I
I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 20 | P a g e
Seismic Task Force Goals
2018 Goals: Collaborative LADWP, Metropolitan, and DWR Goals Status:
Discuss the applicability of lessons learned from seismic events in Japan, Chile, New Zealand, and Mexico
The organizations continue to incorporate lessons-learned from seismic events, including the July 4, 2019, M 6.4 and July 5, 2019, M 7.1 events in Ridgecrest, California Compare each agency’s approach to conducting seismic assessments In development of the Joint Agency Emergency Response Plan, the organizations provided detailed presentations of their seismic assessments and the underlying assumptions to their anticipated damage and outage durations.
Meet with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Co. to discuss the potential vulnerabilities of aqueduct power systems
Metropolitan held discussions with staff from SCE and shared information on the respective systems and seismic vulnerabilities.
Conduct workshops to explore potential aqueduct interties DWR and LADWP continue to investigate the potential for constructing an intertie between the State Water Project East Branch and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. 2019 Goals: Collaborative LADWP, Metropolitan, and DWR Goals Status:
Establish a leadership structure for a coordinated response to major events The leadership structure for a coordinated response is described in the Joint Agency Emergency Response Plan
Finalize a three-agency database of available emergency response resources Updating list of emergency response resources for 2020
I
I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 21 | P a g e
2019 Goals: Collaborative LADWP, Metropolitan, and DWR Goals (cont’d) Status:
Conduct a three-agency tabletop exercise
Metropolitan hosted a tabletop exercise in October 2019. Develop a ShakeOut Scenario Response and Restoration Plan The ShakeOut Scenario is identified as one of the triggers that would initiate the Joint Agency Emergency Response Plan.
Conduct a second three-agency functional exercise that includes energy utilities Conducted a functional emergency exercise at the Robert B. Diemer Water Treatment Plant with local Sheriff and Fire Departments, SCE, City of Yorba Linda Emergency Services, Yorba Linda Water District, Orange County Emergency Management, and the Water Emergency Response of Orange County.
Other Near-Term Goals
1. Develop a Standard Approach for Evaluating Non-Structural Elements:
Metropolitan is in the process of studying industry standards applicable to Metropolitan and collecting approaches taken by other agencies.
2. Establish Additional Performance Objectives for new pipelines, retrofit of pipelines, and new and existing tunnels:
Metropolitan is now designing new pipelines and tunnels and retrofitting existing pipelines and tunnels in accordance with current standards and incorporating additional seismic mitigation measures wherever practicable.
3. Investigate the Potential for Developing a Model to Prioritize Pipeline Rehabilitation:
This is being addressed through the Asset Management efforts, with input from recent seismic studies on risk from potential damage from shaking, fault rupture, and liquefaction.
4. Enhance Member Agency Planning Efforts Regarding New Facilities and Emergency Response Programs:
The Member Agency Managers Workshop was used to present the Seismic Resilience Strategy and objectives and Seismic Task Force findings.
5. Seek Approval for Detailed Seismic Studies
This is an ongoing effort. As Metropolitan completes the rapid evaluations of the Post-1990 structures, detailed studies will be recommended for those structures found to be potentially deficient.
6. Support the Delta Conveyance Project (part of the former proposed California WaterFix Project) I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 22 | P a g e
Metropolitan will continue to support the Delta Conveyance Project to increase the seismic resiliency of the Bay-Delta portion of the State Water Project. 2020 Update Near-Term Goals
The following section lists new near-term goals that will further Metropolitan’s objective of seismic resilience. These goals are anticipated to be completed before the next update in 2025.
System Level Goals
Facility Level Goals
Goal Complete Construction of Approved Projects
Weymouth West Wash Water Tank Seismic Upgrade
Union Station Headquarters Building Seismic Upgrade
Diemer West Filter Seismic Upgrade
CRA Casa Loma Siphon Barrel No. 1 Replacement
Goal Complete Design of Approved Seismic Upgrade Projects Weymouth Administration Building Seismic Upgrade and Building Improvements La Verne Water Quality Lab and Field Engineering Building Seismic Upgrades and Building Improvements
CRA Whitewater Tunnel No. 2 Seismic Upgrades
Lake Mathews Disaster Recovery Facility Seismic Upgrades Upper Feeder San Gabriel Tower Seismic Upgrade
Weymouth Inlet Channel Structural Upgrades
Goal Conduct Special Seismic Studies
Update 2006 System Reliability Study, which analyzed the impacts of various single outage scenarios on Metropolitan’s ability to meet member agency demand Goal Conduct Planning Studies
Complete the 2020 IRP and comprehensive distribution system study under collaborative regional process. Update the emergency storage objective based on new IRP goals and forecasts.
I
I
I
I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 23 | P a g e
Goal Seismic Upgrade of Below Ground Structures
Initiate evaluation of below-ground structures. Identify and list all structures. Develop a prioritization system for evaluation.
Task Force Goals
Goal Emergency Response Plan and Exercises
Conduct annual exercises to ensure familiarity with Joint Agency Emergency Response Plan Semi-annual verification of emergency contact list for DWR, Metropolitan, and LADWP Other Near-Term Goals
Promote to member agencies the Defense-in-Depth approach to seismic resilience as recommended in Report 1335 – Potential Effects of Southern California Seismic Events on Metropolitan Deliveries (January 2009).
Continue to gain and share knowledge about seismic resilience through participation in workshops and conferences.
Complete rapid evaluations for post-1990 above-grade structures.
I
I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 24 | P a g e
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 A-1 | P a g e
Appendix A – M6.3 or Greater
Earthquakes in Southern California
Region - 1900 to Present
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551- A-2 | P a g e
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 A-3 | Page
B
j i~ [l
lli!t
lfj;J sllliJ
0 l
I
i: t C 2 • ,~ ~
'
/ .
uw l ~ 1i~;I
c
.. .,
f
"-
~
0 0
"'
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 A-0 | Page
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report 1551-1 B-1 | P a g e
Appendix B – List of Metropolitan Staff
Seismic Conference Papers
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 B-2 | P a g e
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update Report No. 1551-1 B-3 | P a g e
Metropolitan Staff Papers Presented at the 11th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA Water Seismic Conference
Brainard, Andrew (2019), “Evaluation of Welded Joints in Steel Pipelines by Finite Element Modeling”, Proceedings of the 11th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA Water Seismic Conference, October 9-11 2019, pp. 42-53.
Beikae, Mohsen (2019), “Monte Carlo Simulation of Probabilistic Rupture Hazard Analysis for Lifelines Crossing Active Faults”, Proceedings of the 11th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA Water Seismic Conference, October 9-11 2019, pp. 107-119.
Chai, Winston (2019), “Seismic Rehabilitation of Upper Feeder Pipeline Santa Ana River Crossing – An Example of Metropolitan’s Seismic Upgrade Program”, Proceedings of the 11th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA Water Seismic Conference, October 9-11 2019, pp. 1-12.
Peng, Tao (2019), “Mitigation of Fault Displacement and Ground Subsidence for Large Diameter Pipeline”, Proceedings of the 11th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA Water Seismic Conference, October 9-11 2019, pp. 217-228.
Appendix 10
METROPOLITAN’S ENERGY INTENSITY INFORMATION,
INCLUDING CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
GENERATION
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-1 Appendix 10
METROPOLITAN’S ENERGY INTENSITY INFORMATION
Introduction
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a wholesale water agency that distributes water to its 26 member agencies. These agencies receive treated and untreated water through Metropolitan’s 830 miles of interconnected pipelines. There are over 400 service connections to the 26 member agencies located throughout Metropolitan’s 5,200 square mile service area.
Metropolitan has always recognized the relationship between water and energy. In addition to being one of the original contractors for power from Hoover Dam in 1937, Metropolitan also paid for half of the cost of the Parker Dam power plant. The energy Metropolitan receives from these facilities provides greenhouse gas (GHG)-free electricity for pumping along the Colorado River Aqueduct. Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution system is also designed to minimize pumping. Imported supplies flow by gravity through Metropolitan’s treatment plants and distribution system to the member agencies.
Water-Related Energy Use in California
The Water-Energy Nexus (W-E Nexus) recognizes that water supplies and energy supplies are interrelated. Water supplies require energy for heating and cooling, but also for transporting, treating and disposing. Likewise, energy supplies require water for cooling, fuel extraction and processing and hydropower production.
State agencies, water districts, and other stakeholders began to study the important link between energy and water in the 2000s. Since then, it has been widely reported that California’s “Water Sector” uses 19 percent of the state’s electricity and 32 percent of the state’s natural gas not used for power generation.
The original source for these facts is the California Energy Commission’s 2005 “California’s Water – Energy Relationship” report (CEC-700-2005-011-SF, Nov. 20051). In the report, the CEC analyzed energy use data for 2001 and disaggregated the 19 percent into urban water supply, wastewater treatment, customer end uses, and agriculture. Based on the CEC’s analysis, approximately 3 percent of California’s electrical use in 2001 was associated with urban water agency conveyance, treatment, and distribution. Customer end-uses such as the heating and cooling of water represented 11.1 percent. Another 0.8 percent was attributed to wastewater treatment and 4.2 percent was associated with agricultural uses. Table A.10-1 presents the water related energy use in California adapted from the 2005 CEC report.
The 3.8 percent of electricity associated with urban water supply and wastewater treatment represent the “embedded energy” in water.
1 https://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011.PDF Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
A.10-2 Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation Table A.10-1
Water Related Energy Use in California2
Electricity
(Gigawatt-hour)
Natural Gas
(Million Therms)
Urban Water Supply 7,554 19
Wastewater Treatment 2,012 27
Urban End Users 27,887 4,220
Agricultural Total 10,560 18
Total Water Sector Use 48,013 4,284
Total California Use 250,494 13,571
Urban Water Supply 3.0% 0.1%
Wastewater Treatment 0.8% 0.2%
Urban End Users 11.1% 31.1%
Agricultural Total 4.2% 0.1%
Total Water Sector Use 19.2% 31.6%
In 2010, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) reevaluated water-related energy use and estimated that 7.7 percent of the State’s electricity was used for urban water supply, wastewater treatment, and agricultural-related pumping and treatment.3 This is close to the CEC report estimate for those three sectors. While water-related electricity use varies from year to year, it has fluctuated between 6 percent and 8 percent over the past 30 years, as shown in Figure A.10-1.
Figure A.10-1
Water and Agricultural Related Electricity Use in California4 2 “California’s Water – Energy Relationship” report (CEC-700-2005-011-SF, 2005) 3 Embedded Energy in Water Studies Study 1: Statewide and Regional Water-Energy Relationship (Public Utilities Commission, 2010, page 58) 4 CEC: California Energy Consumption Data Base: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/
9.0% -,--------,----,---..---~--· .. , .......................... , ......................... , ......................... , .......................... , .......................... , ........................ , ............... _ -r-_-----,--
8.0% -t---+---+---!----t---·+· ..... , .... ,..,.;,t!)lr,,;;:·
1.0% ~ Y..... L='~~···•·~L~~~~~~
6.0% <..:l?----i---+-->.;;'--+---~ !il
5.0% -+------+---+---f-----+---
4.0% -+----+---+---1----+---
3.0% -+----+---+---1----+---
2010 PUC Estimate for CY2001 Water
and Agricult ural energy use was 7. 7%.
2.0% ...j_ _ _j. __ __j._ __ l--_ _j_ _ _ .I ............. ~===============~-_j.- l.0% -+------+---+---- ---+---· .. , ......................... , .......................... ............................................................................... ......................... ............... - -+-----+-
0.0% -+------+---+-------+---+-----+---------i----+---+-----+----+-----+- l990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 201 2 2014 2016 Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-3 In response to California’s GHG emission goals, Metropolitan and many other water utilities are taking steps to reduce water-related energy use and emissions. This includes increasing energy recovery in conveyance and distribution systems, developing renewable energy projects, performing energy studies, auditing facility energy usage, and other related actions.
Additionally, the conservation programs administered by Metropolitan and the member agencies save embedded energy along with the energy associated with customer end uses.
Section 3.8 contains a description of Metropolitan’s energy sustainability initiatives and proposed Climate Action Plan.
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity
Under CWC 10631.2(a), urban water management plans “Shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain:”
1. An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies.
2. An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems.
3. An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies.
4. An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems.
5. An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies.
6. An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage.
7. Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate.
This section provides Metropolitan’s energy intensity information according to these guidelines.
Due to the mixing of water supplies before and after treatment, Metropolitan’s complex distribution system, and the large number of service connections, Metropolitan provides systemwide energy intensity values. As operational conditions change from month to month and year to year, Metropolitan’s energy use and energy intensity also vary.
Metropolitan’s operational control includes the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) but does not include the State Water Project (SWP). However, excluding upstream embedded energy from the SWP would not represent an accurate estimate of the energy embedded in Metropolitan’s water supplies. To avoid potential misinterpretation of the data provided, this Appendix reports Metropolitan’s energy intensity information with upstream SWP embedded energy.
Metropolitan’s energy intensity for the water it provides to its member agencies is broken down into the following functions and described below:
• Source
• Conveyance
• Treatment
• Distribution
• Storage
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
A.10-4 Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation Source
The water Metropolitan receives comes from two sources: (1) the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) State Water Project, and (2) the Colorado River. The energy required to extract or divert water from these sources is reported in conveyance.
Conveyance
The energy requirements from the two conveyance systems supplying Metropolitan’s water have been combined, along with the volume of water delivered, into a single weighted energy intensity value. This method provides an energy intensity estimate which can then be used by other water agencies and stakeholders. As the blend of water from the SWP and the Colorado River changes each year, the total energy consumption for conveyance also varies.
Metropolitan’s energy intensity for conveyance also accounts for consequential and nonconsequential hydropower. Consequential hydropower is hydropower produced as the sole result of a water demand or use. Non-consequential hydropower is hydropower produced as the result of some combination of water demand deliveries and releases for other purposes such as flood control. The non-consequential hydropower from Hoover Dam and the SWP’s HyattThermalito Complex are discussed in the following sections.
Colorado River
Metropolitan conveys water from the Colorado River through its Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).
The water is pumped through five pumping plants to reach Metropolitan’s service area. The nominal energy intensity of water conveyed through the CRA is 2,000 kWh/AF.
There are no recovery generating plants along the CRA. However, the water that Metropolitan pumps from the Colorado River has been released from Lake Mead through the Hoover Dam generators. Metropolitan receives 27.1 percent of the energy produced at Hoover. This energy is used to power the CRA pumps. The production rate (kWh/AF) at Hoover depends on several factors, including the elevation of Lake Mead. The USBR updates this value monthly.
Metropolitan incorporates its share of the energy produced at Hoover in the calculation of the CRA conveyance energy requirement.
State Water Project
Metropolitan is a contractor for water from DWR’s SWP. The SWP uses a combination of natural and man-made systems to move water from Lake Oroville on the Feather River in northern California, through the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), and into the California Aqueduct for delivery to Southern California and other regions. DWR conveys water through the California Aqueduct using a series of pumps and hydroelectric generators. Metropolitan receives water from DWR through the West Branch of the California Aqueduct at Castaic Lake and from the East Branch of the California Aqueduct at several locations in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
The California Aqueduct’s net energy intensity for the water received from the West Branch is 2,580 kWh/AF and for the East Branch it is 3,236 kWh/AF. These values are the nominal pumping requirements of the SWP pumps (Banks, Dos Amigos, Buena Vista, Teerink, Chrisman, Edmonston, Oso, and Pearblossom) less the nominal generation values from the West and East Branch recovery generating plants (Warne, Castaic, Alamo, Mojave, and Devil Canyon). These values exclude pumping and generating at the San Luis Gianelli Plant.
The SWP also produces power at its Hyatt-Thermalito complex (HTC) near Lake Oroville and the Feather River in northern California. DWR releases water from Lake Oroville which flows through Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-5 the HTC hydro generators and produces power for the SWP. State Water Project Contractors, including Metropolitan, pay for the HTC based on their share of the SWP’s Variable Operation, Maintenance, Power and Replacement (OMP&R) Component of the Transportation Charge. To determine the benefit Metropolitan receives from the HTC generation in calculating the Energy Intensity of SWP conveyance, this same OMP&R share (percentage) is used with the total generation from the HTC. From 2004 through 2018, Metropolitan’s share of the HTC costs has ranged from 60.2 percent to 74.3 percent. A multi-year average percentage has been used to reduce the year-to-year volatility of this factor and calculate the non-consequential energy included in Metropolitan’s conveyance energy intensity. Table A.10-2 presents the 2018 conveyance energy intensity with upstream SWP embedded energy.
The SWP contract has specific provisions on how and when to account for various water deliveries and the associated costs. This will result in differences between the SWP billing values and the amount of water delivered to Metropolitan from the SWP.
Table A.10-2
2018 Conveyance Energy Intensity with Upstream SWP Embedded Energy With SWP
Embedded Energy
Net Energy Use (kWh)* 3,050,621,000
Water Conveyed (AF) 1,588,958
Energy Intensity (kWh/AF) 1,919.9
* Accounts for non-consequential hydropower generation of 94,161,800 kWh from Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and 861,900,000 kWh from the Hyatt-Thermalito Complex on the State Water Project.
Treatment
Metropolitan operates five treatment plants to provide potable water to its Member Agencies.
The estimated amount of energy used to treat water supplies has been calculated by dividing the annual amount of energy consumed at the plant sites by the amount of water treated. In order to meet water quality regulations, Metropolitan has retrofitted its treatment plants to use ozone, rather than chlorine, as the primary disinfectant during treatment (chlorine and ammonia are added after filtration for a disinfection residual in the distribution system). Metropolitan generates ozone on-site at each treatment plant. The ozone generation process has increased the energy required for treating Metropolitan’s supplies. Table A.10-3 presents the treatment energy intensity for 2018.
Table A.10-3
2018 Treatment Energy Intensity
2018
Energy Use (kWh) 53,608,000
Water Treated (AF) 769,398
Energy Intensity (kWh/AF) 69.7
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
A.10-6 Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation Metropolitan has also installed solar energy at three of its treatment plants with a combined capacity of five megawatts. The electricity generated by these facilities meets between 15 percent and 20 percent of the energy demands of those plants. Solar energy is added to the grid power used at each plant to estimate a total energy intensity value. In 2018, Metropolitan generated 10,409,000 kWh of solar energy from these facilities, reducing the electricity purchased from the grid and its associated GHG emissions.
Distribution
Due to the high elevations at which Metropolitan receives water from the SWP and CRA conveyance facilities, minimal pumping (and electricity use) is needed to distribute treated and untreated water to its Member Agencies. Gravity, not electricity, drives water supply deliveries through most of Metropolitan’s distribution system.
In addition, Metropolitan has 16 recovery hydroelectric generating plants located throughout its distribution system. The generators produce electricity from the water flowing through the pipelines. These plants generate more power than is consumed from distribution pumping.
Without the hydroelectric generators, embedded energy in the water would be reduced at facilities called pressure control structures and the potential for energy production would be lost.
The energy used in the pumping plants and produced by the generators has been netted, with the result divided by water deliveries to calculate the distribution energy intensity.
Weather variation has a significant impact on distribution system energy intensity. In dry years with low SWP deliveries, Metropolitan generates less distribution system hydropower and may need to increase pumping to deliver CRA supplies throughout the region. Table A.10-4 presents the distribution system net energy intensity for 2018.
Table A.10-4
2018 Distribution System Net Energy Intensity
2018
Pumping (kWh) 4,753,000
Hydropower Generation (kWh) -239,699,000
Net Distribution Energy Use (kWh) -234,946,000
Water Delivered (AF) 1,540,022
Energy Intensity (kWh/AF) -152.6
Storage
Metropolitan maintains significant storage facilities and programs both inside and outside its service area. However, Metropolitan does not use any energy for storage programs under its “span of control.” Water is delivered by gravity flow. External water storage and recovery are managed by other parties and are often transacted through exchange arrangements. Water delivered to Metropolitan from these storage programs is accounted for in conveyance energy intensity.
Metropolitan’s Annual Energy and Energy Intensity
Energy and energy intensity information is provided for each of the non-zero processes listed above: Conveyance; Treatment; and Distribution. As noted previously, these values vary from Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-7 year to year due to operational changes and differences in water supply availability. An estimated overall energy intensity is provided for untreated and treated water deliveries for 2018 and for a six-year average in the tables below. Both estimates account for non-consequential hydropower. Table A.10-5 presents the treated and untreated water energy intensity for year 2018. Table A.10-6 presents the average treated and untreated water energy intensity for 2013 through 2018. Figure A.10-2 shows Metropolitan’s energy use for 2013 through 2018 and highlights the impacts of hydrological conditions on Metropolitan’s energy use.
Table A.10-5
2018 Treated and Untreated Water Energy Intensity
With SWP
(kWh/AF)
Conveyance* 1,919.9
Treatment 69.7
Distribution -152.6
Total Treated 1,837.0
Total Untreated 1,767.3
*Accounts for hydropower generation from Hoover and Hyatt/Thermalito Table A.10-6
Average Treated and Untreated Water Energy Intensity (2013 – 2018) With SWP
(kWh/AF)
Conveyance* 1,928.0
Treatment 57.0
Distribution -121.9
Total Treated 1,863.0
Total Untreated 1,806.0
*Accounts for hydropower generation from Hoover and Hyatt/Thermalito Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
A.10-8 Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation Figure A.10-2
Variations in Metropolitan Energy Use (2013-2018)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Metropolitan voluntarily reports its GHG emissions from all sources to The Climate Registry (TCR). TCR implements a GHG registry for California entities and develops protocols for GHG reporting. The data provided in TCR’s registry is publicly accessible and transparent. Metropolitan’s annual GHG data and those for many other water agencies are available through TCR’s CRIS website5. To guarantee data quality, TCR requires published GHG information to be audited by a certified verification expert. Metropolitan has been auditing and reporting its annual GHG emissions to TCR since 2005.
As with energy intensity, Metropolitan’s GHG emissions vary due to hydrology. Over 95 percent of Metropolitan’s GHG emissions are derived from electricity use, primarily from the CRA. In dry years, Metropolitan purchases additional grid electricity to accommodate higher CRA deliveries and uses more energy for distribution system pumping. The combination of higher electricity use coupled with higher GHG emission factors for purchased electricity cause Metropolitan’s GHG emissions to spike in dry years. The opposite is true in wet years. Lower CRA deliveries are met with zero-carbon electricity from Hoover and Parker dams. In recent years, Metropolitan’s GHG emissions have swung from 522,600 tons of CO2e emitted during the record low SWP allocation year in 2014 to 203,400 tons of CO2e emitted during the record wet year in 2017. Metropolitan’s 10-year average of 317,100 tons of CO2e includes two dry-year/wet-year cycles.
5 The Climate Registry CRIS GHG Database: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/tools-resources/reportingtoolkit/cris-resources/ -500,000
0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(Megawatt-Hours)
CRA SWP Treatment Distribution System
■ I __ I__ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-9 Unlike Metropolitan’s embedded energy described above, Metropolitan’s reported GHG emissions do not include upstream SWP emissions. Metropolitan is participating in TCR’s new Water-Energy Nexus GHG Registry and will be able to provide additional GHG metrics in the future.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) tracks state-wide GHG emissions from all sources on an annual basis6. Compared to CARB’s GHG inventory, Metropolitan’s CO2e emissions represented 0.12 percent of the state’s total emissions in 2014 and 0.05 percent in 2017. Additional information on Metropolitan’s GHG emissions and Climate Action Plan are contained Section 3.8.
Figure A.10-3 presents Metropolitan GHG emissions for 2005 through 2018.
Figure A.10-3
Metropolitan GHG emissions
DWR Required Water-Energy Nexus Table: Process Approach Table A.10-7 contains Metropolitan’s required Water-Energy Table for CY2018 using the Water Supply Process Approach in Table O-1A.
The table shows Metropolitan’s energy intensity with upstream SWP embedded energy and nonconsequential generation included.
Note that Metropolitan uses an alternative approach for calculating total or system-wide kWh/AF. Metropolitan’s approach adds the energy intensity of the individual components to derive a system-wide total, where the required table divides the total net energy use by total deliveries. As a result, the system-wide kWh/AF total described in Table A.10-6 varies slightly from DWR’s required Table A.10-7. Metropolitan also incorporates non-consequential hydropower production in its energy intensity calculations.
6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data; California’s GHG emissions were 444.7 million tons of CO2e in 2014 and 424.1 million tons of CO2e in 2017, the latest year available. -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Metropolitan Reported GHG Emissions*
Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent (MTCO2e)
* Does not include upstream GHG emissions from the State Water Project
I I I I I I I I
A.10-10
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation
Table A.10-7 (Table O-1A for Year 2018): Water Supply Process Approach Including Upstream State Water Project Energy Use Urban Water Supplier: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Water Delivery Product (If delivering more than one type of product use Table 0 -lC) I Wholesale Potable Deliveries i
11-:101r--., • . . , ,·, .. . ' ., , , .
Enter Start Date for Reporting Period 1/1/18 I l Urban Water Supplier Operational Control End Date 12/31/18
I [;2 Is upstream embedded in the values reported ~
Volume of Water Entering Process
Energy Consumed (kWh)
Enerov lntensitv /kWh/vol.) I
Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy
I 10,409,000, kWh
Dat a Quality (Estimate, Metered Data, Combination of Estimates and Metered Data) Combination of Estimates and Metered Data
Dat a Quality Narrative:
Water Volume
Units Used
acre feet
N/A N/A
Assumes Colorado river energy intensity at 2,000 kWh/AF; SWP East Branch at 3,236, and SWP West Branch at 2,580.
Extract and
Divert
0 0
0.0 Energy use for the treatment and distribution processes are metered. Non-consequential hyrdopower is calculated from metered data. Detailed descriptions of the methodology are contained in the appendix.
Narrat ive:
Water Management Process
Place into
Storage Conveyance Treatment Distribution
l 0 1,588,956 1 769,398 l 1,540,022
1 0 3,050,621 ,051 1 53,607,943 1 -234 ,945,839 1 0.0 1919.9 1 69.7 1 -152.6 MWD method: process additive
This table incorporates upstream State Water Project conveyance deliveries, energy use, consequential and non-consequential energy generation from Hoover Dam and the SWP Hyatt-Thermalito Complex.
Including upstream SWP imbedded energy represents the applicable energy intensity of Metropolitan's water supplies as delivered to its Member Agencies.
Metropolitan uses an alternative method for calculating overall energy intensity by adding the processes to derive a total utility value as described above.
Using Metropolitan's additive methodology, the total utility energy intensity for treated water would be 1,837 kWh/ AF instead of 1,863 kWh/ AF in the table above Total non-consequential hydropower included in 2018 conveyance: 956,021,000 kWh Hoover Dam non-consequential hydropower: 94,162,000 kWh - Hyatt-Thermalito non-consequential hydropower: 861,859,000 kWh Metropolitan delivers both treated and untreated water to its member agencies.
Total Utility
1,540,022
2,869 ,283,155
1863.1 1837.0
Non-Consequential Hydropower (if applicable)
See Narrative Below
Hydropower Net Utility
0 l 1,540,022
1 2,869,283,155
0.0 1 1863.1
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation A.10-11 Glossary Water-Energy Nexus: The recognition of the link between water supplies and energy supplies Energy Intensity: A measure of the energy required to deliver, or process water expressed in kilowatt hours per acre-foot (kWh/AF) Embedded Energy: The amount of energy required to deliver water supplies from a source to a delivery point. Also expressed in kilowatt hours per acre-foot (kWh/AF). Greenhouse Gas Intensity: a measure of the overall greenhouse gasses required to deliver or process water, expressed in GHG/AF. Hydropower: Renewable energy produced by water powering a turbine to produce electricity. Water Sector: The water sector in the W-E Nexus is broadly defined to include customer end-uses of water such as heating or cooling; pumping and treating urban and agricultural water supplies; and wastewater disposal. Consequential Hydropower: Hydropower produced as the sole result of a water demand or use. An example would be a hydropower recovery plant on an aqueduct that generates power as demands dictate flows in the aqueduct. Non-consequential Hydropower: Hydropower produced as the result of some combination of water demand and other requirements such as flood releases or environmental flows. The Climate Registry: A California non-profit organization tasked with managing a voluntary GHG registry for the State as well as implementing a voluntary GHG registry specifically for water-related GHG emissions.
Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations,
A.10-12 Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 11
QUANTIFYING REGIONAL SELF-RELIANCE AND
REDUCED RELIANCE ON WATER SUPPLIES FROM THE
DELTA WATERSHED
Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-1
Appendix 11
METROPOLITAN’S
REDUCED DELTA RELIANCE REPORTING
A.11.1 Background
Under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, state and local public agencies proposing a covered action in the Delta,1 prior to initiating the implementation of that action, must prepare a written certification of consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with applicable Delta Plan policies and submit that certification to the Delta Stewardship Council.2 Anyone may appeal a certification of consistency, and if the Delta Stewardship Council grants the appeal, the covered action may not be implemented until the agency proposing the covered action submits a revised certification of consistency, and either no appeal is filed, or the Delta Stewardship Council denies the subsequent appeal.3 An urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed covered action such as a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Delta should provide information in their 2015 and 2020 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) that can then be used in the covered action process to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (WR P1).4 WR P1 details what is needed for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance. WR P1 subsection (a) states that:
(a) Water shall not be exported from, transferred through, or used in the Delta if all of the following apply:
(1) One or more water suppliers that would receive water as a result of the export, transfer, or use have failed to adequately contribute to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance consistent with all of the requirements listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (c);
(2) That failure has significantly caused the need for the export, transfer, or use; and (3) The export, transfer, or use would have a significant adverse environmental impact in the Delta.
WR P1 subsection (c)(1) further defines what adequately contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta means in terms of (a)(1) above.
(c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy:
(A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has been reviewed by the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the applicable requirements of Water Code Division 6, Parts 2.55, 2.6, and 2.8; 1 Water Code, § 85057.5; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5001. 2 Water Code, § 85225; Delta Plan, App. D. 3 Water Code, §§ 85225.10-85225.25; Delta Plan, App. D. 4 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5003.
A.11-2 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta; and
(C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance. The expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional selfreliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the purposes of reporting, water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code Section 1011(a).
The analysis and documentation provided below include all of the elements described in WR P1(c)(1) that need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action.
A.11.2 Summary of Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on the Delta As stated in WR P1(c)(1)(C), the policy requires that, commencing in 2015, UWMPs include expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional selfreliance. WR P1 further states that those outcomes shall be reported in the UWMP as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta.
The expected outcomes for Metropolitan’s Delta reliance and regional self-reliance were developed using the approach and guidance described in Appendix C of DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020 (Guidebook Appendix C) issued in March 2021.
The data used in this analysis represent the total regional efforts of Metropolitan and its member agencies and their customers (many of them, retail agencies) and were developed in conjunction with Metropolitan’s member agencies as part of the UWMP coordination process as described in Section 5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In accordance with UMWP requirements, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers (many of them, retail agencies) also report demands and supplies for their service areas in their respective UWMPs. The data reported by those agencies are not additive to the regional totals shown in Metropolitan’s UWMP; rather, their reporting represents subtotals of the regional total and should be considered as such for the purposes of determining reduced reliance on the Delta.
While the demands that Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers report in their UWMPs are a good reflection of the demands in their respective service areas, they do not adequately represent each water supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. In order to calculate and report their reliance on water supplies from the Delta watershed, water suppliers that receive water from the Delta through other regional or wholesale water suppliers would need to determine the amount of Delta water that they receive from the regional or wholesale supplier. Two specific pieces of information are needed to accomplish this: first is the quantity of demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that accurately reflect a supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta, and second is the quantity of a supplier’s demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that are met by supplies from the Delta watershed.
For water suppliers that make investments in regional projects or programs it may be infeasible to quantify their demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier in a way that accurately reflects their individual contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. Due to the extensive, long- Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-3
standing and successful implementation of regional demand management and local resource incentive programs in Metropolitan’s service area, this infeasibility holds true for Metropolitan’s members as well their customers. For Metropolitan’s service area, reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed can only be accurately accounted at the regional level, as is demonstrated in this analysis.
The following provides a summary of the near-term (2025) and long-term (2045) expected outcomes for Metropolitan’s Delta reliance and regional self-reliance. The results show that as a region, Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance, both as an amount of water used and as a percentage of water used.
Expected Outcomes for Regional Self-Reliance
Near-term (2025) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by 813 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of almost 25 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands (Table A.11-2).
Long-term (2045) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by more than 1.28 MAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents an increase of more than 25 percent of 2045 normal water year retail demands (Table A.11-2).
Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on Supplies from the Delta Watershed Near-term (2025) – Normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 301 TAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents a decrease of 3 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands (Table A.11-3).
Long-term (2045) – Normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 314 TAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents a decrease of just over 5 percent of 2045 normal water year retail demands (Table A.11-3).
A11.3 Demonstration of Reduced Reliance on the Delta
The methodology used to determine Metropolitan’s reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance is consistent with the approach detailed in DWR’s UWMP Guidebook Appendix C, including the use of narrative justifications for the accounting of supplies and the documentation of specific data sources. Some of the key assumptions underlying Metropolitan’s demonstration of reduced reliance include:
All data were obtained from the current 2020 UWMP or previously adopted UWMPs and represent average or normal water year conditions.
All analyses were conducted at the service area level, and all data reflect the total contributions of Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers. No projects or programs that are described in the UWMPs as “Projects Under Development” were included in the accounting of supplies.
Baseline and Expected Outcomes
In order to calculate the expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance, a baseline is needed to compare against. This analysis uses a normal water year representation of 2010 as the baseline, which is consistent with the approach described in the Guidebook Appendix C. Data for the 2010 baseline were taken from Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP as the UWMPs generally do not provide normal water year data for A.11-4 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
the year that they are adopted (i.e., 2005 UWMP forecasts begin in 2010, 2010 UWMP forecasts begin in 2015, and so on).
Consistent with the 2010 baseline data approach, the expected outcomes for reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance for 2015 and 2020 were taken from Metropolitan’s 2010 and 2015 UWMPs respectively. Expected outcomes for 2025-2045 are from the current 2020 UWMP. Documentation of the specific data sources and assumptions are included in the discussions below.
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
In alignment with the Guidebook Appendix C, this analysis uses normal water year demands, rather than normal water year supplies to calculate expected outcomes in terms of the percentage of water used. Using normal water year demands serves as a proxy for the amount of supplies that would be used in a normal water year, which helps alleviate issues associated with how supply capability is presented to fulfill requirements of the Act versus how supplies might be accounted for to demonstrate consistency with WR P1.
Because WR P1 considers water use efficiency savings a source of water supply, water suppliers such as Metropolitan that explicitly calculate and report water use efficiency savings in their UWMP will need to make an adjustment to properly reflect normal water year demands in the calculation of reduced reliance. As explained in the Guidebook Appendix C, water use efficiency savings must be added back to the normal year demands to represent demands without water use efficiency savings accounted for; otherwise the effect of water use efficiency savings on regional self-reliance would be overestimated. Table A.11-1 shows the results of this adjustment for Metropolitan. Supporting narratives and documentation for all of the data shown in Table A.11-1 are provided below.
Table A.11-1
Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
The service area demands shown in Table A.11-1 represent the total retail water demands for Metropolitan’s service area and include municipal and industrial demands, agricultural demands, seawater barrier demands, and storage replenishment demands. These demand types and the modeling methodologies used to calculate them are described in Section 2.2 and Appendix 1 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency numbers shown in Table A.11-1 represent the total water use efficiency savings (conservation) for Metropolitan’s region, including savings from active, code-based, price-effect and pre-1990 sources. These sources of water use efficiency and the methodologies used to calculate them are described in Section 2.2, Section 3.4, Section 3.7 and Appendix 1 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Total Service Area Water Demands
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 4,6 28,000 4,563,000 4,163,000 3,763,000 3,821,000 3,893,000 3,936,000 3,985,000 Reported Water Use Efficiency 865,000 936,000 1,056,000 1,162,000 1,211,000 1,263,000 1,325,000 1,389,000 Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,156,000 5,261,000 5,374,000 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-5
The demand and water use efficiency data shown in Table A.11-1 were collected from the following sources:
Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
2025-2045 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
For a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) states that water suppliers must report the expected outcomes for measurable improvement in regional self-reliance. Table A.11-2 shows expected outcomes for supplies contributing to regional self-reliance both in amount and as a percentage. The numbers shown in Table A.11-2 represent efforts to improve regional self-reliance for Metropolitan’s entire service area and include the total contributions of Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers.
Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table A.11-2 are provided below.
The results shown in Table A.11-2 demonstrate that Metropolitan’s service area is measurably improving its regional self-reliance. In the near-term (2025), the expected outcome for normal water year regional self-reliance increases by 747 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of about 23 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands. In the long-term (2045), normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by more than 1.2 MAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of 25 percent of 2045 normal water year retail demands.
Table A.11-2
Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Water Use Efficiency 865,000 936,000 1,056,000 1,162,000 1,211,000 1,263,000 1,325,000 1,389,000 Water Recycling 316,000 348,000 436,000 550,000 613,000 687,000 698,000 706,000 Stormwater Capture and Use 100,000 103,000 110,000 80,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Advanced Water Technologies 111,000 101,000 194,000 194,000 208,000 209,000 209,000 210,000 Conjunctive Use Projects 1,416,000 1,429,000 1,303,000 1,255,000 1,273,000 1,296,000 1,311,000 1,326,000 Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Projects 252,000 224,000 261,000 257,000 257,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self‐Reliance 875,000 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance 3,935,000 4,391,000 4,560,000 4,748,000 4,894,000 5,045,000 5,133,000 5,221,000 Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,156,000 5,261,000 5,374,000 Change in Regional Self Reliance
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance 3,935,000 4,391,000 4,560,000 4,748,000 4,894,000 5,045,000 5,133,000 5,221,000 Change in Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance NA 456, 000 625,000 813,000 1,110,000 959,000 1,198,000 1,286,000 Percent Change in Regional Self Reliance
(As Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Percent of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance 71.6% 79.9% 87.4% 96.4% 97.3% 97.8% 97.6% 97.2% Change in Percent of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self‐Reliance NA 8.2% 15.7% 24.8% 25.6% 26.2% 25.9% 25.5% --------
A.11-6 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency information shown in Table A.11-2 is taken directly from Table A.11-1 above.
Water Recycling
The water recycling values shown in Table A.11-2 reflect the total recycled water production in Metropolitan’s service area as described in Section 3.5 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Stormwater Capture and Use
The stormwater capture and use data shown in Table A.11-2 include supplies from local surface water production as described in Section 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
These values do not include production from regional storage reservoirs; storage in these reservoirs is comprised of previously stored water from sources already reflected in Tables A.11-2 and A.11-3. These regional storage resources are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry years, which is not reflected in this normal water year analysis. The regional storage reservoirs and their yields are described in Section 3.6, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The stormwater capture and use values shown in Table A.11-2 also do not include stormwater capture that is used to recharge local groundwater basins. Stormwater capture for groundwater recharge supports production of groundwater in the region, and for the purposes of this analysis that production is already captured in Table A.11-2 under conjunctive use projects.
Advanced Water Technologies
The advanced water technologies data shown in Table A.11-2 include total groundwater recovery and seawater desalination production in Metropolitan’s service area as described in Section 3.5 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Conjunctive Use Projects
The values for conjunctive use projects shown in Table A.11-2 represent total groundwater production in the region as described in Section 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The conjunctive use projects numbers shown in Table A.11-2 do not include production from regional groundwater conjunctive use programs. As described in the stormwater capture and use discussion above, these regional storage programs rely on previously stored water from sources already reflected in Tables A.11-2 and A.11-3 and are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry-years. The regional groundwater conjunctive use programs and their yields are described in Section 3.6 and Appendix 3.
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Programs
The data for local and regional water supply and storage programs shown in Table A.11-2 include supplies from the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This supply is described in Section 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The local and regional supply numbers shown in Table A.11-2, except for “Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance” which is discussed below, were obtained from the following sources:
Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-7
2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
2025-2045 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Other programs and projects that contribute to regional self-reliance shown in Table A.11-2 include current programs from the Colorado River Aqueduct. Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, as well as supplies that result from existing and committed programs, including those from the IID-MWD Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), related agreements, and the exchange agreement with SDCWA. Colorado River Aqueduct supplies and programs are described in Section 3.1 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The values shown in Table A.11-2 for other programs and projects that contribute to regional selfreliance come from the following sources:
Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2010 (Average Year) 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2015 (Average Year)
2020 values – Metropolitan's 2015 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2020 (Average Year)
2025-2045 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Years 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 (Normal Water Year) Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
In order for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) requires that water suppliers report the expected outcomes for measurable reductions in supplies from the Delta watershed either as an amount or as a percentage. This analysis provides both calculations. Based on the methodology described in Guidebook Appendix C, and consistent with the approach of this analysis in not including projects under development, this accounting does not include any supplies from potential future covered actions. Table A.11-3 shows the expected outcomes for reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed for Metropolitan’s service area. Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table A.11-3 are provided below.
The results shown in Table A.11-3 demonstrate that Metropolitan’s service area is measurably reducing its Delta reliance. In the near-term (2025), the expected outcome for normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 301 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of 3 percent of 2025 normal water year retail demands. In the longterm (2045), normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 314 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of just over 5 percent of 2045 normal water year retail demands.
A.11-8 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
Table A.11-3
Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
The CVP/SWP contract supplies shown in Table A.11-3 include Metropolitan’s SWP Table A and Article 21 supplies. These supplies are described in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The values shown in Table A.11-3 do not include Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District SWP contract supplies. These supplies are exchanged with Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District for an equal amount of Colorado River water, which is reflected in the Colorado River Aqueduct supplies shown in Table A.11-2. In addition, Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District should include their SWP contract supplies in their own accountings of reduced reliance. Additional information on these exchange agreements can be found in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
These values also do not include supplies from San Luis Carryover storage or Central Valley storage programs because storage in these programs comprises previously stored water from sources already reflected in Table A.11-3. These storage programs are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry years, which is not reflected in this normal water year analysis. The Central Valley storage projects and their yields are described in Section 3.3, and Appendix 3. San Luis Carryover storage is described in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3.
Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed The transfers and exchanges of supplies from the Delta watershed shown in Table A.11-3 include supplies from the San Bernardino Valley MWD Program, Yuba River Accord Purchase Program, the San Gabriel Valley MWD Program, Irvine Ranch Water District Storage and Exchange Program, and other generic SWP and Central Valley transfers and exchanges. These programs are described in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Supplies from the Delta Watershed shown in Table A.11-3 are from the following sources:
Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2010 (Average Year)
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies 1,472,000 1,029,000 984,000 1,133,000 1,130,000 1,128,000 1,126,000 1,126,000 Delta/Delta Tributary Diversions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 20,000 44,000 91,000 58,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000 Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,156,000 5,261,000 5,374,000 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre‐Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,182,000 1,180,000 1,178,000 1,178,000 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA (419,000) (417,000) (301,000) (310,000) (312,000) (314,000) (314,000) Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(As a Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 27.2% 19.5% 20.6% 24.2% 23.5% 22.9% 22.4% 21.9% Change in Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA ‐7.6% ‐6.6% ‐3.0% ‐3.7% ‐4.3% ‐4.8% ‐5.2% --------
Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-9
2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2015 (Average Year)
2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2020 (Average Year)
2025-2045 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Years 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 (Normal Water Year) A.11.4 UWMP Implementation
In addition to the analysis and documentation described above, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(B) requires that all programs and projects included in the UWMP that are locally cost-effective and technically feasible, which reduce reliance on the Delta, are identified, evaluated, and implemented consistent with the implementation schedule. WR P1 (c)(1)(B) states that:
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta[.]
In accordance with Water Code Section 10631(f), water suppliers must already include in their UWMP a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that they may implement to increase the amount of water supply available to them in normal and single-dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive years. The UWMP description must also identify specific projects, include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project, and include an estimate regarding the implementation timeline for each project or program.
Section 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP summarizes the implementation plan and continued progress in developing a diversified water portfolio to meet the region’s water needs.
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency numbers used in this analysis include the total water use efficiency savings (conservation) for the service area, including savings from active, code-based, priceeffect and pre-1990 savings. The specific water use efficiency programs and their implementation are described in Section 3.4 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Water Recycling
The water recycling values used in this analysis reflect the total recycled water production in Metropolitan’s service area. Water recycling programs and implementation are discussed in Section 3.5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In addition, individual project-level details are provided in Appendix 5.
Stormwater Capture and Use
The stormwater capture and use data used in this analysis include supplies from local surface water production. Local surface water production and its implementation are discussed in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Advanced Water Technologies
The advanced water technologies data used in this analysis include total groundwater recovery and seawater desalination production in Metropolitan’s service. Groundwater recovery and seawater desalination programs and implementation are described in Section 3.5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In addition, individual project-level details are provided in Appendix 5.
A.11-10 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
Conjunctive Use Projects
The values for conjunctive use projects used in this analysis represent total groundwater production in the region. Groundwater production and its implementation are discussed in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Programs
The data for local and regional water supply and storage programs shown this analysis include supplies from the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This program and its implementation are described in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Other programs and projects that contribute to regional self-reliance used in this analysis include current programs from the Colorado River Aqueduct. Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, as well as supplies that result from existing and committed programs, including those from the IID-MWD Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), related agreements, and the exchange agreement with SDCWA. Colorado River Aqueduct programs and their implementation are described in Section 3.1 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
The CVP/SWP contract supplies shown in this analysis include Metropolitan’s SWP Table A and Article 21 supplies. These supplies and their implementation are described in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed The transfers and exchanges of supplies from the Delta watershed shown in this analysis include supplies from the San Bernardino Valley MWD Program, Yuba River Accord Purchase Program, the San Gabriel Valley MWD Program, Irvine Ranch Water District Storage and Exchange Program, and other generic SWP and Central Valley transfers and exchanges. These programs and their implementation are described in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.11-11
A.11.5 2015 UWMP Appendix 11
The information contained in this Appendix 11 is also intended to be a new Appendix 11 attached to Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP consistent with WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5003). Metropolitan provided notice of the availability of the draft 2020 UWMP (including this Appendix 11 which will also be a new Appendix 11 to its 2015 UWMP) and WSCP and the public hearing to consider adoption of both plans and Appendix 11 to the 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, starting 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 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 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 the 2020 UWMP Section 5. Thus, this Appendix 11 to Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, which was adopted with Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, will also be recognized and treated as Appendix 11 to Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP.
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 MWD 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 the 2020 UWMP Section 5, and Resolution 9281 for the WSCP is attached to the WSCP as Attachment C.
A.11-12 Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 12
DWR 2020 UWMP SUBMITTAL TABLES
DWR Submittal Tables A.12-1
Appendix 12
DWR 2020 UWMP SUBMITTAL TABLES
In fulfillment of California Water Code Sections, 10621(d) and 10644(a) and (b), Metropolitan’s Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and Appendix 11 Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan were electronically submitted to the State of California through DWR’s WUE Data Portal (https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/) in June 2021. This appendix contains the mandatory DWR 2020 UWMP Submittal Tables that were uploaded to the WUE data website.
Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification
Select
Only One
NOTES:
Type of Plan
Individual UWMP
C
C
Water Supplier is also a member
of a RUWMP
Water Supplier is also a member
of a Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(RUWMP}
Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification
Type of Supplier (select one or both)
Supplier is a wholesaler
C Supplier is a retailer
Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one)
UWMP Tables are in calendar years
[ UWMP Tables are in fiscal years
Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance
if applicable
(select from drop down list)
If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd)
NOTES:
A.12-2 DWR Submittal Tables
Submittal Table 2-4 Wholesale: Water Supplier Information Exchange (select one) ■ Supplier has informed more than 10 other water suppliers of water supplies available in accordance with Water Code Section 10631. Completion of the table below is optional. If not completed, include a list of the water suppliers that were informed.
- Provide page number for location of the list.
[ Supplier has informed 10 or fewer other water suppliers of water supplies available in accordance with Water Code Section 10631.
Complete the table below.
Water Supplier Name
Add additional ro ws as needed
NOTES: NOTES: See 2020 UWMP Sections 2 and 5 for discussion of Metropolitan's planning coordination, outreach, and notification (list provided in Section 5 Table 5-3 pp. 5-8 and 5-9).
Submittal Table 3-1 Wholesale: Population - Current and Projected Population 2020 2025 2030 2035
Served
2040
19,035,000 20,089,000 20,634,000 21,145,000 21,610,000
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP Appendix 1 Tabel A.1-2.
Submittal Table 4-1 Wholesale: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable1 Water - Actual Use Type 2020 Actual
Drop down 11st
May select each use multiple times
These are the only use types t hat will be recognized by the WUE data online submittal tool
Add additional rows as needed
Sales to ot her agencies
Sales to other agencies
Losses
Additional Description
(as needed)
Level of Treatment
When Delivered
Drop down list
Drinking Water
Raw Water
TOTAL
Volume'
789,218
605,043
48,520
1,442,781
2045(opt)
22,026,000
NOTES: Sales to other agencies include Metropolitan deliveries to member and non-member agencies and deliveries from conjunctive use programs. Some of these deliveries are not revenue producing nor sales. Losses include evaporation losses from storage reservoirs and distribution system (2019 estimate). Water losses are both drinking and raw water.
DWR Submittal Tables A.12-3
Drop down 11st Additional Description (as
Mayselecteachusemultipletimes
These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by needed) 2025 2030 2035 2040
the WUEdata online submittal tool.
Add additional rows as needed
Other 1,149,000 1,110,000 1,084,000 1,100,000
Exchanges to other agencies 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 Projected Demands Table 2-6 for Normal Wat er Year (average of 1922 t o 2017 historic hydrologies) .
Submittal Table 4-3 Wholesale: Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Potable and Raw Water 1,442,781 1,427,000 1,388,000 1,362,000 1,378,000 From Tables 4-lW and 4-2W Recycled Water Demand* 0 0 0 0 0 From Table 6-4W
TOTAL WATER DEMAND 1,442,781 1,427,000 1,388,000 1,362,000 1,378,000 *Recycled water demand fields will be blank until Table 6-4 is complete.
NOTES:
OPTIONAL Table 4-4 Wholesale: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting
Reporting Period Start Date
(mm/yyyy)
01/2015
01/2016
01/2017
01/2018
01/2019
Volume of Water Loss 1•
2 10,628
8,545
7,928
4,991
6,907
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP discussions in Section 2.6 and Appendix 7, and estimate of distribut ion system water losses in Tables A.7-1, A.7-2, A.7-3, A.7-4, and A.7-5 .
2045
(opt)
1,125,000
278,000
2045 (opt)
1,403,000
0 1,403,000
A.12-4 DWR Submittal Tables
Submittal Table 6-1 Wholesale: Groundwater Volume Pumped -
Suppherdoes not pump groundwater The
supplier will not complete the table below.
-All or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated.
VP
Add additional rows as needed
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
Iv
Wastewater Method of Treat Wastewater Wastewater Discharge Discharge Discharge ID Treatment Level Treatment Location Name Location Disposal Generated Discharged Recyd ed Number Outside the Wastewater Treated Recyded Within Outside of Plant Name or Identifier Description (optional) 1 Oropdo-,1/st Oropdown llst Treated Service Ar ea Service Area 7 Wastewater Service Area Drop down I/st
Add additional rows as needed
mittal Table 6-4 Wholesale: Current and Projected Retailers Provided Recycled Water Within Service Area Recycled water is not directly treated or distributed by the Supplier., The Supplier will not complete the table below .
lnstream Flow
Permit
Req uirement
Name of Receiving Supplier or Direct Use
by Wholesaler
•. 11·1
down list
.... ____ _ Add additional rows as needed
Total 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
,,
0 DWR Submittal Tables A.12-5
Name of Receiving Supplier or Direct Use
by Wholesaler
Add additional rows as needed
Total 0 0
NOTES: The 2015 UWMP Table 2-3 included projection for recycled water use in 2020 of 436 TAF under average hydrology.
In 2020, the actual recycled water use (regional total within Metropolitan service area) is estimated at 441 TAF (excluding Santa Ana River baseflow), as discu ssed in this 2020 UWMP Section 3.5 on Table 3-14 p. 3-78 and Appendix 2 p. A.2-8.
Regional total represents the projected production of projects by Metropolitan member agencies. Metropolitan's Regional Recycled Water Program is still a pilot project, with recent Board approval to proceed with environmental planning. [
2020 UWMP Section 3 and
Appendix 3
olesale: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below.
Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.
Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Joint Project with other suppliers?
Name of Future Projects or f------~-------,
Programs
Description
(if needed)
Planned
Implement at ion Year
Planned for Use in Expect ed Increase in
Year Type Water Supply to
Drop Down list Supplier• Drop Down M enu If Yes, Supplier Name Add additional rows as needed
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP Section 3 description of resources and program development for CRA, SWP, Central Valley/SWP storage and transfers programs, conservat ion, LRP (groundwater recovery, recycling, desalination), and groundwater. Also, see Appendix 3 detailed discussion of all supply programs and justification for supply projections.
A.12-6 DWR Submittal Tables
Drop down list
May use each category multiple
times.These are the only water supply
categories that will be recognized by
the WUEdata online submittal tool
Add additional rows as needed
Purchased or Imported Water
Supply from St orage
Transfers
Additional Detail on Water
Supply
Total
Actual Volume•
1,069,648
367,069
6,064
1,442,781
Water Quality
Drop Down List
Other Non-Potable
Water
Other Non-Potable
Water
Other Non-Potable
Water
Tot al Right or Safe
Yield* (optiona l)
0 NOTES: Actual volume of wat er reported in this ta ble are raw water. The 11 0ther Non-Pota ble Wat er 11 from t he Water Qua lity column drop down list is t he closest descript ion to raw water.
Drop down 1st
Mayuseeachcategorymultiple Additional Detail on Water
times. Thesearetheonlywater Supply Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or supp/ycategOriesthatwillbe recogni.zedbytheWUEdata Available Safe Yield Availa ble Safe Yield Available Safe Yield onlinesubmittaltool Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Add additional rows as needed
Other 3,912,000 3,906,000 3,903,000
Total 3,912,000 3,906,000 3,903,000
Reasona bly Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or
Available Safe Yield Available Safe Yield
Volume (optional) Volume (optional)
3,901,000 3,898,000
3,901,000 3,898,000
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP detailed discussion in Section 2 and Supply Capability and Projected Demands Table 2-6 for Normal Water Year (average of 1922-2017 hydrologies). Projected water supply includes capability of current and proposed programs.
DWR Submittal Tables A.12-7
Year Type
Average Year
Single-Ory Year
Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year
Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year
Consecutive Ory Years 3rd Year
Consecutive Ory Years 4th Year
Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year
Base Year
not using acalendaryear,
typeinthel.astyearofthe
fiscal,wateryear,orrange
Quantification of available supplies is not compatible
~ with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP.
Location: 2020 UWMP Section 2 Tables 2-4 2-5 2-6 and
Appendix 3. ofyear..,foreKample,
wateryear1999-2000,user--+--------------------,
2000
1922-2017
1977
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
[ Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both.
Volume Available • % of Average Supply
100%
Supplier may use multiple versions of Table 7-1 if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. If a supplier uses multiple versions of Table 7-1i in the "Note" section of each table, state that multiple versions of Table 7-1 are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported in each table. Suppliers may create an additional worksheet for the additional tables.
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP Section 2.3 discussion of sources of supply and water reliability assessment under normal water year, single dry year, and five consecutive drought years (summarized in Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6). See Section 3 and Appendix 3 for a detailed discussion of all supply programs and justifications for supply projections. See Section 2 p. 2-7 for description, assumption, and basis of the three year types.
Submittal Table 7-2 Wholesale: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Opt)
Supply totals
3,912,000 3,906,000 3,903,000 3,901,000 3,898,000 (auto/ii/from Table 6-9) Demand totals
(autofi/1/m Tab/e4-3) 1,427,000 1,388,000 1,362,000 1,378,000 1,403,000 Difference 2,485,000 2,518,000 2,541,000 2,523,000 2,495,000 NOTES: See 2020 UWMP detailed discussion in Section 2, and Supply Capabilities and reliability assessment in Table 2-6 for Normal Water Year condition (average of 1922-2017 historic hydrology).
Submittal Table 7-3 Wholesale: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Opt)
Supply totals* 2,772,000 2,761,000 2,760,000 2,760,000 2,757,000 Demand totals* 1,544,000 1,500,000 1,473,000 1,496,000 1,525,000 Difference 1,228,000 1,261,000 1,287,000 1,264,000 1,232,000 NOTES: See 2020 UWMP detailed discussion in Section 2, and Supply Capabilities and reliability assessment in Table 2-4 for Single Dry Year condition (repeat of 1977 hydrology).
A.12-8 DWR Submittal Tables
Submittal Table 7-4 Wholesale: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025• 2030* 2035° 2040* 2045* (Opt)
Supply totals 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 First year Demand totals 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Difference 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Supply totals 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 Second year Demand totals 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Difference 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Supply totals 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 Third year Demand totals 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Difference 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Supply totals 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 Fourth year Demand totals 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Difference 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Supply totals 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 Fifth year Demand totals 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Difference 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Supply totals
Sixth year Demand totals (optional)
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP detailed discussion in Section 2, and Supply Capabilities and reliability assessment in Table 2-5 for Five Consecutive Drought Year condition (repeat of 1988-1992 hydrology). Similar to the multiple dry-year reporting in past UWMPs, Metropolitan's reliability assessment for the five consecutive year drought is developed by simulating the five-year driest sequence leading to each of the fifth year reporting. This allows impacts of multiple consecutive years of droughts to be captured within the sequential accounting of Metropolitan's various supply program storage balance. The five consecutive years of supply and demand are then averaged and presented every five years rather than a year by-year display. Over the years, Metropolitan has developed numerous programs to increase its water supply capabi lities, dry year supplies, and regional storage. These programs may be exercised in conjunction with effective demand management measures during drought years. Under this reliability planning, if a five consecutive year drought sequence was to repeat, Metropolitan could exercise similar supply augmentation and demand management options for each of the five drought years at the appropriate level to meet demands. This methodology best captures Metropolitan's complex demand and supply planning with appropriate flexibility.
DWR Submittal Tables A.12-9
Submittal Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to address Water Code Section 10635(b)
2021 Total
Total Water Use 1,596,000
Total Supplies 1,164,000
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action {432,000)
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 432,000
WSCP -use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
2022 Total
Total Water Use 1,669,000
Total Supplies 1,903,000
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 234,000
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 0
WSCP -use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 234,000
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
2023 Total
Total Water Use 1,688,000
Total Supplies 1,300,000
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action {388,000)
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 388,000
WSCP -use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
2024 Total
Total Water Use 1,491,000
Total Supplies 1,468,000
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (23,000)
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 23,000
WSCP -use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
2025 Total
Total Water Use 1,592,000
Total Supplies 1,369,000
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action {223,000)
Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit 223,000
WSCP -use reduction savings benefit 0
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
Note: See 2020 UWMP discussion in Section 2.4 Drought Risk Assessment and the supply augmentation actions that may be exercised to meet demands through 2025.
A.10-10 DWR’s Standardized Tables
Submittal Table 8-1
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Shortage Level Percent Shortage Shortage Response Actions Range (Nanvtlve description)
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 1 Upto 10% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, and ooerational measures.
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 2 Upto20% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, and operational measures.
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 3 Upto30% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, and operational measures.
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 4 Upto40% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, and ooerational measures.
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 5 Up to SO% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, and operational measures.
Shortage response actions will be customized to meet the circumstances for the 6 >50% particular shortage. Response actions may include a combination of supply augmentation from flexible supplies and dry year storage, demand response actions, operational measures, and emer,;i:encv storage if needed.
NOTES: Actions taken will be based on resource and operational conditions throughout the year. To determine specific actions that would be taken at each level, Metropolitan wi ll evaluate circumstances including cost, timing, distribution needs and capabilities, and other variables that include SWP allocation, Colorado River conditions, take capacities, and storage balances. See Table A.4-5 Shortage Stages and Response Actions from Appendix 4: Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions
Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage DropdOlwtirt How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Include Level These ore the onlycotegories that will be oc:cepted by the WUEdoto units used (volume type or percentage) onllne submittal tool. Select those that apply.
Add additional rows as needed
1 to 6 Expand Publ ic Information Campaign Range between 160,000 to 320,000 acre-feet 1 to6 Other Up to 900,000 acre-feet
Additional Explanation or Reference
(optional)
Assumed range of between 5% and 10%
effectiveness in deman d reduction real ized at the
wholesale level, using a hypothetical single dry
year assessment of wholesale demand wi thin the
2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2025
si ngle-dry year). Based on assumptions of service
area retail M&I demand of4.379 MAFand upto
20 percent of retai l demands could be reduced if
a successful media campaign reached and
influenced the entire service area population
(source: American Water Works Association.
2019. Manual ofWaterSupply Practices-M60,
Second Ed ition: Drought Preparedness and
Response. p.35)
Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) allocates
Metropolitan's wholesale water supplies among
its member agencies. The WSAP is designed to
reduce demands by up to approximately SO
percent of the WSAP'scalculated base demand.
Up to 900,000 AF of savings is based on a
hypothetical WSAP 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.
Penalty, Charge, or
Other Enforcement?
F,.Retd/Suppliffs(Wr
Dror,DownUst
NOTES: Total estimated savings potential from differerent Demand Reducation Actions are non additive. Savings potential from vol untary actions overlaps with savings from supply allocations.
DWR Submittal Tables A.12-11
Submittal Table 8-3: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Supply Augmentation Methods and Other
Actions by Water Supplier How much is this going to reduce the Shortage Level Drop down list shortage gap? Include units used These are theonfy categories that wilf be accepted by (volume type or percentage) the WUEdato online submittal tool
Add additional rows as needed
1 to 6 Transfers Up to 64,000 acre-feet
1 to 6 Other Actions (describe) Up to 1,714,000 acre-feet 6 Stored Emergency Supply Up to 750,000 acre-feet
NOTES:
Submittal Table 10-1 Wholesale: Notification to Cities and Counties (select one) C:
2020 UWMP
Section 5 Table 5-3
i
City Name
Supplier has notified more than 10 cities or counties in accordance with Water Code Sections 10621 (b) and 10642.
Completion of the table below is not required. Provide a separate list of the cities and counties that were notified.
Provide the page or location of this list in the UWMP.
Supplier has notified 10 or fewer cities or counties.
Complete the table below.
60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing
Add additional rows as needed
County Name
Oro Down List 60 Day Notice
Add additional rows os needed
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTES: See 2020 UWMP Section 5 discussion on Metropolitan's notification to cities and counties (list provided in Table 5-3). Metropolitan sent a total of 195 notification letters to cities, counties, and member agencies within its service area.
Additional Explanation or Reference
(optional)
Based on a hypothetical 2025 single dry year
assessment within the 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan . See Table 2-1 in the 2020
UWMP.
Dry year storage. Based on a hypothetical 2025
single dry year assessment within the 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan.
Based on Metropolitan's Emergency Storage
Objective, set at 750,000 AF. Emergency storage
represents water Metropolitan reservees for the
region for use in the event of supply
interruptions from earthquakes or similar
emergencies.
Planning for the Future
WATER ()TOMORROW
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA