies released the CALFED Bay Delta Programmatic Record of Decision (“ROD”) and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR/EIS”) that outlined and disclosed the environmental impacts of a 30-year plan to improve the Bay-Delta’s ecosystem, water supply reliability, water quality, and levee stability. The CALFED ROD remains in effect and many of the State, federal, and local projects begun under CALFED continue.
Building on CALFED and other Bay-Delta planning activities, in 2006 multiple state and federal resource agencies, water agencies, and other stakeholder groups entered into a planning agreement for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (“BDCP”). The BDCP was originally conceived as a comprehensive conservation strategy for the Bay-Delta designed to restore and protect ecosystem health, water supply, and water quality within a stable regulatory framework to be implemented over a 50-year time frame with corresponding long-term permit authorizations from fish and wildlife regulatory agencies. The BDCP included both alternatives for new water conveyance infrastructure and extensive habitat restoration in the Bay-Delta.
In 2015, the State and federal lead agencies proposed an alternative implementation strategy and new alternatives to the BDCP to provide for the protection of water supplies conveyed through the Bay-Delta and the restoration of the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta, termed “California WaterFix” and “California EcoRestore,” respectively. In this alternative approach, DWR and the A.3-34 Justifications for Supply Projections
Bureau of Reclamation would implement planned water conveyance improvements as a standalone project. Ecosystem improvements and habitat restoration more generally (California EcoRestore) would be undertaken under a more phased approach than previously contemplated by the BDCP and would not be linked with the California WaterFix project or permits. Accelerated restoration actions totaling 30,000 acres of tidal marsh habitat were proposed to be undertaken in the coming decade to provide public benefits for listed fish in the Bay-Delta.
In his State of the State address delivered February 12, 2019, Governor Newsom announced that he did not “support WaterFix as currently configured” but does “support a single tunnel.” On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19, directing several agencies to (among other things), “inventory and assess… [c]urrent planning to modernize conveyance through the Bay Delta with a new single tunnel project.” In light of the Governor’s announcement and Executive Order, DWR withdrew all approvals and environmental compliance documentation associated with California WaterFix.
On January 15, 2020, DWR issued a Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Conveyance Project. Planning, environmental review and conceptual design work by DWR for a proposed single tunnel project is expected to take approximately 18 to 36 months.
California EcoRestore
The main objective under the EcoRestore Program is to pursue at least 30,000 acres of Delta habitats. These restoration programs would include projects and actions that are in compliance with pre-existing regulatory requirements designed to improve the overall health of the Delta.
Other priority restoration projects would also be identified by the Delta Conservancy and other local governments. Funding would be provided through multiple sources including state bonds and other state-mandated funds, SWP/CVP contractors funds as part of existing regulatory obligations, and from various local and federal partners.
As of May 2020, 32 projects have been identified that restore more than the targeted 30,000 acres of habitat, including a projected 18,580 acres of floodplain, 14,000 acres of tidal habitat, 3,500 acres of non-tidal wetlands and 1,650 acres of riparian and upland habitat. To date, 12 projects have been completed, four more are under construction, and the remaining 16 projects are planned to begin construction by 2021.
Sites Reservoir
Sites Reservoir first emerged as part of a second stage of the SWP proposed in the 1980s, which included a peripheral canal and other northern California water-related projects. In 1996, the project was further analyzed by DWR and USBR as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta process. The CALFED process resulted in a Programmatic Record of Decision that recommended implementation of the project as a component of the Preferred Program Alternative. In 2010, the Sites Project Authority was formed as a joint powers authority to continue moving forward with development of the Sites Reservoir project.
Sites Reservoir would be located north of Sacramento, about 10 miles west of the town of Maxwell. The project includes water storage reservoir of 1.3 to 1.5 MAF and would require the construction of two large dams up to 310 feet high and nine smaller saddle dams. The water stored in the reservoir would be diverted from the Sacramento River during high flow events and returned to the Sacramento River during dry and critical years, thereby providing additional dryyear water for environmental flows and project partners including CVP and SWP agencies south of the Delta.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-35
The current operations model estimates the annual water yield of Sites Reservoir at approximately 240 TAF per year. This model utilizes upstream Sacramento River flow and fishery criteria, assumed in earlier phases of the Project. Additional modeling analyses will continue to be conducted as further refinements are made to Project operations and projected regulatory requirements, including proposed Delta Conveyance operations. Implementation of the proposed Delta Conveyance Project would allow for greater yields south of the Delta. DWR estimates that if the Project were operational in 2016 (categorized as a ‘below-normal’ water year for the Sacramento River), the reservoir could have captured 448 TAF of water supplies. Final Project formulation and annual operations will determine how the firm yield will be divided between meeting water supply and environmental improvements funded by state Proposition 1 grant and federal Water Infrastructure Investment for the Nation (WIIN) Act appropriations.
In 2020, the Sites Project Authority and its participating agencies conducted an internal valueplanning effort to minimize potential project costs and impacts. That effort resulted in a project cost reduction of over $2 billion (i.e., $5.2B to $2.9B). The Sites Project Authority is recommending a new workplan and schedule that will move the project forward through the end of 2021. This 16-month workplan (Phase 2) will focus on the continued development and possible revision of project permits and environmental planning documents, and the development of a final feasibility report, and a draft operations plan.
An initial feasibility study and Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were completed in 2013 by DWR. A Public Draft EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project was released by the Sites Project Authority (state lead agency) and the USBR (federal lead agency) in August 2017. However, with the completion of the recent value-planning process, a Revised Draft EIR and Supplemental EIS will need to be released due to the smaller Project footprint and operational changes. The Revised Draft EIR and Supplemental EIS are scheduled to be released in July 2021, with a Final EIR/EIS completed in mid-2022.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta/Voluntary Agreements The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is continuing its phased review and update of the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta WQCP). Phase 1 focuses on the southern Delta salinity objectives for the protection of agriculture, San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife, and a program of implementation for achieving those objectives. Phase 2 considers the comprehensive review of the other elements of the BayDelta WQCP, including but not limited to Sacramento River and Delta outflow objectives.
The SWRCB has also encouraged all stakeholders to work together to reach one or more voluntary agreements for consideration by the SWRCB that could implement the proposed amendments to the Bay-Delta WQCP through a variety of tools, while seeking to protect water supply reliability. Metropolitan is participating in the Phase 2 proceedings and voluntary agreement negotiations.
In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted the Plan amendments and Final Substitute Environmental Document for Phase 1, which establishes the Lower San Joaquin River flow objectives and revised southern Delta salinity objectives. On February 25, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Plan amendments, which are now in effect, although enforceable obligations to implement the water quality objectives will be imposed in future proceedings involving the specific exercise of the SWRCB’s water right or water quality authority.
Various stakeholders filed suit against the SWRCB challenging the Phase 1 amendments.
The Phase 1 amendments are highly controversial because they include new requirements for the San Joaquin River tributaries (Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers) of 40-percent of unimpaired outflow, with an adaptive range between 30-percent and 50-percent for the A.3-36 Justifications for Supply Projections
protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses. Unimpaired flow is the flow that would accumulate in surface waters in response to rainfall and snowmelt and flow downstream if there were no reservoirs or diversions to change the quantity, timing, and magnitude of flows. Modeling of this objective shows significant reductions in water supplies available for human consumptive use during most water year types. While the southern Delta salinity objective for the protection of agricultural beneficial uses has been amended to 1.0 dS/m EC (a measure of salinity), the Phase 1 amendments continue the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s existing obligation to meet 0.7 dS/m EC on the Lower San Joaquin River at Vernalis.
As part of Phase 2 proceedings, the SWRCB released a framework document in July 2018 focused on the Sacramento River and its tributaries, Delta eastside tributaries, Delta interior Delta flows and Delta outflows. The framework describes changes that will likely be proposed by SWRCB staff through formal proposed amendments and supporting environmental documents. The proposed changes include certain unimpaired flow requirements for the Sacramento River and its salmon-bearing tributaries. an inflow level of 45-percent to 65-percent of unimpaired flow, with a starting point of 55-percent.
The SWRCB has also encouraged all stakeholders to work together to reach one or more voluntary agreements for consideration by the SWRCB that could implement the proposed amendments to the Bay-Delta WQCP through a variety of tools, while seeking to protect water supply reliability. In July of 2019, the State submitted to the SWRCB an update on the voluntary agreement processes. On February 4, 2020, the State agencies released a framework for voluntary agreements that outlined a 15-year program to improve environmental conditions, in an adaptive way, through new flows dedicated to the environment and providing additional habitat. The California Natural Resources Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency are leading an effort to negotiate voluntary agreements to improve conditions for native fish through an unprecedented commitment to increased flows for the environment, creation of 60,000 acres of new and restored habitat, and $5 billion in new funding for environmental improvements and science. If successful, these agreements will implement the SWRCB’s legally required update to the Bay-Delta WQCP and improve conditions for native fish through a broad set of tools. The agreements hold the potential to achieve meaningful landscape-scale solutions to meet the needs of the Delta and its major rivers, reconnect our floodplains and wetlands to the rivers and estuary, and comprehensively manage these vital watersheds. Metropolitan is participating in the Phase 2 proceedings and voluntary agreement discussions.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Implementation Status
Expected supplies are projected in accordance with the approved implementation.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan Board Actions and Policies:
Policy Principles Regarding Long-term Actions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta approved in April 2006.
Delta Action Plan Framework approved in June 2007.
Delta Conveyance Criteria approved in September 2007.
Execution of Initial Funding Agreement approved in December 2008.
Execution of Amendments to Planning Agreement approved in December 2009.
Execution of Planning Agreement Amendment (additional funds) approved in July 2010.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-37
Execution of Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement approved in August 2011.
Authorized Funding and Entered into Project Agreement with Sites Project Authority for Phase 1, April 2017.
Authorized Funding and Entered into Project Agreement with Sites Project Authority for 2019 Workplan, February 2019.
Appropriated Funding and Authorized Amendment to 2019 Reservoir Project Agreement with Sites Project Authority to Allow Participation in Phase 2 Workplan, November 2020.
Board action on “Water Management Tools” approved February 2021.
Board vote on California WaterFix, October 2017.
Board vote on California WaterFix, July 2018.
Board vote on Funding Agreement with DWR for Metropolitan’s share of the Delta Conveyance Project planning and pre-construction costs, and execution of an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, December 2020.
Supporting Agreements and Contracts:
Bay-Delta Accord approved in December 1994.
CALFED Framework, June 2000.
Lower Yuba River Accord, May 2008.
Delta Reform Act Legislation enacted in 2009.
State and Federal Funding:
Proposition 204 funds approved by voters in November 1996.
Proposition 13 funds approved by voters in March 2000.
Proposition 50 funds approved by voters in November 2002.
Proposition 1, approved by the voters in 2014, authorized $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and drinking water protection.
Annual federal appropriations from 1998 to present, authorized in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations balls and the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act.
California Water Commission approved $816 million of Proposition 1 funding for Sites Reservoir, July 2018
Financing
The Delta Conveyance Project would be paid for by public water agencies that would receive the water supply reliability benefits.
California EcoRestore is a program separate from the Delta Conveyance Project and the prior California WaterFix planning efforts. The state would pursue at least 30,000 acres of Delta habitat restoration over the next few years, pursuant to pre-existing regulatory requirements such as the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions and various enhancements to improve the overall health of the Delta ecosystem and its native fish and wildlife species. Proposition 1 funds and other state public dollars will be directed exclusively for public benefits unassociated with any regulatory compliance responsibilities.
A.3-38 Justifications for Supply Projections
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
CALFED’s Bay-Delta Program.
CALFED Programmatic EIR/EIS finalized in July 2000.
Record of Decision issued in August 2000 for the final Programmatic EIR/EIS regarding the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
K. Kern Delta Water Management Program
Source of Supply
In December 1999, Metropolitan advertised a request for proposals for participation in “The California Aqueduct Dry-year Transfer Program.” As a result of this request for proposals, four programs, including one from the Kern Delta Water District (Kern Delta), were selected for further consideration. In 2001, Metropolitan entered into Principles of Agreement with Kern Delta for the development of a dry-year supply program. Kern Delta serves 125,000 acres of actively farmed highly productive farmland located in the San Joaquin Valley portion of southern Kern County.
Kern Delta has under contract 180 TAF per year of good quality, highly reliable pre-1914 Kern River water and 25.5 TAF per year of SWP Table A contract right (under contract with Kern County Water Agency).
The dry-year supply program between Kern Delta and Metropolitan involves the storage of water with Kern Delta. In years of plentiful supply, the agreement allows Metropolitan to store water in Kern Delta's groundwater basin, either through direct spreading operations or through deliveries to growers in Kern Delta's service area. Metropolitan has the ability to store up to 250 TAF of water. Agreement provisions may allow for storage beyond this amount. When needed, Metropolitan can recover its stored water either through direct pumping of the groundwater or exchange at a rate of 50 TAF per year. The program duration will be from 2002 to 2027 with provisions that allow the water to be withdrawn until 2033.
Expected Supply Capability
The Kern Delta/Metropolitan Program provides Metropolitan with the capacity to store up to 250 TAF of water at any one time. When needed, Metropolitan can recover its stored water either through direct pumping of the groundwater or exchange at a rate of 50 TAF per year.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Implementation Status
Expected supplies are projected in accordance with accepted detailed groundwater modeling that has been accomplished for the program. In addition, the Kern Delta/Metropolitan Water Management Program was operational and accepting water for storage by fall of 2003. By the end of 2020, the program had 181 TAF in its storage account.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2001 Kern Delta/Metropolitan Principles of Agreement. Principles of agreement were entered into between Kern Delta and Metropolitan in June 2001, covering program costs, operational aspects, and risks/responsibilities.
2002 Kern Delta and Metropolitan Boards of Directors Approval. These actions approved execution of the long-term agreement, which delineates program operations, costs, and risks/responsibilities
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-39
Financing
Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above) includes payments for the Kern Delta/ Metropolitan Program.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Kern Delta, acting as lead agency under CEQA, has prepared a full EIR. As part of this EIR, Kern Delta published a Notice of Preparation and held meetings with the general public, interested agencies, and resource agencies. In November 2002, the Final EIR was certified by Kern Delta and adopted by Metropolitan.
L. Central Valley / State Water Project Storage and Water Transfers Source of Supply
Around 34 MAF of water (80 percent of California’s developed water) is delivered for agricultural use every year. Over half of this water is used in the Central Valley; and much of it is delivered by, or adjacent to, SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) conveyance facilities. This allows for the voluntary transfer of water to many urban areas, including Metropolitan’s service area, via the California Aqueduct.
In recent years, a portion of this agricultural water supply has been secured by Metropolitan through mutually beneficial transfer agreements:
The Governor’s Water Bank (Bank) in 1991, 1992, 1994, and 2009 secured 75 to 820 TAF per year of water supply. Further, the DWR’s Dry Year Water Purchase Program (Purchase Program) in 2001, 2002, and 2003 secured a total of 162 TAF. DWR established and administered the Bank and the Purchase Program by facilitating purchasing water from willing sellers and transferring the water to those with critical needs using the SWP facilities. Sellers, such as farmers and water districts, made water available for the Bank and Purchase Program by fallowing crops, shifting crops, releasing surplus reservoir storage, and by substituting groundwater for surface supplies.
In 2003, Metropolitan secured options to purchase approximately 145 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley during the irrigation season. Using these options, Metropolitan purchased approximately 125 TAF of water for delivery to the California Aqueduct.
In 2005, Metropolitan, in partnership with three other SWC, secured options to purchase approximately 130 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley during the irrigation season, of which Metropolitan’s share was 113 TAF. Metropolitan also had the right to assume the other SWC options if they chose not to exercise their options. Due to improved hydrologic conditions, Metropolitan and the other SWC did not exercise these options.
In December 2007, Metropolitan entered into a long-term agreement with DWR providing for Metropolitan’s participation in the Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program between Yuba County Water Agency and DWR that was approved by the SWRCB as part of the Yuba River Accord. This program provides for transfers of water from the Yuba County Water Agency during dry years through the year 2025, and Metropolitan has purchased approximately 200 TAF to date.
In 2008, Metropolitan, in partnership with eight other SWC, purchased approximately 40 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley during the irrigation season, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 27 TAF.
In 2009, Metropolitan participated in the Governor’s Water Bank, which purchased approximately 74 TAF, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 36.9 TAF.
A.3-40 Justifications for Supply Projections
In 2010, Metropolitan in partnership with three other SWC, secured approximately 100 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 88 TAF.
In 2010, Metropolitan purchased approximately 18 TAF of water from CVP Contractors located in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, Metropolitan entered into an unbalanced exchange agreement that resulted in Metropolitan receiving approximately 37 TAF.
In 2015, Metropolitan, in partnership with eight other SWC, secured approximately 20 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 12 TAF.
In addition, Metropolitan has secured water transfer supplies under the Multi-Year Water Pool Demonstration Program. In 2013, 2015, and 2016, Metropolitan secured 30 TAF, 1.3 TAF, and 7 TAF, respectively. Unlike the other transfer programs discussed herein, which were derived from agricultural sellers, a portion of these transfer supplies came from urban sellers.
Expected Supply Capability
The combined effect of the 2019 National Marine Fisheries Service’s and United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinions and the 2020 California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Incidental Take Permit have resulted in uncertainty in how the CVP and SWP will be operated to facilitate water transfers. The new state and federal permits result in the SWP being required to dedicate approximately 200 TAF on average to additional outflow, in addition to the SWP being required to reduce water diversions under a larger number of environmental conditions. The CVP is not subject to the same state permit requirements and will be diverting more frequently, particularly in April and May. There are also new limits on the CVP’s ability to use the SWP’s facilities for water transfers, particularly when the SWP is under heightened export limits, which could impact how water transfer deals are structured. While the new state and federal permits allow the water transfer window to be extended through November, the 2020 state Incidental Take Permit includes new November export limits on the SWP; and when these limits are triggered, the CVP would also be precluded from using SWP facilities. Under the new permit, the SWP is further obligated to implement a new water transfer monitoring program, which will increase costs to the SWP water contractors.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
Metropolitan has made rapid progress in developing SWP transfer programs. This progress may be attributed to several factors, including Metropolitan dedicating additional staff to identify, develop, and implement SWP transfer programs; increased willingness of Central Valley agricultural interests to enter into transfer programs with Metropolitan; and Metropolitan staff’s ability to work with DWR and USBR staff to facilitate SWP storage and transfer programs. The availability of dry year supplies has been demonstrated by the annual water purchase programs described above. In addition, Metropolitan participates in longer-term programs to secure water like the Yuba Accord and the Multi-Year Water Pool Demonstration Program.
The historical record for purchases from the Bank, Purchase Program, Metropolitan-initiated Central Valley programs, Yuba Accord, and Multi-Year Demonstration Program, as well as the number of sellers and buyers participating in these Programs, are strong indicators that there are significant amounts of water that can be purchased through spot market or long-term water transfers during dry years. This historical record from 1991 through 2016 is summarized in Table A.3-1 below. Metropolitan did not purchase supplies from nor participated in any dry year transfer programs from 2017 through 2020.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-41
Approximately 20-35 percent of these north of the Delta water transfers are dedicated to improving Delta water quality to comply with regulations governing Delta pumping.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
With near record-low precipitation in California in recent years, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued several executive orders to expedite processing of water transfers within the state:
Executive Order B-21-13 (May 20, 2013): The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board are to “take immediate action to address the dry conditions and water delivery limitations by doing the following: … (1) Expedite processing of one-year water transfers for 2013 and assist water transfer proponents and suppliers as necessary, provided that the transfers will not harm other legal users of water and will not unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, or other in-stream beneficial uses; (2) The SWRCB shall expedite review and processing of water transfer petitions in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Water Code; (3) The DWR shall expedite and facilitate water transfer proposals in accordance with applicable provisions of the Water Code...”
January 1, 2014 Drought Proclamation: “The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board will expedite the processing of water transfers, as called for in Executive Order B-21-13. Voluntary water transfers from one water right holder to another enables water to flow where it is needed most.”
April 25, 2014 Drought Proclamation: “The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board will immediately and expeditiously process requests to move water to areas of need, including requests involving voluntary water transfers, forbearance agreements, water exchanges, or other means. If necessary, the Department will request that the Water Board consider changes to water right permits to enable such voluntary movements of water.” Executive Order B-29-15 (April 1, 2015): “The Department shall immediately consider voluntary crop idling water transfer and water exchange proposals of one year or less in duration that are initiated by local public agencies and approved in 2015 by the Department subject to the criteria set forth in Water Code section 1810.” [This executive order incorporated by reference the previous drought proclamations.]
In February 2021, Metropolitan’s Board approved a water management amendment to the State Water Contract that provides greater water management flexibility with transfers and exchanges of SWP water within the SWP service area. The amendment will provide increased opportunities among the State Water Project Contractors to work together on programs that will improve the management of existing SWP water.
A.3-42 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-1
Historical Record of MWD Central Valley Water Transfers 2 Quantities denote options Metropolitan secured, but were not exercised due to improved hydrologic conditions.
Agreements Between Sellers and Buyers. Since 1991, Metropolitan has entered into Central Valley water transfer agreements in eleven years with sellers, or DWR acting in an intermediary capacity for the Drought Water Bank. The essential terms and conditions for negotiating purchases, including maximum offering price, quantity of water needed, and the timing of delivery, were established in these agreements.
1999 Board Directive. Metropolitan’s Board has authorized water transfers in accordance with the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM Plan) adopted in April 1999. The WSDM Plan is a comprehensive policy guideline for managing Metropolitan’s water supply during periodic surplus and shortage conditions. During shortage conditions, the plan specifies the type, priority, and timing of drought actions, including the purchase of transfers on the spot market that could be taken in order to prevent or mitigate negative impacts on retail demands.
Financing
Funds for Central Valley water transfers are included in Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above).
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Environmental documentation for the Drought Water Bank. In November 1993, DWR prepared and finalized a programmatic EIR for the operation of the Drought Water Bank during future Program
Purchases
(AF per year)
Participants
Total Metropolitan Sellers Buyers
1991 Governor’s Water Bank 820,000 215,000 351 13
1992 Governor’s Water Bank 193,246 10,000 18 16
1994 Governor’s Water Bank 220,000 100 6 15
2001 Dry-Year Purchase Program 138,806 80,000 9 8
2003 MWD Water Transfer Program 146,2301 126,230 11 1
2005 SWC Water Transfer Program 127,2752 0 3 4
2008 SWC Water Transfer Program 39,152 26,621 4 8
2009 Governor’s Water Bank 47,505 36,900 10 9
2010 SWC Water Transfer Program 98,959 88,159 11 4
2013 Multi-Year Water Pool Demo 92,232 30,000 4 9
2015 Multi-Year Water Pool Demo 3,000 1,374 1 14
2015 SWC Water Transfer Program 19,686 12,358 5 9
2016 Multi-Year Water Program 15,000 6,871 2 9
1 Quantities denote options Metropolitan secured, of which 20,000 AF were not exercised due to improved hydrologic conditions.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-43
drought events. In 2009, an emergency CEQA exemption was issued to support the Drought Water Bank.
Individual CEQA and NEPA documents for Metropolitan’s 2003, 2005, and 2008 Central Valley water transfer programs. Individual sellers prepared CEQA documentation to support their transfers. In addition, the USBR prepared NEPA documentation for those transfers requiring federal approval.
M. Mojave Storage Program
Source of Supply
Water from Metropolitan’s SWP supply is delivered to Mojave Water Agency through SWP facilities for deposit into an exchange account managed by Mojave. Returns to Metropolitan are made on an acre-foot-for-acre-foot basis (i.e., no losses) at Metropolitan’s request by exchange with Mojave’s SWP supplies delivered through SWP facilities, subject to rules reserving a minimum annual SWP supply for use by Mojave.
Expected Supply Capability
Through 2021, Metropolitan can annually withdraw the Mojave Water Agency’s SWP contractual amounts in excess of 10%. After 2021, the withdrawal rate lowers, reserving 20% of Mojave Water Agency’s SWP contractual amounts. Under a 100% allocation, the State Water Contract provides Mojave Water Agency 82.8 TAF of water.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Implementation Status
Presently, the Mojave Water Agency is not accepting additional water from Metropolitan. As of January 2021, Metropolitan has approximately 19 TAF remaining in storage. Without additional deliveries to the exchange account, the program may not be able to provide return supplies beyond 2025.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2003 Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Boards of Directors Approval. These actions approved the Mojave Water Agency Groundwater Recharge and Exchange Demonstration Project.
2003 Agreement for a Demonstration Water Exchange Program. Provided for a demonstration water exchange between Metropolitan and the Mojave Water Agency for the immediate benefit of both agencies and for the purpose of determining what mutual benefits can result from increased coordinated management of water and facilities. Provides for Metropolitan to deliver up to 75,000 AF for an exchange through December 2004 and the return of water to Metropolitan by December 2014.
2005 Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Boards of Directors Approval. These actions approved a one-year extension of the period for Metropolitan to deliver up to the maximum amount of 75,000 AF for an exchange and a one-year extension of the return of water supply to Metropolitan.
2005 First Amendment to the Agreement for a Demonstration Water Exchange Program. Provides for a one-year extension of the period for Metropolitan to deliver up to the maximum amount of 75,000 AF for an exchange and a one-year extension of the return of water supply to Metropolitan.
A.3-44 Justifications for Supply Projections
2011 Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Boards of Directors Approval. These actions approved an amendment to the Agreement for a Demonstration Water Exchange Program to provide for a longer term Water Storage Program for Metropolitan to store up to an additional 390,000 acre-feet of SWP supplies through 2035.
2011 Amended Agreement for a Water Storage Program. Establishes the Water Storage Program under which Metropolitan to store up to an additional 390,000 acre-feet of SWP supplies through 2035 for subsequent return by Mojave Water Agency.
Financing
Metropolitan O&M budget includes payments to deliver Metropolitan’s SWP supplies to Mojave Water Agency and the recovery on that water by exchange with Mojave Water Agency’s SWP supplies.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The Mojave Water Agency, as the Lead Agency, adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report on January 26, 2006, for the Mojave Water Agency Water Supply Reliability and Groundwater Replenishment Program (SCH#2005041103), adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and filed a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse on January 31, 2006.
Metropolitan’s Board certified the CEQA documents as a Responsible Agency on July 12, 2011.
On September 8, 2011, Metropolitan and Mojave Water Agency entered into a Point of Delivery Agreement with DWR providing for the delivery of Metropolitan’s SWP supplies to Mojave Water Agency and the return to Metropolitan through an exchange of Mojave’s SWP supplies.
N. Yuba Accord Dry Year Purchase Program
Source of Supply
As part of a comprehensive settlement of a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) proceeding in which the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) is required to increase Yuba River fishery flows, referred to as the “Yuba River Accord” (Accord), YCWA reached agreement with DWR and USBR to sell a portion of the water it would be required to release, plus additional water made available by reoperation of YCWA’s storage reservoirs and groundwater substitution. DWR entered into a purchase agreement with YCWA under which one-half of the water available for purchase would be available to SWP contractors that elected to participate in the purchase program.
Under this 25-year program, the price for water is set by the agreement between DWR and the YCWA. There are four categories of water sold, and the price for each type of water depends on hydrology.
Expected Supply Capability
Metropolitan’s share of the water made available under the Yuba Accord Dry Year Purchase Program is approximately 25 percent. Should other participating contractors decline to purchase their respective shares, that water is allocated to the remaining interested participating contractors. Metropolitan’s likely share of assured YCWA transfer water would be at least 13,750 AF in dry years and up to 35,000 AF or more in other years. These volumes are as provided by YCWA north-of-the-Delta and are subject to conveyance losses through the Delta to the Banks Pumping Plant (approximately 20 to 35 percent).
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-45
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Historical Record
Actual volumes purchased by Metropolitan since program inception were as follows:
Purchased
Volume
Year (AF)
2008 26,430
2009 42,915
2010 67,068
2011 0
2012 0
2013 14,548
2014 10,962
2015 8,192
2016 0
2017 0
2018 21,131
2019 0
2020 8,950 Estimate
Written Contracts or Other Proof
DWR-YCWA Purchase Agreement. This December 4, 2007, agreement provides the annual determination of the amount of water to be made available by YCWA and purchased by DWR.
The agreement also specifies the costs of various categories of water to be made available under a variety of hydrologic conditions.
DWR-Metropolitan Participation Agreement. This December 21, 2007, agreement provides Metropolitan’s election to purchase water made available by YCWA to DWR and the scheduling delivery of the purchased water. The agreement provides for mechanisms for Metropolitan payments to DWR that are due to YCWA under the DWR-YCWA Purchase Agreement.
Amended DWR-Metropolitan Participation Agreement. This December 5, 2014, amendment established prices for surface water transfer supplies between 2016 and 2020 and clarifies YCWA’s rights to sell to third parties.
Amended DWR-Metropolitan Participation Agreement. The amendment, executed in September 2020, established new prices for surface water transfer supplies between 2020 and 2025.
Financing
Funds for purchases of water from the Yuba Accord Dry Year Purchase Program are included in Metropolitan’s O&M budget (referenced above).
A.3-46 Justifications for Supply Projections
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
SWRCB Order WR 2008-0014. Approval of YCWA’s petition to modify revised Water Right Decision 1644 related to Water Right Permits 15026, 15027, and 15030 (Applications 5632, 15204, and 15574), and petition for long-term transfer of up to 200,000 AF of water per year from YCWA to the DWR and the USBR under Permit 15026 (Application 5632) - Lower Yuba River in Yuba County.
O. 2011 Coordinated Operating, Water Storage, Exchange and Delivery Agreement among Metropolitan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, and Irvine Ranch Water District Source of Supply
In July 2010, Metropolitan’s Board authorized the Coordinated Operating, Water Storage, Exchange and Delivery Agreement among Metropolitan, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The agreement allows Metropolitan to manage additional SWP supplies obtained from other State Water Contractors. The SWP supplies are obtained through unbalanced exchanges with other State Water Contractors and stored in IRWD storage facilities along the California Aqueduct. Metropolitan maintains ownership and control over the SWP supplies that would be later delivered into the region.
MWDOC and IRWD receive a benefit that when the storage programs operate consistent with Metropolitan’s Water Supply Allocation Plan, MWDOC and IRWD would receive an extraordinary supply benefit. MWDOC continues to pay the full-service rate for the water generated and delivered under the program.
Expected Supply Capability
The average annual supply benefit is estimated at around 2,000 AFY which can vary drastically based on hydrologic conditions. The maximum supply benefit during a water supply allocation may be as high as 28,750 AF if IRWD has sufficiently developed supplies in storage.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
The expected supply is estimated on the SWP Supplies that the program typically develops through 2020.
Historical Record
The program has allowed Metropolitan to acquire additional supplies through unbalanced exchanges with Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, Dudley Ridge Water District, and Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
2011 Coordinated Operating, Water Storage, Exchange and Delivery Agreement among Metropolitan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, and Irvine Ranch Water District.
Financing
Metropolitan does not fund the exchanges or storage program. IRWD is responsible for the normal program costs. There are provisions where Metropolitan can utilize the program facilities on a limited basis and would reimburse actual operating costs.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-47
A.3.3 In-Region Storage and Supplies
A. Surface Storage
Source of Supply
Surface storage is a critical element of Southern California’s water resources strategy. Because California experiences dramatic swings in weather and hydrology, surface storage is important to regulate those swings and mitigate possible supply shortages. Surface storage provides a means of storing water during normal and wet years for later use during dry years, when imported supplies are limited. Since the early twentieth century, DWR and Metropolitan have constructed surface water reservoirs to meet emergency, drought/seasonal, and regulatory water needs for Southern California. These reservoirs include Pyramid Lake, Castaic Lake, Elderberry Forebay, Silverwood Lake, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, Live Oak Reservoir, Garvey Reservoir, Palos Verdes Reservoir, Orange County Reservoir, and Metropolitan’s DVL. Some reservoirs such as Live Oak Reservoir, Garvey Reservoir, Palos Verdes Reservoir, and Orange County Reservoir, which have a total combined capacity of about 3,500 AF, are used solely for regulating purposes.
The remaining surface reservoirs are primarily used to meet emergency, drought, and seasonal requirements. The total gross storage capacity for these larger remaining reservoirs is 1,757,600 AF. However, not all of the gross storage capacity is available to Metropolitan; dead storage and storage allocated to others reduce the amount of storage that is available to Metropolitan to 1,665,200 AF.
Expected Supply Capability
Surface storage reservoirs are an important tool that allows Metropolitan to meet the water needs of its service area. As discussed in the EIR for the Eastside Reservoir (DVL) Project dated October 1991 and Metropolitan’s IRP, the allocation of available surface storage can be divided into two primary components: emergency and drought/seasonal. As specified by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors in the Final EIR for DVL, “Metropolitan shall maintain sufficient water reserves within its service area to supplement local production during an emergency or severe water shortage.” With DVL in operation, Metropolitan can now re-operate the surface reservoirs and meet the Board’s stated objectives.
Updated Emergency Storage Objective
Metropolitan established its original criteria for determining emergency storage requirements in the October 1991 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastside Reservoir, which is now named Diamond Valley Lake. These criteria were again discussed in the 1996 IRP. Metropolitan’s Board approved both of these documents. Emergency storage requirements are based on the potential of a major earthquake that would damage all supply aqueducts isolating Southern California from its imported water sources. In 2019, Metropolitan and its member agencies completed a process to update the regional planning estimate of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective. This emergency storage represents the amount of water that Metropolitan would store for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake that would damage the aqueducts that transport imported water supplies to Southern California, including: the Colorado River Aqueduct, both the East and West branches of the California Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The emergency storage allows Metropolitan to deliver reserve supplies to the member agencies to supplement local production. This helps avoid severe water shortages during periods when the imported water aqueducts may be out of service. The Emergency Storage Objective considers a six- and twelve-month outage period for the imported supply aqueducts incorporating latest seismic information and operational flexibility of Metropolitan’s system, a retail water demand cutback ranging from 25 to 35 percent considering the level of A.3-48 Justifications for Supply Projections
conservation that the region achieved during the recent drought, and an aggregated loss of 10 to 20 percent of local supplies accounting for factors could affect local production during emergency conditions. Under this update, Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective was set to 750 TAF, as this level of storage would prevent severe water shortages to the region given new information on expected recovery durations. The emergency storage volume represents a planning estimate for the amount of water that Metropolitan would store for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake or other disaster. It is not intended to set a basis or a policy for allocating or apportioning storage for any individual member agency. A detailed description of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective is included in Appendix 8.
The storage reserved in system reservoirs for emergency purposes is shown in Table A.3-2.
Updated Storage Requirements for Dry-Year Supply and Seasonal Needs Storage capacity in system reservoirs, including DVL, is also earmarked for dry-year supply and system regulation purposes. Dry-year supply storage within Metropolitan’s service area is required to meet the additional water demands that occur during single-year and extended droughts.
As specified in the Final EIR for DVL and further discussed in the IRP, this storage requirement is defined as the difference between average-year demand and above average demand during dry years. In addition to dry-year storage, seasonal storage is required to meet seasonal peak demands, which are defined as the difference between average winter demands and average summer demands. The dry-year supply and seasonal storage also provide sufficient reserves to permit approximately five percent downtime for rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance of raw water transmission facilities.
Table A.3-2
Surface Storage Utilization
(acre-feet per year)
Forecast Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MWD Dry-Year/Seasonal Surface Storage
DVL, Mathews, Skinner 596,000 596,000 596,000 596,000 596,000 Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 217,000 217,000 217,000 217,000 216,000 Subtotal of Dry-Year/Seasonal Storage 813,000 813,000 813,000 813,000 812,000 MWD Emergency Storage
DVL, Mathews, Skinner 436,000 436,000 436,000 436,000 436,000 Emergency Storage in DWR Reservoirs 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 Subtotal of Emergency Storage 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 Total MWD Surface Storage 1,630,000 1,630,000 1,630,000 1,630,000 1,629,000 Historical Record
Metropolitan has a contract with the DWR that allows use of its terminal reservoirs, such as Castaic Lake on the West Branch and Lake Perris on the East Branch of the California Aqueduct (see Section A.3.3.B for a discussion of Metropolitan’s contractual rights to storage in these DWR reservoirs). In addition, Metropolitan owns and operates surface reservoirs such as Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, and DVL to enhance water supply reliability for its member agencies.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-49
Written Contracts or Other Proof of Usage
The surface reservoirs used by Metropolitan are available either by contract (in the case of the DWR terminal reservoirs) or by construction of its own facilities. The following historical record is provided:
November 1960 Contract between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for a Water Supply. This Contract and its numerous amendments describe Metropolitan’s legal access to and obligations for the operation of the SWP for the benefit of its Contractors. Metropolitan has an entitlement to 1,911,500 AF of water each year subject to availability. The terms of this Contract describe Metropolitan’s rights to and obligations for the terminal surface reservoirs for water supply purposes.
November 1974 Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement on Operation of Lake Skinner.
This MOU and the January 2005 Amendment, signed by Metropolitan and other affected parties, govern Metropolitan’s operations of Lake Skinner in Riverside County. The DWR Division of Safety and Dams also reviews monitoring data on the safety of the dam annually.
November 1994 Memorandum of Understanding on Operation of Domenigoni Valley Reservoir (now known as Diamond Valley Lake). This MOU, signed by Metropolitan and other affected parties, governs Metropolitan’s operations of DVL in Riverside County. The DWR Division of Safety and Dams also reviews monitoring data on the safety of the dam annually.
Elderberry Forebay Contract for Conditions for Use. Conditions for use of storage are described in the contract between the DWR, State of California, and the Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, for Cooperative Development, West Branch, California Aqueduct; Amendment No. 1, July 3, 1969; and Amendment No. 4, June 27, 1985.
June 2002 Division of Safety of Dams Certificate of Approval. The DWR, Division of Safety of Dams issued the Certificate of Approval for operation of DVL in early 2000, with three conditions. These conditions were: (1) Satisfactory operation of the butterfly valves and emergency gate in the inlet/outlet tower, (2) completion of the Tank Saddle Cutoff remediation, and (3) completion of the Signal Spillway. Metropolitan completed these conditions in 2001, and DVL is currently operational in accordance with the Certificate of Approval.
October 1991 Final EIR for the Eastside Reservoir Project (DVL). The EIR established criteria for integrating the operations of Metropolitan’s reservoirs and DWR’s southern reservoirs for emergency purposes. These criteria also provided that Metropolitan reservoirs could be expected to withdraw all drought storage water within a two-year period.
B. Flexible Storage Use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris Source of Storage
Metropolitan’s flexible storage accounts in Castaic Lake and Lake Perris, which are SWP reservoirs, are 153,940 AF and 65,000 AF, respectively. These accounts provide Metropolitan with dry-year supply that is independent of the Table A allocation. Metropolitan can withdraw water from these reservoirs in addition to its allocated supply in any year on an as-needed basis.
Withdrawn water must be replaced from supplies available to Metropolitan within five years of each withdrawal. This “flexible storage” is available in Castaic Lake to Metropolitan, Ventura County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and to Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency. It is available in Lake Perris to Metropolitan only.
A.3-50 Justifications for Supply Projections
Expected Supply Capability
The dry-year supply available to Metropolitan from the flexible storage use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris totals 218,940 AF, made up of 153,940 AF in Castaic Lake and 65,000 AF in Lake Perris.
Table A.3-3 shows the use of this available supply in accordance with Metropolitan’s operating criteria.
Table A.3-3
Estimated Water Supplies Available for Metropolitan’s Use Under the Flexible Storage Use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris1 (TAF per year)
Year Five Year Drought
(1988-1992)
Single Dry Year
(1997)
2025 43 217
2030 43 217
2035 43 217
2040 43 217
2045 43 217
1Source: Metropolitan’s operating criteria.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Implementation Status
Express provisions related to flexible storage have been incorporated in Metropolitan’s SWP contract since 1995. The operating options have been available for use since that time and will continue to be in effect as a part of the SWP contracts.
Historical Record
Metropolitan has exercised the flexible storage provision on numerous occasions and withdrew the full contract amount during calendar year 2014. The full amount was replaced by the beginning of 2017. Its use is based on existing contract provisions.
DWR Bulletin 132-94. The use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris is determined in accordance with the proportionate use factors from Bulletin 132-94, Table B, upon which capital cost repayment obligations are based. Based on its capital repayment obligations, Metropolitan’s proportionate use of Castaic Lake is 96.2 percent and of Lake Perris is 100 percent. Per its SWP contract, Metropolitan has express rights to use certain portions of the SWP’s southern reservoirs independently of DWR to supply water in amounts in addition to approved SWP deliveries.
Metropolitan’s SWP Contract. Metropolitan’s SWP contract was amended in 1995 to include Article 54, “Usage of Lakes Castaic and Perris.” This article provides flexible storage to contractors participating in repayment of the capital costs of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris. Each contractor shall be permitted to withdraw up to a Maximum Allocation from Castaic Lake and Lake Perris.
These contractors may withdraw a collective Maximum Allocation up to 160 TAF in Castaic Lake and 65 TAF in Lake Perris, which shall be apportioned among them pursuant to the respective proportionate use factors, as shown in Table A.3-4 below.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-51
Financing
The cost associated with the withdrawal and replacement of water in the flexible storage is included in Metropolitan’s annual payments under the State Water Contract.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The flexible storage provision became effective in 1995. DWR has the approval authority to affect changes in the operations and usage of existing SWP facilities, including Castaic Lake and Lake Perris.
Table A.3-4
Flexible Storage Allocations
Participating Contractor Proportionate
Use Factor
Maximum Flexible Storage
Allocation
(AF)
Castaic Lake
Metropolitan .96212388 153,940
Ventura County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District .00860328 1,376
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency .02927284 4,684
Total Castaic Lake 1.00000000 160,000
Lake Perris1
Metropolitan
1.00000000 65,000
1 The 2003 Exchange Agreement among Metropolitan, CVWD, and DWA, among other things, transferred to CVWD and DWA a portion of Metropolitan’s capacity in the California Aqueduct and the East Branch including Lake Perris. However, Metropolitan’s rights to the full 65,000 AF of Lake Perris flexible storage account was retained by Metropolitan.
C. Metropolitan Surface Reservoirs
Source of Supply
Storage capacity in Metropolitan reservoirs, including Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, Live Oak Reservoir, Garvey Reservoir, Palos Verdes Reservoir, Orange County Reservoir, and DVL, is earmarked to meet emergency, dry-year/seasonal, and system regulation needs, as these have been defined above.
Expected Supply Capability
The total available storage capacity for all Metropolitan-controlled surface reservoirs (Metropolitan-owned and DWR terminal reservoirs) is 1,632,000 AF. As discussed earlier, approximately 750,000 AF has been set aside to meet the emergency storage objective of the service area. After accounting for emergency storage, the surface storage available in Metropolitan-owned reservoirs to meet dry-year/seasonal requirements is presented in Table A.3-5.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Program Facilities
Major facilities for Lake Mathews include an earthen dam to impound water and a recently completed new outlet tower. Major facilities for Lake Skinner include an earthen dam to impound water, an outlet tower, an inlet from the San Diego Canal to deliver water into the A.3-52 Justifications for Supply Projections
reservoir, a water treatment filtration facility, and recreational facilities consisting of a marina, parks, swimming areas, golf course, and hiking trails. Major facilities at DVL include three earthen dams to impound water, an inlet/outlet tower, a secondary inlet from the Inland Feeder, a large pumping station to deliver water into the reservoir, and power generating facilities. Recreational facilities consisting of a marina, parks, swimming areas, golf course, hiking trails, equestrian trails, and lodging are planned.
Historical Record
DVL has been operational for over 20 years. Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner have been in service since the 1940s and 1970s, respectively.
November 1974 Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement on Operation of Lake Skinner.
This MOU and the January 2005 Amendment, signed by Metropolitan and other affected parties, govern Metropolitan’s operations of Lake Skinner in Riverside County. The DWR Division of Safety and Dams also reviews monitoring data on the safety of the dam annually.
October 1991 Final EIR for the Eastside Reservoir Project (DVL). The EIR established criteria for integrating the operations of Metropolitan’s reservoirs and DWR’s southern reservoirs for emergency purposes. These criteria also provided that Metropolitan reservoirs could be expected to withdraw all drought storage water within a two-year period.
November 1994 Memorandum of Understanding on Operation of Domenigoni Valley Reservoir (now known as Diamond Valley Lake). This MOU, signed by Metropolitan and other affected parties, governs Metropolitan’s operations of DVL in Riverside County. The DWR Division of Safety and Dams also reviews monitoring data on the safety of the dam annually.
June 2002 Division of Safety of Dams Certificate of Approval. The DWR Division of Safety of Dams issued the Certificate of Approval for operation of DVL in early 2000, with three conditions. These conditions were: (1) satisfactory operation of the butterfly valves and emergency gate in the inlet/outlet tower, (2) completion of the Tank Saddle Cutoff remediation, and (3) completion of the Signal Spillway. Metropolitan completed these conditions in 2001, and DVL is currently operational in accordance with the Certificate of Approval.
Table A.3-5
Estimated Supplies Available from Metropolitan’s Surface Storage Program Capabilities
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry
Forecast Year Drought Year
(1988-92) (1977)
2025 161,000 807,000
2030 161,000 809,000
2035 161,000 808,000
2040 161,000 808,000
2045 161,000 806,000
Source: Metropolitan analysis
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-53
Financing
The capital cost of DVL, Lake Mathews, and Lake Skinner was financed by a combination of revenue bonds and operating revenues. Annual operating costs, including maintenance and pumping, are included in Metropolitan’s annual O&M budget (referenced above).
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
All necessary permits have been obtained. A permit to generate and sell power has been acquired from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. No further regulatory permits are required.
D. Groundwater Conjunctive Use Programs
Source of Supply
Metropolitan’s IRP established the strategy to store imported water that is most available during wet years in surface reservoirs or groundwater aquifers for later use during droughts and emergencies. In this way, Metropolitan can reduce its reliance on direct deliveries from the SWP and the Colorado River during dry years when competing demands by other users and risks to the watershed ecosystems are greatest. Metropolitan has implemented a conjunctive use program for imported water storage in groundwater basins within the service area based upon policy principles adopted in 2000.
In 2007, Metropolitan published the Groundwater Assessment Study which estimated 3.2 MAF of available storage space in groundwater basins. Due to drought and the subsequent decline in water levels, it is estimated that storage in the groundwater basins has declined about 700 TAF from 2000 to 2019. Additionally, the 2020 IRP may lead to policies and strategies for ensuring sustainable groundwater production in light of a potential for extended multiple-year dry conditions.
Rationale for the Expected Supply
Implementation Status
The status of implementation for the groundwater conjunctive use programs has been described above.
Historical Record
In 2000, Metropolitan entered an agreement with DWR to administer $45 million of Proposition 13 state bond funds for Metropolitan’s Southern California Water Supply Reliability Projects Program.
Metropolitan paired the $45 million of state funds with $35 million of Metropolitan capital funds to develop nine groundwater storage programs in partnership with member and retail agencies and groundwater basin managers. These nine contractual storage programs have an initial 25- year term and provide for storage of up to 212 TAF and dry-year yield of up to 70 TAF. These programs are summarized in Table 3-16. Since inception, the conjunctive use program has been exercised to store water in groundwater basins during wet periods and relied upon to extract that water during dry periods. For example, during the recent drought period from 2012 to 2016, the conjunctive use program provided 64,000 AF of dry year supply to help Metropolitan meet regional demands. As of January 2020, the conjunctive use storage balance is 61,000 AF.
Metropolitan has also implemented a Cyclic Program to help capture additional imported supplies that would otherwise be lost to the region, when available storage capacity is limited. Under the Cyclic Program, Metropolitan delivers imported water supplies to the member agencies for storage in their local groundwater basin or surface water reservoir in advance of the demand for the water for a future use. The member agency purchases the water based on A.3-54 Justifications for Supply Projections
a mutually agreed upon schedule but has full discretion on the use of the stored water. The Cyclic Program creates additional flexibility for managing Metropolitan’s water supplies.
Metropolitan has ten-year cyclic agreements with the City of Burbank, City of Pasadena, Calleguas Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, San Diego County Water Authority, and Western Municipal Water District. These agreements commenced between 2017 and 2019. In addition to these agreements, Metropolitan has existing agreements with two other member agencies. The Cyclic Storage Agreement with Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD allows pre-delivery and storage of up to 100 TAF of imported water. The agreement was originally signed in 1975 for a term of five years and has been extended in five-year increments. The agreement currently expires in November 2023. Metropolitan amended this agreement in August 2019 to increase the storage amount to up to 200 TAF. Metropolitan is working with Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD to enter into a new ten-year agreement. The Cyclic Storage Agreement with Three Valleys MWD allows for predelivery and storage of up to 40 TAF. This agreement was originally signed in 1991 for a term of five years and has been extended in five-year increments. Metropolitan entered into a new agreement that increased the storage amount to 50 TAF and expires in June 2030. Both agreements are expected to be renewed repeatedly in the future.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
Metropolitan’s dry-year supply from the groundwater conjunctive use programs is based on Metropolitan’s Board actions and agreements.
Proposition 13 Groundwater Conjunctive Use Programs.
Metropolitan Water District published the Groundwater Assessment Study Report in 2007 in collaboration with its member agencies and groundwater basin managers documenting existing use and development of groundwater resources in Metropolitan’s service area and estimating additional groundwater basin storage potential.
Principles for groundwater storage adopted by the Metropolitan Board in January 2000.
Resolution for Proposition 13 Funds adopted by the Metropolitan Board in October 2000.
Agreement executed with the DWR for Interim Water Supply Construction Grant Commitment Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection (Proposition 13, Chapter 9, Article 4) providing for Metropolitan to administer $45 million in state Proposition 13 grant funds for groundwater reliability programs; October 2000.
Agreement executed for Long Beach Conjunctive Use Project, July 2002, amended in July 2003, October 2005, and November 2008.
Agreement executed for Live Oak Conjunctive Use Project, October 2002.
Agreement executed for Foothill Area Groundwater Storage Project, February 2003, amended in August 2006, April 2008, and February 2009.
Agreement executed for Chino Basin Programs, June 2003, amended in May 2004, August 2004, August 2005, May 2008, March 2009, September 2009, July 2010, and January 2015.
Agreement executed for Orange County Groundwater Storage Program, June 2003, amended in July 2004, December 2005, and July 2008.
Agreement executed for Compton Conjunctive Use Program, February 2005.
Agreement executed for Long Beach Conjunctive Use Project ― Expansion in Lakewood, July 2005, amended in April 2006, August 2007, November 2008, and February 2010.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-55
Agreement executed for Upper Claremont Basin Groundwater Storage Program, September 2005, amended in April 2008.
Agreement executed for Elsinore Basin Conjunctive Use Program, December 2006, amended in May 2008.
All of these programs have an initial 25-year term, with provision for renewal or extension after that period.
Financing
Financing has been supplied from multiple sources as discussed below:
Financing from Proposition 13 and Additional Groundwater Storage Programs.
Proposition 13 funds ($45 million) were allocated to Metropolitan by the state in May 2000 for the development of local groundwater storage projects.
Metropolitan has executed groundwater storage funding agreements for nine storage programs, expended $45 million of the Proposition 13 funds, and appropriated over $35 million of Metropolitan capital funds for the storage programs in the Orange County and Chino groundwater basins. All nine storage programs have completed facilities and are currently active. Metropolitan began calling for production of stored water beginning in 2007.
Table A.3-6 provides details on groundwater storage programs.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Long Beach Conjunctive-use Storage Project. Environmental documentation for the Long Beach Conjunctive-use Storage Project was certified by the City of Long Beach in August 2001.
Live Oak Basin Conjunctive-use Storage Project. Environmental documentation for the Live Oak Basin Conjunctive-use Storage Project was certified by Three Valleys MWD in January 2002.
Foothill Area Groundwater Storage Project. Environmental documentation for the Foothill Area Groundwater Storage Project was certified by Foothill Municipal Water District in January 2003.
Chino Basin Programs Groundwater Storage Project. Environmental documentation for the Chino Basin Programs Groundwater Storage Project was certified by Inland Empire Utility Agency in December 2002.
Long Beach Conjunctive Use Storage Project ― Expansion in Lakewood. Environmental documentation for the project was certified by the City of Lakewood in May 2005.
City of Compton Conjunctive Use Program. Environmental documentation for the project was certified by the City of Compton in December 2004.
Orange County Groundwater Conjunctive Use Program. Environmental documentation for the project was certified by Orange County Water District in March 1999 and in July 2002.
Upper Claremont Basin Groundwater Storage Program. Environmental documentation for the project was certified by Three Valleys MWD in July 2005.
Elsinore Basin Conjunctive Use Program. Environmental documentation for the project was certified by Elsinore Valley MWD in February 2004.
A.3-56 Justifications for Supply Projections
E. Program under Development
Regional Recycled Water Program
The Regional Recycled Water Program (RRWP), a partnership with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, will purify wastewater to produce high quality water that could be used again.
The RRWP would produce up to 150 MGD of purified water from the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant in Carson for groundwater replenishment, industrial use, and potentially raw water augmentation. The agencies have been working together for over 10 years on the program. As a first step toward full implementation, Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts cooperated to complete the Advanced Purification Center in 2019. The Advanced Purification Center is a
0.5 million gallon per day demonstration facility that will generate information needed for the potential future construction of a full-scale recycled water facility. It uses a unique application of membrane bioreactors designed to significantly increase efficiency in water recycling.
Scientists and engineers will test the process, utilizing full-scale treatment modules, to ensure the resulting purified water meets the highest water quality standards. Once approved by regulators, this innovative process could be used throughout California and even applied around the globe.
Metropolitan and the Sanitation Districts are continuing to move forward with the program, to enhance their partnership and begin the next phase of the program. Metropolitan’s Board approved proceeding with the environmental planning phase of the project in November 2020.
Table A.3-6
Metropolitan’s In-Region Groundwater Storage Programs
Program
Metropolitan
Agreement
Partners Program Term
Max Storage
AF
Dry-Year
Yield
AF/Yr
Long Beach Conjunctive Use Storage
Project (Central Basin) Long Beach June 2002-2027 13,000 4,300 Foothill Area Groundwater Storage
Program (Monkhill/ Raymond Basin) Foothill MWD February 2003-2028 9,000 3,000 Orange County Groundwater
Conjunctive Use Program
MWDOC
OCWD June 2003-2028 66,000+ 22,000
Chino Basin Conjunctive Use
Programs
IEUA
TVMWD
Watermaster
June 2003-2028 100,000 33,000
Live Oak Basin Conjunctive Use
Project
(Six Basins)
TVMWD
City of La Verne
October 2002-
2027 3,000 1,000
City of Compton Conjunctive Use
Project
(Central Basin)
Compton February 2005-
2030 2,289 763
Long Beach Conjunctive Use
Program Expansion in Lakewood
(Central Basin)
Long Beach July 2005-2030 3,600 1,200
Upper Claremont Basin Groundwater
Storage Program
(Six Basins)
TVMWD Sept. 2005- 2030 3,000 1,000
Elsinore Basin Conjunctive Use
Storage Program
Western MWD
Elsinore Valley
MWD
May 2008- 2033 12,000 4,000
Total 211,889 70,263
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-57
Table A.3-7
Colorado River
Program Capabilities
Year 2025
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 105,000 105,000 105,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water
Supply Program 99,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 400,000 400,000 400,000
Binational ICS 17,000 0 42,000
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights 0 0 0
CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (47,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 47,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)
SNWA Agreement Payback 0 0 0
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,116,000 1,130,000 1,159,000 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,410,000 1,424,000 1,453,000 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (160,000) (174,000) (203,000)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
A.3-58 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
Colorado River
Program Capabilities
Year 2030
(acre-feet per year)
1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water
Supply Program 130,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 337,500 337,500 337,500
Binational ICS 51,000 51,000 51,000
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (49,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 49,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback 0 0 0
SNWA Agreement Payback (22,000) (22,000) (22,000)
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,109,500 1,109,500 1,096,500 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,403,500 ,403,500 1,390,500 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (153,500) (153,500) (140,500)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-59
Table A.3-7
Colorado River
Program Capabilities
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water
Supply Program 130,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 337,500 337,500 337,500
Binational ICS 51,000 0 51,000
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (51,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 51,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback 0 0 0
SNWA Agreement Payback (22,000) (22,000) (22,000)
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,109,500 1,058,500 1,096,500 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,403,500 1,352,500 1,390,500 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (153,500) (102,500) (140,500)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
A.3-60 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
Colorado River
Program Capabilities
Year 2040
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water
Supply Program 130,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 350,000 337,500 337,500
Binational ICS 0 0 0
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (53,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 53,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback 0 0 0
SNWA Agreement Payback (22,000) (22,000) (22,000)
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,071,000 1,058,500 1,045,500 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,365,000 1,352,500 1,339,500 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (115,000) (102,500) (89,500)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-61
Table A.3-7
Colorado River
Program Capabilities
Year 2045
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water
Supply Program 130,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 343,750 343,750 343,750
Binational ICS 0 0 0
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (53,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 53,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback 0 0 0
SNWA Agreement Payback 0 0 0
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,086,750 1,086,750 1,073,750 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,380,750 1,380,750 1,367,750 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (130,750) (130,750) (117,750)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
A.3-62 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2025
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 459,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 47,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 56,000 282,000 282,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 25,000
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Yuba River Accord Purchase 12,800 14,000 6,000
Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program3 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 20,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 38,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 734,800 647,000 1,774,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 734,800 647,000 1,787,000
1 Includes Port Hueneme Lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
3 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-63
Table A.3-7
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2030
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 479,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 49,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 57,000 283,000 283,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 22,000
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Yuba River Accord Purchase 0 0 0
Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program3 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 43,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 42,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 772,000 634,000 1,766,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 772,000 634,000 1,779,000
1 Includes Port Hueneme Lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
3 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations.
A.3-64 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
1 Includes Port Hueneme Lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
3 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 499,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 51,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 57,000 283,000 283,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 20,000
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Yuba River Accord Purchase 0 0 0
Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program3 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 43,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 42,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 794,000 634,000 1,764,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 794,000 634,000 1,777,000
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-65
Table A.3-7
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2040
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 519,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 53,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 57,000 283,000 283,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 18,000
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Yuba River Accord Purchase 0 0 0
Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program3 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 43,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 42,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 816,000 634,000 1,762,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 816,000 634,000 1,775,000
1 Includes Port Hueneme Lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
3 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations.
A.3-66 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2045
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 519,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 53,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 56,000 282,000 282,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 18,000
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Yuba River Accord Purchase 0 0 0
Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program3 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 20,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 42,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 792,000 633,000 1,761,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 792,000 633,000 1,774,000
1 Includes Port Hueneme Lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
3 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations.
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-67
Table A.3-7
In-Region Supplies and Programs
Program Capabilities
Year 2025
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Metropolitan Surface Storage
(DVL, Mathews, Skinner) 118,000 590,000 590,000
Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 43,000 217,000 217,000 Groundwater Storage
Conjunctive Use 33,000 68,000 68,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 194,000 875,000 875,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 194,000 875,000 875,000
Table A.3-7
In-Region Supplies and Programs
Program Capabilities
Year 2030
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Metropolitan Surface Storage
(DVL, Mathews, Skinner) 118,000 592,000 592,000
Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 43,000 217,000 217,000 Groundwater Storage
Conjunctive Use 36,000 68,000 68,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 197,000 877,000 877,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 197,000 877,000 877,000
A.3-68 Justifications for Supply Projections
Table A.3-7
In-Region Supplies and Programs
Program Capabilities
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
118,000 591,000 591,000
43,000 217,000 217,000
36,000 68,000 68,000
Metropolitan Surface Storage
(DVL, Mathews, Skinner)
Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris
Groundwater Storage
Conjunctive Use
Subtotal of Current Programs 197,000 876,000 876,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 197,000 876,000 876,000
Table A.3-7
In-Region Supplies and Programs
Program Capabilities
Year 2040
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
118,000 591,000 591,000
43,000 217,000 217,000
36,000 68,000 68,000
Metropolitan Surface Storage
(DVL, Mathews, Skinner)
Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris
Groundwater Storage
Conjunctive Use
Subtotal of Current Programs 197,000 876,000 876,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 197,000 876,000 876,000
Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-69
Table A.3-7
In-Region Supplies and Programs
Program Capabilities
Year 2045
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Metropolitan Surface Storage
(DVL, Mathews, Skinner) 118,000 589,000 589,000
Flexible Storage in Castaic & Perris 43,000 217,000 217,000 Groundwater Storage
Conjunctive Use 36,000 68,000 68,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 197,000 874,000 874,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 197,000 874,000 874,000
A.3-70 Justifications for Supply Projections Table A.3-8 Colorado River
Supply Characterization1 Year 2021-2025
Repeat of 1988-1992 Hydrologies
(acre-feet per year)
1 Supply characterization for the Drought Risk Assessment is based on core supplies as defined in WSCP Appendix 4. Flexible and storage supplies from CR, SWP, and In-Region may be exercised as supply augmentation action to any potential core supply shortfall. 2 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts. 3 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 4 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
Hydrology 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Current Programs
550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000
0 0 0 0 0
105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
0 0 0 0 0
42,000 64,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 100,000 100,000
33,000 33,000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 (2,000)
(50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000)(22,000) (95,000) (28,000) (45,000) (35,000) 22,000 95,000 28,000 45,000 35,000
0 0 0 0 0
(20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4DCP Contribution Reduction2 IID/MWD Conservation ProgramPriority 5 Apportionment (Surplus)PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation,and Water Supply ProgramLower Colorado Water Supply ProjectBard Seasonal Fallowing ProgramLake Mead ICS Storage ProgramBinational ICSForbearance for Present Perfected RightsCVWD SWP/QSA Transfer ObligationDWCV SWP Table A ObligationDWCV Advance Delivery AccountSNWA Agreement PaybackIID PaybackSubtotal of Current Programs 1,075,000 1,097,000 1,130,000 830,000 828,000 Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
283,000 281,000 278,000 278,000 278,000
16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
Exchange with SDCWDExchange with United States Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 299,000 297,000 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability3 1,374,000 1,394,000 1,424,000 1,124,000 1,122,000 Less CRA Capacity Constraint (amount above 1.25 MAF) (124,000) (144,000) (174,000) 0 0 919,000 866,000 996,000 979,000 987,000 Subtotal of CR Core Supplies Subtotal of CR Storage 331,000 384,000 254,000 145,000 135,000 Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries4 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,124,000 1,122,000 Justifications for Supply Projections A.3-71 Table A.3-8 California Aqueduct Supply Characterization1 Year 2021-2025 Repeat of 1988-1992 Hydrologies (acre-feet per year) 1 Supply characterization for the Drought Risk Assessment is based on core supplies as defined in WSCP Appendix 4. Flexible and storage supplies from CR, SWP, and In-Region may be exercised as supply augmentation action to any potential core supply shortfall. 2 Includes Port Hueneme lease. 3 Includes DWCV carryover. 4 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations. Hydrology 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Current Programs 221,000 940,000 274,000 442,000 345,000 22,000 95,000 28,000 45,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 245,000 1,037,000 304,000 489,000 382,000 200,000 0 69,000 0 0 14,000 11,000 14,000 11,000 14,000 MWD Table A2 DWCV Table A Article 21 Supplies San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase Subtotal of SWP Core Supplies San Luis Carryover 3 Yuba River Accord Purchase Central Valley Storage and Transfers 40,000 0 40,000 44,000 41,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 0 27,000 0 11,000 Semitropic Program Arvin Edison Program4 Mojave Storage Program Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage Kern Delta Program 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Transfers and Exchanges Subtotal of SWP Flexible and Storage Programs 381,000 61,000 250,000 155,000 156,000 Programs Under Development 0 0 0 0 0 San Bernardino Valley Water District Program Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Supply Capability 626,000 1,098,000 554,000 644,000 538,000 This page intentionally left blank.
A.3-72 Justifications for Supply Projections
Appendix 4
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-1
Appendix 4
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) complies with California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632, which requires that every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt a WSCP as part of its urban water management plan (UWMP). Section 10632.2 provides, “An urban water supplier shall follow, where feasible and appropriate, the prescribed procedures and implement determined shortage response actions in its water shortage contingency plan...or reasonable alternative actions, provided that descriptions of the alternative actions are submitted with the annual water shortage assessment report pursuant to Section 10632.1.” Notwithstanding, the CWC does not prohibit an urban water supplier from taking actions not specified in its WSCP, if needed, without having to formally amend its UWMP or WSCP.
The WSCP is a guide for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (Metropolitan’s) intended actions during water shortage conditions. It is meant to improve preparedness for droughts and other impacts on water supplies by describing the process used to address varying degrees of water shortages. Certain elements of the WSCP are required by the CWC, including response actions that align with six standard water shortage levels based on water supply conditions, as well as shortages resulting from catastrophic supply interruptions. The WSCP also describes Metropolitan’s procedures for conducting an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment) that is required by CWC Section 10632.1 and is to be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on or before July 1 of each year, or within 14 days of receiving final allocations from the State Water Project (SWP), whichever is later.
Metropolitan’s WSCP is included as Appendix 4 to its 2020 UWMP which will be submitted to DWR by July 1, 2021. However, this WSCP is created separately from Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP and can be amended, as needed, without amending the UWMP.
Organization of this Document
The WSCP covers the required elements as set forth by CWC Section 10632. Because Metropolitan is a wholesale urban water supplier, elements that pertain only to retail water suppliers are not addressed in this WSCP.1 The document contains eight sections. Section A.4.1 is an introduction that explains the purpose of the WSCP and provides background on Metropolitan’s service area and system. Section A.4.2 is a summary of the water supply analysis and water reliability findings from the 2020 UWMP, pursuant to CWC Section 10635.
Section A.4.3 is a description of procedures to conduct and approve the Annual Assessment.
Section A.4.4 explains the WSCP’s six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and more than 50 percent shortages and describes the WSCP’s shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels.
Section A.4.5 addresses communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional, and state governments regarding any current 1 WSCP elements that apply specifically to retailer water suppliers are: (1) a description of customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered response actions (CWC Section 10632(a)(6)); (2) a description of the cost of compliance with Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 365) of Division 1 (CWC Section 10632(a)(8)(c)); and (3) monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements (CWC Section 10632(a)(9)).
A.4-2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
or predicted shortages and any resulting shortage response actions. Section A.4.6 is a description of the legal authorities that enable Metropolitan to implement and enforce its shortage response actions. Section A.4.7 is a description of the financial consequences of and responses for drought conditions. Section A.4.8 addresses reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the WSCP and describes the process to adopt, submit, and amend the WSCP.
A.4.1 Background Information on Metropolitan
Background
Metropolitan is a public agency organized in 1928 by a vote of the electorate of 13 Southern California cities. The agency was enabled by the adoption of the original Metropolitan Water District Act (MWD Act) by the California Legislature “for the purpose of developing, storing, and distributing water for domestic purposes.” The MWD Act also allows Metropolitan to sell ”surplus water not needed or required for domestic or municipal uses within the district for beneficial purposes.” In 1992, the Metropolitan Board of Directors adopted the following mission statement:
"To provide its service area with adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way."
Water used in Southern California comes from several sources. The investments that Metropolitan has made and its ongoing efforts in many different areas coalesce toward its goal of long-term regional water supply reliability. The first function of Metropolitan was building the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) to convey water from the Colorado River.
Deliveries through the CRA to member agencies began in 1941 and supplemented the local water supplies of the Southern California member cities. In 1960, to meet growing water demands in its service area, Metropolitan contracted with DWR for participation in the SWP, which delivers water to Metropolitan’s service area via the California Aqueduct. SWP deliveries began in 1972. Metropolitan currently receives imported water from both of these sources: (1) Colorado River via the CRA, and (2) the SWP via the California Aqueduct. Beyond its core imported supplies from the Colorado River and SWP, Metropolitan actively supports efforts to develop storage and groundwater management programs, and to increase conservation, water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination projects.
Service Area
Metropolitan’s service area covers the Southern California coastal plain. It extends about 200 miles along the Pacific Ocean from the city of Oxnard to the north to the international boundary with Mexico to the south, and it reaches as far as 70 miles inland from the coast.
The total area served is approximately 5,200 square miles, and it includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties.
Table A.4-1 shows that although only 14 percent of the land area of the six Southern California counties is within Metropolitan’s service area, approximately 86 percent of the population of those counties resides within Metropolitan’s boundaries.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-3
Table A.4-1
July 1, 2020 Area and Population in the
Six Counties of Metropolitan's Service Area
County Total County
In Metropolitan
Service Area
Percent in
Metropolitan
Land Area (Square Miles)
Los Angeles County 4,061 1,408 35%
Orange County 789 699 89%
Riverside County 7,208 1,057 15%
San Bernardino County 20,052 242 1%
San Diego County 4,200 1,420 34%
Ventura County 1,845 365 20%
Metropolitan's Service Area 38,155 5,191 14%
Population (Persons)
Los Angeles County 10,172,000 9,275,000 91%
Orange County 3,191,000 3,184,000 100%
Riverside County 2,449,000 1,813,000 74%
San Bernardino County 2,184,000 872,000 40%
San Diego County 3,352,000 3,261,000 97%
Ventura County 841,000 630,000 75%
Metropolitan's Service Area 22,189,000 19,035,000 86%
Metropolitan is currently composed of 26 member agencies, including 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authority. Metropolitan is a water wholesaler with no retail customers. It provides treated and untreated water to its member agencies.
Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies deliver to their customers a combination of local groundwater, local surface water, recycled water, desalinated seawater, and imported water received from Metropolitan. For some member agencies, Metropolitan supplies all the water used within that agency’s service area, while others obtain varying amounts of water from Metropolitan to supplement local supplies. Between 2011 and 2020, Metropolitan has provided between 40 and 50 percent of the municipal, industrial, and agricultural water used in its service area. The remaining water supply comes from local wells, local surface water, recycling, and the city of Los Angeles’ aqueducts from the Owens Valley/Mono Basin east of the Sierra Nevada. Member agencies also implement conservation programs that can be considered part of their supplies.
Some member agencies provide retail water service, while others provide water to their local area as wholesalers. Table A.4-2 shows Metropolitan’s member agencies and the type of service that they provide. As shown in the table, 15 member agencies provide retail service to customers, nine provide only wholesale service, and two provide a combination of both.
Metropolitan's member agencies serve residents in 152 cities and 89 unincorporated communities. Throughout Metropolitan’s service area, approximately 250 retail water suppliers directly serve the population.
A.4-4 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Table A.4-2
Metropolitan's Member Agencies and Type of Water Service Provided Member Agency Retail or Wholesale
Los Angeles County
Beverly Hills, City of Retail
Burbank, City of Retail
Central Basin Municipal Water District Wholesale
Compton, City of Retail
Foothill Municipal Water District Wholesale
Glendale, City of Retail
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Retail
Long Beach, City of Retail
Los Angeles, City of Retail
Pasadena, City of Retail
San Fernando, City of Retail
San Marino, City of Retail
Santa Monica, City of Retail
Three Valleys Municipal Water District Wholesale
Torrance, City of Retail
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Wholesale West Basin Municipal Water District Wholesale
Orange County
Anaheim, City of Retail
Fullerton, City of Retail
Municipal Water District of Orange County Wholesale
Santa Ana, City of Retail
Riverside County
Eastern Municipal Water District Retail & Wholesale
Western Municipal Water District Retail & Wholesale
San Bernardino County
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wholesale
San Diego County
San Diego County Water Authority Wholesale
Ventura County
Calleguas Municipal Water District Wholesale
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-5
Reliability Planning
Metropolitan continuously engages in planning for various aspects of its water management, including operations, long-term reliability, and emergency response. These planning efforts include the 1996 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) and its three updates in 2004, 2010, and 2015; the 2020 IRP (currently in development); the WSCP; the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan; the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP); the Emergency Storage Objective; and the Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan. Collectively, they provide a policy framework, operating guidelines, and resource targets for Metropolitan to ensure regional water supply reliability.
The IRP is Metropolitan's evolving long-term plan to assure adequate water supplies for Southern California. The first IRP was adopted in 1996 to address the complexity of developing, maintaining and delivering water to meet changing demands in the face of growing challenge. The IRP has been updated several times over the past 25 years. In 2020, Metropolitan started development of a new IRP that incorporates planning for multiple future scenarios to address an extended range of uncertainty. While Metropolitan coordinates regional supply planning through its inclusive IRP process, Metropolitan’s member agencies also conduct their own planning analyses, including their own urban water management plans, and may develop projects independently of Metropolitan.
The WSCP is designed to be consistent with the WSDM Plan and the WSAP described below.
Throughout the year, Metropolitan evaluates member agency demands, available water supplies, and existing water storage levels on a monthly basis to determine the appropriate actions identified in the WSDM Plan.
The 1999 WSDM Plan provides policy guidance for managing regional water supplies during surplus and shortage conditions. Similar in concept to the WSCP, the WSDM Plan provides an overall vision for operational supply management and characterizes a flexible sequence of actions to minimize the probability of severe shortages and reduce the likelihood of extreme shortages. WSDM Plan principles guide the specific actions to be taken under WSCP shortage stages (see section A.4.4). Data collection, continual analysis, and monthly reporting processes of WSDM Plan implementation will form the basis for Metropolitan’s Annual Water Supply Demand Assessment that will be provided annually to the state beginning in July 2022.
The WSDM Plan is included as Attachment A to this WSCP.
The WSAP is Metropolitan’s policy and formula for equitably allocating available water supplies to the member agencies during extreme water shortages when Metropolitan determines it is unable to meet all of its demands. The WSAP is included as Attachment B to this WSCP.
The Emergency Storage Objective is the regional planning estimate for emergency storage, which represents the amount of water that Metropolitan would hold in storage for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake that would damage the aqueducts that transport imported water supplies to Southern California: the CRA, both the East and West branches of the California Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. In 2019, Metropolitan and its member agencies completed a process to update the planning estimate of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective. The emergency storage allows Metropolitan to deliver reserve supplies to the member agencies to supplement local production. This helps avoid severe water shortages during periods when the imported water aqueducts may be out of service.
A.4-6 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Beginning January 2020, CWC Section 10632.5 mandates urban water suppliers to include in their UWMP a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities. For Metropolitan, this requirement was addressed as part of developing its resilience strategy and is presented in detail in Metropolitan’s seismic resiliency reports in Appendix 9 to the 2020 UWMP, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-7
A.4.2. Analysis of Water Supply Reliability
Besides the WSCP, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires suppliers to conduct two other planning analyses to evaluate supply reliability. The first is a Water Reliability Assessment that compares the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with long-term projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The second is a Drought Risk Assessment that evaluates a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted.
Metropolitan completed its Water Reliability Assessment and Drought Risk Assessment as part of the 2020 UWMP. Through the Water Reliability Assessment, Metropolitan determined that, under the conditions required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act, it has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands from 2025 through 2045 under a single dryyear condition and a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years, as well as in a normal water year hydrologic condition. Metropolitan’s near-term Drought Risk Assessment revealed that its supply capabilities are expected to exceed its projected water use for the year 2022. However, estimates of projected water supply and use reveal that there could be a possible shortfall of core supplies in 2021, 2023, 2024, and 2025. This shortfall is largely triggered by the assumed low supply conditions from the SWP under a repeat of the historical condition of 1988 to 1992, which is modeled at 12% for 2021, 15% for 2023, 23% for 2024, and 18% for 2025. Actual supply conditions for the next five years may prove different from historic supply conditions. The WSCP shows Metropolitan’s potential shortage response actions if such shortfalls were to happen. The Drought Risk Assessment projected supplies and demands for the years 2021 through 2025 using the driest five-year sequence.
Metropolitan’s principal sources of water supplies are the SWP and the Colorado River.
Metropolitan receives water delivered from the SWP under State Water Contract provisions, including contracted supplies, use of carryover storage in San Luis Reservoir, and surplus supplies. Metropolitan holds rights to Colorado River water for CRA diversion at Lake Havasu.
Water management programs supplement these Colorado River supplies. To secure additional supplies, Metropolitan has groundwater banking partnerships and water transfer and storage arrangements within and outside its service area.
Hydrologic conditions and environmental regulations can have a significant impact on Metropolitan’s imported water supply sources. For Metropolitan’s SWP supplies, precipitation in California’s northern Sierra Nevada during the fall and winter helps replenish storage levels in Lake Oroville, a key SWP facility. The source of Metropolitan’s Colorado River supplies is primarily the watersheds of the Upper Colorado River Basin in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Although precipitation is primarily observed in the winter and spring, summer storms are common and can affect water supply conditions. Hydrologic variability, potential climate change, and regulatory risk are embedded in Metropolitan’s modeling efforts.
Metropolitan’s modeling utilizes historical hydrologic conditions from 1992 to 2017 to simulate expected demands on Metropolitan supplies, as well as capacities and constraints of its storage facilities and supply programs. While potential impacts from climate change remain subject to study and debate, climate change is among the uncertainties that Metropolitan seeks to address through its various planning processes. Metropolitan’s 2020 IRP is further addressing ways to account for and mitigate these uncertainties.
As demonstrated by the findings of both the Water Reliability Assessment and the Drought Risk Assessment, Metropolitan is able to mitigate the challenges posed by hydrologic variability, potential climate change, and regulatory risk on its imported supply sources through the significant storage capabilities it has developed over the last two decades, both dry-year and emergency storage.
A.4-8 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
A.4.3. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures As an urban water supplier, Metropolitan is required under CWC Section 10632(a)(2) to prepare and submit an “annual water supply and demand assessment” (Annual Assessment). The Annual Assessment is a determination of Metropolitan’s near-term outlook for supplies and demands and how a perceived shortage may relate to WSCP shortage stage response actions in the current calendar year. This determination will be based on known circumstances and information available to Metropolitan at the time of analysis. Starting in 2022, the Annual Assessment will be due by July 1 of every year, as indicated by CWC Section 10632.1. CWC Section 10632.1 also states that "[a]n urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.” The Annual Assessment and related reporting are to be conducted based on the procedures described in this WSCP. This section describes Metropolitan’s procedures for conducting the Annual Assessment, which include: (1) the written decision-making process to determine water supply reliability; and (2) the key data inputs and assessment methodology to evaluate water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year.
Steps to Approve the Annual Assessment Determination
The Annual Assessment will be primarily based on Metropolitan’s ongoing WSDM supplydemand tracking process which is exhibited in monthly reporting to the Board of Directors throughout the year. WSDM planning activities involve examination of developing demand and supply conditions for the calendar year, as well as considerations of potential actions consistent with the WSDM Plan. These monthly analyses provide key information for Metropolitan to manage resources to meet a range of estimated demands and adjust to changing conditions throughout the year.
As a water supply wholesaler, Metropolitan’s water demands are a function of retail-level demands and local water production. Water from Metropolitan serves as a supplemental source of supply for its 26 member agencies. For many member agencies, their primary source of water is produced locally from groundwater basins, surface reservoirs, recycled water projects, groundwater recovery projects, and seawater desalination. When local supplies are not enough to meet retail demands, member agencies purchase supplemental water from Metropolitan. Some member agencies rely heavily on Metropolitan due to limited local supplies. As described below, Metropolitan collects estimates of projected consumptive and replenishment water demands from its member agencies. This information is adjusted to determine unconstrained demands for the purpose of the Annual Assessment shortage percentage evaluation.
By June, Metropolitan staff will present a completed Annual Assessment for approval by the Board of Directors or by the Board’s authorized designee with expressly delegated authority for approval of Annual Assessment determinations. This presentation will include a request that the approval of the Annual Assessment determination also appropriately triggers any recommended specific shortage response actions resulting from the assessment. Upon approval, Metropolitan staff will then formally submit the Annual Assessment to DWR by July 1. Figure A.4-1 provides a graphic representation of the decision-making process.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-9
Figure A.4-1
Sample Annual Assessment Decision-Making Timeline
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Internal
Activities
Reporting
Milestones
(2022)
Approval of Shortage Response Actions
Annual Assessment
Determination by Board or
Authorized Designee
Monthly WSDM Analysis & Reporting (ongoing)
Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP)
allocation determination by April-May
July 1 – Deadline to submit
Annual Assessment to DWR
July 1 – WSAP allocation
implementation (if applicable)
Data Inputs and Assessment Methodology
This section describes how Metropolitan will evaluate water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year for the purpose of the Annual Assessment. The Annual Assessment determination will be based on considerations of available core water supplies, unconstrained water demand, and infrastructure considerations. The difference between core water supplies and unconstrained demand will be used to determine what, if any, shortage stage is expected under the WSCP framework. The standard shortage stage percentage will be calculated by dividing the difference between core supplies and unconstrained demand by unconstrained demand. This calculation will be performed separately for anticipated current year conditions and for an assumed dry year condition.
Locally Applicable Evaluation Criteria
Because shortages are based on the difference between expected core supplies and unconstrained demand under current year and dry year conditions, the locally-applicable evaluation criteria to be used in the Annual Assessment for determining a shortage include the following:
• Characterization of current year and dry year scenarios based on best-available data, including anticipated hydrologic conditions for Metropolitan’s supply source watersheds in the Colorado River basin and Northern California, as well as for local conditions in Metropolitan’s service area in Southern California.
• Estimation of available core supplies (see below) for current year and dry year scenarios • Estimation of unconstrained demands (see below) for current year and dry year scenarios 00 00 0000000
A.4-10 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Together, these three criteria provide the necessary information to calculate shortage percentages by dividing the difference between core supplies and unconstrained demand by unconstrained demand, under current year and dry year scenarios. These criteria findings will also be given additional context and influenced by infrastructure considerations discussed below which will differ from year to year.
The information and analyses that comprise the Annual Assessment will be based on ongoing planning processes that include the monthly WSDM supply-demand reporting. The Annual Assessment represents a mid-year evaluation at a given point in time; even after formal approval and submittal of the Annual Assessment determination by July 1, Metropolitan will continue to monitor emerging supply and demand conditions and take appropriate actions consistent with the flexibility and adaptiveness inherent to this WSCP. Some locally-applicable conditions that affect Metropolitan’s wholesale supply and demand, such as the Higher Priority Water Use Adjustment for Colorado River use (see below), local supply production, annual SWP allocations, the status of Metropolitan storage accounts, the status of the local groundwater basins, changed water use practices, and local economic activity entail a high degree of uncertainty and can differ significantly from earlier projections throughout the year.
Description and Quantification of Each Source of Water Supply (Core Supplies) Metropolitan’s core water supplies are counted as the supply component of the Annual Assessment. Core supplies include estimated water supplies from the Colorado River and the SWP for the current year. Imported core supplies vary from year to year and are influenced by annual weather and hydrology, as well as demand by other higher priority users and operational and regulatory factors.
Because core supplies are used every year, they are differentiated from the WSCP’s shortage response actions for supply augmentation; supply augmentation actions are comprised of Metropolitan’s portfolio of water storage reserves and flexible supply sources that are available on an as-needed basis.
Metropolitan’s core supplies come from several programs, which are shown in Table A.4-3 and described below.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-11
Table A.4-3
Core Water Supplies
Source Core Supply
Colorado River
Colorado River Basic Apportionment
Higher Priority Water Use Adjustment to Colorado River Basic Apportionment
IID/MWD Conservation Program
PVID Fallowing Program
Bard Water District Seasonal Fallowing Program
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project
Exchange with SDCWA
Exchange with the United States
State Water Project
MWD SWP Table A
SWP Article 21 Interruptible Supplies
SWP Port Hueneme Lease of Ventura Table A
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water
District/Metropolitan Water Exchange and Advance Delivery Programs
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program
Colorado River
Colorado River Basic Apportionment
Metropolitan built, owns, and operates the 242-mile CRA. The CRA originates at Lake Havasu on the Colorado River and winds through a series of pump stations and reservoirs through the California desert to its terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The CRA has a full delivery capacity of about 1.25 MAF.
The state of California holds a 4.4 MAF per year normal apportionment to Colorado River water. Metropolitan has the Fourth Priority right to normal apportionment of 550,000 AF per year of the State’s normal apportionment. Metropolitan also holds the Fifth Priority right for an additional 662,000 AF per year which is utilized during surplus conditions or when supplies from other Colorado River users are available.
Higher Priority Water Use Adjustment to Metropolitan’s Colorado River Basic Apportionment Entitlements to use Colorado River water in California under priorities 1, 2, and 3 are limited to 3.85 MAF per year. Priority 3(a) is held by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) totaling 3.43 MAF. After accounting for contractual conservation and transfers, any unused volume available to Priority 3(a) becomes available for use by Metropolitan. Of the 3.85 MAF, the remaining 420,000 AF is available for use under priorities 1, 2, and 3(b) held by the Palo Verde Irrigation District and the Yuma Project lands A.4-12 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
within California. Any unused amount from this volume is available for use by Metropolitan, however, Metropolitan must forego its otherwise available Colorado River supplies to meet annual uses under priorities 1, 2, and 3(b) that are in excess of 420,000 AF. Lastly, there are additional high-priority “present perfected rights” within California not incorporated into the priorities, for which Metropolitan must forego its otherwise available Colorado River supplies to meet uses of present perfected rights that exceed 14,500 AF. The net sum of these volumes is the “higher priority water use adjustment” to Metropolitan’s base supply.
Imperial Irrigation District-Metropolitan Conservation Program Since 1988, Metropolitan has funded water conservation programs within Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) service area. The amount of water conserved from these programs is then transferred to Metropolitan. Conservation approaches range from distribution system improvements (such as canal lining, spill capture and the installation of non-leak irrigation gates) to efficient on-farm water management practices (such as delivering water to farmers on a 12-hour rather than a 24-hour basis). Through this program, a total of 105,000 AF per year of water is conserved and made available to Metropolitan.
Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program In 2005, Metropolitan entered a 35-year program with the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID).
Under the program, participating farmers in PVID are paid to reduce their water use by leaving acreage unirrigated. A base amount of 25 percent of the program acreage must be fallowed every year. Metropolitan may elect to call for additional acreage to be fallowed up to 90.3%. Fallowing calls must be made at least one year in advance by July 31 of each year and would take effect on August 1 of the following year. The reduced consumptive use due to fallowed lands reduces uses under priorities 1, 2, and 3(b), thereby increasing the Colorado River water supply available to Metropolitan. The fallowing program saves a minimum of 33,000 AF per year and up to 133,000 AF in certain years.
Metropolitan/Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program
At its December 2019 meeting, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a 7-year seasonal fallowing program with the Bard Water District (Bard). Under the program, participating farmers in Bard are being paid to reduce their water use by not irrigating a portion of their land. A maximum of 3,000 acres can be fallowed in any given year. Under the terms of the QSA, water savings within the Bard service area are made available to Metropolitan. Bard Unit, as part of the Yuma Project, has the first priority for Colorado River water under the water delivery contracts with the USBR. Implementation of the program began in March 2020. It is estimated that the Seasonal Fallowing Program would provide up to 6,000 AF per year of additional Colorado River water. This water would be available in any year as needed and in accordance with the provisions described in the agreements with Bard Unit farmers and Bard.
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project
Groundwater is pumped by the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project near the All-American Canal and is discharged to the Canal. IID reduces its net diversions of Colorado River water by an amount equal to the amount of Project water discharged into the Canal, permitting entities along the Colorado River that do not have rights or have insufficient rights to divert Colorado River water to obtain a supply of water. In 2007, Metropolitan entered into a contract with the USBR and the City of Needles to utilize the unused Project capacity.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-13
Exchange with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) SDCWA has acquired conserved Colorado River water reaching an annual volume of 277.7 TAF by 2023. SDCWA makes this water available at Lake Havasu for Metropolitan diversion, where Metropolitan takes possession of the water and provides a matching volume from Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA by exchange in equal monthly amounts.
The conserved water is acquired by SDCWA through its transfer agreement with IID and from the lining of the All-American and Coachella canals.
Under the transfer agreement with IID, the stabilized annual transfer volume of 200 TAF is generated from conservation of water through on-farm efficiency conservation arrangements made by IID with its customers and other system efficiency measures.
The Coachella Canal Lining Project consists of a 35-mile concrete-lined canal, including siphons, which replaced an earthen canal. The project was completed in December 2006 and conserves 30,850 AF annually. The All-American Canal Lining Project consists of a concrete-lined canal constructed parallel to 23 miles of earthen canal and was completed in 2009, conserving 67,700 AF annually.
Pursuant to the QSA and related agreements, the 98,550 AF of water resulting from these projects annually is allocated as follows: 16,000 AF to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties in San Diego County, 77,700 AF to SDCWA, and 4,850 AF for Coachella Canal Lining Project mitigation.
Exchange with the United States
Of the 16 TAF allocated to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties from the All-American and Coachella canal lining projects, the United States furnishes this water at Metropolitan’s Colorado River Intake on Lake Havasu. Metropolitan takes possession of the water and by exchange delivers an equal volume of Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA. By separate agreement, SDCWA conveys the water to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties. So long as water conserved by the All-American Canal Lining Project and Coachella Canal Lining Project is allocated to and available for use by the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties, the United States will make 16 TAF available for diversion by Metropolitan in perpetuity.
State Water Project
Table A Contract Amount
In accordance with its participation contract with DWR, Metropolitan’s basic contract amount is for 1,911,500 AF per year. This represents the amount of water supply that would be available to Metropolitan in years where there is sufficient water supply for the SWP to deliver 100 percent of its total contract amounts. The amount of supply actually available on an annual basis is allocated to the State Water Contractors based on their proportionate Table A amounts.
DWR estimates the amount of supplies that are available each year. Metropolitan uses a forecasting method for SWP deliveries based on historical patterns of precipitation, runoff and actual deliveries of water. Annual SWP allocations have ranged from 5 percent to 100 percent of the Table A contract amounts.
Article 21 Interruptible Supplies
Metropolitan has a contract to water supplies that are made available on an intermittent basis. Storm flows can occasionally make water supplies available that are in excess to the Table A allocation. State Water Contractors can take delivery of these supplies, with their A.4-14 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
rights being based on their proportional Table A contract amounts. Historically, Article 21 interruptible supplies have ranged from 0 to 240,000 AF annually.
SWP Port Hueneme Lease of Ventura Table A
Metropolitan has a right to delivery of up to 1,850 AF of Table A supply from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (Ventura), one of 29 SWP contractors, via a sublease agreement with the Port Hueneme Water Agency (Port Hueneme). United Water Conservation District, one of three agencies holding a contract right to Ventura Table A supply, leases this portion of their total 5,000 AF of Table A supply to Port Hueneme, which in turn subleases the Table A supply to Metropolitan. The long-term lease is a condition of the 1996 annexation of the Port Hueneme service area to Calleguas Municipal Water District and Metropolitan. This water supply is in addition to Metropolitan's Table A, and the amount available each year is determined by the SWP allocation, with 1,850 AF available at a 100 percent allocation.
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District/Metropolitan Water Exchange and Advance Delivery Programs
The Desert Water Agency (DWA) and CVWD, both in Riverside County, have rights to SWP deliveries, but do not have any physical connections to the SWP facilities. Both agencies are adjacent to the CRA. For DWA and CVWD to obtain water equal to their SWP allocations, Metropolitan has agreed to exchange an equal quantity of its Colorado River water for DWA and CVWD’s SWP water. DWA has a SWP Table A contract right of 55.75 TAF per year, and CVWD has a SWP Table A contract right of 138.35 TAF per year, for a total of 194.1 TAF per year. Additionally, CVWD has a long-term water supply agreement for 9.5 to 16.5 TAF annually from Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District.
Under the existing agreements, Metropolitan provides water from its CRA to DWA and CVWD in exchange for SWP deliveries. Metropolitan can deliver additional water to its DWA/CVWD service connections, permitting these agencies to store water. When supplies are needed, Metropolitan can then receive its full Colorado River supply, as well as the SWP allocation from the two agencies, while the two agencies can rely on the stored water for meeting their water supply needs. The amount of DWA and CVWD SWP Table A water available to Metropolitan depends on total SWP deliveries and varies from year to year.
In addition to their Table A and long-term water supplies, DWA and CVWD, subject to available capacity, may take delivery of SWP supplies available under Article 21, the Turnback Pool Program, and non-SWP water supplies they may acquire and convey through the SWP facilities. These other supplies are delivered to DWA and CVWD by exchange with Metropolitan in the same manner as Table A deliveries. DWA and CVWD are participants in the Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program. Additionally, DWA participated in the 2009 Drought Water Bank and the 2015-2016 Multi-Year Water Pool Demonstration Program.
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program
The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program allows Metropolitan to exchange supplies to provide additional water for normal and dry year needs. Under this program, Metropolitan delivers supplies to the City of Sierra Madre, a San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District member agency. In exchange for Metropolitan delivering one AF, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District returns two AF to Metropolitan in the Main San Gabriel Basin, up to 5 TAF. For any exchange amount less than 5 TAF, Metropolitan purchases the balance of the 5 TAF. The program provides increased reliability to Metropolitan by allowing additional water to be delivered to Metropolitan member agencies that rely upon the Main San Gabriel Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-15
Basin for their supplies ‒ Three Valleys Municipal Water District and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District.
Unconstrained Demands
For the purpose of the Annual Assessment and WSCP, CWC Section 10632(a)(2)(B)(i) directs Metropolitan to use current year “unconstrained demand” when assessing water supply reliability. The WSCP and Annual Assessment define unconstrained demand as expected water use in the current assessment year, based on recent water use, and before any projected shortage response actions that may be taken under the WSCP. Unconstrained demand is distinguished from observed demand, which may be constrained by preceding, ongoing, or future actions, such as emergency supply allocations during a multi-year drought.
WSCP shortage response actions, if any are in place, that result in extraordinary demand reductions in the current year to constrain demand are inherently extraordinary; routine activities such as ongoing conservation programs and regular operational adjustments are not considered as constraints on demands.
To forecast near-term demands, Metropolitan begins by gathering data from its member agencies. In July of each year, member agencies submit their five-year demand forecasts to Metropolitan. Metropolitan uses this information as the foundation for forecasting demands. As the year progresses, the member agency forecasts are compared to the current demand trend. This comparison allows Metropolitan to adjust member agency forecasts to current conditions, while collaborating with member agencies as needed.
Metropolitan builds upon member agency demand projections to develop its own near-term forecast for its monthly WSDM supply-demand reporting. This forecast considers additional factors such as historical demand trends, changes in local supply production, weather trends, water-use efficiency trends, retail demand estimates, and updated estimates from member agencies.
Because these forecasted demands would be “constrained” observed demands rather than unconstrained demands, Metropolitan will adjust its near-term demand forecast for the Annual Assessment to account for extraordinary demand management measures that Metropolitan may intend or have already put into effect for the current year.
Extraordinary demand management measures may include intensified communication and public outreach, and shortage allocations to its member agency customers through implementation of Metropolitan’s WSAP. Non-extraordinary water savings from regular conservation and community outreach activities are considered part of Metropolitan’s baseline demands and are not counted again for assessments of unconstrained demand.
Water Conditions for Current Year Available Supply Considering Current Year Conditions and One Dry Year
CWC Section 10632(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Annual Assessment to determine “current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year.” The Annual Assessment will include two separate estimates of Metropolitan’s annual water supply and unconstrained demand using: 1) current year conditions, and 2) assumed dry year conditions. Accordingly, the Annual Assessment’s shortage analysis will present separate sets of findings for the current year and dry year scenarios. The CWC does not specify the characteristics of a dry year, allowing discretion to the Supplier. Metropolitan will use this discretion to refine and update its assumptions for a dry year scenario in each Annual Assessment as information becomes available.
A.4-16 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
In the 2020 UWMP, the “single dry year” is characterized to resemble conditions as a year in which conditions reflect the lowest water supply available to the Supplier. Metropolitan developed estimates of future demands and supplies from local sources and from Metropolitan sources based on 96 years (1922-2017) of historic hydrologic conditions. Supply and demand analyses for the single-dry year case was based on conditions affecting the SWP as this supply availability fluctuates the most among Metropolitan’s sources of supply.
Based on the 96-year period, 1977 was the single driest year for SWP supplies to Metropolitan.
In addition, staff analysis of the 8-river index indicated that 1977 was the single driest year from 1922 through 2017. The 8-river index is used by DWR and other water agencies as an estimate of the unimpaired runoff (or natural water production) of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which are sources of water for the SWP.
Infrastructure Considerations
The Annual Assessment will consider any infrastructure issues that may pertain to near-term water supply reliability, including repairs, construction, and environmental mitigation measures that may temporarily constrain capabilities, as well as any new projects that may add to system capacity.
Metropolitan operates a distribution system that is flexible and adaptable allowing delivery of supplies from a combination of SWP, Colorado River, and regional storage sources to meet demands throughout its service area, as shown in Figure A.4-2. System distribution capabilities and limitations can add complexity to near-term reliability. For example, a portion of Metropolitan’s service area currently cannot be served by Colorado River supplies. In the event of very low SWP supplies and available storage along the SWP system, Metropolitan’s operations may be acutely challenged to meet SWP-only demands even though in that same year total supplies including Colorado River supplies may exceed total demands.
Metropolitan also has five regional water treatment plants, with capacities presented in Table A.4-4. Portions of Metropolitan’s service area may receive water treated by one or a combination of several of these water treatment plants. Over the last 40 years, Metropolitan effectively delivered to its member agencies water supplies to meet demands ranging from
1.2 MAF per year to over 2.5 MAF per year.
Table A.4-4
Metropolitan’s Water Treatment Plants
Water Treatment Plant
Capacity
(in MGD)
Jensen 750
Weymouth 520
Diemer 520
Mills 220
Skinner 350
Note: Rated capacity. Effluent capacities may be less to account for backwash.
Metropolitan and its member agencies continue to implement system improvements and modifications to effectively increase system flexibility during both normal operations when imported supplies are available and during extraordinary times when SWP supplies are reduced to maximize the use of more readily available Colorado River water and Diamond Valley Lake supplies.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-17
Figure A.4-2
Metropolitan’s Service Area
REVISED TO APRIL 2009
L-1521
SANMARINO
CALLEGUAS MWD
LAS VIRGENES
MWD
WEST
BASIN
MWD
FOOTHILL
MWD
BURB ANK
GLENDALE
PASADENA
BEVERLY HILLS
SANTA
MONICA
LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL
BASIN
MWD
SAN
FERNANDO
COMPTON
SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY
MWD
THREEVALLEYS MWD
INLAND
EMPIRE
UTILITIES
AGENCY
WESTERN MWD
OF
EASTERN
MWD
TORRANCE
LONG
BEACH
BASIN
MWD
MWD OF ORANGE COUNTY
ANAHEIM
SANT
ANAA
FULLERTON
WATER AUTHORITY
WEST
UNITED STATES
MEXICO
UPPER
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PALMDALEWATER DISTRICT
CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY
LITTLEROCK
CREEK
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT
P.I.D.
&
L.C.I.D.
M O J A V E W A T E R A G E N C Y
SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY
MWD
SAN GORGONIO
PASS
WATER AGENCY
CRESTLINE
LAKE ARROWHEAD
WATER
AGENCY
IMPERIAL
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT
MATCH LINE
SEE INSERT
COACHELLA
VALLEY
WATER
DISTRICT
DESERT
WATER
AGENCY
Sweet wa et r
Bouquet
Reservoir
Santa Fe Reservoir
Prado
Res.
n Orange County Reservoir
River
Wash
Temescal
Silverwood
Lake
Lake
Mathews
Railroad
Canyon
Reservoir
Lake
Perris
Ri er
ta Sa
Ana
Cajon
Canyon
Castaic
Power Plant
(DWP)
Foothill Feeder
Plant Power
PearblossomPumping Plant
East
California
Aqueduct
2nd BarrelLos AngelesAqueduct
Jensen Water
Treatment
Plant
Sepulveda
Power Plant
Greg Ave. Power Plant
Coyote CreekPower Plant
VenicePower Plant
Diemer Water
Treatment
Plant
Yorba LindaPower Plant
San Dimas
Power Plant
Weymouth Water
Treatment Plant
EtiwandaPower Plant
Mills Water
Treatment
Plant
DevilCanyon Power Plant
MWD
Inland
Feeder
CPA
Project
Mojave Power
Plant
Perris
Power Plant
TemescalPower Plant
Skinner WaterTreatmentPlant
DiamondValley Lake
LakeSkinner
Red
Mountain
Power Plant
Lake Mathews
Corona Power Plant
Power
Plant
ValleyViewPowerPlant
Rio HondoPower Plant
Julian Hinds
Pumping Plant
California
Aqueduct
West Branch
Branch
Eagle Mountain
Pumping Plant
www.mwdh2o.com
MWD
Metropolitan’s Water Distribution SystemMWD Tunnels Department of Water Resources’ California AqueductMWD projects under constructionOutside MWD Service AreaPower PlantsPumping PlantsWater Treatment Plants MAP SHOWING METROPOLITAN’S MEMBER AGENCIES AND FACILITIES
FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF COLORADO RIVER WATER AND STATE PROJECT WATER LEGEND
0 5 10
SCALE IN MILES
15 20
Sespe
Lake
Piru
CastaicLake
Creek
Palmdale
Reservoir
Little Rock
Reservoir
Dry Canyon Reservoir
River
Santa
Clara
Encino
Los Angeles Reservoir
Reservoir
Chatsworth
Reservoir Lake
Bard
WestlakeReservoir
River
Garvey Res.
Hansen
Reservoir
Whittier Narrows
Reservoir
Palos Verdes
Reservoir
Big
Tujunga
v
Rio
Gabriel San River
Hondo
Angeles Los
Santa
Morris
Reservoir
Cogswell Reservoir San Gabriel Reservoir Lake Arrowhead San
Gorgonio
Coachella
Canal
Canal
All American
River
River
Aqueduct
Colorado
River
SanJoaquinRes.
Santiago Res.
San
San Jacinto
Juan Creek
Lake
Elsinore
Vail
Lake
Margarita
River
Lake
Henshaw
River
Hemet
Res.
Canyon
Lytle
Creek
Santa
San
Luis Rey
Upper Otay
Res.
Lake
Hodges San
Dieguito Res.
Santa
Ysabel
Creek
Sutherland
Res.
San Vicente
Res.
El Capitan
Res.
Barrett
Lake
Murray
Res.
Sweetwater
Res.
Diego
River
San
River
San
Lower
Otay
Res.
Diego
City Aqueduct Judson Res.
San Dieguito
River
Clara
Puddingstone Reservoir
Live Oak Reservoir MATCH LINE
Eagle
Mountain
Pumping Plant
Iron Mountain
Pumping
Plant
Whitsett Intake
Pumping Plant
Gene Pumping Plant
Colorado
Colorado
River
River
Aqueduct
0 5 10
SCALE IN MILES
15 20
I
I
-~--------
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[""]
B
©
®
[""]
A.4-18 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Throughout each year, Metropolitan regularly carries out preventive and corrective maintenance of its facilities. Metropolitan plans and performs shutdowns to inspect and repair pipelines and facilities and support capital improvement projects. These shutdowns involve a high level of planning and coordination within Metropolitan, as well as with member agencies, other affected organizations, contractors, and the community. These shutdowns are scheduled to ensure that major portions of the distribution system are not out of service at the same time. Operational flexibility within Metropolitan’s system and the cooperation of member agencies allow shutdowns to be successfully completed while continuing to meet all system demands.
Metropolitan’s Infrastructure Reliability Strategy helps to ensure long-term reliable performance of the system in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Infrastructure reliability is addressed through three programs: the Maintenance Management Program, the Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the Dam Safety Program. The activities performed under these programs allow for Metropolitan to extend the life span of its facilities and equipment and improve the overall reliability of the entire conveyance, treatment, and distribution system. In addition, seismic resiliency issues are addressed in the Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan, which is included in Appendix 8 to the 2020 UWMP and incorporated herein by reference.
In the event that Metropolitan anticipates that an infrastructure issue is likely to impede or expand Metropolitan’s capability to convey, treat, or distribute water during the current year, then the issue would be documented, and the determination of water reliability in the Annual Assessment would be adjusted accordingly.
Other Factors
Water quality is of paramount importance to water supply reliability. Metropolitan owns and operates five water treatment plants. Metropolitan is a national leader in providing safe drinking water that meets increasingly stringent standards, testing for over 400 constituents and performing nearly 200,000 water quality tests annually on samples gathered throughout its distribution system. Metropolitan’s Water Quality Laboratory analyzes these samples to ensure that Metropolitan’s delivered water meets or surpasses all state and federal drinking water standards. Because treatment to remove specific contaminants can be more costly than measures to protect water at the source, Metropolitan also actively supports improved watershed protection programs for its source waters in the Colorado River and SWP. For the Annual Assessment, any known issues related to water quality will be considered for their potential effects on water supply reliability.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-19
A.4.4. Shortage Levels and Shortage Response Actions
Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
As required by California Water Code Section 10632(a)(3)(A), the WSCP is framed around six standard water shortage levels that correspond to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortages. As shown in Table A.4-5, each of the six shortage levels represents an increasing gap between Metropolitan’s estimated core supplies and unconstrained demand as determined in the Annual Assessment. As explained above, shortage percentages will be calculated by dividing the difference between core supplies and unconstrained demand by unconstrained demand.
This calculation will be performed separately for anticipated current year conditions and for assumed dry year conditions. Shortage levels also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other emergency events. The shortage levels are defined in terms of the percent shortfall of supplies against demands.
Shortage Response Actions
California Water Code Section 10632(a)(4) requires the WSCP to specify shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels, and include, at a minimum, all of the following:
• Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions
• Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages • Locally appropriate operational changes
• Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions (Not applicable to Metropolitan)
• An estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of each action.
As indicated in Table A.4-5, shortage responses will be customized to meet the circumstances for the particular shortage. Because circumstances can change at any time, Metropolitan’s shortage responses actions will be adjusted accordingly throughout the year. To determine specific actions that would be taken at each standard shortage level, Metropolitan will evaluate conditions specific to cost, timing, distribution needs and capabilities, and other variables that include SWP allocation, Colorado River conditions, demand reduction measures, supply program take capacities, and storage balances.
Shortages are characterized not merely by shortfalls in annual core water supplies, but also by the water balances in Metropolitan’s storage programs. Thus, a 10 percent shortfall in core supplies could be met entirely with stored water if storage levels are high. If storage levels are already depleted, the same shortfall in core supplies could potentially require a more complex mix of supply augmentation and demand reduction actions. In the most severe situations, allocating shortages to member agencies through the WSAP would address any remaining shortages not already mitigated by supply augmentation and lesser demand reduction actions.
A.4-20 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Metropolitan has invested extensively in a diverse portfolio of supply sources and system resiliency to prepare for a wide range of possible challenging conditions. Metropolitan follows the principles of its WSDM Plan, which was adopted in 1999 and provides policy guidance for managing regional water supplies to achieve reliability. It identifies a broad sequence of actions during surpluses and shortages to minimize probability of severe shortages, based on detailed modeling of Metropolitan’s existing and expected resource mix. The WSDM Plan recognizes the link between surplus and shortages and integrates planned operational actions with respect to both conditions. The WSDM Plan is included as Attachment A to this document.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-21 Table A.4-5 Shortage Stages and Response Actions Shortage Stage Shortage Percentage Shortage Response 1 Up to 10%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation Plan • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation 2 10% to 20%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation Plan • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation 3 20% to 30%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation Plan • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation 4 30% to 40%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation Plan • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation 5 40% to 50%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation Plan • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation 6 More than 50%
Take from StorageExecute Flexible SuppliesImplement Voluntary Demand ReductionImplement Water Supply Allocation PlanTake from Emergency Storage, if needed • 0 to 100% met by Storage• 0 to 100% met by Flexible Supplies• 0 to 20% of total retail water use met by implementing Communication Plan• 0 to 50% of total base demand met by WSAP supply allocation• Take from emergency storage during a catastrophic event A.4-22 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Supply Augmentation Actions
Generally, Metropolitan’s first response to any gap between core supplies and demand is to make optimal use of its supply augmentation options consisting of draws from flexible supply programs and storage reserves listed in Table A.4-6. To supplement its core water supplies from the SWP and Colorado River, Metropolitan has developed and actively manages a portfolio of water supply programs, including water transfer, storage and exchange agreements, the supplies created by which are conveyed through available CRA capacity or the California Aqueduct. Metropolitan pursues voluntary water transfer and exchange programs with other entities to help mitigate supply/demand imbalances and provide additional dry-year supply sources. Metropolitan has also developed significant storage capacity in reservoirs and groundwater banking programs both within and outside of the Southern California region. In a hypothetical single dry year assessment within the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Metropolitan could take up to approximately 1.8 MAF in a single year to meet dry year demands. Actual take capabilities would depend on various factors including water balances, location, and operational constraints.
Flexible Supplies
Metropolitan can augment its core Colorado River supplies through agreements with other agencies that have rights to use such water. Metropolitan determines the delivery schedule of these supplies throughout the year based on changes in the availability of SWP and to a smaller extent the higher priority water use adjustment for Colorado River water.
In addition to the basic SWP contract provisions, Metropolitan has other contract rights that facilitate augmentation of its SWP supply. Each SWP contractor has the right to use the facilities to move water supplies associated with agreements, water transfers, and water exchanges at the incremental cost. Metropolitan utilizes this ability in conveying water obtained through a number of agreements and exchanges with agencies in California’s Central Valley north of the Bay-Delta and southward to Southern California.
Storage
A key component of Metropolitan’s water supply capability is the amount of water in Metropolitan’s storage facilities and programs in which surplus amounts of water in normal and wet years are captured until needed to augment core supplies. Metropolitan has developed an extensive storage portfolio made up of units within and outside Metropolitan’s service area that includes both dry-year and emergency storage capacity. Such units, totaling approximately 6.0 MAF, include reservoirs, conjunctive use and other groundwater storage programs within the service area, and groundwater and surface storage accounts outside the service area delivered through the CRA or SWP. Consistent with the Emergency Storage Objective that was revised in 2019, approximately 750,000 AF of total stored water is emergency storage reserved for use in the event of supply interruptions from earthquakes or similar emergencies.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-23
Table A.4-6
Supply Augmentation Actions: Flexible Supplies and Storage Source Flexible Supplies Storage
Colorado River Lake Mead Intentionally Created Surplus
(ICS) Storage Program
Southern Nevada Water Agency
Storage and Interstate Release
Agreement
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley
Water District Advanced Delivery
Account
Imperial Irrigation District Storage
State Water
Project
SWP Transfers: State Water
Contractors Buyers Group
SWP Transfers: Yuba Accord Dry-Year
Purchase
San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District Program
SWP Carryover
DWR Flexible Storage (Castaic Lake and
Lake Perris)
SWP Banking Programs
In-Region Diamond Valley Lake
Lake Mathews
Lake Skinner
Conjunctive Use Programs (CUP)
Demand Reduction Actions
Demand reduction actions are extraordinary measures taken to temporarily constrain water demand during a shortage. For the purpose of the WSCP and the Annual Assessment, it is important to separate temporary reductions in demand from baseline conservation as they relate to constrained and unconstrained demands. WSCP demand reduction actions result in constrained demands. Water savings from WSCP demand reduction actions must be factored into estimates of unconstrained demands for Annual Assessment shortage determinations. Intensity of demand reduction measures will vary by the severity of shortage and availability of other cost-effective supply augmentation measures. Early demand reduction actions tend to be voluntary measures that are comprised of outreach and education actions from Metropolitan’s WSCP Communication Plan (see following section A.4.5). More severe conditions may necessitate supply allocations to wholesale customers through implementation of the WSAP. Table A.4-7 shows the demand reduction measures available to Metropolitan.
A.4-24 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Table A.4-7
Demand Reduction Actions
Demand Reduction Actions
Voluntary Measures
Implement Communication Plan (May apply to Shortage
Levels 1-6, Crisis)
• Public information campaigns
• Community outreach and media relations
• Public opinion research
• Interagency and intergovernmental coordination
Mandatory Measures Implement Water Supply Allocation Plan (May apply to Shortage Levels 1-6, Crisis)
Benefits of public information campaigns include rapid implementation and raising public awareness of the severity of the water shortage. For this reason, public information campaigns are included as a Demand Reduction Action in the WSCP. According to the American Water Works Association, water savings from this measure alone range from 5 to 20 percent, depending on the time, money, and effort spent.2 If public outreach targets between 5 and 10 percent of population, then demand would be assumed to be reduced by 5 to 20 percent of the 5 to 10 percent. The size of media campaign is correlated with the number of people being reached.
Implement Communications Plan
Metropolitan’s WSCP Communication Plan details Metropolitan’s action-oriented strategy for education, outreach, and coordination during each WSCP standard shortage stage and in response to a catastrophic loss of supply. See the following section A.4.5 for the WSCP Communications Plan.
Enhanced Conservation Program
Although not considered as a WSCP demand reduction action because of their limited effect in the immediate term, Metropolitan administers regional conservation programs and co-funds member agency conservation programs designed to achieve greater water use efficiency in residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and landscape uses.
Metropolitan may implement extraordinary measures to temporarily enhance conservation during a shortage which include, but are not limited to, increasing rebates, reducing program eligibility requirements, working with rebate vendors to create in-store marketing and direct outreach to businesses, increasing direct install efforts with member agencies and partners, and working with water retailers and retail customers to develop onsite leak prevention programs. While the savings from conservation programs may not be realized quickly enough to mitigate the need for other shortage response actions, water-efficient device retrofit rebates, landscape conversions, and leak prevention all contribute to ongoing structural water savings. Conservation device retrofits help to recover storage in future years by lowering demands in all years, not only shortage years. 2 American Water Works Association. 2019. Manual of Water Supply Practices – M60, Second Edition: Drought Preparedness and Response. p. 35
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-25
Water Supply Allocation Plan
Under most conditions, Metropolitan can meet all of its service area’s wholesale water needs.
However, during severe water shortage situations when pubic information campaigns and enhanced conservation programs are insufficient to generate the needed demand reduction, Metropolitan may find it necessary to temporarily limit and allocate supplies to its member agencies. Metropolitan’s WSAP allocates Metropolitan’s water supplies among its member agencies, based on the principles contained in the WSDM Plan, to mitigate drawdowns from water storage reserves. The WSAP was originally approved by Metropolitan’s Board in February 2008 and has been implemented three times since its adoption, most recently in April 2015. The WSAP provides a formula for equitable distribution of limited water supplies. If needed, a WSAP action is typically approved in the month of April with implementation beginning in the following July. This allows Metropolitan’s member agencies time to prepare and to adjust their estimates for Metropolitan current year supply for their own WSCP Annual Assessments.
The WSAP allocation is a costly shortage response action that places acute burdens upon member agencies and the public. Other shortage response actions are generally preferred to the extent practicable. Metropolitan’s overall strategy considers WSAP allocations to be a fallback option to address any remaining shortages when supply augmentation actions and other demand management measures are insufficient to meet demand reduction objectives. For reference, the WSAP is included as Attachment B to this document.
Operational Changes
During shortage conditions, operations may be affected by supply augmentation or demand reduction responses. For example, Metropolitan may temporarily alter maintenance cycles, defer planned system outages, and adjust the flow and routing of water through its system to more effectively distribute available supply across the service area, including areas that are currently only able to be served by SWP water supplies.
Because of the extensive and complex nature of Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution system, and the varying levels of local supplies available among each of the member agencies, by necessity, any supply-related shortage response actions triggered under the WSCP would be carefully chosen to optimally match available resources with specific localized demands by the member agencies.
Metropolitan’s diversified portfolio of water supplies presents operational opportunities and challenges during droughts. Because water resources available to the Metropolitan service area come from three geographically distinct regions—Northern California, the Colorado River, and local resources—a relatively dry year affecting one of these three regions can be offset by relatively abundant supplies from the other two regions. For example, a year of ample precipitation within Metropolitan’s service area tends to depress demand and enhances local water resources, further reducing demands on imported supplies. A wet year in the Sacramento-San Joaquin watersheds increases the SWP allocation, facilitating reduced diversions from the Colorado River in favor of storing supplies in Lake Mead or in the Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District Advanced Delivery Account.
Conversely, a shortfall on the SWP may require system operational modifications to maximize Colorado River diversions and the delivery of Colorado River supplies to areas normally served with SWP supplies. Metropolitan’s Colorado River core supplies are relatively stable from year to year and are less subject to severe supply reductions.
A.4-26 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Additional Mandatory Prohibitions (not applicable)
California Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(D) calls for “additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions” to be included among the WSCP’s shortage response actions. However, this item is not applicable to Metropolitan. As a regional wholesaler, Metropolitan does not dictate or control the end uses of water by retail consumers.
Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
As shown in Table A.4-5, WSCP shortage response actions will be implemented to reflect the overall conditions facing Metropolitan and the resources available in that given year. Supply augmentation actions consisting of stored water and as-needed flexible supplies are expected to address between 0 to 100 percent of anticipated shortages for any shortage stage, depending on availability of those supplies; in lesser WSCP shortage stages, it is likely that shortages can be completely addressed through supply augmentation.
Efficacy of demand reduction efforts is difficult to estimate or predict, but water savings are a function of the extent to which public information campaigns reach water users and the degree of consumer response to those messages. Given the estimate of between 5 to 20 percent effectiveness described above, in concept, up to 20 percent of retail demands could be reduced if a successful media campaign reached and influenced the entire service area population. Consistent with the WSCP Communications Plan in the following section A.4.5, anticipated shortages will involve an appropriately-sized outreach campaign to address the targeted demand reduction, which depends on the combined effectiveness of other shortage response actions.
As shown in Table A.4-8 below, the WSAP is designed to reduce demands by up to approximately 50 percent of the WSAP’s calculated base demand. The WSAP contains 10 levels of allocation, and each level is approximated to generate an additional 5 percent reduction from base demands. Table A.4-8 gives examples of estimated savings by each WSAP level using a hypothetical base demand of 1.8 MAF. Actual reductions and base demands are based on a formula that includes various factors such as actual local supply production, population growth, and conservation. The WSAP is expected to address any remaining shortage not met by other shortage response actions.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-27
Table A.4-8
Water Supply Allocation Plan Levels
WSAP Level
Approximate
Percent
Reduction
Example Base
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Reduction
1 5%
1.8 MAF
90,000 AF
2 10% 180,000 AF
3 15% 270,000 AF
4 20% 360,000 AF
5 25% 450,000 AF
6 30% 540,000 AF
7 35% 630,000 AF
8 40% 720,000 AF
9 45% 810,000 AF
10 50% 900,000 AF
Catastrophic Interruption of Water Supplies
Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective is a planning estimate that represents the amount of water that Metropolitan would hold in storage for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake that would damage the aqueducts that transport imported water supplies to Southern California, including: the Colorado River Aqueduct, both the East and West branches of the California Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Emergency storage allows Metropolitan to deliver reserve supplies to the member agencies to supplement local production. This helps avoid severe water shortages during periods when the imported water aqueducts may be out of service.
The Emergency Storage Objective considers a six- and twelve-month outage period for the imported supply aqueducts incorporating latest seismic information and operational flexibility of Metropolitan’s system, a retail water demand cutback ranging from 25 to 35 percent considering the level of conservation that the region achieved during the recent drought, and an aggregated loss of 10 to 20 percent of local supplies accounting for factors that could affect local production during emergency conditions.
In 2019, Metropolitan and its member agencies completed a process to update the Emergency Storage Objective, which was set at 750,000 AF. This level of storage would prevent severe water shortages to the region given new information on expected recovery durations. The emergency storage volume represents a planning estimate for how much water Metropolitan would store for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake or other disaster. It is not intended to set a basis or a policy for allocating or apportioning storage for any individual member agency.
As an additional tool, in July 2019, the Board adopted amendments to Metropolitan’s Administrative Code enabling deliveries of member agency water supplies in Metropolitan’s system in an emergency. These deliveries are intended to provide Metropolitan’s member agencies the ability to deliver member agency water through Metropolitan’s system under specific emergency conditions. Emergency deliveries can only be made if Metropolitan is unable to make deliveries to a member agency due to physical damage to Metropolitan’s system resulting from a natural disaster or other emergency, and there are no alternate A.4-28 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
means for Metropolitan or the member agency to provide service to an area without the use of a portion of Metropolitan’s system.
Metropolitan’s strategy for catastrophic water shortage conditions is further discussed in Appendix 8 to the 2020 UWMP and incorporated herein by reference.
Emergency Freshwater Pathway (Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta) DWR has estimated that in the event of a major earthquake in or near the Delta, water supplies could be interrupted for up to three years, posing a significant and unacceptable risk to the California business economy. A post-event strategy would provide necessary water supply protections to avert this catastrophe. Such a plan has been coordinated through DWR, the Army Corps of Engineers, USBR, California Office of Emergency Services, Metropolitan, and the State Water Contractors. Additional information on the creation of an emergency freshwater pathway and other actions in the Delta is included in Section 2.5 of the 2020 UWMP and incorporated herein by reference.
Emergency Response Plans
Metropolitan also has two Emergency Response Plans: one dated March 2019 that has been in place long-term and is updated periodically; and a second dated September 2020, prepared pursuant to the requirements of the recently-enacted America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. The two plans work in conjunction. Together, Metropolitan’s Emergency Response Plans present Metropolitan's organization and strategy for response to emergencies caused by natural hazards, malevolent acts, or other unavoidable circumstances. Metropolitan operates in accordance with the California Standardized Emergency Management System, the Incident Command System, and the National Incident Management System. The Emergency Response Plans provide guidelines for evaluating an emergency situation, responding to an emergency, and activating Incident Command Posts and the Emergency Operations Center. They also describe the Emergency Response Organization. Although the plans provide a framework for emergency response, they do not attempt to identify and discuss every potential situation or problem that may occur during an emergency. The plans will be exercised and updated regularly.
Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Although the magnitude of damages resulting from a significant seismic event are impossible to predict, Metropolitan’s water conveyance and distribution facilities are designed either to withstand a maximum probable seismic event or to minimize the potential repair time in the event of damage. Metropolitan’s holistic strategy for seismic resilience follows a “defense in depth” multi‐layered approach for managing risk. Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Strategy has three primary objectives:
1. Provide a diversified water supply portfolio, system flexibility, and emergency storage
2. Prevent damage to water delivery infrastructure in probable seismic events and limit damage in extreme events
3. Minimize water delivery interruptions through a dedicated emergency response and recovery organization
Beginning January 2020, CWC Section 10632.5 mandates urban water suppliers to include in their UWMPs a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities. For Metropolitan, the required seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan is part of its resilience strategy and is included in Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP Appendix 9: Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan and incorporated herein by reference.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-29
A.4.5. WSCP Communications Plan
Introduction
Following the record-breaking drought of 2012-2016, Metropolitan concentrated on building on its conservation and education outreach programs to emphasize water efficiency as a sustainable way of life, rather than solely a response to dry conditions or drought. Messaging has encouraged behavioral changes that can be sustained regardless of weather and uses tools and technology that can be implemented to permanently save water in homes and businesses, particularly outdoors where up to 70% of total water use occurs. These efforts have helped solidify a conservation ethic across Southern California, supporting a $1.5 billion investment in conservation, recycling and groundwater recovery since 1990. When combined with additional investments in storage, local supply development and programs to increase water storage reserves in wet years, the region is well positioned to withstand future droughts. Still, in response to the challenges of climate change and other abnormal supply conditions, increased water efficiency will still be necessary. And as those conditions become more prevalent, effective communication strategies and a common understanding of necessary actions between water agencies, the public, elected officials and other key stakeholders become even more important should the district need to activate the WSCP.
These relationships and communication tools must be well-established to be successful. To that end, water providers should aim to communicate to customers in the following areas:3
1. Steps customers should take to plan for and protect themselves in emergency situations, ranging from abnormal to catastrophic water supply conditions
2. Actions water providers are taking to plan for and respond to these emergency situations
3. Efforts to invest and maintain critical water infrastructure
4. Steps water providers are taking to prepare for and respond to emergency situations that could impact water supplies – from drought to natural disasters Several factors influence the communication strategies needed to address the diverse characteristics of Metropolitan’s 5,200 square-mile service area, particularly when there is an urgent need for conservation. As a wholesaler serving 26 member agencies and a diverse region that is home to 19 million people, no single communication message or strategy connects with everyone in the region. Furthermore, state and local water regulations during periods of drought or supply shortages can result in a broad range of water-saving requirements and goals across the region. Qualitative research from previous droughts has also provided valuable insight on attitudes and behaviors toward water conservation, including drought fatigue, water quality concerns, increasing water rates and equity issues.
These factors, though inherently complex, are conducive to collaboration that elevates the importance of drought resiliency. This section of the WSCP describes the basic communications strategies needed to help Metropolitan effectively communicate vital information for each of the six standard water shortage levels that represent changes from normal reliability. The six standard water shortage levels depicted in this communications plan correspond to:
• Progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions: up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and greater than 50% shortage compared to the normal reliability conditions 3 Source: 2019 Statewide Survey of Residential Customers Covering Water A.4-30 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Collaboration
Collaboration with its member agencies is central to Metropolitan’s outreach plans during drought, water shortages or other demand management periods. Developing and delivering a concise regional message in multiple languages is made possible through consistent coordination with member agencies and their constituents. Metropolitan’s External Affairs group regularly engages and interacts with member agency staff in several capacities, including but not limited to the following groups:
• Member agency managers
• Legislative and government affairs representatives
• Water use efficiency/conservation coordinators
• Public information officers
• Education coordinators
In addition to member agency coordination, Metropolitan interacts with agencies and organizations outside of the region, including:
• Department of Water Resources
• State Water Resources Control Board
• Association of California Water Agencies
• California Municipal Utilities Association
• Colorado River Water Users Association
• California Water Efficiency Partnership
• Alliance for Water Efficiency
• Other state and federal agencies
As seen in past droughts, the methods of communication within these groups and the frequency of meetings fluctuate based on the changing needs of our member agencies and their key audiences. Water shortage conditions are ever-evolving, therefore remaining flexible yet focused not only reduces the risk of discordance, it also ensures key audiences throughout Southern California receive timely, valuable and cohesive information.
As mentioned, Metropolitan’s WSCP includes six levels of potential shortage. The watersavings actions associated with each level of shortage will vary greatly, and Metropolitan recognizes the many different approaches to properly respond to each WSCP level. This section provides a general description of messaging strategies that would be implemented at each level, leading up to more focused crisis communication strategies. The plans need to be adaptable and cannot offer one-size-fits-all approaches. Metropolitan management and/or Board of Directors could also call for specific messaging strategies that address unique shortage scenarios.
Key Audiences
Communicating to various stakeholders is essential during normal supply periods and becomes increasingly more involved during water shortages. Below is a list of key audiences:
• Member agencies and their customers
• General public
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-31
• State, federal and local elected officials and their district office staff • Homeowners and renters
• Multi-family property owners/managers/landlords
• Business associations/chambers of commerce
• Commercial-industrial property owners/managers
• Landscape contractors/suppliers
• Restaurant/hotel industries
• School districts/educators/students
• Building and construction trade associations
• Community/civic leaders
• Land-use agencies
• Environmental groups
• Community-based and non-profit organizations
• Non-English-speaking populations
• Disadvantaged/under-invested communities
Communicating to these audiences requires varying levels of involvement depending on the status of supply conditions. Feedback, research, and leveraging existing relationships are central to an effective communications plan; therefore, External Affairs and Water Resource Management staff will continue to coordinate closely with member agencies, stakeholders, and governing agencies on an ongoing basis to ensure appropriate messaging is culturally competent and provided in multiple languages to reflect the region’s demographics.
Goals and Objectives
Metropolitan’s communications goals are rooted in the following guiding principles:
• Motivate key audiences to:
o Increase conservation
o Follow voluntary or mandatory water use guidelines
o Participate in water-saving incentive programs
o Encourage family, friends, neighbors and colleagues to do all the above • Raise awareness about:
o Water shortage and/or drought conditions
o Water sources, supplies and reserves
o Local, regional and state regulations
• Educate key audiences about:
o Water supply reliability
o Water infrastructure and delivery
o Water quality
A.4-32 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
• Prepare the region for:
o Varying water supply conditions
o Escalating supply shortage levels
Standard Communication
Conservation as a way of life remains central to messaging during normal supply conditions.
Regional rebate programs, indoor and outdoor water use efficiency, investments to maintain infrastructure, emergency preparedness, local supply programs, water quality, and regional supply reliability are among some of the themes that make up a normal supply period’s communications mix to encourage ongoing conservation actions. Below is a snapshot of the various strategies involved:
• Media relations (news releases and advisories, interviews, op-eds) • Social media (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn) • Websites and Blogs
o mwdh2o.com
o bewaterwise.com
o socalwatersmart.com
• Digital, print and other paid media marketing
• Search engine optimization
• E-newsletters
• Community events
• Education outreach
• Business outreach
Level 1 Communications – up to 10% Shortage
This section addresses communications strategies Metropolitan uses during periods of 10% water shortage conditions. In addition to the district’s ongoing communications efforts, a 10% shortage would require the following elements:
• Media relations and communications
o Maintain media relations activities with enhanced communication about the specific need to conserve; provide media with regional water supply conditions and Metropolitan’s shortage response action updates
Press releases, advisories, op-eds, direct outreach to media to drive earned media opportunities
Ethnic media outreach in multiple languages
o Produce and distribute fact-based informational materials such as fact sheets, podcasts, and B-roll video
• Social media
o Emphasize ways to conserve immediately (shorter showers, less watering, links to tools on bewaterwise.com, etc.), as well as continued promotion of conservation as a way Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-33
of life initiatives such as regional water use efficiency incentives and other rebate programs including the district’s Turf Replacement Program Paid social media boosting to target the district’s entire service area o Encourage member agency co-branding and messaging continuity Share social media creative with the public information officer working group and conservation coordinators
• Web
o Establish a SharePoint site for member agency and public to download all water supply and conservation materials
o Update all Metropolitan websites with pertinent conservation and water supply information and highlight such information
o Provide links to local watering restrictions and conservation efforts • Member agency coordination
o Enhance collaboration and communication with member agencies to streamline messaging
o Involve member agencies in development of a communications plan o Provide regular campaign updates to member agency managers, staff and board members.
o Provide member agencies with campaign outreach materials (newsletter articles, creative design, bill inserts, etc.) for customization and distribution • Community outreach
o Make water supply conditions and conservation messaging a key component of all regular community outreach
o Make additional, specialized outreach to inform non-profit organizations and civic/community leaders about water supply conditions and conservation efforts Community events/webinars
Non-profit organization e-newsletters
• Education outreach
o Update district curriculum to reflect the enhanced need to conserve and make water supply conditions and conservation messaging a key component of all regular education outreach
o Communicate to K-12 school districts and colleges/universities about the need for increased conservation
o Provide regional water and environmental education programs with materials addressing the need for increased conservation
• Legislative and government affairs
o Coordinate with local, state and other elected officials in the region about the need to conserve
o Encourage officials to promote these efforts to constituents A.4-34 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
In addition:
• Work with member agencies to target key industries or groups to raise awareness about water-use efficiency programs and regional water supply conditions o Restaurants
o Hotels/motels
o Public agencies
• Research and public opinion
o Conduct research to gain insights on public opinion, attitudes and beliefs toward conservation and water shortage levels
o Message testing with key audiences
Level 2 Communications – up to 20% Shortage
In a more severe supply shortage or demand management period, Metropolitan will continue actions outlined in Level 1 communications strategies, and add the following efforts, which are designed to address a 20% percent mandatory conservation under the WSCP:
• Media relations and communications
o Paid advertising – Execute a multimedia, multilingual regional advertising campaign to reflect a more urgent message emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory water-use restrictions. Place paid advertisements in the following platforms:
Out of Home (billboards, bulletins, bus shelter ads)
Radio
Television
Digital
Grassroots
o Host press conference to discuss current water shortage conditions, shortage response actions, and outlook
o Coordinate with other regional or state agencies for greater impact and reach • Social media
o Emphasize a clear and practical message conveying mandatory water-use restrictions, drought conditions and ways to save water o Establish more targeted and focused social media advertising strategies – targeted boosting and messaging
• Member agency coordination
o Meet with member agencies to streamline a more urgent and serious campaign tone o Coordinate paid media flights with member agencies to leverage regional exposure and distribution
o Provide multimedia and multilingual campaign materials for member agency customization
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-35
• Community outreach
o Coordinate with community-based organizations and leaders with higher impact, reach and credibility
o Inform, debrief and prepare community/civic leaders to become water conservation ambassadors in their respective communities
• Legislative and government affairs
o Increase briefing activity with state and local officials on water supply conditions, shortage response actions, and water conservation advertising campaign In addition:
• Help prepare and distribute materials about restrictions, ordinances and guidelines through stakeholder communication channels, including but not limited to:
o Business organizations
o Civic organizations
o Elected officials
o Building/plumbing/construction associations
o Building managers
o Landscape contractors
• Increase outreach efforts to key associations and interest groups throughout the region, emphasizing immediate conservation goals
Level 3 and 4 Communications – up to 30% or 40% Shortage In addition to Level 2 communications strategies, the following efforts will address an even more severe shortage of 30%-40% mandatory conservation under the WSCP:
• Media relations and communications
o Increase media relations activities, with an added emphasis on the severe regional water supply conditions, the shortage response actions triggered or expected to be triggered, and the mandatory need to conserve
o Host news conference in multiple languages alongside high-level public officials to highlight severity and extreme measures needed
o Continue the following with greater frequency and stronger, more critical messaging:
Paid advertising campaign
Press releases, advisories, op-eds, etc.
Direct media outreach offering pre-recorded radio and TV interviews Ethnic media outreach in multiple languages
• Social media
o Messaging shift to reflect severity of supply conditions and shortage response actions triggered or expected to be triggered– conservation is mandatory to maintain dayto-day activity and future supplies, quality of life now being impacted A.4-36 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
• Web
o Make conservation messaging front and center on all websites • Community Outreach
o Host a community leader briefing, bringing together representatives from communitybased organizations from across the region to learn about the severity of water supply conditions
• Member agency coordination
o Continue to streamline messaging about WSCP level escalation to ensure message continuity throughout the region
o Help member agencies address local and mandatory conservation needs o Coordinate with member agencies on any updated messages and campaign activities emphasizing extreme actions that must be taken • Legislative and government affairs
o Outreach to legislative leadership at state and federal level to raise awareness at high levels
In addition:
• Specialized targeted outreach to:
o Special interest groups
o Public agencies
o County and city departments
• Assess the goals and objectives of regional rebate programs, begin a shift toward immediate water-saving actions
• Research and public opinion
o Conduct public opinion research studies including focus groups to determine attitudes and beliefs toward extreme conservation levels in order to effectively communicate severity of supply conditions and the mandatory need to conserve Level 5-6 Communications – 50% Shortage or more
The severity of this level of the WSCP calls for immediate, extreme conservation measures and a focus on water use for health and safety only. As with previous levels, communications strategies at this level of the WSCP incorporate and build upon ongoing efforts.
Key Communications Strategies
• Consider establishing a Joint Information Center (JIC) to pool crisis communications among emergency responders and affected local, state and federal agencies • Produce and distribute fact-based informational materials such as fact sheets, podcasts, and B-roll video
• Host a press conference to announce the severity of water shortage level and shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered, to be held in conjunction with regional and/or state emergency response and public health authorities Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-37
• Emphasize work being done by Metropolitan and its member agencies to alleviate the impacts of such a severe shortage
• Focus on the need for residential and commercial customers across the region to do their part to get through the crisis situation
• Offer vulnerable populations increased assistance, in coordination with regional emergency response teams
• Keep the media and key stakeholders informed with frequent supply condition reports • Shift from traditional advertising campaign efforts to emergency and crisis communication approach
• Messaging is no longer conservation-focused, begin shift to crisis response communications protocols
Crisis Communications – Catastrophic Shortage
In the event of a catastrophic shortage due to an infrastructure failure and/or natural disaster, Metropolitan will enact its crisis communications plan in accordance with local, regional, state and federal emergency response guidelines that ensure a coordinated effort and effective response. This plan utilizes the Standard Emergency Management System, the Incident Command System and the National Incident Management System.
Strategic Message Development
• In an emergency, communications messages will be created in a complex environment in which the tensions of multidirectional information flows must be balanced with the need for strategic message development
Message Dissemination
Communication efforts will center on the core identified tasks: providing information to the public and external audiences. Information dissemination tools:
• Website (mwdh2o.com, bewaterwise.com)
• Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube)
• MetAlert Emergency Notification System + RSS Feeds
• Press Releases and statements
• Participation in joint information centers
Information Dissemination
• Public Information
o Activate and manage the mechanisms for responding to public requests for information via social media, telephone, in writing, or by e-mail o Prepare Metropolitan’s telephone operators for responding to and monitoring calls related to emergency incidents; brief them and provide scripts on how to respond to questions and where to direct calls for other requests
o Work with subject matter experts to create situation-specific fact sheets, Q&A documents and updates
o Respond to requests and inquiries from special interest groups A.4-38 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
o Oversee and manage Metropolitan’s emergency response website if needed, in addition to mwdh2o.com, social media, telephone, and public email correspondence response systems; establish and maintain links to other emergency response websites
o Manage the development and testing of messages and materials for cultural and language requirements of special populations
o Post updates on social media channels. Monitor and respond to comments as needed/appropriate
• Member agencies, partnering agencies and elected/legislative officials:
o The Public Information Officer (PIO) or Crisis Communications Team will communicate, as needed, with the PIOs for member agencies and other partnering agencies o Help organize and facilitate official meetings and briefings to provide information and receive input from member agencies, other partners or stakeholders o Notify legislative/elected officials as needed
Water Shortage Contingency Plan A.4-39
A.4.6. Legal Authorities
This section describes the legal authorities that empower Metropolitan to implement and enforce its shortage response actions. Metropolitan is a wholesale water provider organized as a cooperative of 26 voluntary members. Metropolitan was formed pursuant to the Metropolitan Water District Act, Statutes 1969, chapter 209, codified at California Water Code, Appendix Section 109 (the “MWD Act”). Pursuant to the MWD Act, Metropolitan has the express and implied statutory authority to “[p]rovide, sell, and deliver water at wholesale for municipal and domestic uses and purposes,” among other powers. (MWD Act, §§ 120, 130.) To accomplish the provision of water, Metropolitan is also expressly authorized to promote and implement conservation programs, including during times of water shortage. (MWD Act, § 130.5.)
Metropolitan also has authority under the California Water Code to implement supply shortage programs. (Cal. Water Code, §§ 350-359, 375-378.) For example, Section 375(a) of the Water Code provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any public entity which supplies water at retail or wholesale for the benefit of persons within the service area or area of jurisdiction of the public entity may, by ordinance or resolution adopted by a majority of the members of the governing body after holding a public hearing upon notice and making appropriate findings of necessity for the adoption of a water conservation program, adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by those persons for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of the public entity.