2020
JUNE 2021
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
2020
URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
JUNE 2021
WATER 6 TOMORROW
Planning for the Future
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................i List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................xi List of Figures ................................................................................................................................xiv List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xv Summary of Compliance........................................................................................................... xix Executive Summary and Simple Lay Description of 2020 UWMP Findings ....................... ES-1 Factors Considered for Metropolitan’s Water Reliability Assessments for the UWMP ..... ES-1 Hydrologic Conditions and Reporting Period............................................................... ES-2 Demand Projections................................................................................................................ ES-3 Total Demands.................................................................................................................. ES-3 Total Conservation ........................................................................................................... ES-3 Total Local Supplies.......................................................................................................... ES-4 Water Use Reduction Achievement in 2020......................................................................... ES-4 Supply Capabilities .................................................................................................................. ES-5 Colorado River Supplies................................................................................................... ES-5 State Water Project Supplies........................................................................................... ES-5 Storage .............................................................................................................................. ES-6 Findings of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan........................................................ ES-6 Water Service Reliability and Projected Water Supplies............................................. ES-6 Challenges Ahead and Strategies for Managing Reliability Risks ............................. ES-8
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction to this Document and the Agency...................................................................1-1 Organization of this Document ................................................................................................ 1-1 Urban Water Management Planning Act .............................................................................. 1-3 Changes in the Act Since 2015 ................................................................................................ 1-3 Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009, Water Conservation in the Delta Legislative Package ........................................................................................... 1-4 Metropolitan’s Compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act..............1-5 DWR Guidance........................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.........................................................1-6 Formation and Purpose............................................................................................................. 1-6 Service Area................................................................................................................................ 1-6 Member Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 1-6 Board of Directors and Management Team........................................................................ 1-11
1.3 Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information ..............................................................1-12 Population................................................................................................................................. 1-12 Historical Retail Water Demands............................................................................................ 1-13 Climate and Rainfall ................................................................................................................ 1-14
1.4 Current Conditions.................................................................................................................1-17 Current Challenges.................................................................................................................. 1-17 Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Issues................................................................. 1-17 Water Supply Conditions................................................................................................. 1-20 Current Available Resources.................................................................................................. 1-21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ii Table of Contents
Metropolitan’s Actions to Address Supply Challenges.................................................1-25 Continuing Water Conservation...............................................................................1-26 Increasing Local Resources.............................................................................................1-26 Augmenting Water Supplies ...........................................................................................1-27 Improving Return Capabilities of Storage Programs....................................................1-28 Modifying Metropolitan’s Distribution System ...............................................................1-29 Implementing the Shortage Response Actions, when needed.................................1-29
2. Planning for the Future ............................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Integrated Water Resource Planning.....................................................................................2-2 The 1996 IRP.................................................................................................................................2-2 The 2004 IRP Update ..................................................................................................................2-3 The 2010 IRP Update ..................................................................................................................2-3 The 2015 IRP Update ..................................................................................................................2-4 The 2020 IRP.................................................................................................................................2-5
2.2 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan ...................................................................................2-7 Demand Projection for the UWMP...........................................................................................2-7 Total Demands....................................................................................................................2-8 Conservation Adjustment..................................................................................................2-9 Local Supplies......................................................................................................................2-9 Determining Demands on Metropolitan .......................................................................2-10
2.3 Water Reliability Assessment ................................................................................................2-15 Colorado River Supplies...................................................................................................2-15 State Water Project Supplies...........................................................................................2-16 Storage...............................................................................................................................2-17 Interpreting Metropolitan’s Reliability Assessment and Supply Capabilities in the UWMP ...................................................................................................................2-17
2.4 Drought Risk Assessment.......................................................................................................2-21 Water Use Characterization....................................................................................................2-21 Supply Characterization..........................................................................................................2-22 Total Water Supply and Use Comparison .............................................................................2-23
2.5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.......................................................................................2-26 Water Supply Reliability Analysis.....................................................................................2-26 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures.....................................2-26 Six Standard Water Shortage Level................................................................................2-27 Shortage Response Actions ............................................................................................2-27 Communication Protocols...............................................................................................2-28 Compliance and Enforcement ......................................................................................2-28 Legal Authorities ...............................................................................................................2-28 Financial Consequences of WSCP.................................................................................2-30 Monitoring and Reporting ...............................................................................................2-30 WSCP Reevaluation and Improvement ........................................................................2-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents iii
Relationship with Other Metropolitan Shortage Planning .................................................. 2-31 Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan........................................................... 2-31 Water Supply Allocation Plan ......................................................................................... 2-33 Catastrophic and Emergency Plan....................................................................................... 2-34 Emergency Storage Objective....................................................................................... 2-35 Emergency Freshwater Pathway (Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta)........................2-35 SWP Seismic Improvement.............................................................................................. 2-37 Electrical Outages............................................................................................................ 2-37 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan........................................................................ 2-38 Planning............................................................................................................................. 2-39 Engineering ....................................................................................................................... 2-40 Operations......................................................................................................................... 2-41 Reporting........................................................................................................................... 2-42 Inter-Agency Coordination............................................................................................. 2-42 Emergency Response Plans............................................................................................ 2-42
2.6 Other Supply Reliability Risks................................................................................................2-43 Supplies...................................................................................................................................... 2-43 Operations and Water Quality............................................................................................... 2-43 Demand .................................................................................................................................... 2-43 Distribution System Water Losses............................................................................................ 2-44 Climate Change ...................................................................................................................... 2-44 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................. 2-44 Metropolitan’s Activities Related to Climate Change Concerns..............................2-45
2.7 Pricing and Rate Structures...................................................................................................2-49 Revenue Sources and Management.................................................................................... 2-49 Elements of Rate Structure...................................................................................................... 2-49 System Access Rate (SAR)............................................................................................... 2-49 Water Stewardship Rate (WSR)....................................................................................... 2-49 System Power Rate (SPR)................................................................................................. 2-50 Treatment Surcharge....................................................................................................... 2-50 Capacity Charge............................................................................................................. 2-50 Readiness-To-Serve Charge (RTS)................................................................................... 2-50 Tier 1 Supply Rate ............................................................................................................. 2-50 Tier 2 Supply Rate ............................................................................................................. 2-50
3. Implementing the Plan ...........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Colorado River.........................................................................................................................3-3 Background ................................................................................................................................ 3-3 Changed Conditions................................................................................................................. 3-5 California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan and the Quantification Settlement Agreement............................................................................................................................ 3-5 Current Dry Condition........................................................................................................ 3-6 Quagga Mussels................................................................................................................. 3-6 Implementation Approach....................................................................................................... 3-6 Colorado River Water Management Programs............................................................. 3-7 Achievements to Date ............................................................................................................ 3-11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
iv Table of Contents
3.2 State Water Project ................................................................................................................3-13 Background...............................................................................................................................3-13 Changed Conditions ...............................................................................................................3-18 Implementation Approach.....................................................................................................3-18 SWP Reliability....................................................................................................................3-19 SWP Water Quality............................................................................................................3-25 SWP System Outage and Capacity Constraints ..........................................................3-26 Achievements to Date ............................................................................................................3-27 SWP Reliability....................................................................................................................3-27 SWP Water Quality............................................................................................................3-29 SWP System Reliability ......................................................................................................3-29
3.3 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs ................................3-31 Background...............................................................................................................................3-31 Implementation Approach.....................................................................................................3-31 Storage and Transfer Programs ......................................................................................3-31 Achievements to Date ............................................................................................................3-35
3.4 Demand Management and Conservation..........................................................................3-37 Background...............................................................................................................................3-37 Implementation Approach.....................................................................................................3-38 Public Education and Outreach ............................................................................................3-38 Public Education Programs.............................................................................................3-39 Outreach ...........................................................................................................................3-39 Community Partnering Program.....................................................................................3-43 California Friendly Landscape Education and Training Program ..............................3-43 Water Conservation Programs ...............................................................................................3-44 Regional Conservation Programs...................................................................................3-44 Disadvantaged Communities Program Initiative.................................................................3-46 Metering ....................................................................................................................................3-47 Research and Development Programs.................................................................................3-47 Measurement and Evaluation ........................................................................................3-47 Recognition for Conservation Achievements ......................................................................3-48 Asset Management Program .................................................................................................3-53 Maintenance Management Program...........................................................................3-53 Infrastructure Protection Plan..........................................................................................3-54 Dam Safety Program........................................................................................................3-55
3.5 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination ......................................................3-56 Background...............................................................................................................................3-56 Recycling...........................................................................................................................3-56 Groundwater Recovery...................................................................................................3-68 Seawater Desalination.....................................................................................................3-68 Changed Conditions ...............................................................................................................3-70 Recycled Water................................................................................................................3-70 Groundwater Recovery Brine Disposal..........................................................................3-71 Seawater Desalination.....................................................................................................3-72
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents v
Implementation Approach..................................................................................................... 3-73 Local Resources Program................................................................................................ 3-73 On-Site Retrofit Program.................................................................................................. 3-73 Stormwater Pilot Program................................................................................................ 3-74 Regional Recycling Program.......................................................................................... 3-74 Future Supply Actions....................................................................................................... 7-75 Achievements to Date ............................................................................................................ 3-76
3.6 Surface Storage and Groundwater Management Programs: Within the Region ...........3-79 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3-79 Implementation Approach..................................................................................................... 3-79 Surface Storage................................................................................................................ 3-79 Groundwater Storage...................................................................................................... 3-80 Achievements to Date ............................................................................................................ 3-81
3.7 Water Use Reduction.............................................................................................................3-83 Achievement as of 2020 ......................................................................................................... 3-83
3.8 Energy Management Initiative.............................................................................................3-85 Climate Action Plan................................................................................................................. 3-89 Emissions Inventory................................................................................................................... 3-89 Emissions Forecast .................................................................................................................... 3-90 GHG Reduction Target............................................................................................................ 3-91 Strategy to Meet GHG Reduction Goals.............................................................................. 3-91 Monitoring and Reporting....................................................................................................... 3-92 Cap Adoption .......................................................................................................................... 3-92
4. Water Quality ...........................................................................................................................4-1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Colorado River.................................................................................................................... 4-1 State Water Project............................................................................................................ 4-2 Local Agency Supplies and Groundwater Storage ...................................................... 4-2 Issues of Potential Concern....................................................................................................... 4-3 Salinity .................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Perchlorate.......................................................................................................................... 4-8 Total Organic Carbon and Bromide.............................................................................. 4-10 Nutrients............................................................................................................................. 4-10 Arsenic ............................................................................................................................... 4-12 Uranium.............................................................................................................................. 4-13 Chromium-6....................................................................................................................... 4-14 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP)................................................................................. 4-15 Constituents of Emerging Concern ....................................................................................... 4-16 N-Nitrosodimethylamine.................................................................................................. 4-16 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products............................................................ 4-17 Microplastics ..................................................................................................................... 4-17 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).................................................................. 4-17 1,4-Dioxane ....................................................................................................................... 4-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
vi Table of Contents
Other Water Quality Programs ...............................................................................................4-20 Source Water Protection .................................................................................................4-20 Colorado River Water Quality Partnerships...................................................................4-20 SWP Water Quality Programs..........................................................................................4-21 Regulatory and Legislative Actions................................................................................4-21
5. Coordination and Public Outreach........................................................................................5-1 Collaborative Regional Planning .............................................................................................5-1 Concurrent Planning with the 2020 Integrated Water Resources Plan...............................5-1 Board of Directors Oversight .............................................................................................5-1 Collaboration with Member Agencies and Other Organizations .......................................5-2 Public Outreach during IRP/UWMP/Appendix 11/WSCP Preparation ................................5-3 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP
Public Notice and Adoption..................................................................................................5-4 Submission and Availability of Final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to 2015 UWMP, and WSCP................................................................................................................................5-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents vii
A.1 Demand Forecast
Forecast Overview ................................................................................................................. A.1-1 Retail M&I Demand Forecast ......................................................................................... A.1-1 Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on SCAG’s and SANDAG’s Forecasts.............. A.1-4 Forecasts Used by Metropolitan .................................................................................... A.1-4 Trends in Southern California ................................................................................................ A.1-5 Population......................................................................................................................... A.1-5 Employment...................................................................................................................... A.1-5 Residential Consumers .................................................................................................... A.1-6 Water Demands..................................................................................................................... A.1-7 Retail Demand ................................................................................................................. A.1-8 Residential Water Use...................................................................................................... A.1-8 Nonresidential Water Use................................................................................................ A.1-8 Conservation Savings...................................................................................................... A.1-9 Projected M&I Demand by Sector ................................................................................ A.1-9 A.2 Existing Regional Water Supplies
Local Water Supplies ............................................................................................................. A.2-1 Major Groundwater Basins.................................................................................................... A.2-4 Major River Systems and Reservoirs...................................................................................... A.2-5 Water Recycling and Groundwater Recovery .................................................................. A.2-8 Imported Water...................................................................................................................... A.2-9 Colorado River ................................................................................................................. A.2-9 State Water Project........................................................................................................ A.2-14 Los Angeles Aqueduct.................................................................................................. A.2-15 Historic Total Regional Water Supplies............................................................................... A.2-16 A.3 Justifications for Supply Projections
Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries................................................................................... A.3-1 Colorado River Supplies.................................................................................................. A.3-1 Rationale for the Expected Supply........................................................................ A.3-1 Financing................................................................................................................... A.3-4 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals....................................................... A.3-4 IID – Metropolitan Conservation Program .................................................................... A.3-4 Source of Supply....................................................................................................... A.3-4 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................... A.3-4 Rationale for the Expected Supply........................................................................ A.3-4 Financing................................................................................................................... A.3-5 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals....................................................... A.3-6 Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program ................................................................................................. A.3-6 Source of Supply....................................................................................................... A.3-6 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................... A.3-6 Rationale for the Expected Supply........................................................................ A.3-6 Financing................................................................................................................... A.3-8 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals....................................................... A.3-8 Land Management of Metropolitan-Owned Lands in Palo Verde .......................... A.3-8 Source of Supply....................................................................................................... A.3-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
viii Table of Contents
Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................... A.3-8 Rationale for the Expected Supply ........................................................................ A.3-8 Financing................................................................................................................... A.3-8 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals....................................................... A.3-8 Metropolitan-CVWD Delivery and Exchange Agreement for 35,000 Acre-Feet ..A.3-9 Source of Supply....................................................................................................... A.3-9 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................... A.3-9 Rationale for the Expected Supply ........................................................................ A.3-9 SNWA and Metropolitan Storage and Interstate Release Agreement...................A.3-10 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-10 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-11 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-11 Lower Colorado Water Supply Project ....................................................................... A.3-12 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-12 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-12 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-12 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-13 Lake Mead Storage Program, Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir Funding, Yuma Desalting Plant Pilot Project, Binational Intentionally Created Surplus, and the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan .....................A.3-13 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-13 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-13 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-14 Metropolitan/Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program....................................................... A.3-17 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-17 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-17 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-17 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-18 Exchange with SDCWA ................................................................................................. A.3-18 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-18 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-18 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-18 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-19 Exchange with the United States................................................................................. A.3-19 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-19 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-20 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-20 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-20 Programs Under Development..................................................................................... A.3-20 California Aqueduct Deliveries........................................................................................... A.3-21 State Water Project Deliveries ...................................................................................... A.3-21 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-21 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-21 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-21 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-22 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-22 Port Hueneme Lease of Ventura Table A ................................................................... A.3-23 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents ix
Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-23 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-23 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-23 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-23 Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District/Metropolitan Water Exchange and Advance Delivery Programs ........................................................ A.3-24 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-24 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-24 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-24 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-25 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-25 Semitropic Water Banking and Exchange Program ................................................. A.3-25 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-25 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-26 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-26 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-27 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-27 Arvin-Edison Water Management Program ............................................................... A.3-27 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-27 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-27 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-27 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-28 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-28 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Program ........................................ A.3-28 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-28 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-29 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-29 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-29 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-29 San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Program............................................... A.3-30 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-30 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-30 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-30 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-30 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-30 Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency Exchange and Storage Program........ A.3-31 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-31 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-31 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-31 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-31 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-31 High Desert Water Bank ................................................................................................ A.3-32 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-32 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-32 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-32 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-32 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
x Table of Contents
Bay-Delta Improvements .............................................................................................. A.3-32 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-32 Delta Conveyance Project................................................................................... A.3-33 California EcoRestore ............................................................................................ A.3-34 Sites Reservoir.......................................................................................................... A.3-34 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta/Voluntary Agreements ...........A.3-35 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-36 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-37 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-38 Kern-Delta Water Management Plan ......................................................................... A.3-38 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-38 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-38 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-38 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-39 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-39 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Water Transfers........................... A.3-39 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-39 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-40 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-40 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-42 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-42 Mojave Storage Program.............................................................................................. A.3-43 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-43 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-43 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-43 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-44 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-44 Yuba Accord Dry Year Purchase Program................................................................. A.3-44 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-44 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-44 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-45 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-45 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-46 2011 Coordinated Operating, Water Storage, Exchange and Delivery Agreement among Metropolitan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, and Irvine Ranch Water District................................................... A.3-46 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-46 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-46 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-46 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-46 In-Region Storage and Supplies ......................................................................................... A.3-47 Surface Storage.............................................................................................................. A.3-47 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-47 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-47 Flexible Storage Use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris............................................... A.3-49 Source of Storage................................................................................................... A.3-49 Expected Supply Capability ................................................................................. A.3-50 Rationale for the Expected Supply ...................................................................... A.3-50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents xi
Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-51 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-51 Metropolitan Surface Reservoirs .................................................................................. A.3-51 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-51 Expected Supply Capability................................................................................. A.3-51 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-51 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-53 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-53 Groundwater Conjunctive Use Program .................................................................... A.3-53 Source of Supply..................................................................................................... A.3-53 Rationale for the Expected Supply...................................................................... A.3-53 Financing................................................................................................................. A.3-55 Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals..................................................... A.3-55 Program Under Development...................................................................................... A.3-56 Regional Recycled Water Program..................................................................... A.3-56 A.4 Water Shortage Contingency Plan .................................................................................... A.4-1 Organization of this Document ............................................................................................ A.4-1 Background Information on Metropolitan.......................................................................... A.4-2 Service Area ..................................................................................................................... A.4-2 Reliability Planning........................................................................................................... A.4-5 Analysis of Water Supply Reliability ...................................................................................... A.4-7 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures.......................................... A.4-8 Steps to Approve the Annual Assessment Determination.......................................... A.4-8 Data Inputs and Assessment Methodology ....................................................................... A.4-9 Locally Applicable Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................... A.4-9 Description and Quantification of Each Source of Water Supply (Core Supplies A.4-10 State Water Project.............................................................................................................. A.4-13 Table A Contract Amount ............................................................................................ A.4-13 Article 21 Interruptible Supplies.................................................................................... A.4-13 SWP Port Hueneme Lease of Ventura Table A .......................................................... A.4-14 Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District/Metropolitan Water Exchange and Advance Delivery Programs .......................................................... A.4-14 San Gabriel Municipal Water District Program .......................................................... A.4-14 Unconstrained Demands.............................................................................................. A.4-15 Water Conditions for Current Year Available Supply Considering Current Year Conditions and One Dry Year.......................................................................... A.4-15 Infrastructure Considerations........................................................................................ A.4-16 Other Factors.................................................................................................................. A.4-18 Shortage Levels and Shortage Response Actions........................................................... A.4-19 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels............................................................................ A.4-19 Shortage Response Actions................................................................................................ A.4-19 Supply Augmentation Actions ..................................................................................... A.4-22 Storage............................................................................................................................ A.4-22 Demand Reduction Actions......................................................................................... A.4-23 WSCP Communications Plan.............................................................................................. A.4-29 Introduction .................................................................................................................... A.4-29 Collaboration ................................................................................................................. A.4-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
xii Table of Contents
Key Audiences................................................................................................................ A.4-30 Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... A.4-31 Standard Communication............................................................................................ A.4-32 Legal Authorities................................................................................................................... A.4-39 Colorado River Supplies ................................................................................................ A.4-40 State Water Supplies...................................................................................................... A.4-42 In-Region Storage and Supplies................................................................................... A.4-44 Financial Consequences of and Responses to Drought Conditions............................. A.4-45 WSCP Adoption and Refinement Procedures.................................................................. A.4-46 WSCP Public Notice and Adoption ............................................................................. A.4-46 Submission and Availability of Final 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to 2015 UWMP, and WSCP.............................................................................................. A.4-46 WSCP Reevaluation and Improvement Procedures................................................. A.4-47 A.5 Local Projects ....................................................................................................................... A.5-1 A.6 Conservation Estimates and Water Savings from Codes, Standards, and Ordinances..... A.6-1 Background............................................................................................................................. A.6-1 Metropolitan’s Conservation Estimate ................................................................................ A.6-1 Active Conservation ...................................................................................................... A.6-2 Code-Based Conservation............................................................................................ A.6-2 Stock Models................................................................................................................... A.6-3 Plumbing Code Assumptions........................................................................................ A.6-4 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ........................................................... A.6-5 Price Savings Assumptions............................................................................................. A.6-5 Un-metered Water Use Savings.................................................................................... A.6-5 A.7 Distribution System Water Losses........................................................................................ A.7-1 A.8 Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective ................................................................. A.8-1 A.9 Seismic Retrofit Assessment and Mitigation Plan.............................................................. A.9-1 Planning................................................................................................................................... A.9-2 Engineering ............................................................................................................................. A.9-2 Seismic Resilience of Structures .................................................................................... A.9-2 Seismic Resilience of Pipelines ...................................................................................... A.9-3 Dam Safety Program...................................................................................................... A.9-3 Special Seismic Assessments ......................................................................................... A.9-3 Operations............................................................................................................................... A.9-4 Reporting................................................................................................................................. A.9-4 Inter-Agency Coordination................................................................................................... A.9-4 Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Reports .......................................................................... A.9-5 A.10 Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Information.................................................................... A.10-1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... A.10-1 Water-Related Energy Use in California ............................................................................ A.10-1 Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity........................................................................................... A.10-3 Source.................................................................................................................................... A.10-4 Conveyance......................................................................................................................... A.10-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents xiii
Colorado River.............................................................................................................. A.10-4 State Water Project...................................................................................................... A.10-4 Treatment.............................................................................................................................. A.10-5 Distribution............................................................................................................................. A.10-6 Storage .................................................................................................................................. A.10-6 Metropolitan’s Annual Energy and Energy Intensity ....................................................... A.10-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. A.10-8 DWR Required Water-Energy Nexus Table: Process Approach ..................................... A.10-9 A.11 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting........................................................ A.11-1 Background .......................................................................................................................... A.11-1 Summary of Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on the Delta....................... A.11-2 Expected Outcomes for Regional Self-Reliance...................................................... A.11-3 Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on Supplies
from the Delta Watershed........................................................................................ A.11-3 Demonstration of Reduced Reliance on the Delta ........................................................ A.11-3 Baseline and Expected Outcomes............................................................................ A.11-3 Service Area Demands Without Water Use Efficiency ............................................ A.11-4 Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance...................................................... A.11-5 Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed ......................................... A.11-7 UWMP Implementation ....................................................................................................... A.11-9 2015 UWMP Appendix 11 .................................................................................................. A.11-11 A.12 DWR 2020 UWMP Submittal Tables ................................................................................... A.12-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
xiv Table of Contents
1-1 July 1, 2020 Area and Population in the Six Counties of Metropolitan’s Service Area ..1-7 1-2 Metropolitan’s Member Agencies and Type of Water Service Provided........................1-8 1-3 Member Agencies ..................................................................................................................1-9 1-4 Weather Variables in Three Zones in Metropolitan’s Service Area.................................1-16 1-5 Local Supplies for Average and Dry Years.........................................................................1-25 2-1 Metropolitan Regional Water Demands, Single Dry-Year................................................2-12 2-2 Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Drought
Lasting Five Consecutive Water Years ............................................................................2-13 2-3 Metropolitan Regional Water Demands, Normal Water Year ........................................2-14 2-4 Single Dry-Year Supply Capability and Projected Demands, Repeat of 1977 Hydrology ................................................................................................2-18 2-5 Drought Lasting Five Consecutive Water Years Supply Capability1 and Projected Demands Repeat of 1988-1992 Hydrologyy.................................................2-19 2-6 Normal Water Year Supply Capability and Projected Demands, Average of 1922-2017 Hydrologies..................................................................................2-20 2-7 Metropolitan’s Drought Risk Assessment
Water Use, Supply, and Risk Assessment for 2021 – 2025 ..............................................2-25 2-8 Schedule of Reporting and Water Supply Allocation Decision-Making........................2-34 2-9 Rate Structure Components................................................................................................2-51 2-10 Metropolitan Water Rates and Charges............................................................................2-52 2-11 Capacity Charge Detail Calendar Year 2021 ..................................................................2-53 2-12 Readiness-to-Serve Charge (by Member Agency), Calendar Year 2021.....................2-54 2-13 Purchase Order Commitments and Tier 1 Limits (by Member Agency), January 2015-December 2024 .........................................................................................2-55 3-1 Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2035 ...........................................3-12 3-2 California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2035.....................................................3-25 3-3 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and
Transfer Programs Supply Projection Year 2035..............................................................3-33 3-4 Online School Education Programs....................................................................................3-49 3-5 Metropolitan’s Conservation Credits Program..................................................................3-50 3-6 Grant Program Funding........................................................................................................3-51 3-7 Conservation Achievements in Metropolitan’s Service Area .........................................3-52 3-8 Existing and Projected Total Effluent Capacity Wastewater Treatment Plants Within Metropolitan’s Service Area..................................................................................3-58 3-9 2020 Recycled Water Use for Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Barrier Injection .................................................................................................3-60 3-10 Summary of Benefits and Challenges of Seawater Desalination Projects ....................3-69 3-11 Claude Bud Lewis Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Program Production....................3-72 3-12 Summary of FSA Funding......................................................................................................3-76 3-13 Seawater Desalination Projects Under Development
within Metropolitan’s Service Area*.................................................................................3-77 3-14 FY 2019-20 Water Production from Recycling and Groundwater Recovery.................3-77 3-15 Local Resources Program.....................................................................................................3-78 3-16 Contractual Conjunctive Groundwater Projects..............................................................3-82
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table of Contents xv
5-1 Summary of Metropolitan Board of Directors IRP Committee Meetings......................... 5-2 5-2 2020 Member Agency Participation .................................................................................... 5-6 5-3 Water Supplier Information Exchange ................................................................................. 5-8 5-4 Newspaper Publication of UWMP Public Hearing Notification....................................... 5-10 A.1-1 MWD-EDM Variables .......................................................................................................... A.1-2 A.1-2 Population Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area (July) ........................................... A.1-10 A.1-3 Urban Employment Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area (July)............................. A.1-10 A.1-4 Occupied Housing Growth in Metropolitan’s Service Area........................................ A.1-11 A.1-5 Total Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area with Conservation .................. A.1-11 A.1-6 Total Retail Municipal and Industrial Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area with Conservation.......................................................................................................... A.1-12 A.1-7 Total Retail Agricultural Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area.............................. A.1-12 A.1-8 Single Family Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area ..................................... A.1-13 A.1-9 Multi-family Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area ....................................... A.1-13 A.1-10 Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area..................................................................................... A.1-13 A.1-11 Unmetered Use in Metropolitan’s Service Area............................................................ A.1-14 A.1-12 Conservation Savings in Metropolitan’s Service Area – 1980 Base Year................... A.1-14 A.1-13 Projected Municipal and Industrial Demands by Sector............................................. A.1-14 A.2-1 Sources of Water Supply to the Metropolitan Service Area.......................................... A.2-2 A.2-2 Historical Metropolitan Water Deliveries to Member Agencies.................................... A.2-3 A.2-3 Local Storage Reservoirs in Metropolitan’s Service Area .............................................. A.2-7 A.2-4 Total Storage Capacity of Metropolitan’s Reservoirs..................................................... A.2-8 A.2-5 Priorities in Seven-Party Agreement and Water Delivery Contracts .......................... A.2-10 A.3-1 Historical Record of MWD Central Valley Water Transfers........................................... A.3-42 A.3-2 Surface Storage Utilization ............................................................................................... A.3-48 A.3-3 Estimated Water Supplies Available for Metropolitan’s Use Under the Flexible Storage Use of Castaic Lake and Lake Perris............................................................. A.3-50 A.3-4 Flexible Storage Allocations............................................................................................. A.3-51 A.3-5 Estimated Supplies Available from Metropolitan’s Surface Storage Program Capabilities..................................................................................................... A.3-52 A.3-6 Metropolitan’s In-Region Groundwater Storage Programs......................................... A.3-56 A.3-7 Colorado River Program Capabilities Years 2025 to 2045 ........................................... A.3-57 A.3-8 Colorado River Supply Characterization Year 2021-2025 Repeat of 1988-1992 Hydrologies ................................................................................ A.3-70 A.4-1 July 1, 2020 Area and Population in the Six Counties of Metropolitan’s Service Area ..................................................................................................................... A.4-3 A.4-2 Metropolitan’s Member Agencies and Type of Water Service Provided ................... A.4-4 A.4-3 Core Water Supplies......................................................................................................... A.4-11 A.4-4 Metropolitan’s Water Treatment Plants.......................................................................... A.4-16 A.4-5 Storage Stages and Response Actions.......................................................................... A.4-21 A.4-6 Supply Augmentation Actions: Flexible Supplies and Storage ................................... A.4-23 A.4-7 Demand Reduction Actions............................................................................................ A.4-24 A.4-8 Water Supply Allocation Plan Levels .............................................................................. A.4-27
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
xvi Table of Contents
A.5-1 Recycled Water Projects.................................................................................................... A.5-1 A.5-2 Groundwater Recovery Projects....................................................................................... A.5-9 A.5-3 Seawater Desalination Projects....................................................................................... A.5-12 A.6-1 Stock Models........................................................................................................................ A.6-3 A.6-2 Plumbing Code Assumptions............................................................................................. A.6-4 A.6-3 Conservation Savings ......................................................................................................... A.6-6 A.7-1 Metropolitan’s Distribution System Water Loss (AF) Calendar Year 2015 .................... A.7-2 A.7.2 Metropolitan’s Distribution System Water Loss (AF) Calendar Year 2016 .................... A.7.3 A.7.3 Metropolitan’s Distribution System Water Loss (AF) Calendar Year 2017 .................... A.7.4 A.7.4 Metropolitan’s Distribution System Water Loss (AF) Calendar Year 2018 .................... A.7.5 A.7.5 Metropolitan’s Distribution System Water Loss (AF) Calendar Year 2019 .................... A.7.6 A.10-1 Water Related Energy Use in California ......................................................................... A.10-2 A.10-2 2018 Conveyance Energy Intensity with Upstream SWP Embedded Energy............A.10-5 A.10-3 2018 Treatment Energy Intensity...................................................................................... A.10-5 A.10-4 2018 Distribution System Net Energy Intensity ................................................................ A.10-6 A.10-5 2018 Treated and Untreated Water Energy Intensity ................................................... A.10-7 A.10-6 Average Treated and Untreated Water Energy Intensity (2013 – 2018) ....................A.10-7 A.10-7 (Table O-1A for Year 2018): Water Supply Process Approach Including Upstream State Water Project Energy Use ........................................................... A.10-10 A.11-1 Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For ............................................. A.11-4 A.11-2 Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance........................................................... A.11-5 A.11-3 Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed .............................................. A.11-8 Appendix 12 – 2020 DWR UWMP Submittal Tables
Table 2-2 Plan Identification...................................................................................................... A.12-1 Table 2-3 Supplier Identification ............................................................................................... A.12-1 Table 2-4 Wholesale: Water Supplier Identification information Exchange .......................A.12-2 Table 3-1 Wholesale: Population – Current and Projected................................................... A.12-2 Table 4-1 Wholesale: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual.................A.12-2 Table 4-2 Wholesale: Use for Potable and Raw Water – Projected..................................... A.12-3 Table 4-3 Wholesale: Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable)..................................... A.12-3 Table 4-4 OPTIONAL Wholesale: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting ................A.12-3 Table 6-1 Wholesale: Groundwater Volume Pumped .......................................................... A.12-4 Table 6-3 Wholesale: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2020........................................................................................................... A.12-4 Table 6-4 Wholesale: Current and Projected Retailers Provided Recycled Water Within Service Area................................................................................... A.12-4 Table 6-5 Wholesale: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual ....................................................................................................... A.12-5 Table 6-7 Wholesale: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs.......................A.12-5 Table 6-8 Wholesale: Water Supplies – Actual........................................................................ A.12-6 Table 6-9 Wholesale: Water Supplies – Projected.................................................................. A.12-6 Table 7-1 Wholesale: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment).............................A.12-7 Table 7-2 Wholesale: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison............................... A.12-7 Table 7-3 Wholesale: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison........................... A.12-7
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table of Contents xvii
Table 7-4 Wholesale: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison ..................... A.12-8 Table 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to address Water Code Section 10635(b)............................................................................. A.12-9 Table 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels........................................................... A.12-10 Table 8-2 Demand Reduction Actions.................................................................................. A.12-10 Table 8-3 Supply Augmentation and Other Actions ........................................................... A.12-11 Table 10-1 Wholesale: Notification to Cities and Counties................................................... A.12-11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
xviii Table of Contents
ES-1 Supply Capabilities under Single Dry-Year and Multiple Dry-Year Hydrologies..........ES-10 ES-2 Drought Risk Assessment for 2021-2025............................................................................. ES-10 1-1 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California....................................................1-10 1-2 Service Area Population Growth 1970-2020 ......................................................................1-12 1-3 Average Annual Population Growth Rates in Metropolitan’s Service Area .................1-13 1-4 Retail Demand in Metropolitan’s Service Area.................................................................1-14 1-5 Climate Zones in Southern California..................................................................................1-15 1-6 Imported Water Supplies in Metropolitan’s Service Area................................................1-23 1-7 Annual Regional Water Supplies in Metropolitan’s Service Area ...................................1-23 2-1 Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, and Supply Declarations..................................2-33 2-2 Seismic Resiliency Strategy...................................................................................................2-39 3-1 California Entities Using Colorado River Water....................................................................3-4 3-2 Current and Projected Facilities of the State Water Project ...........................................3-14 3-3 Metropolitan Statewide Groundwater Banking Programs..............................................3-36 3-4 Potable Per Capita Water Use: 20% Reduction by 2020 Metropolitan’s Service Area (Calendar Year)................................................................3-84 3-5 Metropolitan’s overall electricity requirements and cost (average 2013-2018)...........3-85 3-6 CAISO’s duck curve of average net electric load for a spring day in California ........3-86 3-7 Metropolitan Emissions by Scope 2008 and 2017 .............................................................3-90 3-8 GHG Emissions Forecast and Potential Range of Emission ..............................................3-91 A.1-1 Actual and Projected Population..................................................................................... A.1-5 A.1-2 Actual and Projected Urban Employment...................................................................... A.1-6 A.1-3 Actual and Projected Households.................................................................................... A.1-7 A.1-4 Residential Housing Permits in Six-County Region........................................................... A.1-7 A.1-5 Actual and Projected Retail Water Demand.................................................................. A.1-9 A.2-1 Sources of Supply to Metropolitan’s Service Area.......................................................... A.2-4 A.2-2 Major Groundwater Basins in Metropolitan’s Service Area........................................... A.2-6 A.2-3 Recycled Water................................................................................................................... A.2-8 A.2-4 Groundwater Recovery...................................................................................................... A.2-9 A.2-5 Major Water Conveyance Facilities in California ......................................................... A.2-11 A.4-1 Sample Annual Assessment Reporting Timeline.............................................................. A.4-9 A.4-2 Metropolitan’s Service Area ............................................................................................ A.4-17 A.9-1 Seismic Resiliency Strategy................................................................................................. A.9-1 A.10-1 Water and Agricultural Related Electricity Use in California ....................................... A.10-2 A.10-2 Variations in Metropolitan Energy Use (2013-2018)....................................................... A.10-8 A.10-3 Metropolitan GHG Emissions............................................................................................ A.10-9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Terms
List of Abbreviations xix
Units of Measurement
AF Acre-Feet
AFY Acre-feet per Year
TAF Thousand Acre-Feet
MAF Million Acre-Feet
cfs Cubic feet per second
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
MGD Million gallons per Day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MW Megawatts
µg/L Micrograms per liter
ng/L Nanograms per liter
pCi/L Picocuries per liter
kWh Kilo-Watt Hour
Acronyms
AGWA Association of Ground Water Agencies
AMPAC American Pacific Corporation
AVEK Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAP
CAWCD
Climate Action Plan
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
CBM Condition-based maintenance
CCL3 Contaminant Candidate List 3
CCP Conservation Credits Program
CCWD
CDFW
Contra Costa Water District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CECs
CEQA
Constituents of Emerging Concern
California Environmental Quality Act
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPE Comprehensive Program Evaluation
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CRSS Colorado River Simulation System
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CVP Central Valley Project
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWC California Water Code
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CY Calendar Year
DAC Disadvantaged Community
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Terms
xx List of Abbreviations
D/DBP Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproduct
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
DCP Drought Contingency Plan
DDW The SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water
DFW
DLR
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Detection Level for purposes of Reporting
DMM Demand Management Measure
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DPR Direct Potable Reuse
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DSOD Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DVL Diamond Valley Lake
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWCV Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District DWR California Department of Water Resources
ECLO Existing Conveyance and Low Outflow
EDD California Employment Development Department
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ELPH Equivalent Level of Public Health Protection
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESP
ETo
FSA
FWUA
Energy Sustainability Plan
Evapotranspiration
Future Supply Actions
Friant Water Users Authority
FY Fiscal Year
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GRP Groundwater Recovery Program
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washer
HET High Efficiency Toilet
HTC Hyatt/Thermalito Complex
ICP Innovative Conservation Program
ICS Intentionally Created Surplus
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IID Imperial Irrigation District
IPR Indirect Potable Reuse
IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan
IRPSIM Integrated Water Resources Plan Simulation Model JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
LAA Los Angeles Aqueduct
LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LRP Local Resources Program
M&I Municipal & Industrial
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Terms
List of Abbreviations xxi
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MFR Multi-family Residential
MLPA Marine Life Protected Area
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD-EDM Metropolitan’s Econometric Demand Model
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
MWQI Municipal Water Quality Investigations
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERT Nevada Environmental Response Trust
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services
OCWD Orange County Water District
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OMP&R Operation, Maintenance, Power and Replacement
PFAS
PFBS
PFOA
PFOS
PG&E
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Pacific Gas & Electric
PHG Public Health Goal
polyDADMAC polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride
PPCP Pharmaceutical/Personal Care Product
PPRs Present Perfected Rights
PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District
QMCP Quagga Mussel Control Program
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RDM Robust Decision Making
RPAs Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives
RRWP
RTP-12
Regional Recycled Water Program
2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy
RTS Readiness-to-Serve Charge
RWA Raw Water Augmentation
SAF
SANDAG
San Andreas Fault
San Diego Association of Governments
SAR System Access Rate
SARI Line Santa Ana Regional Interceptor Line
SB X7-7 Senate Bill X7-7, Water Conservation Act of 2009 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCWC Southern California Water Coalition
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SDP Seawater Desalination Program
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Terms
xxii List of Abbreviations
Series 13 SANDAG Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast SFR Single-Family Residential Model
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority
SPR System Power Rate
SRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
SRWSTF Seismic Resilience Water Supply Task Force
SWC State Water Contractors
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TVMWD Three Valleys Municipal Water District
UCMR2 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 2
USBR U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan
WSCP
WSDM Plan
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan
WSR Water Stewardship Rate
WUCA Water Utility Climate Alliance
WUE Water Use Efficiency
YCWA Yuba County Water Agency
Phrases
2015 IRP Update 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Water Tomorrow Act
Annual Assessments
Urban Water Management Planning Act
Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
Arvin-Edison Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
Bank
Bay-Delta
Governor’s Water Bank
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
California Plan California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan Conservancy Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
Council Delta Stewardship Council
Delta Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta
Forum Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Kern Delta Kern Delta Water District
Metropolitan The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD Act Metropolitan Water District Act
Plan
Policy
Urban Water Management Plan
State Recycled Water Policy
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Terms
List of Abbreviations xxiii
Regional Board Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sanitation Districts Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Science Board Delta Independent Science Board
Semitropic Semitropic Water Storage District
Summary of Compliance
xxiv Summary of Compliance
SB X7-7
Water Code § 10608.36 –
Assessment of Measures,
Programs, and Policies
Assess present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve water use reduction targets
Metropolitan’s actions to help achieve the urban per capita water use reduction pursuant to the goals set forth in SB X7-7 are discussed in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7.
Agency Coordination
Water Code § 10610.2(a)(4) Water suppliers should collaborate closely with local land-use authorities to ensure water demand forecasts are consistent with current land-use planning.
• See Sections 2 and 5 and Appendix 1.
Water Code § 10620(d)(2) –
Develop Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Each urban water supplier shall develop its own water shortage contingency plan.
• See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4.
Water Code § 10620(d)(3) –
Coordination with Appropriate
Agencies
Describe the coordination of the plan preparation.
See Section 5.
Water Code § 10620(f) – Describe
Resource Maximization/Import
Minimization Plan
Discuss how water management tools and options are used to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water. Metropolitan’s planning strategy within the IRP and adaptive implementation approach are discussed in Section 2 and provide an overview of the water management tools and options. See pages 2-2 through 2-6.
Further details are provided in Sections 1.4 (conservation and local resources, pages 1-25 through 1-27), 3.4 (demand management and conservation, pages 3-37 through 3-55), and 3.5 (recycling, groundwater recovery, and desalination, pages 3-56 through 3-78.) Water Code § 10621(b) – City and
County Notification and
Participation
Notify any city or county within service area of Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) review & revision at least 60 days before public hearing. May consult with and obtain comments from notified cities and counties.
Notification and participation are discussed in Section 5, pages 5-1 through 5-10, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 10-1.
Water Code § 10621(f) – Plan
Submittal to Department of Water
Resources (DWR)
Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021
Submission of the 2020 UWMP by the July 1, 2021 deadline is detailed in Section 5.
Contents of UWMP
Water Code § 10630.5 – Simple
Lay Description
Include a simple lay description of how much water the agency has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the foreseeable future, the agency’s strategy for meeting its water needs, the challenges the agency faces, and any other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the plan.
The Simple Lay Description is contained in the Executive Summary.
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxv
Water Code § 10631(a) – Service
Area Information
Describe service area of supplier
Service area is discussed in Section 1.2, pages 1-6 through 1-10 and shown in Figure 1-1.
Include current and projected population
Population is discussed in Section 1.3 and shown in Table 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3.
Population analysis is discussed in Appendix 1, page A.1-5.
Projections are on page A.1-10, Table A.1-2.
Current and projected population are shown in Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 3-1.
Population projections must be based on data from state, regional or local service agency projections
See footnote Table A.1-2, page A.1-10.
Describe climate characteristics that affect water management See Section 1.3, pages I-14 through I-16, Figure 1-5, and Table 1-4, and Section 2.6, pages 2-43 through 2-48.
Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting water management
See Section 1.3, pages 1-12 through 1-14 and Appendix 1.
Describe current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information. See methodologies and assumptions for developing projections of demand and water use in Section 2.2.
Water Code § 10631(b)(1-3) –
Water Sources
Identify and quantify existing and planned water supply sources in 5-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available Current supplies and quantities are described in Section 1.4, pages 1-21 through 1-30.
Historic and current water supplies are described in Appendix 2. Planned water supplies and quantities are discussed in Section 2, and details are provided in Appendix 3, and particularly in Table A.3-7, pages A.3-58 through A.3-70.
See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Tables 6-8 and 6-9.
Detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least 5 years, as well as more frequent and severe drought periods (as described in the drought risk assessment). For each water supply source, consider any information pertinent to the Section 10635 reliability analysis, including climate change.
See Section 2, Tables 2-4 through 2-7, pages 2-18 through 2-25. See Section 2.2 (estimating demand on Metropolitan) page 2-9, See Section 2.3 (water reliability assessment), pages 2-15 through 2-20, Section 2.4 (drought risk assessment), pages 2-21 through 2-25, Section 2.6 (other supply reliability risks), pages 2-43 through 2-48, and the discussions presented under the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP), Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
See Section 3 and Appendices 3 and 5
See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5.
Summary of Compliance
xxvi Summary of Compliance
Describe the management of each supply source in correlation with the other supplies.
See Section 3 and Appendix 3.
Describe the measures being taken to acquire and develop planned water supply sources.
See Section 3 and Appendix 3.
Water Code § 10631(b)(4) – If
Groundwater Identified as Existing
or Planned Source
Metropolitan does not supply groundwater. However, Metropolitan partners with various entities for groundwater storage and exchange programs.
See Sections 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6; Appendix 2 (pages A.2-4 through A.2-5, A.2-8 through A.2-9, A.2-15); and Appendix 3 (pages A.3-25 through A.3-28, A.3-31 through A.3-32, A.3-53 through A.3-55) for discussions of issues related to groundwater basins.
See Section 4 for salinity issues related to groundwater basins.
Water Code § 10631(c) – Transfer
or Exchange Opportunities
Describe short-term and long-term exchange or transfer opportunities Section 1.4 (augmenting water supplies), pages 1-27 through 1-28. Section 3.1 (pages 3-3 through 3-12) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities along the Colorado River and Aqueduct.
Section 3.2 (pages 3-13 through 3-30) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the State Water Project. Section 3.3 (pages 3-31 through 3-36) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the Central Valley/State Water Project.
Section 3.6 (pages 3-79 through 3-82) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the local region. Further details are provided in Appendix 3, particularly Table A.3-7 on pages A.3-58 through A.3-70.
Water Code §§ 10631(d)(1) and
(2) – Past, Current, and Projected
Water Use
Urban retail water suppliers are to quantify past, current, and projected water use by sector in five-year increments
Not applicable to Metropolitan (which is a wholesaler) because this reporting requirement applies only to urban retail water suppliers.
However, Metropolitan voluntarily provides this information in the following Sections:
See Section 1.3, page 1-13 and Figure 1-4 for historical retail water demands.
Past, current, and future water uses are shown in Appendix 1, Table A.1-13 on page A.1-14. Water uses by sector and county are shown in Tables A.1-6 through A.1-11 on pages A.1-13 through A.1-15.
Water demands by sector are shown in Appendix 12 DWR Submittal Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.
Identify and quantify sales to other agencies
See Section 1.3, page 1-13 and Figure 1-4 for historical retail water demands.
Historic sales are presented in Table A.2-2 on page A.2-3. Metropolitan does not project sales by individual agency.
However, total projected sales/demands to other agencies are shown in Section 2.2, pages 2-7 through 2-14.
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxvii
Water Code §§ 10631(d)(1)(J),
(d)(3)(A)-(C) – Distribution System
Water Loss
Urban retail water suppliers are to quantify distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years before the plan update
Not applicable to Metropolitan (which is a wholesaler) because this reporting requirement applies only to urban retail water suppliers.
However, Metropolitan voluntarily provides this information in the following Sections:
Section 2.6, page 2-43, Appendix 7, Tables A.7-1 to A.7-5, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 4-4 (Optional for Wholesaler).
Water Code § 10631(d)(4)(A) and
(B) – Water Savings Estimate
Water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans
Provide citations to the codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans used to make projections
Indicate extent that water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. See discussion on estimating demands and code-based
conservation in Section 2, page 2-9 and Appendix 6.
Water Code § 10631(e)(2) –
Description of Supplier’s Water
Demand Management Measures,
Distribution System Asset
Management, Assistance
Programs
Provide narrative description of items in §10631(e)(1)(B)(ii), (iv), (vi), and (vii), distribution system asset management, and wholesale supplier assistance programs
See discussion on metering, Section 3.4, page 3-47.
See discussion on public education and outreach, Section 3.4, pages 3-38 through 3-43.
See discussion on water conservation programs, Section 3.4, pages 3-44 through 3-46.
See discussion on demand management and conservation, Section 3.4, pages 3-37 through 3-52.
See discussion on distribution system asset management, Section 3.4, pages 3-53 through 3-55.
See discussion on assistance programs to retail water agencies (rebate programs, public education and outreach, and other efforts to reduce water demand), Section 3.4, pages 3-37 through 3-52.
Water Code § 10631(f) – Planned
Water Supply Projects and
Programs
Detailed description of expected future supply projects & programs to meet projected water use
Timeline for each proposed project or program
Quantification of each project’s normal water year yield (AFY) Quantification of each project’s single dry-year water year yield (AFY) Quantification of each project’s 5-year drought yield (AFY) Section 3.1 (pages 3-3 through 3-12) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities along the Colorado River and Aqueduct.
Section 3.2 (pages 3-13 through 3-30) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the State Water Project. Section 3.3 (pages 3-31 through 3-36) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the Central Valley/State Water Project.
Section 3.6 (pages 3-79 through 3-82) describes plans for banking, exchange and transfer opportunities within the local region. Further details are provided in Appendix 3, particularly Table A.3-7 on pages A.3-58 through A.3-70.
See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 6-7.
Summary of Compliance
xxviii Summary of Compliance
Water Code § 10631(g) –
Opportunities for Development of
Desalinated Water
Describe opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply
See discussion on groundwater recovery and seawater desalination in Section 1.4, pages 1-24 through 1-26, and Section 3.5, pages 3-56 through 3-73.
See Appendix 5, Table A.5-2 on pages A.5-9 through A.5-11 for a list of existing, under construction, CEQA, and conceptual
groundwater recovery projects and their ultimate yield/capacity. See Appendix 5, Table A.5-3 on page A.5-12 for a list of existing, CEQA, and conceptual seawater desalination projects.
Water Code § 10631(h) – If
Supplier Relies on a Wholesale
Supplier for Water
Urban water suppliers that rely on wholesale agency for water source must provide wholesale agency with water use projections in 5-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. Wholesaler to provide urban water suppliers with existing and planned water supply availability projections, by source, and planned water supply quantities over same 5-year increments and during various water-year types. See discussions on Metropolitan and member agency coordination for the IRP Process in Sections 2 and 5.
See Appendix 3, Table A.3-7, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 2-4.
Water Code § 10631.1 – Projected
Water Use for Low-Income
Housing
Water use projections for single-family and multi-family residential housing for lower income households.
This is incorporated with the retail demand forecast, as reflected in Section 2 and Appendix 1.
Water Code § 10631.2 –
Calculation or Estimation of
Energy Intensity of Urban Water
Systems
Must include any of the following that the supplier can readily obtain:
estimated amount of energy for extraction or diversion (from sources), conveyance, treatment, distribution, treated water supplies compared to nontreated water supplies, and storage of water, and any other appropriate energy-related information.
Estimate of the amount of energy used and energy intensity is presented in Appendix 10.
See Section 3.8 for discussion of Metropolitan’s Energy Management Initiative.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Water Code § 10632 – Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
Water Code § 10632(a)(1) –
Analysis of Water Supply
Reliability
Every supplier shall prepare and adopt a water shortage contingency plan as part of its Plan.
Water shortage contingency plan must include the analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to Section 10635. See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4
For Water Supply Reliability assessments
See Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxix
Water Code § 10632(a)(2) –
Procedures Used to Conduct
Annual Water Supply and
Demand Assessment
Written decision-making process used each year to determine water supply reliability.
Key data inputs and assessment methodology to evaluate water supply reliability for current year and one dry year, including: (i) current year unconstrained demand, (ii) current year available supply, (iii) existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints, (iv) locally applicable evaluation criteria used for each annual water supply and demand assessment, and (v) description and quantification of each water supply source.
See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4
Water Code § 10632(a)(3)(A) – Six
Standard Water Shortage Levels
Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% shortages and greater than 50% shortage.
Shortage levels shall be defined based on the suppliers’ water supply conditions, including percentage reductions in water supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation or level of subsidence, or other changes in hydrological or other conditions indicative of available water supply.
Shortage levels also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including regional power outage, earthquake, Delta levee failure, and aqueduct failure.
See discussion of Water Shortage Contingency Plan in Section 2.5 and Appendix 4, including description of Metropolitan’s Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan and Water Supply
Allocation Plan.
See discussion of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective developed under its catastrophic supply interruption plan in Section 2.5 and Appendix 8.
See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Tables 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 Water Code § 10632(a)(4) –
Shortage Response Actions
Shortage response actions that align with the shortage levels and include: (i) supply augmentation actions, (ii) demand reduction actions, (iii) operational changes, (iv) mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices, and (v) estimated extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by each action. See discussion of Water Shortage Contingency Plan in Section 2.5 and Appendix 4, including description of Metropolitan’s Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan and Water Supply
Allocation Plan.
See discussion of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective developed under its catastrophic supply interruption plan in Section 2.5 and Appendix 8.
See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Tables 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3.
Water Code § 10632(a)(5) –
Communication Protocols and
Procedures
Communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and governments regarding: (i) any current or predicted shortages, (ii) any shortage response actions triggered or expected to be triggered, and (iii) any other relevant communications. See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4.
Water Code § 10632(a)(6) –
Customer Compliance,
Enforcement, Appeal, and
Exemption Procedures
For an urban retail water supplier, customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered shortage response actions.
Not applicable to Metropolitan as a wholesaler.
Summary of Compliance
xxx Summary of Compliance
Water Code § 10632(a)(7) – Legal
Authorities
Describe legal authorities that empower supplier to implement shortage response actions.
Statement that supplier will declare a water shortage emergency in compliance with Chapter 3 (Water Code §§ 350-359 re Water Shortage Emergencies).
Statement that supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it supplies water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency.
See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4.
Water Code § 10632(a)(8) –
Financial Consequences
Describe financial consequences of and responses for drought conditions.
Describe potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with shortage response actions, and mitigation actions to address such reductions and increases.
Describe cost of compliance with Chapter 3.3 (Water Code §§ 365-367 re Excessive Water Use During Drought).
See Sections 2.5 and 2.7, page 2-27, and Appendix 4.
Water Code § 10632(a)(9) –
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements and Procedures for
Customer Compliance and State
Reporting
For an urban retail water supplier, monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures for monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements.
Not applicable to Metropolitan as a wholesaler.
Water Code § 10632(a)(10) –
Reevaluation and Improvement
Procedures
Reevaluation and improvement procedures for systematically monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the water shortage contingency plan.
See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4.
Water Code § 10632(b) – Water
Features
Analyze and define water features artificially supplied with water separately from swimming pools and spas when developing water shortage contingency plan
Not applicable to Metropolitan because prohibitions against specific water use practices are enforced on end users and are not within Metropolitan’s authority as a wholesaler.
Water Code § 10632(c) – Plan
Availability
Water shortage contingency plan shall be available to customers and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies no later than 30 days after adoption of the plan.
• Posting of water shortage contingency plan on Metropolitan’s website and provision of water shortage contingency plan to cities and counties are described in Section 5.
Water Code § 10632.5 – Seismic
Risk Assessment and Mitigation
Plan
Include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.
See Section 2.5 and Appendix 9.
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxxi
Recycled Water Plan
Water Code § 10633 – Recycled
Water as Potential Water Source;
Agency Coordination
Provide information, to the extent available, on recycled water and its potential as a water source in the supplier’s service area.
Coordinate plan preparation with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies within supplier’s service area. See Section 1.4, pages 1-24 through 1-30, Section 3.5, pages 3-56 through 3-78, Tables 3-12 and 3-13 on pages 3-76 through 3-77, Appendix 2, pages A.2-8 through A.2-9, and Appendix 5,
Table A.5-1.
Coordination of the plan preparation is discussed in Section 5.
Water Code § 10633(a) –
Wastewater System Description
Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier's service area
Quantify the volume of wastewater collected and treated Not applicable to Metropolitan because it does not collect or treat the wastewater generated within its service area. Instead, Metropolitan provides a general narrative description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems operated by others in its service area.
See Section 3.5, pages 3-57 through 3-78, Table 3-8 on page 3-57, Tables 3-12 and 3-13 on pages 3-76 through 3-77, Appendix 2, pages A.2-8 through A.2-9, and Appendix 5, Table A.5-1.
Water Code § 10633(a) through
(d) – Wastewater Disposal and
Recycled Water Uses
Describes methods of wastewater disposal in the supplier’s service area Not applicable to Metropolitan because it does not dispose of wastewater within its service area. Instead, Metropolitan provides a general narrative description of wastewater disposal by others in its service area.
See Section 3.5, pages 3-57 through 3-78.
Describe quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.
Not applicable to Metropolitan because it does not treat or discharge recycled water. Instead, Metropolitan provides a general narrative description of the treatment and discharge of recycled water by others in its service area.
See Section 3.5, pages 3-57 through 3-78.
Describe the current type, place and quantity of use of recycled water in supplier’s service area
Describe and quantify potential uses of recycled water
Determination of technical and economic feasibility of serving the potential uses
Not applicable to Metropolitan because it does not use recycled water in its service area. Instead, Metropolitan provides a general narrative description of the use of recycled water by others in its service area, including potential uses and the technical and economic feasibility of serving the potential uses of recycled water See Section 3.5, pages 3-56 through 3-78, Section 4, pages 4-6 through 4-7, Appendix 2, pages A.2-8 through A.2-9, and Table A.5-1.
Summary of Compliance
xxxii Summary of Compliance
Water Code § 10633(e) –
Projected Uses of Recycled Water
Projected use of recycled water in service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years
See Section 2, Tables 2-1 through Table 2-3, pages 2-12 through 2-14 and Section 3.5.
Compare UWMP 2015 projections with UWMP 2020 actual use of recycled water
The 2015 UWMP, Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 included the following projections for recycled water use in 2020 (without the Santa Ana River baseflow): 436 TAF for a single dry year; 427 TAF for a multiple dry year; and 436 TAF for an average year. In 2020, actual recycled water use is estimated at 441 TAF, as discussed in Table 3-14 on page 3-77 and Appendix 2, page A.2-8 of this 2020 UWMP. See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 6-5.
Water Code §§ 10633(f), (g) –
Actions to Encourage Use of
Recycled Water
Plan to Optimize Use of Recycled
Water
Describe actions, including financial incentives, that might be taken to encourage recycled water uses
Describe projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year
Provide a plan to optimize the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area
Metropolitan provides a general narrative description of the actions it takes to encourage recycled water uses in its service area See Section 1.4, pages 1-24 through 1-25, 1-27, Table 1-5, Section 3.5, pages 3-56 through 3-78, Tables 3-12 and 3-13 on pages 3-76 and 3-77, and Appendix 5, Table A.5-1.
Water Quality Impacts on Reliability
Water Code § 10634 – Water
Quality Impacts on Availability
and Reliability of Supply
Discuss water quality of existing sources in 5-year increments to 20 years and how water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability
See Section 3.2, SWP Water Quality, pages 3-25 through 3-27, 3-29. See Section 4, Water Quality, pages 4-1 through 4-21.
Water Service Reliability
Water Code § 10635(a) – Supply
and Demand Comparison:
Normal Water Year
Compare the projected normal water supply to projected normal water use over the next 20 years, in 5-year increments.
For projected water use, see Section 2, Table 2-3, page 2-14. For projected water supply, see Table 2-6, page 2-19 and Table A.3-7 in Appendix 3, pages A.3-58 through A.3-70, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 7-2.
Water Code § 10635(a) – Supply
and Demand Comparison: SingleDry Year Scenario
Compare the projected single-dry year water supply to projected single-dry year water use over the next 20 years, in 5-year increments. For projected water use, see Section 2, Table 2-1, page 2-12. For projected water supply, see Table 2-4, page 2-17 and Table A.3-7 in Appendix 3, pages A.3-59 through A.3-70, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 7-3.
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxxiii
Water Code § 10635(a) – Supply
and Demand Comparison: 5-Year
Drought Scenario
Project a 5-year drought period occurring between 2021-2025 and compare projected supply and demand during those years
Project a 5-year drought period occurring between 2026-2030 and compare projected supply and demand during those years
Project a 5-year drought period occurring between 2031-2035 and compare projected supply and demand during those years
Project a 5-year drought period occurring between 2036-2040 and compare projected supply and demand during those years
Metropolitan has projected 5-year periods for the next 20 years. For projected water use, see Section 2, Table 2-2, page 2-13. For projected water supply, see Table 2-5, page 2-18 and Table A.3-7 in Appendix 3, pages A.3-58 through A.3-70. See Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 7-4.
Water Code § 10635(b) – Drought
Risk Assessment
Include a drought risk assessment for water service to customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the Plan.
See Section 2.4.
Water Code § 10635(b)(1) – Data,
Methodology, and Basis
Describe the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a 5-year drought, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted.
See Sections 2.1 and 2.4, and Appendices 1 and 3, specifically Table A.3-8.
Water Code § 10635(b)(2) –
Reliability of Each Supply Source
Determine the reliability of each supply source under a variety of water shortage conditions.
See Section 2.3, specifically Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6, and Appendix 3, specifically Tables A.3-7 and A.3-8.
Water Code § 10635(b)(3) –
Comparison of Total Water Supply
Sources to Total Projected Water
Use
Compare the total water supply sources available with the total projected water use for the drought period.
See Section 2.3, specifically Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6.
Water Code § 10635(b)(4) –
Historical Drought Hydrology,
Projected Supply and Demand
Changes Due to Climate Change,
Regulatory Changes, and Other
Criteria
Consider historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria. See Sections 1.4, 2.6, 4, and Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Water Code § 10635(c) – Plan
Submittal to Cities and Counties
Supplier to provide portion of Plan on water service reliability to cities and counties within its service area no later than 60 days after Plan submittal.
Provision of Plan to cities and counties is described in Section 5.
Water Code § 10640 – Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
Supplier to prepare a water shortage contingency plan pursuant to Section 10632, periodically review the water shortage contingency plan, and adopt any amendments or changes.
See Section 2.5 and Appendix 4.
Summary of Compliance
xxxiv Summary of Compliance
Water Code § 10641 –
Consultations with public agency,
state agency or experts
Supplier may consult with and obtain comments from any public agency, state agency, or any person with special expertise as to water demand management methods and techniques
Stakeholder, state agency, public agency, and expert
participation, consultation, outreach, comments, and notification are described in Section 5.
Water Code § 10642 – Public
Hearing; Notice; Adoption
Encourage involvement of diverse social, cultural & economic community groups prior to and during Plan and water shortage contingency plan preparation
See Section 5, pages 5-1 through 5-12.
Prior to adoption, Plan and water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and hold public hearing
See Section 5, pages 5-5 and 5-12.
Provide proof of public hearing and notice
See Section 5, page 5-11.
Provide meeting notice to any city or county in service area See Section 5, pages 5-8 and 5-11, and Appendix 12, DWR Submittal Table 10-1.
Provide notice pursuant to Chapter 17.5 of the Government Code See Section 5, page 5-12.
After hearing, Plan and water shortage contingency plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after hearing.
See Section 5, pages 5-13 and 5-15.
Water Code §§ 10615, 10643 –
Plan Implementation
Include in Plan strategy and time schedule for implementation Implement Plan in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Plan Metropolitan has conducted a review of its planning progress through the 2020 IRP Update, discussed in Section 2. In addition, in each section, Metropolitan has included an "Achievement to Date" that discusses progress towards its planning goals, current issues, and potential problems with continued implementation of the Plan. Section 3 summarizes the implementation plan and continued progress in developing a diversified resource mix consistent with the IRP to meet the region’s water supply needs
DMM Programs
Metropolitan’s conservation plan and approach are discussed in Section 3.4. Individual conservation programs are discussed on pages 3-44 through 3-48.
Water Code § 10644(a)(1) –Plan
Submittal
Submit to DWR, the California State Library, and any city or county within service area copy of Plan no later than 30 days after adoption. Plan submission is described in Section 5.
Water Code § 10644(a)(2) – Plan
shall include any Standardized
Forms, Tables, or Displays
specified by DWR
Submit Plan electronically
Include in Plan DWR’s standardized forms, tables, or displays Plan submission is described in Section 5.
DWR’s standardized tables for wholesale urban water agencies are completed and presented in Appendix 12.
Water Code § 10644(b) – Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
Revision
Submit copy of revised water shortage contingency plan to DWR no later than 30 days after adoption.
Plan submission is described in Section 5 and Appendix 4.
Summary of Compliance
Summary of Compliance xxxv
Water Code § 10645 – Plan and
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Available for Public Review
No later than 30 days after plan submittal, the supplier and DWR to make the Plan and water shortage contingency plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Posting of Plan and water shortage contingency plan on Metropolitan’s website for public review is described in Section 5. xxxvi Summary of Compliance
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary and
Simple Lay Description of 2020 UWMP Findings
Executive Summary ES-1
Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has been prepared in compliance with the California Water Code (CWC)1. This Executive Summary satisfies the requirement of CWC Section 10630.5 to include a simple lay description of information necessary to provide a general understanding of the plan, including a description of Metropolitan’s reliable water, as well as its needs, strategies, and potential challenges for the foreseeable future.
This plan provides an assessment of Metropolitan’s water service reliability, describes and evaluates sources of water supply, efficient uses of water, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs. In addition to the water reliability assessments, the plan includes an evaluation of frequent and severe periods of droughts, as described in the Drought Risk Assessment, and the preparation and adoption of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP was developed as part of the 2020 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) planning process and provides a representation of Metropolitan’s planning elements reported under the conditions required by the Act. The IRP represents Metropolitan’s comprehensive planning process and will serve as Metropolitan’s blueprint for long-term water reliability, including key supply development and water use efficiency goals. Together, these plans serve as the reliability roadmap for the region. The planning process involved extensive coordination with Southern California’s water agencies, municipal service providers, and public planning agencies. Metropolitan’s Board of Directors provided oversight throughout the ongoing process for the development of the 2020 IRP that informed the preparation of the 2020 UWMP.
Metropolitan’s outreach efforts sought to engage the general public, businesses, environmental organizations, diverse communities, cities, counties, and other stakeholders with an interest in the future of Southern California’s water supplies. The information included in the 2020 UWMP represents the most current and available planning projections of supply capability and demand forecasts developed through a collaborative process with the member agencies.
As with Metropolitan’s previous plans, the 2020 UWMP does not explicitly discuss specific activities undertaken by its member agencies unless they relate to one of Metropolitan’s water demand or supply management programs. Presumably, each member agency will discuss these activities in its UWMP.
Factors Considered for Metropolitan’s Water Reliability Assessments for the UWMP The Act requires reporting agencies to describe their water service reliability under the conditions associated with a normal water year, single dry-year, and droughts lasting at least five consecutive water years, with projected information in five-year increments for 20 years. The factors used to evaluate Metropolitan’s supply and demand balance for the 2020 UWMP are 1 This UWMP complies with the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which was added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, became effective on January 1, 1984, and currently includes CWC Sections 10610 through 10657; and with CWC Section 10608.36 which was added by SB X7-7 in 2009.
ES-2 Executive Summary
presented below. Some of the considerations and resulting projections may change as Metropolitan’s planning progresses. These changes may be reflected in future updates of the UWMP. Metropolitan and its member agencies have engaged in a comprehensive regional planning process called the IRP since the 1990s. In its 2020 IRP process, Metropolitan and its member agencies are using a scenario planning approach to identify and account for the broad range of uncertainty that the region faces in its water supplies and demands. Instead of focusing on a target for future water supply needs based on a single projected outcome of supplies and demands, this approach encouraged broader thinking and discussion of possible future conditions for local and imported water supply and retail demand, and the policy implications for Metropolitan and its service area. Adaptive management during implementation will allow flexibility in how the region prepares for the supply and demand conditions as they evolve through the future. The scenario planning in the 2020 IRP started with identifying the major drivers of change that impact water supply and demand for the region, understanding how they interact, and then assessing the potential scale of impact in the future. Data sources and quantification methods were identified that could be used for quantitative and qualitative analysis of the drivers and their impact on water supplies and demands. The detailed analyses of future local and imported water supplies; economic growth, demographics and water demands; and changing hydrology were incorporated into the UWMP. The IRP planning effort and policy discussions continued into 2021.
Hydrologic Conditions and Reporting Period
The 2020 UWMP presents Metropolitan’s water reliability assessments from 2025 through 2045. As specified in the Act, there are three water-year types that must be included in the water service reliability assessment for the UWMP. To simulate hydrologic conditions for the required reliability assessments, Metropolitan assumed the following:
• Normal Year. The average of historic years 1922 to 2017 most closely represents the water supply conditions that Metropolitan considers available during a normal water year. • Single Dry Year. The conditions for the year 1977 represent the lowest total water supply available to Metropolitan.
• Five-Consecutive-Year Drought. The five consecutive years of 1988 to 1992 represent the driest five-consecutive year historical sequence for Metropolitan’s water supply. This five-year sequence is used to complete both Metropolitan’s water service reliability and drought risk assessments.
Metropolitan developed and evaluated estimates of future demands and supplies from local sources and from Metropolitan sources based on a record of 96 years (1922-2017) of historic hydrology. Supply and demand analyses for the single dry year and droughts lasting at least five consecutive water years were based on conditions affecting the watershed and supplies from the SWP, as this supply availability fluctuates the most among Metropolitan’s sources of supply.
Using the same 96-year period of the SWP supply availability, 1977 is determined to be the single driest year and 1988-92 is the driest 5-year historical sequence that represents the lowest water supply available for SWP supplies to Metropolitan. In addition, staff analysis of the 8-river index, an indicator of river flow and runoff in the SWP watershed, indicated that 1977 is the single driest year and 1988-92 is the lowest 5 consecutive dry years from 1922 through 2017. The 8-river index is used by DWR and other water agencies as an estimate of the unimpaired runoff (or natural water production) of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which are sources of water for the SWP.
Executive Summary ES-3
Demand Projections
Within Metropolitan’s service area, retail water demands can be met with local supplies or imported supplies. In the UWMP, Metropolitan’s supply reliability assessments focus on the future demands for Metropolitan’s imported and other supplies. The expected firm demand on Metropolitan is the difference between total demands, adjusted for conservation, and projected total local supplies. Thus, in order to project the regional need for water, Metropolitan starts with a projection of total demand including retail Municipal and Industrial (M&I), retail agricultural, seawater barrier, and replenishment demands, determines the adjustments from total conservation, and subtracts the total local supplies that are available to meet a portion of those demands.
Total Demands
Demographic growth is a major driver of the current and future retail M&I water demand.
Metropolitan updates its retail M&I projection periodically based on the release of official regional demographic and economic projections, and in the 2020 IRP, alternative demographic projections are being evaluated. The projections of retail M&I water demands used in the 2020 UWMP are based on demographic data and projections taken from the following reports:
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (May 2020) • San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (October 2019)
The SCAG and SANDAG regional growth forecasts are the core assumptions for the retail M&I demand forecasts for the UWMP assessments. These forecasts drive the estimating equations of the retail demand forecasting in Metropolitan’s Econometric Demand Model (MWD-EDM).
Both SCAG and SANDAG prepare demographic forecasts based on land use data for their respective regions through extensive processes that emphasize input from local planners and are done in coordination with local or regional land use authorities, incorporating essential information to reflect anticipated future populations and land uses. SCAG’s and SANDAG’s projections undergo extensive local review, incorporate zoning information from city and county general plans, and are supported by Environmental Impact Reports.
Retail agricultural demands consist of retail level water use for irrigating crops. Metropolitan’s member agencies estimate agricultural water use based on many factors, including farm acreage, crop types, historical water use, and land use conversion. Each member agency estimates its agricultural demands differently, depending on availability of information.
Metropolitan relies on member agencies’ estimates of agricultural demands for the 2020 UWMP.
Metropolitan also includes in its assessment of total demands the local groundwater requirements for seawater barrier and groundwater basin replenishment. Seawater barrier demands represent the amount of water needed to hold back seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater basins. Replenishment demands represent the amount of water that member agencies plan to use to replenish the groundwater basins and augment natural replenishment from precipitation.
Metropolitan relies on member agencies’ and groundwater management agencies’ projections for these demands, as well as projections of local supplies that are also used to meet these demands.
Total Conservation
Projected regional water demand is adjusted to account for water conserved by best management practices from active, code-based, and price-effect conservation. Active ES-4 Executive Summary
conservation levels are derived by calculating water savings from all active program devicebased savings installed to date. Code-based conservation levels are derived by calculating water savings from devices covered by existing water conservation ordinances and plumbing codes, including the state Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, with replacement and new construction rates driven by demographic growth consistent with SCAG and SANDAG land use and transportation plans used to derive retail demand. Price-effect conservation is derived by calculating water savings by retail customers attributable to the effect of changes in the real (inflation adjusted) price of water.
Total Local Supplies
Projections of local supplies are based on information gathered from Metropolitan’s annual local production surveys and communications between Metropolitan and member agency staff. The projections include groundwater and surface water production, recycled water and recovery of contaminated or degraded groundwater (funded under the Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program, as well as local agency funded programs), and seawater desalination. The local supply projections presented in demand tables for the 2020 UWMP are consistent with the local supply projections reported in member agencies’ UWMPs, with one variation being the Colorado River water SDCWA exchanges with Metropolitan for deliveries of blended Metropolitan water.
The total local supplies presented in the 2020 UWMP also include projections of Los Angeles Aqueduct deliveries from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).
Water Use Reduction Achievement in 2020
On November 10, 2009, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session, referred to as SB X7-7 or the Water Conservation Act of 2009. This law is the water conservation component to the historic Delta legislative package, and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. According to CWC Section 10608.36, wholesale agencies are required to include in their UWMPs an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies that would help achieve the water use reductions required under SB X7-7. Urban wholesale water suppliers are not required to comply with the target-setting and reporting requirements of SB X7-7.
As a wholesale water agency, Metropolitan is not required to establish or report on an urban water use reduction target. However, Metropolitan’s regional conservation programs and local resource programs are designed to assist member agencies and retail water suppliers in the service area to comply with SB X7-7. Therefore, Metropolitan monitors the progress of its service area. Also, in compliance with SB X7-7, Metropolitan assesses its actions, programs, and policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by SB X7-7.
Based on an analysis of population, demand, and the methodologies for setting targets described in the legislation, Metropolitan’s baseline per capita water use is 182 GPCD, and the 2020 reduction target is 146 GPCD. From 2011 to 2014, there was a slight increase in per capita water use explained in part by continued economic recovery and drier weather as compared to previous years. With mandatory restrictions from the state and implementation of Metropolitan’s Water Supply Allocation Plan, Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP reported an interim water use reduction achievement of 131 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is a 28 percent reduction from the baseline. Over the last five years, Metropolitan continued to provide support for retail agency water use reduction efforts through technical assistance, legislation, code and standards updates, and financial incentives where needed to increase water use efficiency. Based on best available data as of January 2021, Metropolitan estimates Executive Summary ES-5
a 2019 per capita water use of 121 GCPD, well exceeding Metropolitan’s 2020 water use target of 146 GPCD with a 34 percent reduction from the baseline.
Supply Capabilities
The 2020 UWMP reports on Metropolitan’s water reliability and identifies projected supplies to meet the long-term demand within its service area. For the 2020 UWMP reliability assessments, Metropolitan’s supply capabilities are evaluated using the following assumptions for its imported supplies:
Colorado River Supplies
Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, along with supplies that result from existing and committed programs, including those from the IID-MWD Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements, and the exchange agreement with SDCWA. The QSA established the baseline water use for each of the agreement parties and facilitates the transfer of water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. Since the QSA, additional programs have been implemented to increase Metropolitan’s supplies. These include the PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program, as well as the Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project. The 2007 Interim Guidelines provided for the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, as well as the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program that allows Metropolitan to store water in Lake Mead. These stored supplies can be used to supply additional water to ensure that, when needed, Metropolitan can deliver up to Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) capacity of 1.25 MAF.
In light of declining reservoir levels, the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) was signed in 2019. This agreement incentivizes storage in Lake Mead and requires certain volumes of water be stored in Lake Mead under certain Lake Mead elevation levels through 2026. Metropolitan is to store certain volumes of water in Lake Mead as DCP ICS once Lake Mead is below elevation 1,045 feet. This agreement also increases Metropolitan’s flexibility to take delivery of water stored as ICS at Lake Mead elevations below 1,075 feet. The goal of this agreement is to keep Lake Mead above critical elevations, and overall, it increases Metropolitan’s flexibility to store water in Lake Mead in greater volumes and to take delivery of stored water to fill the CRA as needed.
Projections for Colorado River supplies for the 2020 UWMP are based on the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) modeling developed in January 2021, which is the latest available at the time of production of this plan. USBR modeling is used to estimate Metropolitan’s basic apportionment and the availability of QSA and other related programs.
State Water Project Supplies
State Water Project (SWP) supplies are estimated using the 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report distributed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in August 2020. The 2019 Delivery Capability Report presents the current DWR estimate of the amount of water deliveries for current (2020) conditions and conditions 20 years in the future under DWR’s set of stated assumptions. These estimates incorporate restrictions on SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations in accordance with water quality objectives established by the State Water Resources Control Board, the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued on October 21, 2019, and the Incidental Take Permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 31, 2020. In addition, these estimates incorporate amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the Central ES-6 Executive Summary
Valley Project and the State Water Project made in 2018. Under the 2019 Delivery Capability Report, the delivery estimates for the SWP for 2019 conditions as percentage of Table A amounts are 7 percent, equivalent to 134 TAF for Metropolitan, under a single dry-year (1977) condition and 58 percent, equivalent to 1.1 MAF for Metropolitan, under the long-term average condition.
In dry, below-normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs.
Over the years, under the pumping restrictions of the SWP, Metropolitan has collaborated with the other contractors to develop numerous voluntary Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of these storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry-year supplies that can be conveyed through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions.
Storage
A key component of Metropolitan’s water supply capability is the amount of water in Metropolitan’s storage facilities. Storage is a major component of Metropolitan’s dry-year and emergency resource management strategy. Metropolitan’s likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands, without implementing the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), depends on its storage resources. Metropolitan’s WSCP also underscores the importance of storage as it is identified as one of potential shortage response actions at various water shortage levels.
In developing the supply capabilities for the 2020 UWMP, Metropolitan assumed the current (2020) storage levels at the start of simulation and used the median storage levels going into each of the five-year increments based on the balances of supplies and demands. Under the median storage condition, there is an estimated 50 percent probability that storage levels would be higher than the assumption used, and a 50 percent probability that storage levels would be lower than the assumption used. All storage capability figures shown in the 2020 UWMP reflect actual storage program conveyance constraints. It is important to note that under some conditions, Metropolitan may choose to implement the WSAP in order to preserve storage reserves for a future year, instead of using the full supply capability. This can result in impacts at the retail level even under conditions where there may be adequate supply capabilities to meet demands.
Findings of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The 2020 UWMP provides an assessment and summary of Metropolitan’s water service reliability outlook through 2045 under the assumptions and cited sources of information described above.
As a reporting document, the UWMP will be updated every five years to reflect changes in water demand and supply projections.
The 2020 UWMP satisfies all the content and process requirements mandated by the Act, including the required collaboration for its planning initiatives and report preparation. It should be noted that Metropolitan’s primary planning venue is its IRP and that the scenario planning approach within its 2020 IRP is intended to extend Metropolitan’s planning beyond single scenario outcomes like that shown within this UWMP. The key findings of Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP are as follows:
Water Service Reliability and Projected Water Supplies
• Metropolitan has completed its water service reliability assessment, under the stated UWMP assumptions and conditions required by the Act, and determined that it has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands from 2025 through 2045 under a single dry- Executive Summary ES-7
year condition and a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years, as presented in Figure ES-1, as well as in a normal water year hydrologic condition. • Metropolitan has evaluated its water shortage risk, under the stated UWMP assumptions and conditions required by the Act, and determined that it has supply capabilities sufficient for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years based on the driest five-year historic sequence for Metropolitan’s water supply. This Drought Risk Assessment was completed starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted (2021 through 2025) and is presented in Figure ES-2.
• Metropolitan has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource portfolio including programs in the Colorado River, SWP, Central Valley storage and transfers programs, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs.
• Metropolitan has developed comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address frequent and severe periods of droughts; six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage; and a catastrophic interruption in water supplies through its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM Plan)2, and Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP)3.
• Metropolitan continues to invest in measures that will help improve the region’s water use efficiency over time.
• Metropolitan continues to plan for emergency and catastrophic scenarios, recently revising an Emergency Storage Objective to manage against potential interruption in water supplies resulting from catastrophic occurrences within the Southern California region, including seismic events along the San Andreas fault, and Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan to assess the vulnerability of Metropolitan’s water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities.
In addition, Metropolitan is working with the State on the Delta Risk Management Strategy to reduce the impacts of a seismic event in the Delta that would cause levee failure and disruption of SWP deliveries.
• Metropolitan has and will continue to regard water quality with paramount importance to water supply reliability. Metropolitan owns and operates five water treatment plants, three of which are among the 10 largest in the world. Metropolitan is a national leader in providing safe drinking water that meets increasingly stringent standards, testing for over 400 constituents and performing nearly 200,000 water quality tests annually on samples gathered throughout its distribution system. Metropolitan’s Water Quality Laboratory analyzes these samples to ensure that Metropolitan’s delivered water meets or surpasses all state and federal drinking water standards. Because treatment to remove specific contaminants can be more costly than measures to protect water at the source, Metropolitan also actively supports improved watershed protection programs for its source waters in the Colorado River and State Water Project.
2 The WSDM plan is a coordinated plan used to direct Metropolitan’s resource operations to help attain the region’s reliability goal recognizing the interdependence of surplus and shortage actions. The WSCP is consistent with the WSDM Plan. See Attachment A in Appendix 4. 3 The WSAP is intended as an equitable approach for encouraging water use efficiency and minimizing regional impacts in times of shortage consistent with the principles and considerations approved by the Board through the WSDM Plan. See Attachment B in Appendix 4.
ES-8 Executive Summary
Challenges Ahead and Strategies for Managing Reliability Risks • Metropolitan faces a number of challenges in providing adequate, reliable, and high-quality supplemental water supplies for southern California: The Colorado River Basin has historically experienced large swings in annual hydrologic conditions; however, these swings have largely been buffered through a large volume of storage. • Dramatic swings in annual hydrologic conditions have impacted water supplies available from the State Water Project (SWP) over the last decade. Metropolitan’s efforts in building dry-year storage reserves, water banking and transfers have helped manage the wide swings in SWP allocations.
• With approximately 30 percent of Southern California’s water supply transported across the Bay-Delta, its declining ecosystem has led to reduction in water supply deliveries. Operational constraints will likely continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay-Delta is identified and implemented.
• Approximately half of the region’s water supplies come from resources controlled or operated by local water agencies. These resources include water extracted from local groundwater basins, catchment of local surface water, non-Metropolitan imported water supplied through the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Colorado River water exchanged for Metropolitan supplies.
• Water quality challenges, such as algae toxins, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the identification of constituents of emerging concern, have a significant impact on the region’s water supply conditions and underscore the importance of flexible and adaptive regional planning strategies.
Metropolitan continues to address these water supply challenges through a variety of actions that will maintain water reliability within its service area. Metropolitan’s proactive measures include:
• Continuing water conservation by expanding outreach, adding devices, and increasing incentives to residents,
• Increasing local resources by providing incentives for on-site recycled water hook-up and the Local Resources Program (LRP),
• Augmenting water supplies through water transfers and exchanges, • Improving return capability of storage programs to effectively take delivery of water when needed,
• Maintaining dry year and emergency storage for the region to remain reliable during periods of low supply and emergencies,
• Modifying Metropolitan’s distribution system to enhance operational flexibility and efficient delivery of Colorado River, State Water Project, and in-region supplies within Metropolitan’s service area,
• Implementing shortage response actions under the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and elements of the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan and Water Supply Allocation Plan to distribute the limited imported supplies and preserve storage reserves, and • Responding to water quality concerns by protecting the quality of the source water, developing water management programs that maintain and enhance water quality, and changing water treatment protocols or blending.
Executive Summary ES-9
Sections 1.4 and 2.6 offer detailed discussions and additional insight on Metropolitan’s current challenges, current available resources, short-term supply outlook, other supply reliability risks, and recent and near-term actions to meet these challenges.
ES-10 Executive Summary
Figure ES-1 Supply Capabilities under Single Dry-Year
and Droughts Lasting Five Consecutive Years
■ Supply Capability Single Dry-Year ■ Supply Capability Droughts Lasting Five Consecutive Years - Total Demands on Metropolitan Single Dry-Year - Total Demands on Metropolitan Droughts Lasting Five Consecutive Water Years
4.00 3.50
3.00 Million 2.50
Acre-Feet
per Year 2.00
1.50 1.00
0.50 0.00
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Notes:
1. Supply capabilities are derived using the simulated median storage level going into each of five-year increments based on the balances of supplies and demands. Under the median storage condition, there is an estimated SO percent probability that storage levels would be higher than the assumption used, and a SO percent probability that storage levels would be lower than the assumption used.
2. Under some conditions, Metropolitan may choose to implement the WSAP in order to preserve storage reserves for a future year, instead of using the full supply capability. This can result in impacts at the retail level even under conditions where there may be adequate supply capabilities to meet firm demands.
3. All storage capability figures shown in the 2020 UWMP reflect actual storage program conveyance constraints.
4. Total demands on Metropolitan illustrated in the figure includes delivery obligations associated with Exchange with SDCWA.
Figure ES -2 Drought Risk Assessment for 2021-2025
Core Supply from CRA and SWP • Flexible and Storage Supply from CRA, SWP, and In-Region - Total Demand on Metropolitan
4.00 3.50
3.00 Million 2.50
Acre-Feet
per Year 2.00
1.50 1.00
0.50 0.00
2021 2022 2023 2024
Notes:
1. Drought risk assessment for 2021-2025 is based on historic 1988 to 1992 conditions (d riest five consecutive year historic sequence for Metropolitan's water supply).
2. Shortfall from core supplies may be met through supply augmentation actions by exercising Metropolitan's flexible supplies and storage from CRA, SWP, and In-Region. 2025
3. As of January 2021, Metropolitan has 3.2 MAF of dry-years supplies that may be utilized to meet sfortfall from core supplies.
4. Metropolitan may also implement demand reduction and operational flexibility as part of its shortage response actions, if needed.
5. Total Demand on Metropolitan illustrated in the figure includes delivery obligations associated with Exchange with SDCWA.
Introduction 1-1
Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction to this Document and the Agency
Organization of this Document
Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was prepared in compliance with California Water Code (CWC) Sections 10610 through 10657 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009 and became effective on January 1, 1984, and Section 10608.36 of SB X7-7, which was enacted in 2009. In addition to complying with the Act, this report details Metropolitan’s current situation and how it will meet the challenges of the future.
This document contains five sections. The first section is the Introduction that defines Metropolitan in terms of governance, structure, and current water supply status. This section also briefly outlines how Metropolitan will meet current and future challenges. The second section describes Metropolitan’s planning activities and explains how the agency will manage the region’s water resources to ensure a reliable water supply for the region. The third section describes the actions Metropolitan has taken to implement the plans outlined in Section 2 and lists future programs and activities. The fourth section addresses the issue of water quality and steps taken to deliver highquality water to Metropolitan’s service area. The fifth section details the public outreach component integrated with Metropolitan’s planning processes. In addition, this document includes Appendices that contain supporting documents on the required and voluntary reporting elements. The sections are further described in detail below:
Section 1 - Introduction
In addition to demonstrating how this report complies with the Act, the 2020 UWMP details Metropolitan’s current situation and outlines its plan for meeting the challenges of the future. The Introduction section includes:
• Discussion of the Act and Metropolitan’s reporting responsibilities under the Act; • Introduction to Metropolitan and description of its formation, purpose, service area, current and projected land uses, member agencies, and governance; • Historical, economic, and demographic information on Metropolitan’s service area; • Discussion of Metropolitan’s current condition, challenges, and resource planning strategies; and
• Evaluation of Metropolitan’s supply capabilities during a drought lasting five consecutive water years.
Section 2 - Planning for the Future
The Planning for the Future section discusses how Metropolitan plans to meet Southern California’s water needs in the future. The section highlights the importance of Integrated Water Resources Planning (IRP) by summarizing Metropolitan’s planning processes over the years and 1-2 Introduction
emphasizes the need for Metropolitan to implement adaptive and multiple scenario planning strategies that will prepare the region to deal with uncertainties. This section also includes:
• Evaluation of regional water demand under a normal water year, single dry-year, and droughts lasting at least five years, for years 2025 through 2045; • Evaluation of supply capabilities under a normal water year, single dry-year, and droughts lasting at least five consecutive water years, for years 2025 through 2045; • Evaluation of frequent and severe periods of droughts, as described in the Drought Risk Assessment for years 2021 through 2025;
• Preparation and adoption of Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), including a discussion of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective and Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan;
• Discussion of other supply reliability risks including climate change; and • Discussion of the different elements of Metropolitan’s rate structure and revenue management.
Section 3 – Implementing the Plan
The Implementing the Plan section summarizes Metropolitan’s progress in developing a diversified resource mix that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The investments that Metropolitan has made and its continuing efforts in many different areas coalesce toward its goal of long-term supply reliability for the region. This section includes:
• Discussion of resources and program development for the Colorado River, SWP, Central Valley/SWP storage and transfers programs, conservation, local resources program (groundwater recovery, recycling, desalination), and groundwater; and • Discussion of Metropolitan’s measures, programs, and policies to help achieve the SB X7-7 goal of 20 percent water use reduction by 2020 and the region’s progress in meeting this target.
Section 4 - Water Quality
The Water Quality section identifies key regional water quality issues and discusses the protection of the quality of source water and development of water management programs that maintain and enhance water quality. This section also includes:
• Discussion of water quality issues of concern, constituents of emerging concern, and water quality programs that Metropolitan has undertaken to protect its water supplies.
Section 5 – Coordination and Public Outreach
The Coordination and Public Outreach section presents the processes undertaken in the development of the 2020 IRP, 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP with the public and other stakeholders. It provides a list of all meetings and workshops conducted to promote and achieve consensus and collaborative planning. Included in this section are the public notification letters and announcements distributed by Metropolitan as required by the Act and copies of the Metropolitan resolutions adopting and approving the 2020 UWMP, Appendix 11 to the 2015 UWMP, and WSCP for submittal to DWR.
Introduction 1-3
Appendices
The appendices provide detailed background on the information presented in the 2020 UWMP.
Appendix 1 - Demand Forecast
Appendix 2 - Existing Regional Water Supplies
Appendix 3 - Justifications for Supply Projections
Appendix 4 - Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Appendix 5 - Local Projects
Appendix 6 - Conservation Estimates and Water Savings from Codes, Standards, and Ordinances Appendix 7 - Distribution System Water Losses
Appendix 8 - Emergency Storage Objective
Appendix 9 - Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Appendix 10 - Metropolitan’s Energy Intensity Calculations, Including Conveyance and Distribution Generation
Appendix 11 - Quantifying Regional Self-Reliance and Reduced Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
Appendix 12 - DWR 2020 UWMP Submittal Tables
Urban Water Management Planning Act
This report has been prepared in compliance with Water Code Sections 10610 through 10657 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act). This Act requires that “every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan” (Water Code § 10620(a)).
An “urban water supplier” is defined as a supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually (Water Code § 10617). These plans must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. Recent amendments to the Act changed the Water Code to require each urban supplier to update and submit its 2020 UWMP by July 1, 2021 and changed the update and submittal dates for subsequent UWMPs to July 1 in years ending in 6 and 1.
Changes in the Act since 2015
There have been numerous changes made and new requirements added to the Act since the 2015 UWMP. Set forth below is a general overview of the key current and new requirements for urban wholesale suppliers. Detailed descriptions of these existing and new requirements are provided in the various sections of this 2020 UWMP.
• Detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over at least a 20-year period, in five-year increments, under a normal water year, single dry-year, and droughts lasting at least five consecutive water years;
• Instead of a water shortage contingency analysis, suppliers must adopt a water shortage contingency plan which includes 10 prescribed elements, such as the procedures used to conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment; six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage; and shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels;
• Drought risk assessment which includes: (i) the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a 5-year 1-4 Introduction
drought; (ii) a determination of the reliability of each supply source under a variety of water shortage conditions; (iii) a comparison of total available water supply sources to total projected water use for the drought period; and (iv) a consideration of historical drought hydrology, projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, and anticipated regulatory changes;
• Water use projections, where available, must display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans;
• Simple lay description of information necessary to provide a general understanding of the UWMP;
• Description of supplier’s service area must include current and projected land uses affecting supplier’s water management planning;
• Seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan;
• Compliance with the Act is required in order for a supplier to be eligible for a water grant or loan;
• Energy information that a supplier can readily obtain; and • Evaluation of reasonable and practical efficient water uses, recycling, and conservation activities.
Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009, Water Conservation in the Delta Legislative Package
In addition to changes to the Act, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session, referred to as SB X7-7, on November 10, 2009, which became effective February 3, 2010. This law was the water conservation component to the historic Delta legislative package and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. This implements the Governor’s similar 2008 water use reduction goals. The law requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent goal by 2020, and an interim urban water reduction target by 2015.
The bill states that the legislative intent is to require all water suppliers to increase the efficiency of use of water resources and to establish a framework to meet the state targets for urban water conservation called for by the Governor. The bill establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine targets to help achieve increased water use efficiency by the year 2020.
The law is intended to promote urban water conservation standards consistent with the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s adopted best management practices.
Urban wholesale water suppliers are not required to perform all of the target-setting and reporting requirements of SB X7-7. However, wholesale agencies must include in their UWMPs an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies that would help achieve the water use reductions required under this law (Water Code § 10608.36).
Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of this plan address actions Metropolitan took to help urban retail water suppliers to achieve the urban per capita water use reduction pursuant to the goals set forth in SB X7-7.
Introduction 1-5
Metropolitan’s Compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act As with Metropolitan’s previous plans, this Plan does not explicitly discuss specific activities undertaken by member agencies unless they relate to one of Metropolitan’s water demand or supply management programs. Presumably, each member agency will discuss these activities in its Urban Water Management Plan, but elements of this Plan do not necessarily have to be adopted by the urban water suppliers or the public agencies directly providing retail water.
DWR Guidance
In April 2021, DWR issued the final 2020 UWMP Guidebook for urban water suppliers (DWR Guidebook). The 2020 DWR Guidebook was updated from the 2015 version to reflect new legislation. As part of the Guidebook, DWR updated the Standardized Submittal Tables for the reporting and submittal of UWMP data to DWR. As mentioned above, water suppliers are required to use these Standardized Submittal Tables for electronic submittal of their UWMPs to DWR to satisfy the legislative requirement (Water Code § 10644(a)(2)). For the 2020 UWMP, Metropolitan electronically submitted the Standardized Submittal Tables to DWR through its Water Use Efficiency portal. In addition, Metropolitan included the Standardized Submittal Tables in this plan as Appendix 12.
The 2020 DWR Guidebook includes a voluntary checklist to show reporting of required elements to assist DWR with its review of the submitted UWMP. Included in the beginning of this 2020 UWMP is a compliance checklist, organized by Water Code section, which summarizes Metropolitan’s response to the requirements of the Water Code and indicates where each required element can be found in the Plan.
1-6 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
1.2 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Formation and Purpose
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) is a public agency organized in 1928 by a vote of the electorates of 13 Southern California cities. The agency was enabled by the adoption of the original Metropolitan Water District Act (MWD Act) by the California Legislature "for the purpose of developing, storing and distributing water for domestic purposes." The MWD Act also allows Metropolitan to sell ”surplus water not needed or required for domestic or municipal uses within the district for beneficial purposes.” In 1992, the Metropolitan Board of Directors adopted the following mission statement:
"To provide its service area with adequate and reliable supplies of high quality water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way." The first function of Metropolitan was building the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) to convey water from the Colorado River. Deliveries through the aqueduct to member agencies began in 1941 and supplemented the local water supplies of the Southern California member cities. In 1960, to meet growing water demands in its service area, Metropolitan contracted for participation in the State Water Project (SWP), which is owned and operated by DWR and would deliver additional water supplies via the California Aqueduct. SWP deliveries began in 1972.
Metropolitan currently receives imported water from both of these sources: (1) Colorado River water via the CRA, and (2) the SWP via the California Aqueduct.
Service Area
Metropolitan’s service area covers the Southern California coastal plain. It extends about 200 miles along the Pacific Ocean from the city of Oxnard on the north to the international boundary with Mexico on the south, and it reaches as far as 70 miles inland from the coast (Figure 1-1). The total area served is approximately 5,200 square miles, and it includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. Table 1-1 shows that although only 14 percent of the land area of the six Southern California counties is within Metropolitan's service area, approximately 86 percent of the populations of those counties reside within Metropolitan's boundaries.
Member Agencies
Metropolitan is currently composed of 26 voluntary member agencies, including 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authority. Metropolitan is a water wholesaler with no retail customers. It provides treated and untreated water directly to its member agencies.
Metropolitan's 26 member agencies deliver to their customers a combination of local groundwater, local surface water, recycled water, and imported water purchased from or exchanged with Metropolitan. For some member agencies, Metropolitan supplies most of the water used within that agency's service area, while others obtain varying amounts of water from Metropolitan to supplement local supplies. Between 2011 and 2020, Metropolitan has provided between 40 and 50 percent of the municipal, industrial, and agricultural water used in its service area. The remaining water supply comes from local wells, local surface water, recycling, and the city of Los Angeles' aqueducts from the Owens Valley/Mono Basin east of the Sierra Nevada.
Member agencies also implement conservation and other programs that can be considered part of their supplies.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1-7 Some member agencies provide retail water service, while others provide water to the local area as wholesalers. Table 1-2 shows Metropolitan’s member agencies and the type of service that they provide. As shown in the table, 15 member agencies provide retail service to customers, 9 provide only wholesale service, and 2 provide a combination of both. Throughout Metropolitan's service area, approximately 250 retail water suppliers directly serve the population.
Metropolitan's member agencies serve residents in 152 cities and 89 unincorporated communities. Table 1-3 shows the member agencies of Metropolitan, as well as the cities and communities served by those member agencies. Figure 1-1 also shows the geographical area served by the member agencies.
Currently, member agencies receive water from Metropolitan at various delivery points, and pay for service through a rate structure made up of multiple components. The majority of these components consist of uniform volumetric rates, and the majority of the revenue is collected through these volumetric rates. Metropolitan’s pricing and rate structure are described in detail in Section 2.7.
To aid in planning future water needs, member agencies advise Metropolitan in July of each year of how much water they anticipate they will need during the next five years. In addition, Metropolitan works with its member agencies to forecast future water demands.
Table 1-1
July 1, 2020 Area and Population in the
Six Counties of Metropolitan's Service Area
County Total County
In Metropolitan
Service Area
Percent in
Metropolitan
Land Area (Square Miles)
Los Angeles County 4,061 1,408 35%
Orange County 789 699 89%
Riverside County 7,208 1,057 15%
San Bernardino County 20,052 242 1%
San Diego County 4,200 1,420 34%
Ventura County 1,845 365 20%
Metropolitan's Service Area 38,155 5,191 14%
Population (Persons)
Los Angeles County 10,172,000 9,275,000 91%
Orange County 3,191,000 3,184,000 100%
Riverside County 2,449,000 1,813,000 74%
San Bernardino County 2,184,000 872,000 40%
San Diego County 3,352,000 3,261,000 97%
Ventura County 841,000 630,000 75%
Metropolitan's Service Area 22,189,000 19,035,000 86%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2010-2020. Sacramento, California, December 2020. 1-8 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Table 1-2
Metropolitan's Member Agencies and Type of Water Service Provided Member Agency Retail or Wholesale
Los Angeles County
Beverly Hills, City of Retail
Burbank, City of Retail
Central Basin Municipal Water District Wholesale
Compton, City of Retail
Foothill Municipal Water District Wholesale
Glendale, City of Retail
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Retail
Long Beach, City of Retail
Los Angeles, City of Retail
Pasadena, City of Retail
San Fernando, City of Retail
San Marino, City of Retail
Santa Monica, City of Retail
Three Valleys Municipal Water District Wholesale
Torrance, City of Retail
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Wholesale West Basin Municipal Water District Wholesale
Orange County
Anaheim, City of Retail
Fullerton, City of Retail
Municipal Water District of Orange County Wholesale
Santa Ana, City of Retail
Riverside County
Eastern Municipal Water District Retail & Wholesale
Western Municipal Water District Retail & Wholesale
San Bernardino County
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wholesale
San Diego County
San Diego County Water Authority Wholesale
Ventura County
Calleguas Municipal Water District Wholesale
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1-9 Table 1-3
Member Agencies
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Municipal Water Districts (11) Member Cities (14) County Water Authorities (1)
San Diego
Calleguas
Central Basin
Foothill
Inland Empire
Eastern
Las Virgenes
Orange County
Three Valleys
Upper San Gabriel Valley
West Basin
Western
Anaheim
Beverly Hills
Burbank
Compton
Fullerton
Glendale
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Pasadena
San Fernando
San Marino
Santa Ana
Santa Monica
Torrance
CALLEGUAS MWD
Camarillo
Camarillo Heights
Fairview
Lake Sherwood Valley
Las Posas
Moorpark
NAWS Point Mugu
NCBC Port Hueneme
Oak Park
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
Santa Rosa Valley
Simi Valley
Somis
Thousand Oaks
Central Basin MWD
Artesia
Bell
Bellflower
Bell Gardens
Cerritos
Commerce
Cudahy
Downey
East Los Angeles
Florence
Hawaiian Gardens
Huntington Park
La Habra Heights
Lakewood
La Mirada
Lynwood
Maywood
Montebello
Norwalk
Paramount
Pico Rivera
Santa Fe Springs
Signal Hill
South Gate
South Whittier
Vernon
Whittier
Foothill MWD
Altadena
La Cañada Flintridge
La Crescenta
Montrose
INLAND EMPIRE
Chino
Chino Hills
Fontana
Montclair
Ontario
Rancho Cucamonga
Upland
Eastern MWD
Good Hope
Hemet
Homeland
Juniper Flats
Lakeview
Mead Valley
Menifee
Moreno Valley
Murrieta
Murrieta Hot Springs
Nuevo
North Canyon Lake
Perris
Quail Valley
Romoland
San Jacinto
Sun City
Temecula
Valle Vista
Winchester
Las Virgenes MWD
Agoura
Agoura Hills
Calabasas
Chatsworth
Hidden Hills
Lake Manor
Malibu Lake
Monte Nido
Westlake Village
West Hills
MWD OF ORANGE COUNTY
Aliso Viejo
Brea
Buena Park
Capistrano Beach
Corona Del Mar
Costa Mesa
Coto De Caza
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Valley
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods
La Habra
Lake Forest
La Palma
Leisure World
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Monarch Beach
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Clemente
South Laguna
MWD OF ORANGE COUNTY (cont.)
San Juan Capistrano
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Tustin Foothills
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Three Valleys MWD
Azusa
Charter Oak
Claremont
Covina
Covina Knolls
Diamond Bar
Glendora
Industry
La Verne
Pomona
Rowland Heights
San Dimas
So. San Jose Hills
Walnut
West Covina
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD
Arcadia
Avocado Heights
Baldwin Park
Bradbury
Citrus
Covina
Duarte
El Monte
Glendora
Hacienda Heights
Industry
Irwindale
La Puente
Mayflower Village
Monrovia
Rosemead
San Gabriel
South El Monte
South Pasadena
South San Gabriel
Temple City
Valinda
West Covina
West Puente Valley
WEST BASIN MWD
Alondra Park
Carson
Culver City
El Segundo
Gardena
Hawthorne
Hermosa Beach
Inglewood
Ladera Heights
Lawndale
Lennox
WEST BASIN MWD (cont.)
Lomita
Malibu
Manhattan Beach
Marina Del Rey
Palos Verdes Estates
Rancho Palos Verdes
Redondo Beach
Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Estates
Ross-Sexton
Topanga Canyon
West Athens
West Hollywood
WESTERN MWD OF
Riverside County
Bedford Heights
Canyon Lakes
Corona
Eagle Valley
El Sobrante
Jurupa
Lake Elsinore
Lake Mathews
March AFB
Murrieta
Norco
Riverside
Rubidoux
Temecula
Temescal Canyon
Woodcrest
SAN DIEGO CWA
Alpine
Bonita
Bonsall
Camp Pendleton
Carlsbad
Casa De Oro
Chula Vista
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Fallbrook
Lakeside
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
Mount Helix
National City
Oceanside
Pauma Valley
Poway
Rainbow
Ramona
Rancho Santa Fe
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Spring Valley
Valley Center
Vista
1-10 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California REVISED TO APRIL 2009 L-1521 SAN MARINO CALLEGUAS MWD LAS VIRGENES MWD WEST
BASIN
MWD
FOOTHILL
MWD
BURB ANK
GLENDALE
PASADENA
BEVERLY HILLS
SANTA
MONICA
LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL
BASIN
MWD
SAN
FERNANDO
COMPTON
SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY
MWD
THREEVALLEYS MWD
INLAND
EMPIRE
UTILITIES
AGENCY
WESTERN MWD
OF
EASTERN
MWD
TORRANCE
LONG
BEACH
BASIN
MWD
MWD OF ORANGE COUNTY
ANAHEIM
SANT
ANA
A
FULLERTON
WATER AUTHORITY
WEST
UNITED STATES
MEXICO
UPPER
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PALMDALEWATER DISTRICT
CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY
LITTLEROCK
CREEK
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT
P.I.D.
&
L.C.I.D.
M O J A V E W A T E R A G E N C Y
SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY
MWD
SAN GORGONIO
PASS
WATER AGENCY
CRESTLINE
LAKE ARROWHEAD
WATER
AGENCY
IMPERIAL
IRRIGATION
DISTRICT
MATCH LINE
SEE INSERT
COACHELLA
VALLEY
WATER
DISTRICT
DESERT
WATER
AGENCY
Sweet wa et r
Bouquet
Reservoir
Santa Fe Reservoir
Prado
Res.
n Orange County Reservoir
River
Wash
Temescal
Silverwood
Lake
Lake
Mathews
Railroad
Canyon
Reservoir
Lake
Perris
Ri er
ta Sa
Ana
Cajon
Canyon
Castaic
Power Plant
(DWP)
Foothill Feeder
Plant Power
PearblossomPumping Plant
East
California
Aqueduct
2nd BarrelLos AngelesAqueduct
Jensen Water
Treatment
Plant
Sepulveda
Power Plant
Greg Ave. Power Plant
Coyote CreekPower Plant
VenicePower Plant
Diemer Water
Treatment
Plant
Yorba LindaPower Plant
San Dimas
Power Plant
Weymouth Water
Treatment Plant
EtiwandaPower Plant
Mills Water
Treatment
Plant
DevilCanyon Power Plant
MWD
Inland
Feeder
CPA
Project
Mojave Power
Plant
Perris
Power Plant
TemescalPower Plant
Skinner WaterTreatmentPlant
DiamondValley Lake
LakeSkinner
Red
Mountain
Power Plant
Lake Mathews
Corona Power Plant
Power
Plant
ValleyViewPowerPlant
Rio HondoPower Plant
Julian Hinds
Pumping Plant
California
Aqueduct
West Branch
Branch
Eagle Mountain
Pumping Plant
www.mwdh2o.com
MWD
Metropolitan’s Water Distribution SystemMWD Tunnels Department of Water Resources’ California AqueductMWD projects under constructionOutside MWD Service AreaPower PlantsPumping PlantsWater Treatment Plants MAP SHOWING METROPOLITAN’S MEMBER AGENCIES AND FACILITIES
FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF COLORADO RIVER WATER AND STATE PROJECT WATER LEGEND
0 5 10
SCALE IN MILES
15 20
Sespe
Lake
Piru
CastaicLake
Creek
Palmdale
Reservoir
Little Rock
Reservoir
Dry Canyon Reservoir
River
Santa
Clara
Encino
Los Angeles Reservoir
Reservoir
Chatsworth
Reservoir Lake
Bard
WestlakeReservoir
River
Garvey Res.
Hansen
Reservoir
Whittier Narrows
Reservoir
Palos Verdes
Reservoir
Big
Tujunga
v
Rio
Gabriel San River
Hondo
Angeles Los
Santa
Morris
Reservoir
Cogswell Reservoir San Gabriel Reservoir Lake Arrowhead San
Gorgonio
Coachella
Canal
Canal
All American
River
River
Aqueduct
Colorado
River
SanJoaquinRes.
Santiago Res.
San
San Jacinto
Juan Creek
Lake
Elsinore
Vail
Lake
Margarita
River
Lake
Henshaw
River
Hemet
Res.
Canyon
Lytle
Creek
Santa
San
Luis Rey
Upper Otay
Res.
Lake
Hodges San
Dieguito Res.
Santa
Ysabel
Creek
Sutherland
Res.
San Vicente
Res.
El Capitan
Res.
Barrett
Lake
Murray
Res.
Sweetwater
Res.
Diego
River
San
River
San
Lower
Otay
Res.
Diego
City
Aqueduct Judson
Res.
San Dieguito
River
Clara
Puddingstone Reservoir
Live Oak Reservoir MATCH LINE
Eagle
Mountain
Pumping Plant
Iron Mountain
Pumping
Plant
Whitsett Intake
Pumping Plant
Gene Pumping Plant
Colorado
Colorado
River
River
Aqueduct
0 5 10
SCALE IN MILES
15 20
Figure 1-1
~ I --------7
I
I
-~--------
1 I
I
I
I
---zt---
◄••
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1-11 Board of Directors and Management Team
Metropolitan's Board of Directors currently consists of 38 directors. The Board consists of at least one representative from each member agency, with each agency's assessed valuation determining its additional representation and voting rights. Directors can be appointed by the chief executive officer of the member agency or be elected by a majority vote of the governing body of the agency. Metropolitan does not compensate directors for their service. The Board includes business, professional, and civic leaders. Board meetings are generally held on the second Tuesday of each month and are open to the public.
Throughout its history, the Board has delegated certain tasks to Metropolitan staff, which are codified in Metropolitan’s Administrative Code. In addition, Metropolitan has developed policy principles to help achieve its mission to provide adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water in an environmentally and economically responsible way. These policies can be found in a variety of documents including: specific policy statements, the Administrative Code, Boardadopted policy principles, and letters submitted to the Board. Policy statements are also embedded in formal Board meeting discussions and recorded in meeting minutes. The policies established by the Board are subject to all applicable laws and regulations. The management of Metropolitan is under the direction of its General Manager, who serves at the discretion of the Board, as do Metropolitan's General Auditor, General Counsel, and Ethics Officer. 1-12 Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information
1.3 Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information
Population
In 1990, the population of Metropolitan's service area was approximately 15.0 million people. By 2020, it had reached an estimated 19.0 million, representing almost half of the state's population. In the past, annual growth has varied from about 200,000 annually in the 1970s and early-to-mid-1980s to more than 300,000 annually in the late 1980s.
Population growth slowed due to economic recession during the early 1990s to just over 50,000 in 1995, before again rising to more than 250,000 per year in the period 1999 through 2002. Growth has generally averaged 90,000 persons per year during the last 10 years from 2011-2020. Figure 1-2 shows the service area population growth from 1970 to 2020. From 2019 to 2020, the region experienced net decline in population due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The most populated cities within Metropolitan's service area are Los Angeles (largest city in the state), San Diego (second largest in the state), Long Beach, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Riverside. The Department of Finance State Population Report from May 2020 reports biggest numeric increases occurring in the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, consistent with their larger population base. Figure 1-3 shows the 5-year growth rates for the six counties within Metropolitan’s service area. As can be seen from this figure, there has been an overall decrease in population growth rate in the last 5 years. Appendix 1 presents a detailed discussion of the demographic trends in Southern California and their impacts on regional demand forecasts.
In preparing its demographic and growth forecast, Metropolitan relied on Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast Proposed Final Technical Report to the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The report includes information on social factors affecting water management such as race, ethnicity, and cultures. As noted in SCAG’s report, Southern California is one of the most diverse regions in the nation in race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are important for demographers to consider while forecasting since fertility and household formation have strong cultural underpinnings that vary based on these categories.
Figure 1-2 Service Area Population Growth 1970-2020
24 20
16 MIiiions 12
of People --.,.. "'
8 4
0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 SOURCE: U.S. Census, California Department of Finance and Metropolitan Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information 1-13
Historical Retail Water Demands
Figure 1-4 presents historical retail water demands on a calendar year basis in Metropolitan’s service area. Since 1980, retail water demands varied from 2.9 million acre-feet (MAF) in 1983 to nearly 4.2 MAF in 2007. Following record demand in 1990 of over 3.9 MAF, due to the economic recession, drought impacts, conservation, and mandatory water use restrictions, demands declined to 3.1 MAF in 1991. Demand remained below the historic peak level as a result of continuing effects from the recession and the drought, coupled with a number of wet years and ongoing conservation efforts. In 2000, retail demands once again reached 3.9 MAF, reaching the early peak level for the first time in a decade. Since 2000, retail demands reached a new peak level in 2007 with nearly 4.2 MAF. Calendar year 2007 was the driest year since 1989, with precipitation measured at 5.66 inches in Downtown Los Angeles. Since the peak retail demand in 2007, a decrease in demand was observed during the economic recession of 2008-2012.
Starting in 2012, the severe drought in California led to a massive conservation campaign and water use restriction by the State, Metropolitan, and local water agencies resulting in a decrease in demand in 2015. Demands remain low even after the mandatory restriction was lifted in the spring of 2017.
In 2020, about 96 percent of retail demands were used for municipal and industrial purposes (M&I), and 4 percent for agricultural purposes. The relative share of agricultural water use has declined due to urbanization and market factors, including the price of water. Agricultural water use accounted for 19 percent of total regional water demand in 1970, 12 percent in 1980, 10 percent in 1990, and 4 percent in 2010.
Figure 1-3 Average Annual Population Growth Rates in Metropolitan's Service Area Growth
Rate
■ 1996- 2000 ■ 2001 - 2005 ■ 2006 - 2010 ■ 2011 - 2015 ■ 2016-2020
6.0% ---------------------------------
Ventura Metropolitan Service
-1.0% -------------------------------A_re_a __
Los Angeles Orange Riversicle San Bernardino San Diego
SOURCE: U.S. Census, California Department of Finance and Metropolitan 1-14 Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information
Climate and Rainfall
As Figure 1-5 shows, Metropolitan’s service area encompasses three major climate zones.
Table 1-4 reports the average temperature and rainfall information for representative locations within those three zones for the 30-year period from 1990 to 2019. The evapotranspiration data (expressed as Eto) are reported for the 30-year period of 1985 to 2014.
Figure 1-4 Retail Demand in Metropolitan's Service Area ■ Agricultural ■ Municipal & Industrial
4.5 4.0
3.5 .. ~ ~
3.0 - .. 2.5
Millions of
Acre-Feet 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0 I I • I I I I I • Ill • Ill Ill • • •
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020*
*Data not available. 2020 estimated based on historical data.
Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information 1-15 Wl.llIIU(!)lllli.\ \ \ \ \ '°-1c1,c;,c BURBANK • ~@0 li.\OC©l.ll!.l.l0 GLENDALE ARCADIA UPLAND • - • '1 .... · ~ / BEVERLY • . RANCHO HILLS • LOS ANGELES Q . . WEST POMO. Nj • CUCAMON' • EL MONTE COVINA I ONTARIO • SANTA MONICA SOUTH J"""' :' lNGLEWOOD GATE I ,,,,,,,.,. • • • I COMPTON • DOWNEY ,-~~ • CERR]ro,.114 • e eREA YOR'eit TORRANCE y BUENA • 9LINOA • • t PARK FULLERTON LAKEWOOD., • LONG BEACH • / ANAHEIM HUNTINGTON BEAC~ NEWPORT BEAC e coSTAMESA • LAGUNA BEAC>l--._ • 0~ <"~-1,, Figure 1-5 Climate Zones in Southern California ZONE 1, COASTAL (MAX. TEMP. < 80°) ZONE 2, INLAND VALLEY (MAX. TEMP. 80° - 90°) - ZONE 3, DESERT (MAX. TEMP. > 90°) Silverwood Lake 0&ill IBl.llll:1:,T,illliJJIII@ _J ~ "'19<,&~ --,_ - - --- - RiverJ '-'er '.iPW[lllllJD:ill.l ¼1- • VISTA 0/i.\~ l!lOHil@ I I I I I I -· I I I I I I I I I ____________________ I , MEXICO 1-16 Metropolitan Service Area Historical Information Table 1-4 Weather Variables in Three Zones in Metropolitan's Service Area 30-year Average (1990-2019) Average Temperature Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Los Angeles County1 68.77 68.54 70.62 73.06 74.34 78.16 82.95 84.61 83.69 79.41 73.77 67.90 75.48 Riverside County2 65.89 65.55 66.45 68.22 68.98 71.18 74.87 76.85 76.64 74.04 70.15 65.42 70.35 San Diego County3 69.76 70.02 73.61 77.79 80.93 88.06 94.21 95.84 92.65 84.52 76.35 68.83 81.05 30-year Average (1990-2019) Average Precipitation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Los Angeles County1 3.32 3.74 2.09 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.58 0.78 2.42 15.20 San Diego2 2.05 2.22 1.40 0.55 0.29 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.49 0.80 1.67 9.85 Riverside3 2.01 2.48 1.31 0.52 0.23 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.47 0.66 1.35 11.16 30-year Average (1985-2014) Eto4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Los Angeles County 2.2 2.7 3.7 4.7 5.5 5.8 6.2 5.9 5.0 3.9 2.6 1.9 50.1 San Diego 2.5 2.9 4.2 5.3 5.9 6.6 7.2 6.9 5.4 4.1 2.9 2.6 56.4 Riverside 2.1 2.4 3.4 4.6 5.1 5.3 5.7 5.6 4.3 3.6 2.4 2.0 46.5 1. Temperature and precipitation data are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USC Station KCQT. Last updated February 18, 2020. 2. Temperature and precipitation data are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Riverside Station KNOC. February 18, 2020. 3. Temperature and precipitation data are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, San Diego Airport Station KSAN. Last updated February 18, 2020. 4. Eto values are from Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, September 10, 2009, Appendix A: Reference Evapotranspiration (Eto) Table. Eto values were derived from: 1) California irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS); 2) Reference Evapotranspiration Zone Map, UC Department of Land, Air and Water Resources and California Department of Water Resources 1999; 3) Reference Evapotranspiration for California, UC Department of Resources, 1987, Bulletin 1922; and 4) Determining Daily Reference Evapotranspiration, UC Cooperative Extension, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1987, Publication Leaflet 21426.
Current Conditions 1-17
1.4 Current Conditions
Current Challenges
Metropolitan faces a number of challenges in providing adequate, reliable, and high-quality supplemental water supplies for southern California. One of those challenges is widely variable hydrologic conditions that can have a significant impact on Metropolitan’s imported water supply sources. This section offers a brief discussion of Metropolitan’s current challenges, current available resources, short-term supply outlook, and recent and near-term actions to meet these challenges.
Dramatic swings in annual hydrologic conditions have characterized the past decade on the State Water Project (SWP). 2014 saw the lowest allocation of contract supplies from the SWP up to that point, and 2015 saw the lowest ever Northern Sierra snowpack. Just two years later in 2017, the SWP watershed experienced the highest ever Sacramento River runoff, and the highest SWP allocation since 2006. Wet conditions returned in 2019, helping Metropolitan to build dryyear storage reserves to record high levels. Dry conditions have returned in 2020. The year began with a dry January and the driest February on record. In addition to below average precipitation, the snowpack peaked in April at only 66 percent of the April 1 average measurement. This dry hydrology produced only 52 percent of average runoff for the water year. As a result, Metropolitan only received 20 percent of its contract water supplies in 2020. For calendar year 2021, the SWP allocation decreased from an initial allocation of 10 percent to five percent based on on-going dry conditions. The five percent SWP allocation for Metropolitan in 2014 and 2021 represents the lowest in the history of the SWP.
The Colorado River Basin has also historically experienced large swings in annual hydrologic conditions; however, these swings have largely been buffered through a large volume of storage.
In 2020, the Upper Colorado River Basin snowpack peaked in April at 107 percent of average.
However, April through July runoff was observed at just 52 percent of average due to hot and dry conditions in the late spring and early summer. This is an example of a potential change in relationship between precipitation and expected runoff. The Colorado River Basin experienced 5 consecutive years of significantly below average runoff starting in 2000, followed by a period of alternating years of above average, near average, and significantly below average runoff through 2020. This 21-year period has been mitigated by actions taken by Metropolitan in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the other Basin States to maintain system storage, avoiding a shortage declaration. At the close of 2020, however, system storage is at or near its lowest since 2000, so there is less water available to buffer future dry conditions.
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Issues
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Bay-Delta) is the hub of California’s water supply and is critically important to the entire state. About 30 percent of Southern California’s water supply moves across the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta’s declining ecosystem, caused by a number of factors that include agricultural runoff, predation of native fish species, urban and agricultural discharge, changing ecosystem food supplies, and overall system operation, has led to reduction in water supply deliveries. Operational constraints will likely continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay-Delta is identified and implemented.
Delta Conveyance
In his State of the State address delivered February 12, 2019, Governor Newsom announced that he did not “support WaterFix as currently configured,” but does “support a single tunnel.” On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19, directing several agencies to 1-18 Current Conditions
(among other things), “inventory and assess… [c]urrent planning to modernize conveyance through the Bay Delta with a new single tunnel project.” The Governor’s announcement and Executive Order led to DWR’s withdrawal of all approvals and environmental compliance documentation associated with California WaterFix. The CEQA process identified in this notice for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project will, as appropriate, utilize relevant information from the past environmental planning process for California WaterFix, but the proposed project will undergo a new stand-alone environmental analysis leading to issuance of a new EIR.
On January 15, 2020, DWR issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the DCP. The proposed project would construct and operate new conveyance facilities in the Delta that would add to the existing SWP infrastructure. New intake facilities as points of diversion would be located in the north Delta along the Sacramento River between Freeport and the confluence with Sutter Slough. The new conveyance facilities would include a single main tunnel to convey water from the new intakes to the existing Banks Pumping Plant and potentially the federal Jones Pumping Plant in the south Delta. The new facilities would provide an alternate location for diversion of water from the Delta and would be operated in coordination with the existing south Delta pumping facilities. The new north Delta facilities would be sized to convey up to 6,000 cfs of water from the Sacramento River to the SWP facilities in the south Delta. DWR would operate the dual conveyance system in compliance with all state and federal regulatory requirements and would not reduce DWR’s current ability to meet standards in the Delta to protect biological resources and water quality for beneficial uses. 2019 Biological Opinions
In August 2016, USBR and DWR reinitiated consultation with NMFS and USFWS on the Coordinated Long-term Operations of the CVP and SWP due to new information and science on declining listed fish species populations. On October 21, 2019, USFWS and NMFS released their Biological Opinions, and on February 18, 2020, USBR signed a Record of Decision, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, completing its environmental review and adopting the 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan.
The 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan incorporates and updates many of the requirements contained in the previous 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions. It also includes over $1 billion over a ten-year period in conservation, monitoring and new science, some of which is in the form of commitments carried forward from the previous 2008/2009 Biological Opinions. Those costs are shared by the SWP and CVP. The 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan and 2019 Biological Opinions are expected to increase SWP deliveries by an annual average of 200,000 acre-feet as compared to the previous Biological Opinions.
California ESA Incidental Take Permit
DWR described and analyzed its proposed SWP long-term operations plan for purposes of obtaining a new California ESA permit in its November 2019 Draft EIR. The 2019 Draft EIR proposed essentially the same operations plan as the federal 2019 Biological Opinions, with the addition of operations for the California ESA-listed Longfin smelt. The proposed project included an estimated $540 million in conservation, monitoring and science, much of which overlapped with DWR’s share of the estimated $1 billion under the federal 2019 Biological Opinions. In December 2019, DWR submitted its application for an incidental take permit under the California ESA to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), with a modified State operations plan that added new outflow and environmental commitments. On March 27, 2020, DWR released its final EIR and Notice of Determination, describing and adopting a State operations plan with additional operational restrictions and additional conservation commitments. On March 31, 2020, CDFW issued a California ESA incidental take permit for the SWP that included further Current Conditions 1-19
operational restrictions and outflow. The final approved project and incidental take permit reduce long-term average SWP deliveries by more than 200 TAF, which more than erased any potential improvement in SWP water supplies that were anticipated to result from the 2019 Biological Opinions. In addition, the approved project and incidental take permit add another estimated $218 million over a ten-year period in environmental commitments for the SWP beyond the SWP’s share of the $1 billion required to comply with the 2019 Biological Opinions.
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update/Voluntary Agreements The Bay-Delta Plan is reviewed periodically, and new standards and allocations of responsibility can be imposed on the SWP as a result. The last review was completed in 2006, and the current review has been ongoing since approximately 2010 in a phased approach.
Phase 1 focuses on the southern Delta salinity objectives for the protection of agriculture, San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife, and a program of implementation for achieving those objectives. Phase 2 considers the comprehensive review of the other elements of the Bay-Delta Plan, including but not limited to Sacramento River and Delta outflow objectives.
The SWRCB has also encouraged all stakeholders to work together to reach one or more voluntary agreements for consideration by the SWRCB that could implement the proposed amendments to the Bay-Delta Plan through a variety of tools, while seeking to protect water supply reliability. Metropolitan is participating in the Phase 2 proceedings and voluntary agreement negotiations. In March of 2019, DWR and CDFW put forward a project description and planning agreement that would allow the SWRCB to analyze the environmental impacts and benefits of the voluntary agreement alternative to the percentage of unimpaired flow framework.
In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted the Phase 1 Bay-Delta Plan amendments and Final Substitute Environmental Document. Among other things, the Phase 1 updates established new Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) flow objectives and revised southern Delta salinity objectives. In July of 2018, the SWRCB released a framework that describes the draft proposal for Phase 2, which will update the flow requirements for the Delta and its contributing watersheds, including the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The framework provides additional details about the flow requirements staff is likely to propose, how these new requirements could be implemented, and preliminary information on their potential environmental benefits and water supply effects.
The framework also states that the SWRCB is interested in receiving potential Bay-Delta Plan amendment language developed through the voluntary agreement process that would authorize, with the affirmative concurrence from CDFW, a coordinated control of flows and other, non-flow factors that would achieve benefits comparable to the unimpaired flow requirements.
Other issues, such as the continued decline of some fish populations in the Bay-Delta and surrounding regions and certain operational actions in the Bay-Delta, may significantly reduce Metropolitan’s water supply from the Bay-Delta. Future new or revised Biological Opinions or incidental take authorizations under the Federal ESA and California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and CVP operations. Additionally, new litigation, listings of additional species under the ESAs, or new regulatory requirements imposed by the SWRCB could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations.
Metropolitan cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any of the litigation or regulatory processes described above, but believes they could have an adverse impact on the operation of the SWP pumps, Metropolitan’s SWP supplies, and Metropolitan’s water reserves. 1-20 Current Conditions
Operational constraints likely will continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the BayDelta is identified and implemented. The Delta Vision process, established by Governor Schwarzenegger, was aimed at identifying long-term solutions to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta, including natural resource, infrastructure, land use, and governance issues. In addition, State resource agencies and various water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Delta Conveyance Project, which is aimed at making physical and operational improvements to the SWP system in the Delta necessary to restore and protect access south-ofDelta SWP water supplies and restore and protect water quality by addressing anticipated sealevel rise, seismic risks, and by providing operational flexibility to improve aquatic conditions in the Delta and better manage risks of further regulatory constraints on SWP operations.
Water Supply Conditions
The water conditions that the region faced leading up to 2020 were characterized by alternating scarcity and abundance. Whereas the five years leading up to the prior UWMP were characterized by severe drought and depletion of Metropolitan’s dry year storage reserves, conditions leading up to 2020 have included two very wet years and the rebuilding of Metropolitan’s storage reserves to record high levels.
The five-year period began with 2016 reflecting average hydrologic conditions and a 60 percent SWP allocation. This level of supplies allowed for a modest recovery in storage reserves after the drought of 2014-2015. The wettest year on record followed in 2017, and with an 85 percent SWP allocation, Metropolitan was able to add over a million acre-feet to storage reserves by the end of 2017. As such, Metropolitan was well prepared to manage a future dry year, which arrived in 2018 with a 35 percent allocation. Wet conditions returned in 2019; with a 75 percent allocation, storage reserves increased by nearly 600 TAF, ending the year at a record high 3.1 MAF. With high volumes of water in storage, and healthy supplies on the Colorado River, Metropolitan was well prepared to meet the challenge of a dry 2020 and 20 percent SWP allocation.
Investments in storage and flexible operations have prepared Metropolitan to capitalize on available supplies in wet years and manage through drought years. During the wet years of 2017 and 2019, Metropolitan achieved the following milestones:
• In 2017, record deliveries of 395 TAF to exchange partners Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District from the Colorado River Aqueduct to accomplish the largest single year increase in the Advance Delivery Account;
• In 2017 and 2019, record creation of Intentionally Created Surplus storage in Lake Mead of 351 TAF and 410 TAF, respectively; and
• In 2019, a record low diversion of Colorado River water of approximately 540 TAF, a level not seen since the 1950s.
While recent wet conditions along with flexible adaptive management have brought great successes in building storage reserves, water supply challenges remain. These include:
• Analysis of historical records suggest a potential change in the relationship between precipitation and runoff in the Colorado River Basin and has contributed to a drying trend over the last 21 years. With Lake Mead and Lake Powell at 40 and 42 percent of capacity, respectively, there is practically no buffer to avoid a shortage from any future period of reduced precipitation and runoff.
• Groundwater basins and local reservoirs dropped to very low operating levels due to recorddry hydrology in Southern California in 2016. Due to wetter hydrology in 2017 and 2019, the groundwater basins started to recover. However, levels in groundwater basins throughout Current Conditions 1-21
the service area remained below healthy storage levels. In addition, groundwater production in the service area has remained at low levels even after the drought; • Supply availability in the Los Angeles Aqueduct system continues to be affected by both drought and environmental mitigation efforts related to Owens Lake and the Lower Owens River.
In addition, water quality challenges such as algae toxins, PFAS, and the identification of constituents of emerging concern, have a significant impact on the region’s water supply conditions and underscore the importance of flexible and adaptive regional planning strategies.
Current Available Resources
Metropolitan’s primary purpose is to provide a supplemental supply of water for domestic and municipal uses at wholesale rates to its member public agencies. Metropolitan’s principal sources of water are the SWP and the Colorado River. Metropolitan’s robust planning strategy continues to balance available local and imported water resources and member agencies’ demands within Metropolitan’s service area.
A. Imported Supplies
Metropolitan receives water from the Colorado River through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and from the SWP through the California Aqueduct. Figure 1-6 shows the historic annual deliveries from the SWP and the Colorado River.
Colorado River
The Colorado River was Metropolitan’s original source of water after Metropolitan’s establishment in 1928. Metropolitan has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior. The CRA, which has a capacity of
1.25 MAF a year, is owned and operated by Metropolitan. It transports water from Lake Havasu, at the border of the state of California with Arizona, approximately 242 miles to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County.
Over the years, Metropolitan increased reliable supply through the CRA through programs that it helped fund and implement including: farm and irrigation district conservation programs, improved reservoir system operations, land management programs, and water transfers and exchanges through arrangements with agricultural water districts in southern California, entities in Arizona and Nevada that use Colorado River water, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). A detailed discussion of availability of Colorado River water for delivery to Metropolitan is included in Section 3.1.
1-22 Current Conditions
Metropolitan also receives approximately 277,700 AF per year of additional Colorado River supplies pursuant to an exchange agreement with its member agency, San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) (the Exchange Agreement). Pursuant to several agreements, SDCWA receives transfers of Colorado River water from Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and water resulting from the Coachella Canal Lining Project and All-American Canal Lining Project. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreement with Metropolitan, SDCWA makes that water available to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu, which Metropolitan then adds to its supplies. In exchange, Metropolitan delivers a like-amount of its own blended water to SDCWA at the Metropolitan-SDCWA connections.1 State Water Project
Metropolitan imports water from the SWP, owned by the state of California and operated by DWR. This project transports Feather River water stored in and released from Oroville Dam and conveyed through the Bay-Delta, as well as unregulated flows diverted directly from the BayDelta south via the California Aqueduct to four delivery points – one from the Aqueduct’s West Branch at the northwestern and three from the East Branch at the northeastern portion of Metropolitan’s service area.
In 1960, Metropolitan signed a water supply contract with DWR for participation in the SWP (State Water Contracts). Metropolitan is one of 29 agencies that have long-term contracts with DWR (State Water Contractors) that are participants in the SWP through State Water Contracts, and is the largest agency in terms of the number of people it serves (19.2 million), the share of SWP water that it is allocated pursuant to the State Water Contract (approximately 46 percent), and the percentage of total annual payments made to DWR by agencies with State Water Contracts (approximately 53 percent in 2020). A more detailed discussion of the SWP supplies is provided in Section 3.2.
1 Prior UWMPs reported these exchanges as SDCWA’s local supplies and not as Colorado River water made available to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu with Metropolitan’s other Colorado River supplies. This was because Metropolitan reported information in the UWMP as reported by each member agency and SDCWA reported the exchanges as local supplies. Metropolitan has determined that it is most appropriate to report the exchanges here consistently with the transaction, pursuant to Water Code Section 10615. Section 10615 requires that Metropolitan describe and evaluate all sources of supply made available to the district. SDCWA has independently acquired the IID transfer water pursuant to its transfer agreement with IID, and Metropolitan assigned to SDCWA its rights to the canal lining water for 110 years. Under the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement, the Secretary of the Interior has agreed to deliver this conserved Colorado River water to the Colorado River Aqueduct Intake at Lake Havasu for diversion by Metropolitan. Metropolitan and SDCWA executed the 2003 Exchange Agreement providing for Metropolitan to take possession of the water at Lake Havasu. Metropolitan owns and manages this water at its complete discretion for the benefit of its member agencies. In exchange for the volume made available to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu (at uneven intervals), Metropolitan delivers annually an equal volume to SDCWA (in even monthly deliveries) from whatever source or sources available to Metropolitan. Accordingly, other Metropolitan reports, including the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) and the Annual Report, have accurately not categorized that water as “local supplies.” To reflect the transfer of the Colorado River water to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu for its ownership and management, the exchange water is categorized here as water imported from the Colorado River pursuant to the Exchange Agreement and not as a local supply. This is consistent with Section 10615’s requirement, and is also consistent with Metropolitan’s prior report of the SDCWA exchange water at Section 3.1 of the UWMP and its exclusion from the local supplies at Figure 1-7 of prior UWMP reports.
Current Conditions 1-23
B. Local Supplies
Approximately 50 percent of the region’s water supplies come from resources separately controlled or operated by local water agencies. These resources include water extracted from local groundwater basins, catchment of local surface water, and non-Metropolitan imported water supplied through the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Figure 1-7 shows the historic annual use of local and imported water supplies within Metropolitan’s service area.
Figure 1-6 Imported Water Supplies in Metropolitan's Service Area ■ State Water Project ■ Colorado River Aqueduct
3.0 2.5
2.0 Million 1.5 Acre-Feet - - - - 1.0 f- f- - f- f- - f- - f- f0.5 - f- - f- f- - f- f- - f- f- - f- f- - f- - f- f- - f- f- - f0.0 Notes:
1. State Water Project Supplies include Table A, Art. 21, Art. 14(b), Art. 12(d), Art. 12(e), Art. 55, draws from storage & carryover, DWCV & other exchanges, transfers, Drought Water Bank and Dry Year Pool Purchases, Pools A&B, Flood Water, wheeling, Port Hueneme lease, and SBVMWD Purchases.
2. Colorado River Aqueduct supplies are gross Havasu diversions less return flows, deliveries to USBR, Mexico, and storage.
Figure 1-7 Annual Regional Water Supplies in Metropolitan's Service Area Million
Acre-Feet
Notes:
5.0 4.5
4.0 3.5
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 0
0 0 0 0 N N
■ Loca l Supplies
N
0 0
N
M "-t" LI) \0 r-,... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N
■ Imported Supplies
00 0\ 0 N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N
1. Local supplies include: Groundwater, Groundwater Recovery, Recycled Water, and Surface water
2. Imported supplies include: Full-service, IAWP, Replenishment and LAA
3. Data not available for 2020. Estimate for 2020 is based on historical data. <Cj" lJ) 'D
0 0 0 N N N
...... 00
0 0 N N
f- - ff- - f0\ ..,;
0 Vl
LU
N 0
N
0 N
1-24 Current Conditions
Groundwater
The groundwater basins that underlie the region provide an annual average supply of approximately 1.2 MAF (2011-2020 average). Natural recharge of the groundwater basins is supplemented by active recharge of captured stormwater, recycled water, and imported water to support this level of annual production.
Estimates indicate that available storage space in the region’s groundwater basins in mid-2020 is approximately 4.7 MAF. Successive dry years have resulted in groundwater depletions that will need to be replaced with natural recharge during wet years and active spreading of captured stormwater, recycled water, and imported water. Groundwater basin managers and water suppliers have taken steps to store water in advance of dry years to soften the potential impact on groundwater aquifers and to maintain reliable local water supplies during dry years.
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Seawater Desalination Recycling and groundwater recovery are local resources that add balance to Southern California’s diverse water portfolio. In addition to replenishment of groundwater basins as described above, water recycling provides extensive treated wastewater for applicable municipal and industrial uses. Common uses of recycled water include landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and commercial and industrial applications. Groundwater recovery employs additional treatment techniques to effectively use degraded groundwater supplies that were previously not considered viable due to high salinity or other contamination.
While water recycling and groundwater recovery projects in the Southern California region are primarily developed by local water agencies, many newer projects have been developed with financial incentives provided through Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program (LRP). The LRP is a performance-based program that provides incentives to expand water recycling and support recovery of degraded groundwater, among other types of projects. In 2020, the regional water production from water recycling and groundwater recovery totaled approximately 552 TAF, of which 120 TAF was developed with Metropolitan funding assistance. A detailed discussion of recycling and groundwater recovery is presented in Section 3.5.
Seawater desalination represents a significant opportunity to diversify the region’s water resource mix with a new, locally controlled, reliable potable supply. Metropolitan supports seawater desalination to its member agencies by providing technical assistance, regional facilitation of research and information exchanges, and financial incentives through the LRP.
In December 2015, pursuant to its Water Purchase Agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), Poseidon Resources began operation of the 56 TAF Claude “Bud” Lewis Seawater Desalination Plant in the City of Carlsbad. During fiscal years 2017 through 2019, the facility produced an annual average of 42.1 TAF, meeting nearly 9 percent of SDCWA’s service area demands. The Carlsbad facility does not receive funding through Metropolitan’s LRP.
Seawater desalination is discussed in more detail in Section 3.5 Surface Water
In addition to the groundwater basins, local agencies maintain surface reservoir capacity to capture local runoff. The average yield captured from local watersheds is estimated at approximately 90 TAF per year (2011-2020 average). The majority of this supply comes from reservoirs within the service area of the SDCWA.
Current Conditions 1-25
Los Angeles Aqueduct
Although the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA) imports water from outside the region, Metropolitan classifies water provided by the LAA as a local resource because it is developed and imported by a local agency (the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). This resource provided approximately 200 TAF per year on average over the last ten years from 2011 to 2020 but was reduced to approximately 33 TAF during a historic dry period of 2015.
Table 1-5 shows the projected local supplies estimated for a normal water year and under five consecutive years of drought for 2025, 2035, and 2045.
Table 1-5
Local Supplies for Normal and Dry Years
(Acre-Feet)
2025 2035 2045
Normal
Year1
Dry
Year2
Normal
Year
Dry
Year
Normal
Year
Dry
Year
Local Groundwater
From Natural Recharge3 939,000 985,000 964,000 988,000 991,000 1,011,000 Replenishment 316,000 255,000 332,000 327,000 335,000 334,000 Local Projects
Groundwater Recovery 143,000 139,000 158,000 158,000 159,000 159,000 Recycling 550,000 491,000 687,000 658,000 706,000 703,000 Seawater Desalination 51,000 56,000 51,000 56,000 51,000 56,000 Local Runoff Stored 80,000 77,000 82,000 77,000 82,000 77,000 Los Angeles Aqueduct 257,000 118,000 258,000 118,000 258,000 118,000 Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 Total 2,613,000 2,400,000 2,809,000 2,660,000 2,860,000 2,736,000 1 Normal Water Year is based on 1922 through 2017.
2 Dry Year is based on five consecutive years of drought (1988-92). 3 Estimate of natural recharge is based on basin balance considering projected local groundwater production and replenishment deliveries to the groundwater basins.
Metropolitan’s Actions to Address Supply Challenges
Metropolitan progressively addressed the challenges of water shortages caused by the dramatic swings in annual hydrologic conditions that have characterized the past decade on the SWP.
Metropolitan took actions that include: (1) Increasing water conservation by expanding outreach, adding devices, and increasing incentives to residents, (2) Increasing local resources by providing incentives for on-site recycled water hook-up and increasing incentives for the LRP, (3) Augmenting water supplies through water transfers and exchanges, (4) Improving return capability of storage programs, (5) Modifying Metropolitan’s distribution system to enhance the use of Colorado River water, and (6) Implementing the Water Supply Allocation Plan to distribute the limited imported supplies and preserve storage reserves. 1-26 Current Conditions
Continuing Water Conservation
By 2040, conservation and water recycling will account for one-third of Southern California’s water supply portfolio in Metropolitan’s service area. Metropolitan supports financial incentives, education, outreach programs and appliance/plumbing standards at both the regional and local level to ensure water conservation meets this goal.
On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order (Order) calling for a 25 percent reduction in consumer water use in response to the historically dry conditions throughout the State of California. The next month, Metropolitan increased funding for its conservation program to a record amount of $450 million over the next two fiscal years due to strong response to the incentive program and to assist retail agencies in the service area to meet their mandatory water reduction targets. Since the drought ended, Metropolitan has been working hard these past five years to ensure that water demand in its service area continues to remain low. Gallons per capita measurement is the major conservation indicator of residential water demand, and for the last five years, Metropolitan’s service area has remained below the theoretical standard set to meet a 20 percent reduction goal by 2020. While Metropolitan is not subject to meeting the requirements of California’s 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan, its conservation efforts are designed to help its member agencies and their retailers to meet their requirements.
Metropolitan’s conservation program has seen numerous changes from the previous years of record high conservation activity during the last drought, as focus shifted from relying heavily on providing incentives to developing additional training and research programs to supplement conservation activity. This new focus was designed to reach a broader audience in order to maintain water demand levels achieved during the recent drought. The educational courses teach students the numerous benefits of water efficient landscaping and how to convert their traditional landscaped yards to something more appealing and sustainable, while greatly reducing their outdoor water usage. Ongoing educational efforts include turf removal, California Friendly native plants and landscaper training classes. Additionally, Metropolitan is searching for other water saving opportunities by researching the potential of water saving processes in cooling tower water use, the effects on household water pressure reduction on residential water use, and a household water demand pilot study to determine residential end use from water using fixtures.
Recent conservation highlights include the launching of a revised Turf Replacement Program, establishing additional water efficiency incentives with energy utilities, and a new program for increasing conservation in disadvantaged communities. The disadvantaged community program is comprised of three parts: (1) a regional pilot program; (2) increased flexibility for member agencies to use Metropolitan funds for member agency-administered programs; and, (3) grant funding support. The $3 million regional pilot program provides $250 for installation of premium high-efficiency toilets within multi-family housing constructed prior to 1994. Analyzing program data may better explain how regional approaches could increase conservation within disadvantaged communities. Under the second component, 100 percent of the Metropolitan funds given to member agencies for their locally administered conservation programs could be targeted toward supporting disadvantaged communities or income-qualified consumers.
Metropolitan also works with member and local agencies to help identify opportunities and procure grant funding for such conservation programs
Increasing Local Resources
Since 1982, Metropolitan has assisted local agencies in the development of water recycling and groundwater recovery under the Local Resources Program (LRP). The LRP has evolved over time in an effort to help support the development of local supply projects including the methodology Current Conditions 1-27
for providing the incentives to the Member Agencies. In October 2014, Metropolitan’s Board approved additional LRP refinements to support further development of local resources, which included increasing the maximum incentive amount, offering three incentive payment structures, including on-site recycled water retrofit costs, including other water resources (such as seawater desalination and stormwater), and providing reimbursable services for Metropolitan’s technical assistance.
On-site Retrofit Program
In February 2014, Metropolitan’s Board approved the On-site Retrofit Pilot Program to offer incentives to modify existing water users’ potable water or industrial water systems to utilize recycled water.
Stormwater Pilot Programs
In September 2019, Metropolitan’s Board approved the Stormwater for Direct-use Pilot Program to offer incentives for development and monitoring of new and existing direct-use stormwater projects. The primary purpose of the Pilot Program is to collect data from several regionwide stormwater projects. The data collected will provide a better understanding of actual stormwater runoff capture volumes, costs, and project performance. The Pilot Program will help evaluate the potential water supply benefits delivered by stormwater capture projects and provide a basis for potential future funding approaches.
In November 2019, Metropolitan’s Board approved the Stormwater for Recharge Pilot Study. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between stormwater capture and yield to define the water supply benefits of stormwater. Yield for purposes of this study is defined as either increased groundwater production or decrease in imported water needs relative to baseline.
The study also requires a minimum of 3 years of monitoring, both of the amount of stormwater captured and the impact to the groundwater basins via groundwater modeling and monitoring wells or sensors. This study will help evaluate the potential water supply benefits delivered by stormwater capture projects and provide a basis for potential future funding approaches.
Augmenting Water Supplies
Augmenting water supplies through water transfers and exchanges is an element of Metropolitan’s IRP to mitigate water shortages during dry periods.
The Colorado River System has experienced a drying trend since 2000, leading to substantially decreased water levels in both Lakes Mead and Powell. In March 2014, Metropolitan’s Board approved entering into an agreement with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Denver Water, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), and the United States to establish a two-year pilot program to compensate entitled users of the Colorado River water for voluntary reductions in water use, including fallowing of agricultural lands. The water savings from this program became system water and supported lake elevations.
Metropolitan also entered into several agreements to improve Metropolitan’s operational flexibility on both a short-term and mid-term basis:
• In January 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized an exchange of up to 50 TAF with Westside Mutual Water Company and Kern County Water Agency. This one-for-one exchange provides water at a time in the year when SWP supplies are expected to be low and provides flexibility on timing of returning water.
• In September 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized an amendment to the operational storage agreement with SNWA and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada allowing 1-28 Current Conditions
Metropolitan access to additional Colorado River water during 2015. Metropolitan paid SNWA $44.375 million for 150 TAF of water apportioned to but not used by SNWA during 2015.
When SNWA requests return of water stored under this amendment, SNWA would reimburse Metropolitan for the costs paid for the initial delivery of water. • In November 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into agreements with Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) to develop exchange and storage programs for SWP supplies. This would be an uneven exchange: for every two acre-feet provided to Metropolitan, AVEK would receive back one acre-foot in the future. Metropolitan may also store at least 30 TAF of its SWP supplies in wet years in the Antelope Valley groundwater basin. • In September 2020, Metropolitan’s Board authorized new price terms for the purchase of transfer supplies under the Yuba Accord. The price terms will be fixed for the next five years.
Metropolitan has received around 200 TAF of new supplies before losses under the program. • In March 2021, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into an agreement with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to obtain surplus SWP supplies. The program provides improved water supply reliability to Metropolitan and Metropolitan’s member agencies within the Santa Ana River Watershed. The program is estimated to provide a long term average of around 13 TAFY to the region.
Improving Return Capabilities of Storage Programs
Metropolitan has a number of storage programs with water agencies along the California Aqueduct that would allow it to store SWP supplies during surplus conditions and to have stored water returned when needed. In 2015, Metropolitan provided up-front capital costs to its water management program partners to build infrastructure to improve the return capabilities of several storage programs.
• In September 2014, Metropolitan’s Board authorized providing capital funds to Semitropic Water Storage District to enhance the pumpback capacity of the Semitropic Groundwater Storage Program by 13,200 AFY. The capital costs would be reimbursed to Metropolitan should Semitropic market the added capacity to another party after Metropolitan has at least one year of recovery capability.
• In March 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into agreement with Arvin Edison Water Storage District to restore 2,500 AFY of return capability by replacing groundwater wells of the Arvin Edison/Metropolitan Water Management Program. The capital costs will be reimbursed as credits to future Program costs.
• Also, in March 2015, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into agreement with Kern-Delta Water District to improve the return reliability of the Kern-Delta Water District Water Management Program. The improvement includes a pipeline that would reduce losses when Kern River supplies are delivered for exchange. Metropolitan's upfront costs will be more than offset through an elimination of put regulation fees on the next 20,000 AF delivered into the Program.
• In April 2019, Metropolitan’s Board authorized entering into an agreement with AVEK for the High Desert Water Bank. Under the Water Bank, Metropolitan could store up to 280,000 acrefeet (AF) of its State Water Project (SWP) Table A or other supplies in the Antelope Valley groundwater basin. Metropolitan will have first priority to 70,000 AF per year of both put and take capacity. Metropolitan will pay AVEK for the capital costs for construction of monitoring and production wells, turnouts from the California Aqueduct, underground and aboveground pipelines, recharge basins, water storage, and booster pump facilities. In Current Conditions 1-29
addition, Metropolitan would subsequently pay actual operation and maintenance, energy, and recovery usage fees to recover the water in storage.
Modifying Metropolitan’s Distribution System
As a result of ongoing extraordinary dry conditions throughout the state of California, the SWP allocation for calendar year 2014 was five percent, which represents about 96,000 acre-feet of SWP Table A water allocation for Metropolitan. Although Metropolitan had been utilizing storage reserves to help bridge the gap between the low SWP supplies and its demand for SWP water, a number of extraordinary operational actions were taken in 2014 to use available Colorado River water and DVL storage supplies to deliver water service to areas where Metropolitan ordinarily uses SWP supplies to provide its service.
Metropolitan modified its normal operations in several areas of the system to use Colorado River water to provide service to areas as far west as the cities of Thousand Oaks and Calabasas, as well as other locations within Metropolitan’s system, some of which had not received Metropolitan water from the Colorado River for extended periods since the completion of the SWP in the early 1970s. System modifications have also been implemented to increase system flexibility to use Colorado River water and DVL water for service to new areas of the system. • In April 2014, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a project that would allow Metropolitan to serve water from multiple sources, such as DVL, to the Mills Treatment Plant in Riverside. The initial phase, construction of an interconnect between the Inland Feeder and the Lakeview Pipeline, near San Jacinto, California, was completed in October 2014, which allowed for an initial flow of water. The second phase of the project, lining of the Bernasconi Tunnel No. 2 was completed in March of 2015 and allowed for increased flows from DVL. The final phase of the project, installation of 3 large valves to improve flow control was completed in 2018. • In May 2014, Metropolitan’s Board authorized the design of improvements to the Greg Avenue Pump Station to enhance water supply reliability in the West Valley area and construct flow control modifications to the outlet of the Jensen Water Treatment Plant. These projects currently allow the West Valley area and Ventura County, which is served normally with SWP water only, to receive blended supplies from the SWP and the Colorado River.
Construction of the Greg Avenue Pump station improvements to enhance the long term reliability of the pumps was authorized in February 2019 and is scheduled to be completed in April 2021.
Additionally, several Metropolitan member agencies made modifications within their own local systems to maximize the use of more readily available Colorado River water and DVL supplies and to further reduce the use of scarce SWP supplies.
In the face of another five percent SWP Table A allocation in 2021, Metropolitan is applying the lessons learned in 2014 and able to reap the benefits of the distribution system modifications that help minimize the use of limited SWP supplies
Implementing the Shortage Response Actions, when needed Recent legislative changes to the California Water Code (CWC) introduced a new Section 10632, which requires that every urban water supplier prepare and adopt a Water Shortage Continency Plan (WSCP). The WSCP is a guide for a supplier’s intended actions during water shortage conditions. It is meant to improve preparedness for droughts and other impacts on water supplies by describing the process used to address varying degrees of water shortages.
While intended to be a stand-alone plan that may be revised outside of the UWMP process, the CWC requires suppliers to initially include the WSCP as part of their 2020 UWMP. 1-30 Current Conditions
Metropolitan developed a WSCP to be consistent with its existing Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan and Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP). Metropolitan’s WSDM Plan, approved in 1999, provides policy guidance for managing regional water supplies during surplus and shortage conditions. It provides an overall vision for operational supply management and characterizes a flexible sequence of actions to minimize the probability of severe shortages and reduce the likelihood of extreme shortages. Thus, the WSDM Plan principles guide the specific actions to be taken under WSCP shortage stages. Metropolitan’s WSAP, developed in 2008, is integral to the WSCP’s shortage response strategy. In the event that Metropolitan determines that shortage response actions through supply augmentation and demand reduction measures are insufficient to meet a projected shortage, the WSAP may be implemented to fairly distribute a limited amount of water supply using a detailed methodology that reflects the range of local conditions and needs of the region’s retail water consumers.
Metropolitan’s Board authorized the implementation of the WSAP for the period of July 2009 through April 2011 in response to the drought and low storage reserves. During the dry period of 2012 through 2016, Metropolitan managed its operations through significant use of regional storage reserves. It was anticipated that at end of year 2014, total dry year storage reserves would approach levels similar to those when the WSAP was first implemented in 2009. On December 9, 2014, Metropolitan’s Board approved adjustments to the formula for calculating member agency supply allocations for future implementation of the WSAP. On April 14, 2015, Metropolitan’s Board approved implementation of the WSAP at a Level 3 Regional Shortage Level, effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. The WSAP allows member agencies the flexibility to choose among various local supply and conservation strategies to help ensure that demands on Metropolitan stay in balance with limited supplies.
Over the last three years, favorable supply conditions notably in 2017 and 2019, allowed Metropolitan to rebuild its storage reserves. Metropolitan’s regional dry year storage is estimated to be at approximately 3.2 MAF by the end of 2020. In addition, Metropolitan also has 750 TAF of stored supplies reserved to meet service area demands during emergency conditions.
Metropolitan’s comprehensive shortage response planning, combined with improved storage reserves, puts the region in a better position to withstand future dry conditions. Metropolitan’s WSCP, WSDM Plan, and WSAP are described in detail in Section 2 and Appendix 4.
Planning for the Future 2-1
Planning for the Future 2
The purpose of this section is to show the approach and extent to which Metropolitan plans to meet Southern California’s water supply needs in the future. In its role as supplemental supplier to its 26 member agencies in the Southern California water community, Metropolitan faces ongoing challenges in meeting its member agencies’ needs for water supply reliability and quality in the region. Increased environmental regulations and competition for water from outside the region have resulted in changes in delivery patterns and timing of imported water supply availability. At the same time, the Colorado River has experienced a drying trend over the past 21 years, resulting in reservoir levels that are reduced from historical levels.
As described in the previous chapter, the water used in Southern California comes from a number of sources. From 2010 through 2019, Metropolitan has provided 40 percent to 50 percent of the water needs in its service area from the Colorado River via the CRA, and from the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Watershed via the SWP. As Metropolitan continues to face various water supply challenges, development of adaptable resource management strategies to meet a range of possible future demands is ongoing.
Metropolitan’s continued progress in developing a diverse resource mix enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The investments that Metropolitan has made and its ongoing efforts in many different areas coalesce toward its goal of long-term regional water supply reliability.
Metropolitan’s actions have been focused on the following:
• Continuing water conservation
• Developing water supply management programs outside of the region • Developing storage programs related to the SWP and the Colorado River • Developing storage and groundwater management programs within the Southern California region
• Increasing water recycling, groundwater recovery, stormwater, and seawater desalination • Pursuing long-term solutions for the ecosystem, regulatory and water supply issues in the California Bay-Delta
Metropolitan has undertaken a number of planning initiatives over the years. This section summarizes past and current efforts, which include the 1996 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) and its three updates in 2004, 2010, and 2015; the 2020 IRP; the Water Shortage Contingency Plan; the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan; the Water Supply Allocation Plan; Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective; and Seismic Resiliency Studies. Collectively, they provide policy framework guidelines and resource targets for Metropolitan to achieve its goals towards regional water supply reliability.
While Metropolitan coordinates regional supply planning through its inclusive IRP process, Metropolitan’s member agencies also conduct their own planning analyses – including their own urban water management plans – and may develop projects independently of Metropolitan.
Appendix 5 shows a list of potential local projects provided to Metropolitan by its member agencies.
2-2 Integrated Resource Planning
2.1 Integrated Water Resource Planning
In 1993, Metropolitan commenced an Integrated Water Resources Planning process as the beginning of a new era of regional reliability planning for its Southern California service area. As this planning process began, Metropolitan held a series of three regional assemblies from 1993 through 1995 addressing strategic planning issues. Attendance at these regional assemblies included Metropolitan’s Board, Metropolitan’s senior management, member agency managers, local retail water providers, groundwater basin managers, and invited public representatives.
The purpose of these regional assemblies was to gain consensus on resource policy issues, provide direction for future work, and to endorse regional objectives, principles, and strategies.
A key outcome of the regional assemblies was the establishment and adoption of water supply principles which provided critical policy guidance for the development and adoption of future Metropolitan IRPs. In summary, these principles state:
• No water supplier in Southern California is an isolated, independent entity unto itself, and all, to varying degrees, are dependent upon a regional system of water importation, storage, and distribution.
• Metropolitan plays a leading role in Southern California’s regional water management, having the responsibility for importing water from outside the region and convening dialogues on regional water issues, encouraging local water development and conservation, advocating the region’s interests to the state and federal governments, and leading the region’s water community.
• Water suppliers at all levels have a responsibility to promote a strong water ethic both within the water community and among the public, developing plans through open processes, committing to achieving adopted regional goals and strategies, and committing to a policy of equity and fairness in development and implementation of water management programs.
These regional assemblies laid the foundation for Metropolitan’s integrated regional planning path from 1996 to the present. This path has guided Metropolitan’s water resources strategy from the initial adoption of the Metropolitan’s IRP in 1996 to successive IRP updates in 2004, 2010, and 2015.
The 1996 IRP
Metropolitan’s inaugural IRP established a long-term, comprehensive water resources strategy to provide the region with a reliable and affordable water supply. One of the fundamental outcomes of the 1996 IRP was the identification and subsequent implementation of a diverse portfolio of resource investments in both imported and in--region supplies, and in water conservation measures. The 1996 IRP further emphasized the construction and creation of a network of water storage facilities, both below and above ground. It also set a regional water supply reliability goal of providing full capability to meet all retail-level water demands under all foreseeable hydrologic events.
The 1996 IRP process identified cost-effective solutions that offered long-term reliability to the region. Having identified the need for a portfolio of diversified supplies to meet its demands, the 1996 IRP analyzed numerous resource portfolios seeking to find a “Preferred Resource Mix” that would provide the region with reliable and affordable water supplies through 2020. The analysis determined the preferred mix of resources based on cost-effectiveness, diversification, and reliability. Establishing the “Preferred Resource Mix” was an integral part of the 1996 IRP, and subsequent updates have continued to focus on how best to diversify Metropolitan’s water Integrated Water Resource Planning 2-3
portfolio and establish the broad resource targets for the region that helped to meet IRP objectives.
The 2004 IRP Update
The 2004 IRP Update was the first major review and update in the IRP process. The 2004 IRP Update reviewed the goals and achievements of the 1996 IRP, identified the changed conditions for water resource development, and updated resource development targets through 2025.
These targets included increased conservation savings and planned increases in local supplies.
The 2004 IRP Update also explicitly recognized the need to handle uncertainties inherent in any planning process. Some of these uncertainties include:
• Fluctuations in population and economic growth
• Changes in water quality regulations
• Discovery of new chemical contaminants
• Regulation of endangered species affecting sources of supplies • Changes in climate and hydrology
As a result, a key component of the 2004 IRP Update was the addition of a 10 percent “planning buffer.” The planning buffer identified additional supplies, both imported and locally developed, that could be implemented to address uncertainty in future supplies and demands.
The 2010 IRP Update
In keeping with the reliability goal established under the original 1996 IRP of meeting full-service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions, the 2010 IRP Update sought to stabilize Metropolitan’s traditional imported water supplies and establish additional water resources to withstand California’s inevitable dry cycles and growth in water demand. The 2010 IRP Update marked the first time that Metropolitan and its member agencies explicitly acknowledged the increasing impact that emerging challenges and uncertainties such as environmental regulations, threats to water quality, climate change, and economic unknowns would have on planning for a reliable, high quality, and affordable water supply. By 2010, the Colorado River had experienced below-average precipitation conditions for most of the previous decade, and the SWP was facing historic regulatory cutbacks that significantly reduced its supplies that pass through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California.
Recognizing that the conditions for developing and maintaining water supply reliability had changed, Metropolitan set out not only to update the IRP, but also to examine how best to adapt to the new water supply paradigm.
Adaptive Management Strategy
The 2010 IRP Update specifically planned for uncertainty with a range of adaptive management strategies that both meets demands under observed hydrologic conditions and responds to future uncertainty. The plan provided solutions by developing diverse and flexible resources that perform adequately under a wide range of future conditions. Specifically, the adaptive management strategy was a three-component plan that included the following:
• Core Resources Strategy – Designed to maintain reliable water supplies under known conditions. The Core Resources Strategy represented baseline efforts to manage water supply and demand conditions. This strategy was based on “what we know today,” including detailed planning assumptions about future demographic scenarios, water supply yields, and a range of observed historical weather patterns. Under this strategy, Metropolitan and its 2-4 Integrated Resource Planning
member agencies would advance water use efficiency through conservation and recycled water, along with further local supply development such as groundwater recovery and seawater desalination. Metropolitan would also stabilize traditional imported supplies from the Colorado River and Northern California.
• Uncertainty Buffer – A suite of actions which help to mitigate short-term changes. The 2010 IRP Update set goals for a range of potential buffer supplies to protect the region from possible shortages in a cost-effective manner, starting with a further expansion of water use efficiency on a region-wide basis. The buffer would enable the region to adapt to future circumstances and foreseeable challenges that were not assumed under the Core Resources Strategy, such as short-term loss of local supplies or regulatory restrictions. • Foundational Actions – Strategies for additional water resources to augment the core or buffer supplies. Foundational Actions were designed to prepare the region by determining viable alternative supply options for long-range planning. These preparatory actions, including feasibility studies, technological research and regulatory review, were designed to lay the foundation for potential alternative resource development.
The 2015 IRP Update
Following the 2010 IRP, drought in California and across the southwestern United States has put the IRP adaptive management strategy to the ultimate stress test. Dry conditions in California persisted into 2015, resulting in a fourth consecutive year of drought. The year 2015 began with the driest January on record, resulting in the earliest and lowest snowpack peak in recorded history at only 17 percent of the traditional snowpack peak on April 1st. In the ten years since 2006, there were only two wet years, with the other eight years having been below normal, dry, or critically dry. Within Southern California, continuing dry conditions impacted the region’s local supplies, including its groundwater basins.
Throughout 2015, Metropolitan engaged in a comprehensive process with its Board of Directors and member agencies to review how conditions had changed since the 2010 IRP Update and to establish targets for achieving regional reliability, taking into account known opportunities and risks. Areas reviewed in the 2015 IRP Update include demographics, hydrologic scenarios, water supplies from existing and new projects, water supply reliability analyses, and potential resource and conservation targets. Metropolitan’s Board of Directors adopted the 2015 IRP Update on January 12, 2016. 1
The 2015 IRP Update approach explicitly recognizes that there are remaining policy discussions that will be essential to guiding the development and maintenance of local supplies and conservation. Since the adoption of the 2015 IRP Update and its targets for water supply reliability, Metropolitan has begun a process to address questions such as how to meet the targets for regional reliability, what are local and what are regional responsibilities, how to finance regional projects, etc. This discussion will involve extensive interaction with Metropolitan’s Board of Directors and member agencies, with input from the public. 1 http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2015_IRP_Update_Report.pdf Integrated Water Resource Planning 2-5
Findings and Conclusions
The findings and conclusions of the 2015 IRP Update are:
• Action is needed – Without the investments in conservation, local supplies, and the California WaterFix targeted in the 2015 IRP Update, Metropolitan’s service area would experience unacceptable level of shortage allocation frequency in the future. • Maintain Colorado River supplies – The plan to stabilize deliveries at 900,000 AF in a typical year will require more than 900,000 AF of planned actions. • Stabilize SWP supplies – A collaborative approach with state and federal agencies to pursue better science for resolving questions about SWP operations and advancing coequal goals of Delta restoration and statewide water supply reliability in the near term. Also work collaboratively with state and federal agencies in the California WaterFix and EcoRestore efforts.
• Develop and protect local supplies and water conservation – The 2015 IRP Update embraces and advances the regional self-sufficiency ethics by increasing the targets for additional local supplies and conservation. These targets are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this UWMP. • Maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfers – Rebuilding Metropolitan’s supply of water reserves is imperative when the drought is over. A comprehensive water transfer approach that takes advantage of water when it is available will help to stabilize and build storage reserves, increasing Metropolitan’s ability to meet water demands in dry years. • Continue with the adaptive management approach – The IRP is updated periodically to incorporate changed conditions, and an implementation report is prepared annually to monitor the progress in resources development. The 2015 IRP Update also includes Future Supply Actions (renaming the Foundational Actions component of the 2010 IRP Update to better reflect the attention on developing future supplies) that would advance a new generation of local supplies through public outreach; development of legislation and regulation; technical studies and support; and land and resource acquisitions.
The 2020 IRP
The 2020 IRP provides a broader look and concept than the previous IRP updates. The 2020 IRP strengthens the adaptive management approaches employed in prior updates through the incorporation of an explicit scenario planning step. Coming on the completion of a full “planning cycle” with reaching the end of the planning horizon of the 1996 IRP, the 2020 IRP has the benefit of a fuller understanding of the lessons learned from the previous 25 years. The key lesson is that the future is not predictable and is a function of many diverse drivers that are out of the control of the water community. The purpose of scenario planning is to broaden the understanding of plausible, but uncertain, future conditions affecting both supplies and demands. On the demand side, uncertainties surrounding future economic conditions, the extent to which local supplies are developed, and water use behavior will guide member agency dependence on Metropolitan in meeting their retail demands. On the supply side, factors like climate change impacts and regulatory uncertainty are expected to affect future supply availability in unpredictable ways.
With these uncertainties in mind, scenario planning will allow for the evaluation of investments and actions needed to achieve desired reliability under a diverse range of future conditions. It will also reinforce the adaptive capabilities of the IRP by identifying and enabling the 2-6 Integrated Resource Planning
development of future “sign-posts” indicating emerging conditions that may require the redirection of future investments and actions.
While prior IRP updates have addressed uncertainty, adaptation, and preparedness, the addition of a scenario planning element to the process further explores the plausible futures that Metropolitan may confront. Since retaining the ability to adapt through investments in preparedness can be expensive, the scenario planning element should support informed decisions regarding affordable levels of preparedness, as well as identify unacceptable consequences of inaction.
The process of developing scenarios is built on a comprehensive identification of those drivers of change that affect supply stability and demands on Metropolitan. Building on input received from the Board, member agencies, and the public, four scenarios were developed within a framework that examined the drivers of change over a range of future demands on Metropolitan and imported supply stability. This exercise provides four sets of logical, quantified assumptions resulting in unique supply demands gaps against which various investment options can be tested.
The UWMP, along with the original IRP and its subsequent updates, used a single set of assumptions for the uncertainties that drive supply and demands. In the 2020 IRP, Metropolitan explicitly acknowledges that the future is unpredictable and that a scenario planning approach can expand our thinking by examining multiple plausible futures. This approach will better prepare Metropolitan’s service area for the uncertainties that lie ahead. Metropolitan believes this is an improvement over the single outcome approach taken in past IRPs and the UWMP requirements. It is important to emphasize that the scenario planning element of the 2020 IRP complements the IRP planning approach that has evolved since 1996. It is also important to note that the UWMP assumptions fall within the plausible futures contemplated in the IRP. This means that, while the reliability assessments in the UWMP comply with the Act, Metropolitan and its member agencies are contemplating and comparing future conditions that are beyond the requirements of the Act and thus will be prepared for a wider range of conditions than shown in the UWMP assessments. The following sections describe the methodology and IRP assumptions being applied for the purposes of the UWMP.
Estimating Demands on Metropolitan 2-7
2.2 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires suppliers to conduct three key basic planning analyses to evaluate supply reliability. The first is a water service reliability assessment that compares the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The second is a drought risk assessment (DRA) that evaluates a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted. And third, a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that includes a detailed proposal for how the supplier intends to act during actual water shortage conditions. As one of the recent additions to the Act’s requirements, suppliers need to present the WSCP as part of their UWMP. However, the WSCP is its own independent plan that shall be adopted and provided to customers, cities, and counties within the supplier’s service area, and may be amended independent of a supplier’s UWMP.
These required assessments and planning are included in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.
The 2020 UWMP presents Metropolitan’s water reliability assessments from 2025 through 2045. As specified in the Act, there are three year types that must be included in the water service reliability assessment for the UWMP. To simulate hydrologic conditions for the required reliability assessments, Metropolitan assumed the following:
• Normal Year. The average of historic years 1922 to 2017 most closely represents the water supply conditions that Metropolitan considers available during normal water year. • Single Dry Year. The conditions for the year 1977 represent the lowest water supply available to Metropolitan.
• Five-Consecutive-Year Drought. The five consecutive years of 1988 to 1992 represent the driest five-consecutive year historical sequence for Metropolitan’s water supply. This five-year sequence is used to complete both Metropolitan’s water service reliability and drought risk assessments.
Metropolitan developed estimates of future demands and supplies from local sources and from Metropolitan sources based on 96 years (1922-2017) of historic hydrologic conditions. The 96- year period starting in 1922 was chosen because the CalSim 2 model used in the 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report began in 1922. Supply and demand analyses for the single-dry year and 5-year drought cases were based on conditions affecting the SWP as this supply availability fluctuates the most among Metropolitan’s sources of supply. Using the same 96-year period of the SWP supply availability, 1977 is the single driest year, and 1988 through 1992 are the 5 consecutive driest years for SWP supplies to Metropolitan. In addition, staff analysis of the 8-river index indicated that 1977 is the single driest year and 1988 through 1992 are the lowest 5 consecutive dry years from 1922 through 2017. The 8-river index is used widely by DWR and other water agencies as an estimate of the unimpaired runoff (or natural water production) of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which are sources of water for the SWP.
Demand Projection for the UWMP
Metropolitan developed its demand projections for the UWMP by first estimating total retail demands for its service area and then factoring out water savings attributed to conservation.2 Projections of local supplies were then derived using data from current and expected local supply programs. The resulting difference between total demands net of savings from conservation and local supplies is the expected regional demands on Metropolitan supplies. 2 Information generated as part of this analysis is contained in Appendix 1. 2-8 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan
These various estimates are shown in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. Major categories used in these tables are defined below.
Total Demands
Total demands are the sum of retail demand for M&I and agricultural, seawater barrier demand, and replenishment demand. Total demands represent the total amount of water needed by the member agencies. Total demands include:
• Retail Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Demand – Retail M&I demands represent the full spectrum of urban water use within the region. These include residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and un-metered water uses. Demographic and economic factors are the major drivers behind M&I water demands. The demographic and economic data used in developing these projections for the UWMP were taken from the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy from the Connect SoCal Complete Report (as adopted on May 7, 2020) and from the San Diego County Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (October 2019, Version 17). The SCAG and SANDAG regional growth forecasts are the core assumptions that drive the estimating equations in Metropolitan’s Econometric Demand Model (MWD-EDM).
SCAG’s and SANDAG’s projections undergo extensive local review, incorporate zoning information from city and county general plans, and are backed by Environmental Impact Reports. Both SCAG and SANDAG prepare demographic forecasts based on land use data for their respective regions through extensive processes that emphasize input from local planners and are done in coordination with local or regional land use authorities, incorporating essential information to reflect anticipated future populations and land uses.
These growth forecasts are used to guide development of regional plans and strategies mandated by federal and state governments. Metropolitan’s use of SCAG and SANDAG projections is consistent with CWC Section 10631’s requirement for suppliers to include current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning.
Impacts of potential annexation are not included in the demand projections for the 2020 UWMP. However, Metropolitan’s Review of Annexation Procedures concluded that the impacts of annexation within the service area beyond 2020 would not exceed two percent of overall demands.
• Retail Agricultural Demand – Retail agricultural demands consist of water use for irrigating crops. Member agencies estimate agricultural water use based on many factors, including farm acreage, crop types, historical water use, and land use conversion. Each member agency estimates its agricultural demand differently, depending on the availability of information. Metropolitan relies on member agencies’ estimates of agricultural demands for the 2020 UWMP.
• Seawater Barrier Demand – Seawater barrier demands represent the amount of water needed to hold back seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater basins. Groundwater management agencies determine the barrier requirements based on groundwater levels, injection wells, and regulatory permits.
• Storage Replenishment Demand – Storage replenishment demands represent the amount of water member agencies plan to use to replenish their groundwater basins or surface reservoirs in order to maintain sustainable basin/reservoir heath and production. For the 2020 UWMP, replenishment deliveries are not included as part of consumptive demands.
Estimating Demands on Metropolitan 2-9
Climate impacts to M&I and Agricultural demands are captured using climate adjustment factors. These factors were estimated using observed range of weather variables, precipitation and temperature, on historical consumptive demands. Metropolitan updated these factors to include the most recent weather and climate outcomes and recent changes in water use and irrigation demands. By incorporating these factors, Metropolitan’s demand projections are calibrated to the more recent water use behaviors and better reflect current climate change impacts.
Conservation Adjustment
Water savings from conservation reduces total retail demand. Conservation savings consists of the following:
• Code-Based Conservation – Water savings resulting from plumbing codes and other institutionalized water efficiency measures. Sometimes referred to as “passive conservation,” this form of conservation would occur as a matter of course without any additional financial incentives from water agencies. In addition, water savings from Model Water Efficiency Ordinance (MWELO) is assumed for 50 percent of new home construction since the ordinance does not have a uniform effective enforcement mechanism for compliance.
MWELO is also assumed not to affect water use projections for existing homes and businesses.
Water savings from codes, standards, and ordinances are discussed in Appendix 6. • Active Conservation – Water saved as a direct result of programs and practices directly funded by a water utility. Active conservation is unlikely to occur without agency action. • Price Effect Conservation – Reductions in customer use attributable to changes in the real (inflation adjusted) cost of water. Because water has a positive price elasticity of demand, increases in water price will decrease the quantity of water demanded by the end use consumer.
• Pre-1990 Savings – Conservation savings are commonly estimated from a base-year wateruse profile. Beginning with the 1996 IRP, Metropolitan identified 1980 as the base year for estimating conservation because it marked the effective date of a new plumbing code in California requiring toilets in new construction to be rated at 3.5 gallons per flush or less.
Between 1980 and 1990, Metropolitan’s service area saved an estimated 250 TAF per year as the result of this 1980 plumbing code and unrelated water rate increases. Within Metropolitan’s planning framework, these savings are referred to as “pre-1990 savings.” Metropolitan’s conservation savings projection includes savings from Metropolitan’s Conservation Credits Program, code-based conservation, price effect conservation, and pre1990 device retrofits. The projection does not include savings from the implementation of future active conservation programs.
Local Supplies
Local supplies represent water produced or imported independently by the member agencies and other local water agencies within Metropolitan’s service area. Local supplies are a key component in determining how much Metropolitan supply is needed. Projections of local supplies relied on information gathered from several sources including past urban water management plans, Metropolitan’s annual local supply survey, and communications between Metropolitan and member agency staff. Local supplies include:
• Groundwater and Surface Water – Groundwater production consists of extractions from local groundwater basins. Groundwater production is supported by the active recharge of stormwater, recycled water, and imported water. Passive recharge (or native yield) also 2-10 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan
supports groundwater production. Surface water comes from stream diversions and rainwater captured in reservoirs.
• The Los Angeles Aqueduct – A major source of imported water is conveyed from the Owens Valley via the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA) by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Although LADWP imports water from outside of Metropolitan's service area, Metropolitan classifies water provided by the LAA as a local resource because it is developed and controlled independently by a local agency.
• Seawater Desalination – Highly treated seawater suitable for municipal and industrial potable use.
• Groundwater Recovery and Recycled Water – Developed and operated by local water agencies, groundwater recovery projects treat degraded groundwater to meet potable use standards. Recycled water projects recycle wastewater for municipal, industrial, and agricultural consumptive uses as well as for groundwater replenishment and local seawater intrusion barriers.
The local supply projections presented in the demand tables are consistent with the local supply projections that the Metropolitan member agencies are including in their respective UWMPs. 3, 4 Information regarding the member agencies’ local supply projections was compiled through the extensive coordination process between Metropolitan and its member agencies. Additionally, Metropolitan maintains an inventory of member agency local supply projects that have been identified within Metropolitan’s service area. Appendix 5 contains the inventory of local supply projects by type of supply and includes a classification that shows the current stage of development for each supply in the inventory. The stages of development included in Appendix 5 are: Existing, Under Construction, CEQA, and Conceptual projects. The project inventory in Appendix 5 was updated and completed as part of the 2020 IRP Update survey completed by Metropolitan’s member agencies in June 2019 and October 2020.
Determining Demands on Metropolitan
Metropolitan serves imported water to its 26 member agencies. For most member agencies, they have other sources of water produced locally from groundwater basins, surface reservoirs, the LAA, recycled water projects, groundwater recovery projects, and seawater desalination projects. When local supplies are not enough to meet retail demands, member agencies purchase supplemental water from Metropolitan.
In determining demands for imported water, Metropolitan developed its Sales Model to calculate the difference between total forecasted retail demands and local supply projections 3 One variation from the member agency local supply reporting is the Colorado River water SDCWA secured from Coachella Canal Lining Project and All-American Canal Lining Project that it exchanges with Metropolitan pursuant to the parties’ Exchange Agreement, since that water is provided to Metropolitan at Lake Havasu where Metropolitan receives other Colorado River water, used by Metropolitan like other Colorado River supplies, and Metropolitan delivers a like-amount of Metropolitan blended water to SDCWA in exchange. (See Section 1 at p. 22.) 4 Another variation from the member agency local supply reporting is the hydrology used for projecting future Los Angeles Aqueduct supply. LADWP in its UWMP uses a 30-year median hydrology from FY 1985/86 to 2014/15 while Metropolitan uses the 1922 to 2017 hydrology provided by LADWP, consistent with Metropolitan’s modeling framework. The discrepancies between LADWP’s 30-year median hydrology and Metropolitan’s 96 hydrology resulted in Metropolitan’s projection being approximately 70,000 acre-feet higher in average conditions. In a single dry-year, LADWP uses the FY 1989/1990 hydrology while Metropolitan uses 1977 hydrology, resulting in Metropolitan’s projection being approximately 50,000 acre-feet higher. Both Metropolitan and LADWP use the 1988-1992 hydrology for five consecutive dry-year conditions.
Estimating Demands on Metropolitan 2-11
on a per member agency basis. The balance is the demand on Metropolitan’s imported water supply. The Sales Model calculates the difference between forecasted demands and projected local supplies after factoring in climate impacts to both demand and local supply. The Sales Model employs a modeling method using historical hydrologic conditions from 1922 to 2017 to simulate the expected demands on Metropolitan supplies based on hydrologic conditions. Each hydrologic condition results in one possible outcome for the forecast year in the planning horizon.
For example, each forecast year, such as 2025, has 96 possible outcomes, one for each historical hydrology year during the period 1922 to 2017. This method of modeling produces a distribution of outcomes ranging from the driest to the wettest years within this historical period.
The Sales Model forecasts three types of demands on Metropolitan:
1. Consumptive Use – Metropolitan’s supplies that are used to meet retail M&I demand.
2. Seawater Barrier – Imported water needed to hold back seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater basins.
3. Replenishment – Water for groundwater or reservoir replenishment, when available, to meet replenishment demands.
Due to differences in data and modeling methodology, the results of Metropolitan’s forecast are not directly comparable to member agencies’ forecasts. Differences from the member agencies forecasts are not cumulative and can offset each other on the regional level. The overall impact is within the range of Metropolitan’s supply capability under all year types.
For additional information on Metropolitan’s demand forecast, see Appendix 1. 2-12 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan
Table 2-1
Metropolitan Regional Water Demands
Single Dry-Year
(Acre-Feet)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
A. Total Demands1 4,929,000 5,037,000 5,160,000 5,265,000 5,378,000 Retail Municipal and Industrial 4,397,000 4,507,000 4,626,000 4,737,000 4,848,000 Retail Agricultural 144,000 134,000 130,000 122,000 123,000 Seawater Barrier 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000
Storage Replenishment 327,000 334,000 343,000 345,000 346,000 B. Total Conservation 1,162,000 1,211,000 1,263,000 1,325,000 1,389,000 Existing Active (through 2020)2 93,000 55,000 35,000 25,000 17,000 Code-based 560,000 623,000 665,000 701,000 731,000
Price-Effect3 259,000 283,000 313,000 349,000 391,000
Pre-1990 Conservation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 C. Total Local and Other Imported Supplies 2,501,000 2,604,000 2,702,000 2,722,000 2,743,000 Groundwater 1,278,000 1,300,000 1,324,000 1,333,000 1,344,000 Surface Water 78,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Los Angeles Aqueduct4 119,000 119,000 119,000 119,000 119,000 Seawater Desalination 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Groundwater Recovery 143,000 157,000 158,000 158,000 159,000 Recycling5 550,000 613,000 687,000 698,000 706,000
Other Imported Supplies6 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 D. Total Metropolitan Demands 1,266,000 1,222,000 1,195,000 1,218,000 1,247,000 Consumptive Use 1,125,000 1,081,000 1,055,000 1,078,000 1,107,000 Seawater Barrier 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Replenishment 136,000 136,000 136,000 136,000 136,000
Notes:
All units are acre-feet unless specified, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Totals may not sum due to rounding. 1 Growth projections are based on SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and SANDAG San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. 2 Does not include future active conservation savings. 1990 is base year. 3 Includes un-metered water use savings. 4 Los Angeles Aqueduct Projection uses 1977 hydrology. 5 Excludes Santa Ana River base flow, which is used for recharge of Orange County groundwater basin and reflected in the Groundwater production numbers. 6 Exchange with SDCWA.
Estimating Demands on Metropolitan 2-13
Table 2-2
Metropolitan Regional Water Demands
Drought Lasting Five Consecutive Water Years
(Acre-Feet)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
A. Total Demands1 4,877,000 5,064,000 5,182,000 5,299,000 5,410,000 Retail Municipal and Industrial 4,414,000 4,540,000 4,658,000 4,777,000 4,889,000 Retail Agricultural 147,000 143,000 135,000 129,000 126,000 Seawater Barrier 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000
Storage Replenishment 255,000 319,000 327,000 332,000 334,000 B. Total Conservation 1,162,000 1,211,000 1,263,000 1,325,000 1,389,000 Existing Active (through 2020)2 93,000 55,000 35,000 25,000 17,000 Code-based 560,000 623,000 665,000 701,000 731,000
Price-Effect3 259,000 283,000 313,000 349,000 391,000
Pre-1990 Conservation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 C. Total Local and Other Imported Supplies 2,400,000 2,561,000 2,660,000 2,713,000 2,736,000 Groundwater 1,240,000 1,293,000 1,316,000 1,333,000 1,345,000 Surface Water 77,000 76,000 77,000 77,000 77,000
Los Angeles Aqueduct4 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 118,000 Seawater Desalination 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Groundwater Recovery 139,000 152,000 158,000 158,000 159,000 Recycling5 491,000 588,000 658,000 694,000 703,000
Other Imported Supplies6 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 D. Total Metropolitan Demands 1,314,000 1,292,000 1,259,000 1,261,000 1,286,000 Consumptive Use 1,221,000 1,164,000 1,130,000 1,132,000 1,158,000 Seawater Barrier 8,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Replenishment 85,000 124,000 124,000 124,000 124,000
Notes:
All units are acre-feet unless specified, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 Growth projections are based on SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and SANDAG San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. 2 Does not include future active conservation savings. 1990 is base year. 3 Includes un-metered water use savings. 4 Los Angeles Aqueduct Projection uses 1988-1992 hydrology. 5 Excludes Santa Ana River base flow, which is used for recharge of Orange County groundwater basin and reflected in the Groundwater production numbers.
6 Exchange with SDCWA.
2-14 Estimating Demands on Metropolitan
Table 2-3
Metropolitan Regional Water Demands
Normal Water Year
(Acre-Feet)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
A. Total Demands1 4,925,000 5,032,000 5,156,000 5,261,000 5,374,000 Retail Municipal and Industrial 4,403,000 4,514,000 4,632,000 4,743,000 4,854,000 Retail Agricultural 144,000 134,000 130,000 123,000 123,000 Seawater Barrier 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000
Storage Replenishment 316,000 323,000 332,000 334,000 335,000 B. Total Conservation 1,162,000 1,211,000 1,263,000 1,325,000 1,389,000 Existing Active (through 2020)2 93,000 55,000 35,000 25,000 17,000 Code-based 560,000 623,000 665,000 701,000 731,000
Price-Effect3 259,000 283,000 313,000 349,000 391,000
Pre-1990 Conservation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 C. Total Local and Other Imported Supplies 2,613,000 2,712,000 2,809,000 2,836,000 2,860,000 Groundwater 1,255,000 1,273,000 1,296,000 1,311,000 1,326,000 Surface Water 80,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000
Los Angeles Aqueduct4 257,000 257,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 Seawater Desalination 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 Groundwater Recovery 143,000 157,000 158,000 158,000 159,000 Recycling5 550,000 613,000 687,000 698,000 706,000
Other Imported Supplies6 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 D. Total Metropolitan Demands 1,149,000 1,110,000 1,084,000 1,100,000 1,125,000 Consumptive Use 1,020,000 981,000 954,000 971,000 996,000 Seawater Barrier 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Replenishment 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
Notes:
All units are acre-feet unless specified, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 Growth projections are based on SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and SANDAG San Diego Forward: The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. 2 Does not include future active conservation savings. 1990 is base year. 3 Includes un-metered water use savings. 4 Los Angeles Aqueduct Projection uses 1922-2017 hydrology. 5 Excludes Santa Ana River base flow, which is used for recharge of Orange County groundwater basin and reflected in the Groundwater production numbers.
6 Exchange with SDCWA.
Water Reliability Assessment 2-15
2.3 Water Reliability Assessment
After estimating demands for normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, the water reliability assessment for the UWMP requires urban water suppliers to identify projected supplies to meet these demands. Table 2-4 summarizes the sources of supply for the single dry year (1977 hydrology), while Table 2-5 shows the region’s ability to respond in future years under a repeat of the 1988-92 drought period lasting five consecutive water years.
Table 2-5 provides results for the average of the five consecutive dry-year period rather than a year-by-year detail. Over the years, Metropolitan has developed numerous programs to increase its water supply capabilities, 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.
Table 2-6 reports assessment under a normal water year represented by the average of the 96 historic hydrologies from 1922 to 2017. Appendix 2 provides a detailed description of the existing regional water supplies and Appendix 3 contains detailed justifications for the sources of supply used for this analysis.
Metropolitan’s supply capabilities are evaluated using the following assumptions:
Colorado River Supplies
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. The QSA established the baseline water use for each of the agreement parties and facilitates the transfer of water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. Since the QSA, additional programs have been implemented to increase Metropolitan’s supplies. These include the PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program, as well as the Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project. The 2007 Interim Guidelines provided for the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, as well as the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) program that allows Metropolitan to store water in Lake Mead. These stored supplies can be used to supply additional water to ensure that, when needed, Metropolitan can deliver up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 MAF. A detailed discussion of the QSA is included in Section 3.1 and Appendix 3.1.
In light of declining reservoir levels, the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) was signed in 2019. This agreement incentivizes storage in Lake Mead and requires certain volumes of water be stored in Lake Mead under certain Lake Mead elevation levels through 2026. Metropolitan is to store certain volumes of water in Lake Mead as DCP ICS once Lake Mead is below elevation 1,045 feet. This agreement also increases Metropolitan’s flexibility to take delivery of water stored as ICS at Lake Mead elevations below 1,075 feet. The goal of this agreement is to keep Lake Mead above critical elevations, and overall, it increases Metropolitan’s flexibility to store water in Lake Mead in greater volumes and to take delivery of stored water to fill the CRA as needed.
Projections for the Colorado River supplies for the 2020 UWMP are based on the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) modeling developed in January 2021, which is the latest available at the time of production of this plan. USBR modeling is used to estimate Metropolitan’s basic apportionment and the availability of QSA and other related programs. While the official January 2021 CRSS run uses a full historical hydrology set, USBR also examines a stress test hydrology set as a proxy to show climate change impacts. The 2-16 Water Reliability Assessment
stress test hydrology includes the latest 30 years which has lower inflows as compared to the full hydrology. The reliability assessments are inclusive of the sequence of hydrology found within the stress test hydrology set and is by proxy an estimate of lower inflows resulting from climate change. USBR is currently developing a climate change hydrology set that utilizes a suite of global climate models but it was unavailable at this time. For this reliability assessment, Metropolitan used the current methodologies USBR employs in its official CRSS run.
State Water Project Supplies
SWP supplies are estimated using the 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report distributed by DWR in August 2020 and the Early Long-Term (ELT) Alternative described in the 2015 SWP Delivery Capability Report. The 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report presents current DWR estimates of the amount of water deliveries for current (2020) conditions and conditions 20 years in the future, assuming currently existing SWP facilities. Since this UWMP uses DWR’s 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report to estimate future SWP supplies, any changes in supply reliability that would result from new facilities proposed under the Delta Conveyance Project and Sites Reservoir are not included in the following tables. These estimates incorporate restrictions on SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations in accordance with water quality objectives established by the State Water Resources Control Board, the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued on October 21, 2019, and the Incidental Take Permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 31, 2020. In addition, these estimates incorporate amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project made in 2018. Under the 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report - existing condition scenario, the delivery estimates for the SWP for 2020 conditions as a percentage of Table A amounts are 58 percent, equivalent to 1,109 TAF for Metropolitan, under a single dry-year (1977) condition and 7 percent, equivalent to 134 TAF for Metropolitan, under a long-term average condition. Detailed description of SWP supply programs are included in Section 3.2 and Appendix 3.2. To include consideration of climate change impacts, the ELT alternative as described in the 2015 Delivery Capability Report was also utilized in the analysis. DWR included climate change impacts to deliveries at a 2025 emission level and 15 cm of sea level rise in this alternative. DWR also considers the current impacts to State Water Project deliveries from existing subsidence in the Delivery Capability Report. In the 2019 Delivery Capability Report, they found that subsidence has reduced the flow capacity in the aqueduct at locations in San Luis and San Joaquin Field Divisions but has not yet resulted in a reduction in deliveries. DWR may address any potential future impacts of subsidence based on the efficacy of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and Groundwater Management Plans in future analyses.
In dry, below-normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs.
Over the years, under the pumping restrictions of the SWP, Metropolitan has collaborated with the other contractors to develop numerous voluntary Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of these storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry-year supplies that can be conveyed through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. Descriptions of these storage and transfer programs are included in Section 3.3 and Appendix 3.2.
Water Reliability Assessment 2-17
Storage
A key component of Metropolitan’s water supply capability is the amount of water in Metropolitan’s storage facilities. Over the past two decades, Metropolitan has developed a large regional storage portfolio that includes both dry-year and emergency storage capacity.
Storage is a key component of water management. Storage enables the capture of surplus amounts of water in normal and wet climate and hydrologic conditions when it is plentiful for supply and environmental uses. Stored water can then be used in dry years and in conditions where augmented water supplies are needed to meet demands. Metropolitan’s resource analysis model considers all the capacities and constraints of its storage facilities and programs and simulates the fill and withdrawal of these facilities through the 96 hydrologic conditions from 1922 to 2017. In-region storage and supply programs are discussed in detail in Section 3.6 and Appendix 3.3.
Interpreting Metropolitan’s Reliability Assessment and Supply Capabilities in the UWMP Metropolitan’s long-term water service reliability assessment performed for the UWMP shows that, under required and stated assumptions and the conditions required by the Act, there would be supply and storage capabilities, and projected surplus supplies, sufficient to meet projected demands from 2025 through 2045. This assessment applies under a normal water year, a single dry year, and five consecutive drought year conditions as specified by the Act. However, this assessment should be considered as addressing the specific conditions and assumptions stated in the UWMP and is not inclusive of a fuller range of assumptions and conditions that are considered in the 2020 IRP, which is Metropolitan’s primary long-term water supply reliability planning process. To address the uncertainties and planning parameters in the IRP, additional supply and demand management measures may be identified and developed and implemented that are outside of the needs and capabilities indicated by the UWMP reliability assessments. A write up on the impact of alternative forecasts and projections of local supplies on Demand on Metropolitan is included in the 2020 Reference Materials page posted on Metropolitan’s website (www.mwdh2o.com). This write up provides supplemental information on alternative forecasts and projections for estimating local supply development and production in the service area that may be appropriate for different planning applications and its impact on estimates of Demand on Metropolitan.
2-18 Water Reliability Assessment
Table 2-4
Single Dry-Year
Supply Capability1 and Projected Demands
Repeat of 1977 Hydrology
(Acre-feet per year)
Forecast Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Current Programs
In-Region Supplies and Programs 875,000 877,000 876,000 876,000 874,000 California Aqueduct2 647,000 634,000 634,000 634,000 633,000 Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 1,424,000 1,403,500 1,352,500 1,352,500 1,380,750 Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 2,772,000 2,761,000 2,760,000 2,760,000 2,757,000 Demands
Total Demands on Metropolitan 1,266,000 1,222,000 1,195,000 1,218,000 1,247,000 Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 Total Metropolitan Deliveries5 1,544,000 1,500,000 1,473,000 1,496,000 1,525,000 Surplus 1,228,000 1,261,000 1,287,000 1,264,000 1,232,000 Programs Under Development
In-Region Supplies and Programs 0 0 0 0 0
California Aqueduct 0 0 0 0 0
Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 0 0 0 0 0
Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 0 0 0 0 0
Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 0 0 0 0 0
Capability of Proposed Programs 0 0 0 0 0
Potential Surplus 1,228,000 1,261,000 1,287,000 1,264,000 1,232,000 1 Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes programs and Exchange with SDCWA conveyed by the aqueduct. 4 Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF including Exchange with SDCWA. 5 Total demands are adjusted to include Exchange with SDCWA.
Water Reliability Assessment 2-19
Table 2-5
Drought Lasting Five Consecutive Water Years
Supply Capability1 and Projected Demands
Repeat of 1988-1992 Hydrology
(Acre-feet per year)
Forecast Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Current Programs
In-Region Supplies and Programs 194,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 California Aqueduct2 734,800 772,000 794,000 816,000 792,000 Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 1,410,000 1,403,500 1,403,500 1,365,000 1,380,750 Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 2,178,800 2,219,000 2,241,000 2,263,000 2,239,000 Demands
Total Demands on Metropolitan 1,314,000 1,292,000 1,259,000 1,261,000 1,286,000 Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 Total Metropolitan Deliveries5 1,592,000 1,570,000 1,537,000 1,539,000 1,564,000 Surplus 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000
Programs Under Development
In-Region Supplies and Programs 0 0 0 0 0
California Aqueduct 0 0 0 0 0
Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 0 0 0 0 0
Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 0 0 0 0 0
Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 0 0 0 0 0
Capability of Proposed Programs 0 0 0 0 0
Potential Surplus 586,800 649,000 704,000 724,000 675,000 1 Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes programs and Exchange with SDCWA conveyed by the aqueduct. 4 Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF including Exchange with SDCWA. 5 Total demands are adjusted to include Exchange with SDCWA. 2-20 Water Reliability Assessment
Table 2-6
Normal Water Year
Supply Capability1 and Projected Demands
Average of 1922-2017 Hydrologies
(Acre-feet per year)
Forecast Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Current Programs
In-Region Supplies and Programs 875,000 877,000 876,000 876,000 874,000 California Aqueduct2 1,774,000 1,766,000 1,764,000 1,762,000 1,761,000 Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 1,453,000 1,390,500 1,390,500 1,339,500 1,367,750 Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 3,899,000 3,893,000 3,890,000 3,888,000 3,885,000 Demands
Total Demands on Metropolitan 1,149,000 1,110,000 1,084,000 1,100,000 1,125,000 Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 278,000 Total Metropolitan Deliveries5 1,427,000 1,388,000 1,362,000 1,378,000 1,403,000 Surplus 2,472,000 2,505,000 2,528,000 2,510,000 2,482,000 Programs Under Development
In-Region Supplies and Programs 0 0 0 0 0
California Aqueduct 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Colorado River Aqueduct
Total Supply Available3 0 0 0 0 0
Aqueduct Capacity Limit4 0 0 0 0 0
Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 0 0 0 0 0
Capability of Proposed Programs 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 Potential Surplus 2,485,000 2,518,000 2,541,000 2,523,000 2,495,000 1 Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes programs and Exchange with SDCWA conveyed by the aqueduct. 4 Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF including Exchange with SDCWA. 5 Total demands are adjusted to include Exchange with SDCWA.
Drought Risk Assessment 2-21
2.4 Drought Risk Assessment
CWC Section 10635(b) requires every urban water supplier to include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment (DRA) for its water service as part of information considered in developing its demand management measures and water supply projects and programs. The DRA analysis allows suppliers to consider how to manage their water supplies during stressed hydrologic conditions in relation to variations in demand. The DRA helps a supplier to evaluate the functionality of its WSCP shortage response actions and understand the type and degree of response that is appropriate for managing water supplies. This evaluation can help the supplier to identify risks and take proactive steps before the next actual drought lasting at least five consecutive years.
CWC Section 10612 requires the DRA to be based on the driest five-year historic sequence for the agency’s water supply. Furthermore, CWC Section 10635 also requires that the analysis consider plausible changes on projected supplies and demands due to climate change, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria, and that the DRA start from the year following when the assessment is conducted. For the 2020 UWMP, DRA is developed for years 2021 through 2025. Accordingly, the 2020 UWMP Guidebook suggests that the historic five driest consecutive years on record may be considered a starting point in the analysis which is informed by other factors. Suppliers may then use these estimated supply conditions to prepare the DRA analysis, assuming they occur over the next five years.
For Metropolitan, the five-consecutive years of 1988 to 1992 represent the driest five-consecutive year historic sequence for Metropolitan’s water supply. Thus, Metropolitan used this five-year historic sequence to complete its DRA. Metropolitan developed estimates of future demands and supplies from local sources and from Metropolitan sources based on 96 years (1922-2017) of historic hydrology. Supply and demand analyses for droughts lasting at least five consecutive water years were based on conditions affecting the SWP, as this supply availability fluctuates the most among Metropolitan’s sources of supply. Using the same 96-year period of the SWP supply availability, 1988 to 1992 is the driest 5-year historical sequence that represents the lowest water supply available for SWP supplies to Metropolitan. In addition, staff analysis of the 8-river index indicates that the period 1988 to 1992 represents the lowest five consecutive dry years from 1922 through 2017. The 8-river index is used by DWR and other water agencies as an estimate of the unimpaired runoff (or natural water production) of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which are sources of water for the SWP.
Water Use Characterization
Metropolitan developed its demand forecast by first estimating total retail demands for its service area and then factoring out water savings attributed to conservation. 5 Projections of local supplies then were derived using data from current and expected local supply programs. The resulting difference between total demands net of savings from conservation and local supplies is the expected regional demands on Metropolitan supplies. As explained in detail in Section 2.2, Metropolitan used its Sales Model to calculate the difference between total forecasted retail demands and local supply projections. The balance is the demand on Metropolitan that will be met by supplies from Colorado River, SWP, and in-region storage.
Based on the 96 years of historic hydrologic condition (1922 to 2017), the five consecutive years of 1988 to 1992 represent the driest five-consecutive year historical sequence for Metropolitan’s water supply and the five consecutive driest years for SWP supplies. Thus, Metropolitan used a repeat of the historic condition of 1988 to 1992 to assess the near-term drought risk for years 2021 5 Information generated as part of this analysis is contained in Appendix 1. 2-22 Drought Risk Assessment
to 2025. Under this assessment, the historic condition for 1988 is used to forecast the water use for the first year 2021, the historic condition for 1989 is used to forecast the water use for the second year 2022, and so on up to year 2025. Metropolitan’s projected water use is presented annually for the next five years in Table 2-7, including the year-by-year change in projected use.
In addition, estimated actual water use for 2020 and the historic water use for 2016 through 2019 are presented in Table 2-7.
Climate impacts to M&I and Agricultural demands are captured using climate adjustment factors. These factors were estimated using observed range of weather variables, precipitation and temperature, on historical consumptive demands. Metropolitan updated these factors to include the most recent weather and climate outcomes and recent changes in water use and irrigation demands. By incorporating these factors, Metropolitan’s demand projections are calibrated to the more recent water use behaviors and better reflect current climate change impacts.
Supply Characterization
Metropolitan’s assumptions for its supply capabilities are discussed and presented in 5-year increments under its water reliability assessment in Section 2.3. For Metropolitan’s DRA, these supply capabilities are further refined and presented annually for the years 2021 to 2025 by assuming a repeat of historic conditions from 1988 to1992. This historic five-year sequence represents the lowest water supply available for SWP supplies to Metropolitan.
For its DRA, Metropolitan assessed the reliability of each individual water supply source over the five consecutive year drought through a modeling method using the same historical hydrologic conditions from 1922 to 2017. Also, as part of this DRA, the expected quantity of each water supply source for each year of the five-year drought was evaluated and included within the tabulated capability of each supply category. Metropolitan’s supply sources under the CR, SWP, and in-region supply categories are individually listed and discussed in detail in Section 3. Future supply capabilities for each of these supply sources are also individually tabulated in Appendix 3, with consideration for plausible changes on projected supplies under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other factors. as explained in Section 2.6.
Metropolitan used DWR’s analyses of SWP delivery capability which includes climate change impacts to deliveries at a 2025 emission level and 15 cm of sea level rise. This resulted in adjusted delivery capability. The DWR analyses also incorporates restrictions on SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations in accordance with water quality objectives established by the State Water Resources Control Board, the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued on October 21, 2019, and the Incidental Take Permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 31, 2020. In addition, these estimates incorporate amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project made in 2018. In the 2019 Delivery Capability Report, they found that subsidence has reduced the flow capacity in the aqueduct at locations in San Luis and San Joaquin Field Divisions but has not yet resulted in a reduction in deliveries.
For the Colorado River, Metropolitan used the official January 2021 CRSS run which utilized a full hydrology set. USBR also examines a stress test hydrology set as a proxy to show climate change impacts. The stress test hydrology includes the latest 30 years and has lower inflows as compared to the full hydrology. The driest five-year period 1988-1992 falls within this stress test hydrology.
USBR acknowledges that climate change impacts are demonstrated in the stress test hydrology.
The five-year dry period used by Metropolitan in the DRA is within this stress test hydrology period, incorporating the decreased inflows associated with climate impacts.
Drought Risk Assessment 2-23
The supply capabilities presented in Table 2-7 are based on Metropolitan’s core supplies of programs within the Colorado River and SWP. Metropolitan’s core water supplies are listed in Appendix 4 WSCP Table A.4-3. In addition, Metropolitan has numerous flexible supplies and storage programs within the Colorado River, SWP, and in-region that may be exercised as supply augmentation actions, if needed, consistent with the shortage response actions identified in Metropolitan’s WSCP. The supply capabilities of Metropolitan’s core, flexible, and storage programs for 2021 to 2025 are presented in detail in Appendix 3 Table A.3-8.
Total Water Supply and Use Comparison
Metropolitan’s DRA is presented in Table 2-7 and provides a comparison of Metropolitan’s total water supply and use for the next five years. This table is based on and is an abridged version of DWR’s optional Planning Tool. Table 2-7 also includes DWR Submittal Table 7-5, Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Table to Address Water Code Section 10635(b). Metropolitan’s DRA uses annual total comparisons of its water supply and use. Developing the DRA using annual totals versus monthly values is most practicable for large wholesale suppliers, like Metropolitan, with core supply sources that are annually assessed and depend on unpredictable hydrology, such as the SWP, Colorado River, and availability of water transfers, among others.
Metropolitan’s near-term assessment reveals that there could be a potential shortfall of core supplies in four of the next five years. This shortfall is largely triggered by the assumed low supply conditions from the SWP under a repeat of the historical condition of 1988 to 1992, which is modeled at 12% for 2021, 15% for 2023, 23% for 2024, and 18% for 2025. Actual supply conditions for the next five years may prove different from these historic supply conditions. This DRA illustrates Metropolitan’s potential shortage response actions, if such a shortfall were to happen.
As detailed in Section 2.5 and Appendix 4, Metropolitan has a robust Water Shortage Contingency Plan and comprehensive shortage response planning that include demand reduction measures and supply augmentation actions. For years 2021, 2023, 2024, and 2025, the estimated shortfalls from the Colorado River and SWP core supplies are 432 TAF (Level 3), 388 TAF (Level 3), 23 TAF (Level 1) and 223 TAF (Level 2), respectively, with the corresponding WSCP shortage levels indicated in parentheses. Appendix 4 Table A.4-5 presents Metropolitan’s response actions for the different shortage levels, which include take from Storage, execute Flexible Supplies, implement Voluntary Demand Reduction, and implement Water Supply Allocation Plan. Appendix 4 Table A.4-6 further identifies Metropolitan’s supply augmentation actions that may be exercised to mitigate any potential shortage, including withdrawal from available flexible supplies and storage programs.
As detailed in Section 3 and Appendix 3, Metropolitan has built its dry-year and emergency storage through partnerships with various entities and investments in infrastructure. As of January 1, 2021, Metropolitan has 3.2 MAF in storage that may be used for dry-year needs, with estimated supply capacity to withdraw and deliver over 1 MAF to 1.4 MAF per year for the next five years.
Because dry-year storage is at a record high, Metropolitan may only need to implement supply augmentation actions to meet the potential core supply shortfall. Supply augmentation actions may include exercising Metropolitan’s flexible supplies and storage from the Colorado River, SWP, and in-region. In addition to supply augmentation, Metropolitan may also implement demand reduction and operational flexibility as part of its shortage response actions, to preserve storage or under scenarios where dry-year storage levels are not high. The factual shortage response actions, combination of actions selected, and volume of take from supply programs exercised all depend on the shortage that needs to be met, storage balance of the supply programs, program constraints, and other supply management considerations. With a potential core 2-24 Drought Risk Assessment
supply surplus estimated for year 2022, no water service reliability concern is anticipated, and no shortage response actions are expected to be exercised.
This DRA shows, under the assumptions described in this UWMP, that Metropolitan’s total core, flexible, and storage supplies exceed the projected demand on Metropolitan for 2021 to 2025.
This demonstrates Metropolitan’s water service reliability for each year of the next five years under a repeat of the driest five-year historic sequence of Metropolitan’s water supply. A graphical representation of the DRA is presented in Figure ES-2, as part of the Executive Summary.
Metropolitan will periodically revisit its representation of both individual supply sources and of the gross water use estimated for each year and will revise its DRA if needed. A portion of Table 2-7 is also presented in Appendix 12 as new DWR Submittal Table 7-5.
Drought Risk Assessment 2-25
Table 2-7
Metropolitan’s Drought Risk Assessment
Water Use, Supply, and Risk Assessment for 2021 – 2025
(also included as Appendix 12 DWR Submittal Table 7-5)
Based on DWR DRA Optional Planning Tool
(Annual totals In AF)
Water Use Worksheet
Historic! and Actual
2016
2017
2018
2019
Customer Water Use Subtotal
Losses1
2020 Total Gross Water Use
Ave Consecutive Water Years
Change from 2020
2021 Gross Water Use
Change from 2021
2022 Gross Water Use
Change from 2022
2023 Gross Water Use
Change from 2023
2024 Gross Water Use
Change from 2024
2025 Gross Water Use
1 Losses include !reeled syslem losses and
surface reservoir evaporation.
Supply Worksheet'
2021 (1st year)
2022 (2nd year)
2023 (3rd year)
2024 (4th year)
2025 (5th year)
1,663,599
1,449,015
1,560,487
1,327,928
1,394,261
48,520
1,442,781
153,219
1,596,000
73,000
1,669,000
19,000
1,688,000
(197,000)
1,491,000
101 ,000
1,592,000
1,164,000
1,903,000
1,300,000
1,468,000
1,369,000
Supply 1 - Colorado River Aqueduct supplies '
2021 (1st year) 919,000
2022 (2nd year) 866,000
2023 (3rd year) 996,000
2024 (4th year) 979,000
2025 (5th year) 987,000
Supply 2 - State Water Project supplies
2021 (1st year) 245,000
2022 (2nd year) 1,037,000
2023 (3rd year) 304,000
2024 (4th year) 489,000
2025 (5th year) 382,000
Supply 3 - In-Region supplies
2021 (1st year) 0
2022 (2nd year) 0
2023 (3rd year) 0
2024 (4th year) 0
2025 (5th year) 0
DRAFT Submittal Table 7-5: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to address Water Code Section 10635(b)
2021 Total
Gross 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
Gross Water Use [Use Wor1<sheet] 1,669,000
Total Supplies [Supply Wor1<sheet) 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/(shortfa ll) 234,000
Resulting% Use Reduction from WSCP action 0%
2023 Total
Gross Water Use [Use Wor1<sheet] 1,688,000
Total Supplies [Supply Wor1<sheet] 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
Gross Water Use [Use Wor1<sheet] 1,491 ,000
Total Supplies [Supply Wor1<sheet) 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
Gross Water Use [Use Wor1<sheet] 1,592,000
Total Supplies [Supply Wor1<sheet] 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%
l. Includes Metropolitan's core supplies as defined in WSCP in Appendix 4. Detailed Supply Worksheets are included in Appendix 3 Table A.3-8.
Metropolitan may exercise supply augmentation actions from flexible and storage programs as response to any potential core supply shortfall using the 3.2 MAF of dry-yecr supplies currentty in storage. In addition, Metropolitan may also implement demand reduction actions, if needed.
2. Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF, including Exchange with SDCWA and US. 2-26 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
2.5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
In addition to the water supply reliability analysis addressing normal, dry, and multiple dry water years, CWC Section 10632 requires urban suppliers to prepare and adopt a water shortage contingency plan which includes the shortage response actions that they would take in response to six standard water shortage levels. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is Metropolitan’s plan in the case of an actual water shortage condition. As illustrated in the preceding section’s service reliability assessment, Metropolitan has the supply capabilities to meet projected demands during various hydrologic conditions. With such service reliability, Metropolitan’s WSCP is part of its resiliency strategy to improve preparedness for droughts and other impacts on water supplies. In fulfillment of the Act’s requirements, described below are the WSCP reporting elements which show how Metropolitan will manage and mitigate a water shortage. A copy of Metropolitan’s WSCP is provided in Appendix 4.
Water Supply Reliability Analysis
CWC Section 10632(a)(1) directs the WSCP to include an “analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to Section 10635.” As shown in the water reliability assessment in Section 2.3, Metropolitan anticipates being able to meet water demands with adequate supplies across the single driest year and droughts lasting five consecutive water years scenarios through the year 2045. Metropolitan’s DRA in Section 2.4. anticipates no water service reliability concerns or shortfall mitigation measures will be needed over the next five years, under a repeat of the historic driest five-year sequence of Metropolitan’s water supply.
Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures
Pursuant to CWC Section 10632(a)(2), Metropolitan must include in its WSCP the procedures used for conducting an annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment). The Annual Assessment is a determination of Metropolitan’s annual outlook for water supply reliability, and how a perceived shortage may relate to WSCP shortage stage response actions in the current calendar year. This determination will be based on information available to Metropolitan at the time of the analysis. Starting in 2022, the Annual Assessment will be due by July 1 of every year. CWC Section 10632.1 states: "An urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.” The Annual Assessment and related reporting are to be conducted based on the procedures described in the WSCP.
The Annual Assessment determination will be based on considerations of available core water supplies, unconstrained water demand, planned water use, and infrastructure conditions. The difference between projected core water supplies and anticipated unconstrained demand will be used to determine what, if any, shortage stage is expected under the WSCP framework. CWC Section10632(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Annual Assessment to determine “current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year.” The Annual Assessment will include two separate estimations of Metropolitan’s annual water supply and unconstrained demand using: 1) current year conditions and 2) assumed dry year conditions. Accordingly, the Annual Assessment’s shortage analysis will present separate sets of findings for the current year and dry year scenarios. The CWC does not specify the characteristics of a dry year, allowing discretion to the Supplier. Metropolitan will use this discretion to refine and update its assumptions for a dry year scenario in each Annual Assessment as information becomes available.
By the month of June, Metropolitan staff will present a completed Annual Assessment for approval by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors or by the Board’s authorized designee with Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-27
expressly delegated authority for approval of Annual Assessment determinations. This presentation to the decision-making body will include a request that the approval of the Annual Assessment determination also appropriately triggers any recommended specific shortage response actions resulting from the assessment. Upon approval, Metropolitan staff will then formally submit the Annual Assessment to the California Department of Water Resources by July 1.
Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
As required by CWC 10632(a)(3)(A), the WSCP is framed around six standard shortage levels that correspond to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortages. Each of the six shortage levels represents an increasing gap between Metropolitan’s estimated core supplies and unconstrained demand as determined in the Annual Assessment. Shortage levels also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other emergency events.
Shortage Response Actions
CWC 10632(a)(4) directs the WSCP to contain shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels, and include:
• Supply Augmentation Actions
• Demand Reduction Actions
• Operational Changes
• Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions (Not applicable to Metropolitan as a wholesaler with no retail customers)
• An estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of each action.
Metropolitan has invested extensively in a diverse portfolio of supply sources and system resiliency to prepare for a wide range of possible challenging conditions. Metropolitan follows the principles of its Water Surplus and Demand Management (WSDM) Plan, which was adopted in 1999 and provides policy guidance for managing regional water supplies to achieve reliability.
Shortage responses will be customized to meet the circumstances for the particular shortage.
Because circumstances can change at any time, Metropolitan’s shortage responses actions will be adjusted accordingly throughout the year. To determine specific actions that would be taken at each standard shortage level, Metropolitan will evaluate conditions specific to cost, timing, distribution needs and capabilities, and other variables that include SWP allocation, Colorado River conditions, preexisting demand reduction measures, supply program take capacities, and storage balances.
Supply augmentation actions are comprised of Metropolitan’s portfolio of water storage reserves and flexible supply sources that are available on an as-needed basis, such as water from its storage facilities and from transfer and exchange programs. Demand reduction actions are temporary measures that can constrain demand in the current year, such as public information campaigns and mandatory allocations. Operational flexibility actions are an acknowledgement that Metropolitan will adjust its operations as needed during shortages. These adjustments may include temporarily deferring or accelerating scheduled maintenance and planned shutdowns or adjusting the distribution system to compensate for limitations in Colorado River or State Water Project water.
2-28 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Shortages are characterized not merely by shortfalls in annual core water supplies, but also by the water balances in Metropolitan’s storage programs. Thus, a 10 percent or even a 50 percent shortfall in core supplies could be met entirely with stored water if storage levels are sufficient to meet demand. If storage levels are already depleted, the same shortfall in core supplies could potentially require a more complex mix of supply augmentation and demand reduction actions.
During most years, Metropolitan anticipates that it can meet all or most shortages with supply augmentation actions. Depending on intensity, voluntary demand reduction measures are estimated to reduce retail water usage by up to 20 percent. In the most severe situations, allocating shortages to member agencies through the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) would address any remaining shortages not already mitigated by supply augmentation and lesser demand reduction actions.
Communication Protocols
Metropolitan’s WSCP Communication Plan details Metropolitan’s action-oriented strategy for education, outreach, and coordination during each WSCP standard shortage stage and in response to a catastrophic loss of supply. The WSCP Communications Plan provides messaging strategies that would be implemented at each level, leading up to more focused crisis communication strategies. It emphasizes the need for plans to be adaptable and that Metropolitan management and/or Board of Directors could also call for specific messaging strategies that address unique shortage scenarios.
Compliance and Enforcement
This WSCP reporting element is required for urban retail suppliers only.
Legal Authorities
Metropolitan is a wholesale water provider organized as a cooperative of 26 voluntary members.
Metropolitan was formed pursuant to the Metropolitan Water District Act, Statutes 1969, chapter 209, codified at California Water Code, Appendix Section 109 (the “MWD Act”). Pursuant to the MWD Act, Metropolitan has the express and implied statutory authority to “[p]rovide, sell, and deliver water at wholesale for municipal and domestic uses and purposes,” among other powers. (MWD Act, §§ 120, 130.) To accomplish the provision of water, Metropolitan is also expressly authorized to promote and implement conservation programs, including during times of water shortage. (MWD Act, § 130.5.)
Metropolitan also has authority under the California Water Code to implement supply shortage programs. (Cal. Water Code, §§ 350-359, 375-378.) For example, Section 375(a) of the Water Code provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any public entity which supplies water at retail or wholesale for the benefit of persons within the service area or area of jurisdiction of the public entity may, by ordinance or resolution adopted by a majority of the members of the governing body after holding a public hearing upon notice and making appropriate findings of necessity for the adoption of a water conservation program, adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by those persons for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of the public entity.
Cal. Water Code, § 375(a). Water Code Section 375(b) also provides the authority for pricing to encourage water conservation.
Metropolitan’s Board of Directors has approved many policies and rules, codified in Metropolitan’s own Administrative Code, which further provide Metropolitan the authority to Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-29
ensure the availability of its water during times of shortages. For example, Administrative Code Section 3107 requires that any territory annexed to Metropolitan comply with Metropolitan’s water use efficiency guidelines.
The Board has also ratified various policies and rules to implement a Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) to address shortage conditions. Metropolitan’s WSAP provides a standardized methodology for allocating supplies during times of shortage. The WSAP is authorized pursuant to the following Board actions:
• By Minute Item 43514, dated April 13, 1999, the Board adopted the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan.
• By Minute Item 44005, dated June 17, 2000, the General Manager has the authority to reduce Interim Agriculture Water Program deliveries up to 30 percent prior to imposing any mandatory allocation under the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan. • By Minute Item 47393, dated February 12, 2008, the Board adopted the Water Supply Allocation Plan.
• By Minute Item 48376, dated August 17, 2010, the Board approved adjustments to the Water Supply Allocation Plan.
• By Minute Item 48803, dated September 12, 2011, the Board approved adjustments to the Water Supply Allocation Plan.
• By Minute Item 74526, dated February 11, 2014, the Board adopted the Water Supply Alert Resolution.
• By Minute Item 49979, dated December 9, 2014, the Board approved adjustments to the Water Supply Allocation Plan.
In addition to the statutes and other legal authorities set forth above, Metropolitan is empowered to implement and enforce its shortage response actions pursuant to various resolutions. For example, on April 11, 2016, Metropolitan’s Board voted to adopt Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP and authorized its submittal to the State of California as stated in Resolution 9209. Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP contains Metropolitan’s December 2014 Water Supply Allocation Plan in Appendix 4.
Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP also describes in Section 2.4 Metropolitan’s WSAP and Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan, which guide Metropolitan’s planning and operations during both shortage and surplus conditions. Similarly, on May 11, 2021, Metropolitan’s Board voted to adopt Metropolitan’s UWMP and WSCP as stated in Resolutions 9279 and 9281, respectively. These two Resolutions authorize Metropolitan to implement and enforce its shortage response actions contained in the WSCP, which is attached as Appendix 4 to the UWMP.
Additionally, numerous agreements allow Metropolitan to take its shortage response actions.
Supply augmentation actions are authorized by the agreements shown in Appendix 3 of the 2020 UWMP: Justifications for Supply Projections.
If necessary, Metropolitan shall declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with CWC Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1. In addition, Metropolitan shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in Government Code Section 8558. 2-30 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Financial Consequences of WSCP
A water shortage may be created by either a reduction in water supply, or an increase in water demand, or a combination of both. Metropolitan’s shortage response actions include supply augmentation, demand management, and operational flexibility, all of which could impact Metropolitan financially. From these financial effects, there is a potential for expenditures exceeding revenues more than budgeted, thereby requiring unanticipated draws from reserves.
Variation in the amount of revenues is already part of Metropolitan’s financial planning.
Revenues vary according to regional weather and the availability of statewide water supplies.
In dry years, local demands increase, and Metropolitan may receive higher than anticipated revenues due to increased sales volumes. In contrast, in wet years, demands decrease, and revenues drop due to lower sales volumes. In addition, statewide supply shortages such as those in 2009 and 2015 also affect Metropolitan’s revenues. Such revenue surpluses and shortages could cause instability in water rates. To mitigate this risk, Metropolitan maintains financial reserves, with a minimum and target balance, to stabilize water rates during times of reduced water sales. The reserves hold revenues collected during times of high water sales and are used to offset the need for revenues during times of low sales. Metropolitan’s practice of using reserves to buffer unexpected increases or decreases in budgeted revenue also applies to unexpected expenditure increases or decreases resulting from shortage responses.
Metropolitan uses its financial reserves to mitigate the impacts of water shortages. This policy applies to each of the six shortage levels described in the WSCP. Financial reserves create a buffer to reduce the financial impact of the water shortage. Other mitigation actions such as reducing O&M expenses, deferring Capital Improvement Projects, and rates/charges increases are part of Metropolitan’s biennial budget and rate design cycle and are not used routinely to mitigate financial impacts of water shortage response actions.
Metropolitan’s reserve policy provides for a minimum reserve requirement and target amount of unrestricted reserves at June 30 of each year. Funds in excess of the target amount are to be utilized for capital expenditures in lieu of the issuance of additional debt, or for the redemption, defeasance or purchase of outstanding bonds or commercial paper as determined by the Board. However, if the fixed charge coverage ratio (the amount necessary to cover all fixed costs) is at or above 1.2, amounts over the minimum may be expended for any lawful purpose of Metropolitan, as determined by the Board. Therefore, unrestricted reserves are available to address Metropolitan’s shortage response actions, as well as the consequences of those actions, so long as its fixed charge coverage ratio is at or above 1.2.
Monitoring and Reporting
This WSCP reporting element is required for urban retail suppliers only.
WSCP Reevaluation and Improvement
The WSCP will be periodically re-evaluated to ensure that its shortage response actions are effective and up to date based on lessons learned from implementing the WSCP. The WSCP will be revised and updated during the UWMP update cycle to incorporate updated and new information. For example, new supply augmentation actions will be added, and actions that are no longer applicable for reasons such as program expiration will be removed. However, if significant revisions are warranted, the WSCP will be updated outside of the UWMP update cycle.
In the course of preparing the Annual Assessment each year, Metropolitan staff will routinely consider the functionality of the overall WSCP and will prepare recommendations for Metropolitan's Board of Directors if changes are found to be needed.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-31
Relationship with other Metropolitan Shortage Planning
The WSCP is designed to be consistent with the Water Shortage and Demand Management (WSDM) Plan, Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), and other emergency planning efforts as described below. WSDM Plan principles guide the specific actions to be taken under WSCP shortage stages. Data collection, continual analysis, and monthly reporting processes of WSDM Plan implementation will form the basis for Metropolitan’s Annual Water Supply Demand Assessment that will be provided annually to the state beginning in July 2022. The WSAP is integral to the WSCP’s shortage response strategy in the event that Metropolitan determines that supply augmentation (including storage) and lesser demand reduction measures would not be sufficient to meet a projected shortage.
Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan
Metropolitan’s Board adopted the WSDM Plan in April 1999, which provides policy guidance for managing regional water supplies to achieve the reliability goals of the IRP and identifies the expected sequence of resource management actions that Metropolitan will execute during surpluses and shortages to minimize the probability of severe shortages and reduce the possibility of extreme shortages and shortage allocations. Unlike Metropolitan’s previous shortage management plans, the WSDM Plan recognizes the link between surpluses and shortages, and it integrates planned operational actions with respect to both conditions.
WSDM Plan Development
Metropolitan and its member agencies jointly developed the WSDM Plan during 1998 and 1999.
This planning effort included more than a dozen half-day and full-day workshops and more than three dozen meetings between Metropolitan and member agency staff. The result of the planning effort is a consensus plan that addresses a broad range of regional water management actions and strategies.
WSDM Plan Principles and Goals
The guiding principle of the WSDM Plan is to manage Metropolitan’s water resources and management programs to maximize management of wet year supplies and minimize adverse impacts of water shortages to retail customers. From this guiding principle came the following supporting principles:
• Encourage efficient water use and economical local resource programs • Coordinate operations with member agencies to make available as much surplus water as possible for use in dry years
• Pursue innovative transfer and banking programs to secure more imported water for use in dry years
• Increase public awareness about water supply issues
The WSDM Plan also declared that if mandatory import water allocations become necessary, they would be calculated on the basis of need, as opposed to any type of historical purchases.
The WSDM Plan contains the following considerations that would go into an allocation of imported water:
• Impact on retail consumers and regional economy
• Investments in local resources, including recycling and conservation • Population growth
2-32 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
• Changes and/or losses in local supplies
• Participation in Metropolitan’s non-firm (interruptible) programs • Investment in Metropolitan’s facilities
WSDM Plan Implementation
Each year, Metropolitan evaluates the level of supplies available and existing levels of water in storage to determine the appropriate management stage. Each stage is associated with specific resource management actions designed to: (1) avoid an Extreme Shortage to the maximum extent possible; and (2) minimize adverse impacts to retail customers if an Extreme Shortage occurs. The current sequencing outlined in the WSDM Plan reflects anticipated responses based on detailed modeling of Metropolitan’s existing and expected resource mix.
Surplus Stages
Metropolitan’s supply situation is considered to be in surplus as long as net annual deliveries can be made to water storage programs. The WSDM Plan further defines four surplus management stages that guide the storage of surplus supplies in Metropolitan’s storage portfolio. Deliveries for storage in DVL and in SWP terminal reservoirs continue through each surplus stage provided there is available storage capacity. Withdrawals from DVL for regulatory purposes or to meet seasonal demands may occur in any stage. Deliveries to other storage facilities may be interrupted, depending on the amount of the surplus.
Shortage Stages
The WSDM Plan distinguishes between Shortages, Severe Shortages, and Extreme Shortages.
Within the WSDM Plan, these terms have specific meanings relating to Metropolitan’s ability to deliver water to its member agency customers.
Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full-service demands and partially meet or fully meet interruptible demands, using stored water or water transfers as necessary.
Severe Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full-service demands only by using stored water, transfers, and possibly calling for extraordinary conservation.
Extreme Shortage: Metropolitan allocates available supply to full-service customers.
The WSDM Plan also defines six shortage management stages to guide resource management activities. These stages are not defined merely by shortfalls in imported water supply, but also by the water balances in Metropolitan’s storage programs. Thus, a 10 percent shortfall in imported supplies could be a stage one shortage if storage levels are high. If storage levels are already depleted, the same shortfall in imported supplies could potentially be defined as a more severe shortage.
When Metropolitan must make net withdrawals from storage to meet demands, it is considered to be in a shortage condition. Under most of these stages, Metropolitan is still able to meet all end-use demands for water. For shortage stages 1 through 3, Metropolitan will meet demands by withdrawing water from storage. At shortage stages 4 and 5, Metropolitan may undertake additional shortage management steps, including issuing public calls for extraordinary conservation and exercising water transfer options, or purchasing water on the open market.
Figure 2-1 shows the actions under surplus and shortage stages and when an allocation plan would be necessary to enforce mandatory cutbacks. The overriding goal of the WSDM Plan is to avoid reaching Shortage Stage 6, an Extreme Shortage.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-33
Water Supply Allocation Plan
The WSAP provides a formula for allocating available water supplies to the member agencies in case of extreme water shortages within Metropolitan’s service area. The WSAP was approved by Metropolitan’s Board in February 2008 and has since been implemented three times, most recently in April 2015. The WSAP was developed in consideration of the principles and guidelines described in the WSDM Plan, with the objective of creating an equitable needs-based allocation.
The WSAP formula seeks to balance the impacts of a shortage at the retail level for shortages of Metropolitan supplies of up to 50 percent. The formula takes into account growth, local investments, changes in supply conditions, and the demand hardening aspects of non-potable recycled water use and the implementation of conservation savings programs.
Water Supply Allocation Plan Development
Between July 2007 and February 2008, Metropolitan staff worked jointly with Metropolitan’s member agencies to develop the WSAP. Throughout the development process, Metropolitan’s Board was provided with regular progress reports on the status of the WSAP. The WSAP was adopted at the February 12, 2008 Board meeting. Since the WSAP’s adoption in 2008, Metropolitan has worked extensively with the member agencies to periodically review the WSAP formula. Following Board-directed formal review of the WSAP at 12 months after initial implementation and at 3 years after initial adoption, the Board approved adjustments to the WSAP formula on August 17, 2010, and September 13, 2011. In light of drought conditions, Metropolitan staff convened a member agency working group between July and November 2014 to revisit the WSAP before possible implementation in 2015. On December 9, 2014, the Board approved additional adjustments to the formula.
Figure 2-1 Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, And Supply Declarations Surplus Stages Actions Shortage Stages
4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Put to SWP & CRA Groundwater Storage
Put to SWP & CRA Surface Storage ,. :1 Put to Conjunctive Use Groundwater r Put to DWR Flexible Storage
Put to Metropolitan Surface Storage
Public Outreach . ..
I Take from Metropolitan Surface Storage ,,
Take from SWP Groundwater Storage
Take from Conjunctive Use Storage
Take from SWP & CRA Surface Storage
Take from DWR Flexible Storage
Extraordinary Conservation
Reduce IAWP Deliveries
Call Options Contracts
Buy Spot Transfers t
Implement Water Supply Allocation Plan
- Potential Simultaneous Actions
2-34 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The WSAP Formula
The WSAP formula is calculated in three steps: base period calculations, allocation year calculations, and supply allocation calculations. The first two steps involve standard computations, while the third step contains specific methodology developed for the WSAP.
Step 1: Base Period Calculations
The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical base period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from fiscal years (July through June) ending 2013 and 2014.
Step 2: Allocation Year Calculations
The next step in calculating the water supply allocation is estimating water needs in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates of retail demand for population growth and changes in local supplies.
Step 3: Supply Allocation Calculations
The final step is calculating the water supply allocation for each member agency based on the allocation year water needs identified in Step 2. There are a number of adjustments that go into a member agency’s water supply allocation. Each element and its application in the allocation formula are discussed in detail in Metropolitan’s WSAP.
Annual Reporting Schedule on Supply/Demand Conditions
Managing Metropolitan’s water supply resources to minimize the risk of shortages requires timely and accurate information on changing supply and demand conditions throughout the year.
To facilitate effective resource management decisions, the WSDM Plan includes a monthly schedule for providing supply/demand information to Metropolitan’s senior management and Board, and for making resource allocation decisions. Table 2-8 shows this schedule.
Table 2-8
Schedule of Reporting and Water Supply Allocation Decision-Making Month Information Report/Management Decision
January Initial supply/demand forecasts for year
February - March Update supply/demand forecasts for year April - May Finalize supply/demand forecasts
Management decisions re: Contractual Groundwater and Option Transfer Programs
Board decision re: Need for Extraordinary Conservation
October - December Report on Supply and Carryover Storage Catastrophic and Emergency Planning
As part of the WSCP, the CWC requires urban suppliers to plan for catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other potential emergency events. In addition, CWC Section 10632.5 further requires urban water suppliers to develop a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-35
each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities. For Metropolitan, these required planning elements are captured in the analyses that went into developing its Emergency Storage Objective, Seismic Resiliency Reports, and Emergency Response Plans. Elements of these Metropolitan analyses are summarized below.
Emergency Storage Objective
Metropolitan established its original criteria for determining emergency storage requirements in the October 1991 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastside Reservoir, which is now named Diamond Valley Lake. These criteria were again discussed in the 1996 IRP. Metropolitan’s Board approved both of these documents. Emergency storage requirements are based on the potential of a major earthquake that would damage all supply aqueducts isolating Southern California from its imported water sources.
In 2019, Metropolitan and its member agencies completed a collaborative process to update the regional planning estimate of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective. This emergency storage represents the amount of water that Metropolitan would store for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake that would damage the aqueducts that transport imported water supplies to Southern California, including: the Colorado River Aqueduct, both the East and West branches of the California Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct.
The emergency storage allows Metropolitan to deliver reserve supplies to the member agencies to supplement local production. This helps avoid severe water shortages during periods when the imported water aqueducts may be out of service. The Emergency Storage Objective considers a six- and twelve-month outage period for the imported supply aqueducts incorporating latest seismic information and operational flexibility of Metropolitan’s system, a retail water demand cutback ranging from 25 to 35 percent considering the level of conservation that the region achieved during the recent drought, and an aggregated loss of 10 to 20 percent of local supplies accounting for factors that could affect local production during emergency conditions.
Under this update, Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective was set to 750 TAF, as this level of storage would prevent severe water shortages to the region given new information on expected recovery durations. The emergency storage volume represents a planning estimate for the amount of water that Metropolitan would store for the region in preparation for a catastrophic earthquake or other disaster. It is not intended to set a basis or a policy for allocating or apportioning storage for any individual member agency. The detailed description of Metropolitan’s Emergency Storage Objective is included in Appendix 8.
Emergency Freshwater Pathway (Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta) It has been estimated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that in the event of a major earthquake in or near the Delta, water supplies could be interrupted for up to three years, posing a significant and unacceptable risk to the California business economy. A postevent strategy would provide necessary water supply protections to avert this catastrophe. Such a plan has been coordinated through DWR, Corps of Engineers (Corps), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), Metropolitan, and the State Water Contractors.
DWR Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan
The Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan (DWR, 2018) provides strategies for response to Delta levee failures, up to and including earthquake-induced multiple island failures during dry conditions when the volume of flooded islands and saltwater intrusion are large, resulting in 2-36 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
curtailment of export operations. Under these severe conditions, the plan includes a strategy to establish an emergency freshwater pathway from the central Delta along Middle River and Victoria Canal to the export pumps in the south Delta. The plan includes the prepositioning of emergency construction materials at existing and new stockpile and warehouse sites in the Delta, and development of tactical modeling tools (DWR Emergency Response Tool) to predict levee repair logistics, timelines of levee repair and suitable water quality to restore exports. The Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan has been extensively coordinated with state, federal and local emergency response agencies. DWR, in conjunction with local agencies, the Corps and Cal OES, conduct tabletop and field exercises to test and revise the plan under real time conditions.
DWR and the Corps provide vital Delta region response to flood and earthquake emergencies, complementary to Cal OES operations. These agencies perform under a unified command structure and response and recovery framework. The Northern California Catastrophic Flood Response Plan (Cal OES, 2018) incorporates the DWR Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan.
The Delta Emergency Operations Integration Plan (DWR and USACE, 2019) integrates personnel and resources during emergency operations.
Pathway Implementation Timeline
The Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan has found that using pre-positioned stockpiles of rock, sheet pile and other materials, multiple earthquake-generated levee breaches and levee slumping along the freshwater pathway can be repaired in less than six months. A supplemental report (Levee Repair, Channel Barrier and Transfer Facility Concept Analyses to Support Emergency Preparedness Planning, M&N, August 2007) evaluated among other options, the placement of sheet pile to close levee breaches, as a redundant method if availability of rock is limited by possible competing uses. The stockpiling of sheet pile is vital should more extreme emergencies warrant parallel and multiple repair techniques for deep levee breaches. Stockpiles of sheet pile and rock to repair deep breaches and an array of levee slumping restoration materials are stored at DWR and Corps stockpile sites and warehouses in the Delta.
Emergency Stockpile Sites and Materials
DWR has acquired lands at Rio Vista and Stockton as major emergency stockpile sites, which are located and designed for rapid response to levee emergencies. The sites provide large loading facilities, open storage areas and new and existing warehousing for emergency flood fight materials, which augment existing warehousing facilities throughout the Delta. The Corps maintains large warehousing facilities in the Delta to store materials for levee freeboard restoration, which can be augmented upon request of other stockpiles in the United States. Prepositioned rock and sheet pile are used for closure of deep levee breaches. Warehoused materials for rapid restoration of slumped levees include muscle (k-rail) walls, super sacks, caged rock containers, sandbags, stakes and plastic tarp. Stockpiles will be augmented as materials are used.
Emergency Response Drills
Earthquake-initiated multiple island failures will mobilize DWR and Corps resources to perform Delta region flood fight activities within an overall Cal OES framework. In these events, DWR and the Corps integrate personnel and resources to execute flood fight plans through the Delta Emergency Operations Integration Plan (DWR and USACE, 2019). DWR, the Corps and local agencies perform emergency exercises focusing on communication readiness and the testing of mobile apps for information collection and dissemination. The exercises train personnel and test the readiness of emergency preparedness and response capabilities under unified command, and provide information to help to revise and improve plans.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-37
Levee Improvements and Prioritization
The DWR Delta Levees Subventions and Special Projects Programs have prioritized, funded and implemented levee improvements along the emergency freshwater pathway and other water supply corridors in the central and south Delta. These efforts are complementary to the Delta Flood Emergency Management Plan, which along with pre-positioned emergency flood fight materials, ensures reasonable seismic performance of levees and timely pathway restoration after a severe earthquake. These programs have been successful in implementing a coordinated strategy of emergency preparedness to the benefit of SWP and CVP export systems.
Significant improvements to the central and south Delta levees systems along Old and Middle Rivers began in 2010 and are continuing to the present time. This complements substantially improved levees at Mandeville and McDonald Islands and portions of Victoria and Union Islands.
Levee improvements along the Middle River emergency freshwater pathway and Old River consist of crest raising, crest widening, landside slope fill and toe berms, which improve seismic stability, reduce levee slumping and create a more robust flood-fighting platform. Urban agencies, including Metropolitan, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and others have participated in levee improvement projects along or near the Old and Middle River corridors.
SWP Seismic Improvement
DWR’s recent SWP seismic resiliency efforts have focused heavily on SWP Dam Safety. The most prominent is the joint USBR/DWR corrective action study of Sisk Dam which will result in a massive seismic stability alteration project - to begin next year. Similarly, Perris Dam had a major foundation modification and stability berm added to the downstream face which has resulted in the removal of the DSOD imposed storage restriction. Several analyses have been conducted on SWP dam outlet towers/access bridges which has resulted in seismic upgrades (some completed/some on-going). Updated dam seismic safety evaluations are being performed on the Oroville Dam embankment and the radial gate control structure on the flood control spillway.
In addition to the dam safety elements, DWR has procured and stockpiled spare pipe sections for the SBA to increase recovery times following seismic induced damage (as part of the 2015 South Bay Aqueduct Reliability Improvement Project). Seismic retrofits have also been completed on 23 SWP bridges located in four Field Divisions with additional retrofits in various development stages. DWR has also updated the earthquake notification procedures and has replaced and expanded instrumentation for the SWP’s seismic network.
Electrical Outages
Metropolitan has also developed contingency plans that enable it to deal with both planned and unplanned electrical outages. These plans include the following key points:
• In event of power outages, water supply can be maintained by gravity feed from regional reservoirs such as DVL, Lake Mathews, Castaic Lake, and Silverwood Lake. • Maintaining water treatment operations is a key concern. As a result, all Metropolitan treatment plants have at least two emergency generators capable of operating the treatment plant in the event of supply failure on the main electrical grid. These generators will automatically operate when power from the grid is interrupted, and annual testing is conducted to ensure they are operational and reliable. In addition, within the water treatment plants there are also dual electrical systems for all critical facilities (e.g., chemical feed systems) to provide redundancy and resiliency.
2-38 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
• Valves at Lake Skinner can be operated by the backup generation at the Lake Skinner treatment plant.
• Metropolitan owns mobile generators that can be transported quickly to key locations, such as reservoir Intake/outtake structures, if necessary.
• The CRA electric transmission system can supply power to the five CRA pumping plants from three independent power sources: Mead 230kV substation located near Hoover Dam; Parker Dam 230kV substation near Gene; and from interconnections with Southern California Edison.
These multiple locations where Metropolitan’s 230 kV transmission system interconnects to the regional transmission grid provide a redundant path to bring 230 kV power to Hinds, Eagle Mountain, Iron Mountain and Gene Pumping Plants. In addition to redundant paths of power to each CRA pumping plant, the CRA electric transmission system has dual lines from the 230 kV Mead substation and multiple disconnect switches and circuit breakers. This improves the flexibility of the CRA electric transmission system to isolate portions of the system for maintenance or repairs and re-route power from the three independent power sources to the pumping plants while repairs are executed.
Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Beginning January 2020, CWC Section 10632.5 mandates UWMPs to include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities. For Metropolitan, the required assessment and plan are accomplished as part of developing its resilience strategy and are presented in detail in its seismic resiliency reports. This section provides a summary of the various components of Metropolitan’s resilience strategy. These components are described in detail in Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Report First Biennial Report (February 2018) and Seismic Resilience Report 2020 Update (February 2020) presented as part of Appendix 9.
Over its nearly 90‐year history, Metropolitan has been proactive in mitigating seismic risks posed to its expansive infrastructure, as well as improving its ability to maintain (or quickly restore) water deliveries following a major earthquake. This ability to mitigate seismic risks and maintain (or quickly restore) water deliveries following a seismic event is referred to as “seismic resilience.” Metropolitan’s holistic strategy for seismic resilience follows a “defense in depth” multi‐layered approach for managing risk. Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Strategy has three primary objectives:
1. Provide a diversified water supply portfolio, system flexibility, and emergency storage
2. Prevent damage to water delivery infrastructure in probable seismic events and limit damage in extreme events
3. Minimize water delivery interruptions through a dedicated emergency response and recovery organization
Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Strategy is implemented through four components that encompass the various internal functions that promote Metropolitan’s seismic resilience objectives. These components are supplemented by Metropolitan’s commitment to interagency coordination when preparing and responding to a seismic event and other emergencies. The strategy is shown below in Figure 2-2.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-39
A brief description of the components of Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience Strategy and examples of their implementation are provided below.
Planning
The goals of the planning component are to develop and maintain a diversified water resource portfolio; provide a flexible system that allows for operational changes to handle variations in water supply, planned or unplanned system outages; and to maintain adequate emergency storage supplies. Metropolitan has developed a diverse water resource portfolio through the enactment of various exchange and water banking programs. These water supply programs are described in detail in Section 3 and Appendix 3. In addition to existing supply programs, development of the Regional Recycled Water Program would provide Metropolitan with an additional water resource and would be strategically located on the coastal side of the San Andreas Fault. Metropolitan also strives for regional seismic resilience by incentivizing local agencies to develop increased conservation, recycling, storage, and other water management programs.
As Metropolitan expanded its system over the years, it has continually improved the flexibility of the system to handle changes in water supply or pipeline or facility outages. One example of Metropolitan’s system flexibility is the Common Pool service area, which can be supplied by the Jensen, Weymouth, or Diemer water treatment plants. Additionally, Metropolitan has constructed its system such that most of the service area can be supplied by either Colorado River or State Water Project supplies.
Metropolitan’s imported water supplies from the CRA and SWP East and West Branches cross the San Andreas Fault (SAF) Zone prior to reaching Metropolitan’s service area. A major earthquake on the SAF has the potential of damaging all three aqueducts and disrupting imported supplies for up to six months. Metropolitan constructed Diamond Valley Lake (DVL) on the coastal side of the fault to mitigate the potential impacts of a major SAF earthquake to its service area.
Completion of DVL nearly doubled Metropolitan’s available surface water storage in the region and, along with other local reservoirs, is used to maintain 6 to 12 months of emergency water storage supply. Water from DVL can supply 4 of Metropolitan’s 5 regional water treatment plants.
Figure 2-2 Seismic Resilience Strategy
• •
SEISMIC RESILIENCE
STRATEGY
ENGINEERING OPERATIONS
INTER-AGENC't
2-40 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Engineering
The goal of the engineering component is to assess and mitigate seismic risk to individual facilities and the system. This is accomplished through Metropolitan’s Seismic Resilience of Structures Program, the Seismic Resilience of Pipelines Program, the Dam Safety Program, and through special seismic assessments.
Seismic Resilience of Structures
Metropolitan’s program to increase the seismic resilience of structures is an ongoing program with the goal of protecting life safety and critical infrastructure to minimize water delivery interruptions following a seismic event. The initial program focused on evaluating the seismic risk of above ground structures (e.g. water treatment plants) constructed prior to 1990 and upgrading structures to mitigate the risk when found to be seismically deficient. The program has recently expanded to include post-1990 structures due to the progress made on the initial list of structures. Examples of seismically upgraded facilities include the Colorado River Aqueduct pump plant buildings, the Weymouth East and West Wash Water Tanks, and the Diemer and Jensen Administration Buildings.
Seismic Resilience of Pipelines
Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution system has been built in conformance with standards and practice at the time of design. In keeping with the goals of the Seismic Resilience Strategy, Metropolitan is developing seismic design criteria for new pipelines based on current state of practice, geotechnical and seismicity criteria, operating conditions, and asset management strategies. The planned design approach for new pipelines will be to establish performance criteria, identify seismicity and ground conditions along the alignment, and design the pipeline to resist damage from ground shaking and deformation. Specialized pipe joints and sections can be designed to accommodate ground deformation from fault displacement or liquefaction. For existing pipelines, seismic resilience will be incorporated as a component of pipeline rehabilitation projects. Metropolitan will evaluate each upgrade individually to balance risk, performance, and cost. Metropolitan’s Casa Loma Siphon Barrel No. 1 Seismic Upgrade Project is an example of Metropolitan incorporating seismic design in the rehabilitation of existing pipelines. The existing siphon, which crosses a segment of the San Jacinto Fault Zone and is subject to long-term subsidence, will be replaced with earthquake-resistant ductile iron pipe. The pipe joints are designed to accommodate ground displacement without failure to allow for continued service following an earthquake.
Dam Safety Program
Metropolitan has an ongoing Dam Safety Initiatives Program that has initiated several plans to improve Metropolitan's dam seismic safety and earthquake readiness. These initiatives are being coordinated with the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) and Office of Emergency Services and include the following:
• Ongoing preparation of Emergency Action Plans, including inundation maps • Performing training exercises at the dam site to test processes during a seismic event • Providing training and guidance on overall dam safety • Reviewing operation and maintenance methods for reservoir drawdown and operations after a seismic event
• Updating guidelines and procedures on protection against seismic risk • Establishing a strong communications system on seismic information Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2-41
• Performing structural strengthening of dams, including rehabilitation and improvement of spillways and inlet/outlet towers such as Lake Skinner Outlet Tower • Improving dam safety instrumentation, monitoring, and reporting capabilities Special Seismic Assessments
Metropolitan conducts special seismic assessments to increase understanding of the vulnerability of Metropolitan’s assets and operations to various seismic hazards. The studies focus on hazards specific to individual facilities or the system as a whole and identify options to mitigate the risks posed by the hazards. In addition, the studies support emergency response training and planning for future earthquake events by estimating the magnitude of damage that may occur from various seismic events. The following is a list of some of the reports that Metropolitan has completed.
• Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Feeder System (Report No. 1625), Carollo Engineers, Inc., 2019. • Colorado River Aqueduct – San Gorgonio Pass Seismic Event Vulnerability Study (Report No. 1484), GeoPentech, July 2014.
• Potential Effects of Southern California Seismic Events on Metropolitan Water Deliveries (Report No. 1335), Metropolitan Facility Planning staff, January 2009.
Operations
The goal of the operations component is to maintain effective emergency planning and response capabilities. This is accomplished through maintaining an effective Emergency Response Organization, conducting routine emergency response training exercises and maintaining emergency construction capabilities.
Metropolitan’s Emergency Response Organization (ERO) is comprised of over 200 predesignated employees who work in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), the Incident Command Posts, or in the field during emergencies. ERO staff has completed specialized training that meets state and federal requirements. Metropolitan's emergency response structure follows the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the State of California's Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).
In addition to specialized NIMS training, Metropolitan staff routinely participate in emergency response training exercises that are often based on a postulated seismic event. In 2019, Metropolitan started a new five‐year emergency exercise plan that will allow all member agencies to participate in at least one of Metropolitan’s annual emergency exercises. The first of these exercises was a tabletop exercise for the Orange County member agencies on August 29, 2019, which focused on a hypothetical incident at the Diemer Water Treatment Plant.
Metropolitan has conducted over 100 exercises since February 2018. This included two large functional emergency exercises for the EOC and multiple tabletop exercises, workshops, and seminars for the 12 Incident Command Posts located at the water treatment plants, conveyance and distribution facilities, and other strategic locations in Metropolitan’s service area.
Metropolitan maintains the necessary staffing, materials, and equipment to respond to two simultaneous pipeline breaks. The Machine Shop and Coating Shop at La Verne are available to fabricate pipe sizes up to 12 feet in diameter, and Metropolitan’s construction forces have the necessary equipment and expertise to make the repairs in-house. In addition, Metropolitan has upgraded its satellite phones to ensure communication ability following a seismic event and is in 2-42 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
the process of installing high frequency radios at all Incident Command Posts and the Emergency Operations Center.
Reporting
Metropolitan has committed to providing annual updates to its Board of Directors on its seismic resilience strategy and its progress toward identified short-term and long-term goals.
Metropolitan has also committed to providing a formal report on a five-year interval summarizing accomplishments related to seismic resilience and changes in directives to the Seismic Resilience Strategy.
Inter-Agency Coordination
Improving the region’s seismic resilience requires that member agencies understand the seismic risks to the imported water supplies so that they may appropriately plan on the local level.
Opportunities for inter-agency coordination are provided through the Local Resources Program, where Metropolitan incentivizes the development of local groundwater, recycling, and other supply resources to offset imported demands. As stated previously, Metropolitan provides member agencies the opportunity to participate in emergency response exercises. As part of a recent study, Metropolitan developed maps that define the relative liquefaction susceptibility of the region inclusive of the conveyance and distribution system and has made these maps available to member agencies. Recently, Metropolitan updated the emergency storage goals through several workshops in coordination with member agencies.
Metropolitan is also a member of the Seismic Resilience Water Supply Task Force, along with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). As the owners of the three conveyance facilities that provide imported water to the region, Metropolitan, DWR, and LADWP recognize the importance of coordinating responses following a major seismic event that disrupts the imported water supplies. Each agency has provided an overview of the seismic risk to their respective systems and are in the process of developing a Water Mutual Assistance Agreement to formalize the coordination efforts following a major earthquake that disrupts service to the imported water supplies.
Emergency Response Plans
Metropolitan also has two Emergency Response Plans: one dated March 2019 that has been in place long-term and is updated periodically; and a second dated September 2020, prepared pursuant to the requirements of the recently-enacted America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.
The two plans work in conjunction. Together, Metropolitan’s Emergency Response Plans present Metropolitan's organization and strategy for response to emergencies caused by natural hazards, malevolent acts, or other unavoidable circumstances. Metropolitan operates in accordance with the California Standardized Emergency Management System, the Incident Command System, and the National Incident Management System. The Emergency Response Plans provide guidelines for evaluating an emergency situation, responding to an emergency, and activating Incident Command Posts and the Emergency Operations Center. They also describe the Emergency Response Organization. Although the plans provide a framework for emergency response, they do not attempt to identify and discuss every potential situation or problem that may occur during an emergency. The plans will be exercised and updated regularly.
Other Supply Reliability Risks 2-43
2.6 Other Supply Reliability Risks
Metropolitan provides water to a broad and heterogeneous service area with water supplies from a variety of sources and geographic regions. Each of these demand areas and supplies has its own unique set of benefits and challenges. Among the challenges Metropolitan’s region faces are the following:
Supplies
• The Colorado River Basin experienced a severe 5-year drought from 2000-2004 with both precipitation and runoff significantly below average. Since that time, precipitation has been, on average, near normal while runoff has been less than average in two out of every three years. Overall, a potential change in the precipitation to runoff relationship may be resulting in conditions in which less runoff is generated from a given level of precipitation, pushing the system toward a drying trend that is often characterized as a long-term drought. • Endangered species protection and conveyance needs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System have resulted in operational constraints that are particularly important because pumping restrictions impact many water resources programs – SWP supplies and additional voluntary transfers, Central Valley storage and transfers, in-region groundwater storage, and in-region surface water storage.
• Changing climate patterns are predicted to shift precipitation patterns and possibly affect water supply.
• Difficulty and implications of environmental review, documentation, and permitting for multi-year transfer agreements, recycled water projects, and seawater desalination plants. • Public perception of recycled water use.
• Opposition to local seawater desalination projects from environmental groups and community organizations. New regulations and permitting uncertainty are also barriers to seawater desalination supplies.
Operations and Water Quality
• The cost and use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. • Water quality regulations and issues, such as algae toxins, PFAS, and the identification of constituents of emerging concern, have a significant impact on the region’s water supply conditions and underscore the importance of flexible and adaptive regional planning strategies.
• Salt and concentrate balance from a variety of sources.
Demand
• Fluctuations in population and economic growth.
• Uncertain location of growth.
• Uncertain housing stock and density.
• Changes in outdoor water use patterns.
• Potential COVID-19 impacts
The challenges posed by continued population growth, environmental constraints on the reliability of imported supplies, and new uncertainties imposed by climate change demand that Metropolitan assert the same level of leadership and commitment to taking on large-scale 2-44 Other Supply Reliability Risks
regional solutions to providing water supply reliability. New solutions are potentially available in the form of dramatically improved water-use efficiency, indirect and direct potable use of recycled water, and large-scale application of ocean desalinization.
Distribution System Water Losses
California Water Code Section 10631(d)(3) requires that urban retail suppliers quantify distribution system water loss for each of the five years preceding the plan update based on water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). For the 2020 UWMP, Metropolitan is voluntarily reporting its treated distribution water loss. Metropolitan followed the AWWA Water Audit methodology to track all sources of water and uses of water within its system. The AWWA Water Audit methodology quantifies real and apparent water system losses in an agency’s distribution system.
For its voluntary distribution system water losses assessment, Metropolitan included its water balance audit for the treated water portion of its system for calendar years 2015 through 2019.
The results of Metropolitan’s audit showed that the average total amount of treated distribution system water losses over the last five years from 2015 to 2019 is approximately 7.8 TAF. A detailed discussion of Metropolitan’s treated distribution system water losses is included in Appendix 7 and summarized in Tables A.7-1 through A.7-5. In addition to the treated distribution system losses described in the AWWA tables, Metropolitan estimates that 41.6 TAF was lost from reservoir evaporation occurring in Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and DVL during calendar year 2019.
Climate Change
Climate change adds its own uncertainties to the challenges of planning. Metropolitan’s water supply planning has been fortunate in having almost one hundred years of hydrological data regarding weather and water supply. This history of rainfall data has provided a sound foundation for forecasting both the frequency and the severity of future drought conditions, as well as the frequency and abundance of above-normal rainfall. But weather patterns can be expected to shift dramatically and unpredictably in a climate driven by increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These changes in weather significantly affect water supply planning, irrespective of the debate associated with the sources and cause of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. As a major steward of the region’s water supply resources, Metropolitan is committed to performing its due diligence with respect to climate change.
Potential Impacts
While uncertainties remain regarding the exact timing, magnitude, and regional impacts of these temperature and precipitation changes, researchers have identified several areas of concern for California water planners. These include:
• Reduction in Sierra Nevada snowpack;
• Increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events; • Prolonged drought periods;
• Water quality issues associated with increase in wildfires; • Changes in runoff pattern and amount; and
• Rising sea levels resulting in
o Impacts to coastal groundwater basins due to seawater intrusion; o Increased risk of damage from storms, high-tide events, and the erosion of levees; and o Potential pumping cutbacks on the SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) Other Supply Reliability Risks 2-45
Other important issues of concern due to global climate change include:
• Effects on local supplies such as groundwater;
• Changes in urban and agricultural demand levels and patterns; • Increased evapotranspiration from higher temperatures; • Impacts to human health from water-borne pathogens and water quality degradation; • Declines in ecosystem health and function;
• Alterations to power generation and pumping regimes; and • Increases in ocean algal blooms affected seawater desalination supplies.
Metropolitan’s Activities Related to Climate Change Concerns Resource Planning
Under the 2020 IRP, Metropolitan recognizes additional risks and uncertainties from a variety of sources:
• Water quality
• Climate change
• Regulatory and operational changes
• Project construction and implementation issues
• Infrastructure reliability and maintenance
• Demographic and growth uncertainty
Any of these risks and uncertainties, should they occur individually or collectively, may result in a negative impact to water supply reliability. While it is impossible to know how much risk and uncertainty to guard against, the region’s reliability will be more secure with a long-term plan that recognizes risk and provides resource development to offset that risk.
Metropolitan has established an intensive, comprehensive technical process to identify key vulnerabilities to regional reliability. This Robust Decision Making (RDM) approach was used with both the 2015 and 2010 IRP Updates. The 2015 RDM approach utilized the Delta Method to examine climate change impacts to Metropolitans water supplies across its three basins. The Delta Method is a technique that downscales data from a suite of global climate models and creates climate perturbation factors, in this case temperature and precipitation changes, and applies them to Metropolitan’s baseline Integrated Water Resources Plan Simulation Model (IRPSIM) assumptions. This methodology can show how vulnerable the region’s reliability is to longer-term risks such as climate change and can also establish “signposts” that can be monitored to see when critical changes may be happening. For example, if observed climate data shows we are trending toward more severe change and the results of the RDM analysis show an unacceptable level of reliability in this future, Metropolitan can use this as a signpost to take action. Signposts include monitoring the direction of ever-changing impacts from improved Global Climate Models, and housing and population growth patterns.
The RDM analysis was not only valuable in identifying vulnerabilities to Metropolitan’s 2015 IRP approach to long-term reliability, it was also pivotal in understanding how climate change would best be incorporated into the 2020 IRP and IRPSIM modeling. On the Colorado River Aqueduct, the RDM analysis helped determine that the most appropriate way to look at climate change impacts would be to alter the inflow hydrologies within the CRSS model, which would then serve as inputs to Metropolitan’s IRPSIM model. On the SWP side, climate change impacts were 2-46 Other Supply Reliability Risks
included by altering SWP water deliveries provided in the 2019 Delivery Capability report and derived by CalSim 2. Metropolitan assembled a panel of climate change experts to translate how specific climate change impacts, such as changes to runoff timing, would be quantified and to what degree in the IRP scenario approach.
Knowledge Sharing and Research Support
Metropolitan is an active and founding member of the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA).
WUCA consists of twelve nationwide water providers collaborating on climate change adaptation. As a part of this effort, WUCA pursues a variety of activities on multiple fronts.
Member agencies of WUCA annually share individual agency actions on climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and collaborate on projects aimed at advancing adaptation in the water sector. WUCA also monitors development of climate change-related research, technology, programs, and federal legislation.
In addition to supporting federal and regional efforts, WUCA has released numerous white papers and reports. In 2019, WUCA co-produced with the Water Research Foundation the report “Mapping Climate Exposure and Climate Information Needs to Water Utility Business Functions.“ The purpose of this paper was to develop a comprehensive, enterprise-level framework for understanding the exposure and sensitivities of water utility business functions to a changing climate and for accelerating the mainstreaming of climate considerations into utility management.
In 2016, WUCA published “Co-producing Actionable Science for Water Utilities.” The paper explores the efforts of four water utilities to co-produce actionable science by forging partnerships with scientific institutions to explore integrating climate considerations into their specific management context. The experiences of these four utilities and their scientific partners, as part of the Piloting Utility Modeling Applications project of the Water Utility Climate Alliance, provide a wealth of empirical evidence to illustrate some of the core concepts formulated to explain how to produce usable information and how to link research to decision making.
In recent years, WUCA has created a training that rotates around the country and aims to build a community of smart consumers of climate information proactively pursuing climate adaptation in the water sector. The training sessions include learning different methods for incorporating climate change information into water resource planning, guiding principles for resilience planning, communication strategies, tactics for decision making under conditions of uncertainty, and more.
WUCA continues to pursue opportunities and partnerships with water providers, climate scientists, federal agencies, research centers, academia and key stakeholders. Metropolitan also continues to pursue knowledge sharing and research support activities outside of WUCA.
Metropolitan regularly provides input and direction on California legislation related to climate change issues. Metropolitan is active in collaborating with other state and federal agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, on climate change related planning issues. The following list provides a sampling of entities that Metropolitan has recently worked with on a collaborative basis:
• RAND Corporation
• USBR
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• AWWA Research Foundation
Other Supply Reliability Risks 2-47
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• California Energy Commission
• California Department of Water Resources
Quantification of Current Research
Metropolitan continues to incorporate current climate change science into its planning efforts. A major component of the current IRP effort is to explicitly reflect uncertainty in Metropolitan’s future water management environment. This involves evaluating a wider range of water management strategies and seeking robust and adaptive plans that respond to uncertain conditions as they evolve over time, and that ultimately will perform adequately under a wide range of future conditions. The potential impacts and risks associated with climate change, as well as other major uncertainties and vulnerabilities, have been incorporated into the current IRP process. Overall, Metropolitan’s planning activities strive to support the Board adopted policy principles on climate change by:
• Supporting reasonable, economically viable, and technologically feasible management strategies for reducing impacts on water supply,
• Supporting flexible “no regret” solutions that provide water supply and quality benefits while increasing the ability to manage future climate change impacts, and • Evaluating staff recommendations regarding climate change and water resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to avoid adverse effects on the environment.
Implementation of Programs and Policies
Metropolitan has made great efforts to implement greenhouse gas mitigation programs and policies for its facilities and operations. Similar to Metropolitan’s approach to managing water resources, effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires a portfolio approach that looks at all sources and implements strategies to reduce emissions over time. To date, these programs and policies have focused on:
• Developing Metropolitan’s Climate Action Plan, which sets the target and guides future actions to reduce emission levels, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, and complements Metropolitan’s IRP;
• Developing Metropolitan’s Energy Sustainability Plan, which identifies ways to contain energy costs, move toward energy independence, and reduce price volatility through cost-effective alternative energy projects;
• Exploring water supply/energy relationships and opportunities to increase efficiencies; • Participating in The Climate Registry, a nonprofit greenhouse gas emissions registry for North America that provides organizations with the tools and resources to help them calculate, verify, report, and manage their greenhouse gas emissions in a publicly transparent and credible way;
• Acquiring “green” fleet vehicles, and supporting an employee Rideshare program; • Designing retail battery energy storage systems at the Weymouth, Skinner, and Jensen treatment plants, as well as the OC-88 (Orange County) pump station; • Developing solar power at the Skinner water treatment plant, the Weymouth water treatment plant, the Jensen water treatment plant, and the Diamond Valley Lake Visitor Center; and 2-48 Other Supply Reliability Risks
• Identifying and pursuing development of “green” renewable water and energy programs that support the efficient and sustainable use of water.
Metropolitan also continues to be a leader in efforts to increase regional water use efficiency.
Metropolitan has worked to increase the availability of incentives for local conservation and recycling projects, as well as supporting conservation Best Management Practices for industry and commercial businesses. Many of Metropolitan’s water use efficiency incentives also reduce customer electricity and natural gas use. In recognition of this fact, Metropolitan has MOUs with regional energy utilities to jointly implement water use efficiency programs that save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Pricing and Rate Structures 2-49
2.7 Pricing and Rate Structures
Revenue Sources and Management
A high proportion of Metropolitan’s revenues come from volumetric water rates. Water sales revenues are approximately 80 percent of Metropolitan’s total revenues. As a result, Metropolitan’s revenues vary according to regional weather, the availability of statewide water supplies, the availability of local supplies to its member agencies, the economy, and other factors. For example, in dry years, local demands tend to increase, and Metropolitan may receive higher than anticipated revenues due to increased sales volumes. In contrast, in wet years, demands tend to decrease, and revenues drop due to lower sales volumes. In addition, statewide supply shortages such as those in 2009 and 2015 also affect Metropolitan’s revenues.
Such revenue surpluses and shortages could cause instability in water rates. To mitigate this risk, Metropolitan maintains financial reserves, with a minimum and target balance, to help stabilize water rates during times of reduced water sales. The reserves hold revenues collected during times of high water sales and are used to offset the need for revenues during times of low sales.
Another way in which Metropolitan helps to mitigate rate volatility is by generating a portion of revenues from fixed sources. Metropolitan currently has two fixed charges: the Readiness-toServe Charge (RTS) and the Capacity Charge. Metropolitan also collects tax revenue from taxable property within its boundaries. The revenues from fixed charges generate approximately 18 percent of all Metropolitan revenues. RTS revenues have been decreasing gradually, from $155.5 million in fiscal year 2015-16, to $135 million in fiscal year 2021-22.
Finally, Metropolitan generates revenue from interest income, hydroelectric power sales, and miscellaneous income such as rents and leases. For the last five fiscal years, these averaged approximately three percent of all Metropolitan revenues. These internally generated revenues are referred to as revenue offsets and reduce the amount of revenue that needs to be collected from rates and charges.
Elements of Rate Structure
This section provides an overview of Metropolitan’s rate structure. The different elements of the rate structure are discussed below and summarized in Table 2-9.
System Access Rate (SAR)
The SAR recovers the costs of Conveyance, Distribution, and Storage that is used on an average annual basis through a uniform, volumetric rate. All member agencies pay the SAR for access to conveyance and distribution capacity in the Metropolitan system.
Water Stewardship Rate (WSR)
The WSR provides a dedicated source of funding for Metropolitan’s demand management function through a uniform, volumetric rate recovered through the end of calendar year 2020.
Metropolitan’s demand management operations functions include past and future conservation and local resources projects. Because of the uniform benefits conferred on all system users by investments in conservation and local resources, all users of Metropolitan’s conveyance and distribution system paid the WSR except for exchange deliveries to SDCWA in calendar years 2018 through 2020.
Metropolitan’s Board suspended the billing and collection of the WSR for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020 on exchange deliveries to SDCWA pending Metropolitan’s completion of a cost allocation study of its demand management costs. Having completed the demand 2-50 Pricing and Rate Structures
management cost allocation process, in December 2019 Metropolitan’s Board directed staff:
(1) to incorporate the use of the 2019/20 fiscal-year-end balance of the Water Stewardship Fund to fund all demand management costs in the proposed FY 2020/21 and 2021/22 biennial budget; and (2) to not incorporate the WSR, or any other rates or charges to recover demand management costs, with the proposed rates and charges for CYs 2021 and 2022. As a result, the WSR is not collected from any member agency as of January 1, 2021. This decision provided the Board additional time to consider a rate design alternative for recovery of future demand management costs.
Therefore, as a result of this Board decision, the WSR is not incorporated in the rate structure during calendar years 2021 and 2022.
System Power Rate (SPR)
The SPR recovers the costs of energy required to pump water to Southern California through the SWP and CRA. The cost of power is recovered through a uniform, volumetric rate.
Treatment Surcharge
The Treatment Surcharge recovers all of the costs of providing treatment capacity and operations through a uniform, volumetric rate per acre-foot of treated water transactions.
Capacity Charge
The Capacity Charge recovers the costs incurred to provide peak capacity within the Distribution System. The Capacity Charge also provides a price signal to encourage agencies to reduce peak demands on the Distribution System and to shift demands that occur during the May 1 through September 30 period into the October 1 through April 30 period, resulting in more efficient utilization of Metropolitan’s existing infrastructure and deferring capacity expansion costs.
Readiness-To-Serve Charge (RTS)
The RTS recovers the cost of the portion of system that is available to provide emergency service and available capacity during outages and hydrologic variability.
The RTS is a fixed charge that is allocated among the member agencies based on a ten-fiscalyear rolling average of firm demands. Water transfers and exchanges are included for purposes of calculating the ten-year rolling average. The Standby Charge is collected at the request of some member agencies that have elected to use the charge as a direct offset to the member agency’s RTS obligation.
Tier 1 Supply Rate
The Tier 1 Supply Rate is a volumetric rate charged on Metropolitan’s water sales that are within a member agency’s Tier 1 maximum. The Tier 1 Supply Rate supports a regional integrated approach through the uniform, postage stamp rate. The Tier 1 Supply Rate is calculated as the amount of the total revenue requirement functionalized as supply divided by the estimated amount of Tier 1 water sales.
Tier 2 Supply Rate
The Tier 2 Supply Rate is a volumetric rate that reflects Metropolitan’s cost of purchasing water transfers north of the Delta. The Tier 2 Supply Rate is charged on Metropolitan water sales that exceed a member agency’s Tier 1 maximum. The Tier 2 Supply Rate encourages the member Pricing and Rate Structures 2-51
agencies and their customers to maintain existing local supplies and develop cost-effective local supply resources and conservation.
Table 2-9
Rate Structure Components
Rate Design Elements
Service Provided/
Costs Recovered Type of Charge
System Access Rate Conveyance/Distribution/Storage
(Average Capacity)
Volumetric ($/AF)
System Power Rate Power Volumetric ($/AF)
Treatment Surcharge Treatment Volumetric ($/AF)
Capacity Charge Peak Distribution System Capacity Fixed ($/cfs) Readiness-To-Serve Charge Available capacity for
Conveyance/Distribution and
Emergency
Storage
Fixed ($Million)
Tier 1 Supply Rate Supply Volumetric ($/AF)
Tier 2 Supply Rate Reflects cost of water transfers from North of the Delta
Volumetric ($/AF)
The following tables provide further information regarding Metropolitan’s rates. Table 2-10 summarizes the rates and charges effective January 1, 2020, January 1, 2021, and January 1, 2022. Average costs of Metropolitan’s service by member agency will vary depending upon an agency’s RTS allocation, Capacity Charge, and relative proportions of treated and untreated Tier 1, and Tier 2 water purchases. Table 2-11 provides the details of the Capacity Charge, calculated for calendar year 2021.
Table 2-12 provides the details of the RTS calculation for calendar year 2021 by member agency.
Table 2-13 provides the current Purchase Order commitment quantities that member agencies will purchase from Metropolitan over the 10-year period starting January 2015 through December 2024. Tier 1 annual average limits for each member agency are also shown in this table. 2-52 Pricing and Rate Structures
Table 2-10
Metropolitan Water Rates and Charges
Effective Jan 1, 2020 Jan 1, 2021 Jan 1, 2022
Tier 1 Supply Rate ($/AF) $208 $243 $243
Tier 2 Supply Rate ($/AF) $295 $285 $285
System Access Rate ($/AF) $346 $373 $389
Water Stewardship Rate ($/AF) $65 - -
System Power Rate ($/AF) $136 $161 $167
Full Service Untreated Volumetric Cost ($/AF)
Tier 1 $755 $777 $799
Tier 2 $842 $819 $841
Treatment Surcharge ($/AF) $323 $327 $344
Full Service Treated Volumetric Cost ($/AF)
Tier 1 $1,078 $1,104 $1,143
Tier 2 $1,165 $1,146 $1,185
Readiness-to-Serve Charge ($M) $136 $130 $140
Capacity Charge ($/cfs) $8,800 $10,700 $12,200
Pricing and Rate Structures 2-53
Table 2-11
Capacity Charge Detail Calendar Year 2021
Peak Day Demand (cfs)
(May 1 through September 30)
Calendar Year
Agency 2017 2018 2019
3-Year
Peak
Calendar Year
2021 Capacity
Charge
($10,7000/cfs)
Anaheim 33.0 37.2 37.1 37.2 $398,040
Beverly Hills 25.7 27.8 23.5 27.8 $297,460
Burbank 14.0 17.1 17.3 17.3 $185,110
Calleguas 186.5 184.7 168.9 186.5 $1,995,550
Central Basin 36.7 39.2 48.6 48.6 $520,020
Compton 0.1 6.9 2.9 6.9 $73,830
Eastern 216.6 225.1 223.3 225.1 $2,408,570
Foothill 18.6 19.9 16.0 19.9 $212,930
Fullerton 13.0 13.3 13.1 13.3 $142,310
Glendale 41.4 33.5 32.2 41.4 $442,980
Inland Empire 140.5 147.8 118.7 147.8 $1,581,460
Las Virgenes 44.6 45.9 39.4 45.9 $491,130
Long Beach 55.2 80.4 51.8 80.4 $860,280
Los Angeles 250.4 284.6 283.2 284.6 $3,045,220
MWDOC 418.6 442.3 263.2 442.3 $4,732,610
Pasadena 39.9 43.0 40.0 43.0 $460,100
San Diego 749.7 855.5 672.0 855.5 $9,153,850
San Fernando 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.0
San Marino 7.5 4.5 2.3 7.5 $80, 250
Santa Ana 19.9 19.3 19.4 19.9 $212,930
Santa Monica 16.6 16.7 20.7 20.7 $221,930
Three Valleys 126.4 142.9 128.1 142.9 $1,529,030
Torrance 34.0 32.6 27.8 34.0 $363,800
Upper San Gabriel 12.1 23.3 29.1 29.1 $311,370
West Basin 201.7 202.4 211.8 211.8 $2,266,260
Western 175,2 194.7 170.5 194.7 $2,083,290
Total 2,877.9 3,140.6 2,660.9 3,184.1 $34,069,870
Totals may not foot due to rounding
2-54 Pricing and Rate Structures
Totals may not foot due to rounding
Table 2-12
Readiness-to-Serve Charge (by Member Agency)
Calendar Year 2021
Member Agency
Rolling Ten-Year
Average Firm
Deliveries
(Acre-Feet)
FY2009-10 to
FY2018-19 RTS Share
12 months @
$130 million
per year
(1/21-12/21)
Anaheim 17,327 1.17% 1,526,562
Beverly Hills 10,447 0.71% 920,439
Burbank 12,324 0.84% 1,085,747
Calleguas MWD 97,188 6.59% 8,562,554
Central Basin MWD 42,103 2.85% 3,709,422
Compton 779 0.05% 68,659
Eastern MWD 94,363 6.40% 8,313,628
Foothill MWD 8,395 0.57% 739,661
Fullerton 8,126 0.55% 715,882
Glendale 16,548 1.12% 1,457,930
Inland Empire Utilities Agency 56,561 3.83% 4,983,172
Las Virgenes MWD 20,449 1.39% 1,801,585
Long Beach 30,374 2.06% 2,676,061
Los Angeles 269,780 18.28% 23,768,407
Municipal Water District of Orange County 207,818 14.04% 18,309,363 Pasadena 18,840 1.28% 1,659,827
San Diego County Water Authority 258,318 17.51% 22,758,613 San Fernando 36 0.00% 3,136
San Marino 838 0.06% 73,804
Santa Ana 10,780 0.73% 949,787
Santa Monica 5,511 0.37% 485,554
Three Valleys MWD 62,229 4.22% 5,482,576
Torrance 15,990 1.08% 1,408,786
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 26,406 1.79% 2,326,450
West Basin MWD 115,328 7.82% 10,160,744
Western MWD 68,688 4.66% 6,051,651
Metropolitan Total 1,475,544 100.00% $130,000,000
Pricing and Rate Structures 2-55
Table 2-13
Purchase Order Commitments and Tier 1 Limits
(by Member Agency)
January 2015 through December 2024
Member Agency
Annual Average
Tier 1 Maximum
Purchase Order
Commitments
(acre-feet)
Anaheim 24,439 148,270
Beverly Hills 13,380 89,200
Burbank 16,776 108,910
Calleguas MWD 118,228 788,180
Central Basin MWD1 71,770 -
Compton1 3,372 -
Eastern MWD 117,585 783,900
Foothill MWD 11,773 73,310
Fullerton 11,299 75,320
Glendale 26,222 174,810
Inland Empire Utilities Agency 93,283 398,350
Las Virgenes MWD 24,358 162,390
Long Beach 51,804 263,140
Los Angeles 373,623 2,033,130
Municipal Water District of Orange County 321,635 2,144,230 Pasadena 22,965 153,100
San Diego County Water Authority1 393,542 -
San Fernando1 629 -
San Marino 1,442 9,610
Santa Ana 19,617 80,860
Santa Monica1 7,406 -
Three Valleys MWD 80,688 537,920
Torrance 19,204 128,030
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 67,228 110,080
West Basin MWD 135,418 902,780
Western MWD 105,783 705,220
Total 2,133,470 9,870,740
1 No Purchase Order; Tier 1 maximum is annual, not cumulative.
Totals may not foot due to rounding.
2-56 Pricing and Rate Structures
This page intentionally left blank.
Implementing the Plan 3-1
Implementing the Plan 3
This section summarizes Metropolitan’s implementation plans and continued progress in developing a diversified resource mix that enables the region to meet its water demands under a wide range of possible future conditions. The investments that Metropolitan has made and its ongoing efforts in many different areas coalesce toward its goal of long-term regional water supply reliability. Many of the resource programs discussed are already successfully implemented. Others will take more time to execute. Considerations are also in place for emerging integrated supplies, which could augment sources of regional water supply from nontraditional sources. In addition, water demand reductions brought about by legislative mandates could affect the landscape of future supply planning and implementation. The following sections discuss each of these programs, presenting both successes to date and the programs that are still underway.
Metropolitan’s IRP implementation approach is consistent with the California Water Resilience Portfolio that was released in July 2020. The California Water Resilience Portfolio is discussed briefly below.
California Water Resilience Portfolio
On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19 that directed the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to prepare a water resilience portfolio that meets the needs of California’s communities, economy and environment through the 21st century.
The agencies were directed to first inventory and assess:
a. Existing demand for water on a statewide and regional basis and available water supply to address this demand.
b. Existing water quality of aquifers, rivers, lakes and beaches. c. Projected water needs in the coming decades for communities, economy and environment. d. Anticipated impacts of climate change to our water systems including growing drought and flood risks, and other challenges to water supply reliability. e. Work underway to complete voluntary agreements for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river system regarding flows and habitat.
f. Current planning to modernize conveyance through the Bay Delta with a new single tunnel project.
g. Expansion of the state’s drinking water program to ensure all communities have access to clean, safe and affordable drinking water.
h. Existing water policies, programs and investments within state government.
The California Water Resilience Portfolio outlines goals and actions to help address the state’s water challenges through a broad and diversified approach. The goals and actions are meant 3-2 Implementing the Plan
to be achieved region by region based on the unique challenges and opportunities in each area and are organized into four categories:
1. Maintain and diversify water supplies – the state will continue to help regions reduce reliance on any one source of water supply and diversify water supplies to enable flexibility in the face of changing conditions.
2. Protect and enhance natural ecosystems – the state will provide leadership in restoring the environmental health of our river systems through effective standard setting, continued investments and more adaptive and holistic environmental management.
3. Build connections – the state aims to improve infrastructure to store, move and share water more effectively, and to integrate water management through shared use of science, data and technology.
4. Be prepared – the state will provide guidance to support preparation, protective actions and adaptive management of regions in the face of new threats and stresses due to climate change.
Colorado River 3-3
3.1 Colorado River
Metropolitan’s goal for the Colorado River is to maintain current supplies and programs, while also maintaining flexibility through dry-year programs and storage. This goal involves protecting existing supply and storage programs in the face of risks that could impact Colorado River supplies in the future.
Background
Metropolitan was established to obtain an allotment of Colorado River water, and its first mission was to construct and operate the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). Under its contracts with the federal government, Metropolitan has a basic fourth priority entitlement of 550 TAF per year of Colorado River water. Metropolitan also holds a fifth priority for an additional 662 TAF per year that exceeds California’s 4.4 MAF per year basic apportionment, and another 180 TAF per year when surplus flows are available. Metropolitan can obtain water under the fifth priority from:
• Water unused by the California holders of priorities 1 through 3 • Water saved by the Palo Verde land management, crop rotation, and water supply program, or
• When the U.S. Secretary of the Interior makes available either or both:
o Surplus water, and
o Water apportioned to, but unused by, Arizona and/or Nevada.
To satisfy a condition imposed by Congress in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, California’s legislature enacted the Limitation Act in 1929, agreeing to limit consumptive use of Colorado River water to 4.4 MAF per year, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River Compact. The 1931 Seven Party Agreement provides the basis for the priorities among California contractors’ use of Colorado River water available to California. Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), the Yuma Project (Reservation Division), Imperial Irrigation District (IID), and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), collectively the “agricultural entities,” and Metropolitan are the entities that currently hold the priorities. These priorities are included in the contracts that the Department of the Interior executed with the California agencies in the 1930s for delivery of water from Lake Mead. The first four priorities total 4.4 MAF per year. As noted above, Metropolitan has the fourth priority of 550 TAF to California’s basic apportionment and the fifth priority to 662 TAF per year. Under priorities 1 through 3, an amount not to exceed 3.85 MAF was apportioned to the agricultural entities for beneficial consumptive use. The Seven Party Agreement did not specify individual quantities for each of the first three priorities; rather, the amount of water available under the third priority was limited to the amount unused by the holders of priorities 1 and 2 on designated areas of land. This lack of quantification among the agricultural priorities posed an obstacle to the acquisition of water from the agricultural entities for use in Metropolitan’s service area.
The Consolidated Decree issued in 2006 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California, consolidated into one decree the initial 1964 decree, the 1979 supplemental decree, the 1984 second supplemental decree, the 2000 third supplemental decree, and the 2006 approval settlements reached on the water rights claim of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. The Consolidated Decree confirmed the normal year allocation of 4.4 MAF per year to California.
This limit effectively reduced Metropolitan’s dependable supply of Colorado River water to its fourth priority amount of 550 TAF per year. The Consolidated Decree quantified present perfected rights (PPRs) to the use of Colorado River water by certain Indian reservations, federal wildlife refuges, and other users. Within California some, but not all, of these PPRs are 3-4 Colorado River
encompassed by the Seven Party Agreement. Consumptive use under these non-encompassed PPRs, known as “Miscellaneous and Indian PPRs," could reach as much as 61 TAF annually. Since 1985, these PPR holders have used less than 20 TAF annually. Because over 5.362 MAF of Colorado River water were already allocated by California’s Seven Party Agreement, it was not clear which rights would be affected by the use of these non-encompassed PPRs.
For a period following the Court’s 1964 decree, Metropolitan’s fifth priority rights were satisfied with water unused under California’s first three agricultural priorities and water allocated to, but unused by, Arizona and Nevada. With the commencement of Colorado River water deliveries to the Central Arizona Project in 1985, the availability of Colorado River water to meet Metropolitan’s needs was determined on a year-by-year basis. Through 2002, Metropolitan’s diversion requests were fully satisfied with unused supplies and surplus waters.
Figure 3-1 shows the major aqueducts within southern California including those from the Colorado River, and entities within the state having rights to use water from the Colorado River.
Figure 3-1
CALIFORNIA ENTITIES USING COLORADO RIVER WATER "' "'- Hoover "'- Darn
"' "-... NEVA
"' "' "'
CALIFORNIA
Colorado River Aqueduct~
Pacific
Ocean
Metropolitan
Water District
Service Area
_ _)
Colorado
~ ARIZONA
Colorado River 3-5
Changed Conditions
California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan and the Quantification Settlement Agreement Metropolitan and the State of California acknowledged that Metropolitan would obtain less water from the Colorado River in the future than Metropolitan had in the past, but the lack of clearly quantified water rights hindered efforts to promote water management projects. The Secretary of the Interior asserted that California’s users of Colorado River water had to limit their use to a total of 4.4 MAF per year, plus any available surplus water. Under the auspices of the state’s Colorado River Board, these users developed a draft plan to resolve the problem, which was known as “California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan” or the “California Plan.” It characterized how California would develop a combination of programs to allow the state to limit its annual use of Colorado River water to 4.4 MAF per year plus any available surplus water.
The 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) among IID, CVWD, and Metropolitan is a critical component of the California Plan. It establishes the baseline water use for each of the agencies, facilitates the transfer of water from agricultural agencies to urban uses, and specifies that IID, CVWD, and Metropolitan would forbear use of water to permit the Secretary of the Interior to satisfy the uses of the PPRs not covered by the Seven Party Agreement.
On November 5, 2003, IID filed a validation action in Imperial County Superior Court, seeking a judicial determination that thirteen agreements associated with the QSA are valid, legal, and binding. Other lawsuits also were filed challenging the execution, approval, and subsequent implementation of the QSA on various grounds. All of the QSA cases were coordinated in Sacramento County Superior Court. After more than a decade of litigation, the final challenges to the QSA were dismissed, and the agreements were upheld.
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is participating in three QSA-related projects that are providing additional water supplies that the agency exchanges with Metropolitan for receipt of Metropolitan deliveries. 1 First, the water conserved by these projects is made available to Metropolitan. In exchange, Metropolitan is delivering an amount of Metropolitan water equal to the amount of Colorado River water conserved by IID for SDCWA. Second, federal law allocates a portion of the water available as a result of the Coachella Canal Lining Project and the AllAmerican Canal Lining Project for the benefit of parties, including five Indian Bands, and two non-Indian municipal water purveyors (San Luis Rey Settlement Parties) involved in litigation over water rights to the San Luis Rey River in San Diego County. Metropolitan has agreed to exchange that water and provide an equal amount of water to the United States for use by the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties, and SDCWA has agreed to convey the water when capacity is available for use within the Settlement Parties’ service areas. The remainder of the water available as a result of the canal lining projects, up to the cap specified in the Metropolitan-SDCWA exchange agreement, is exchanged with SDCWA.
In 2005, Metropolitan entered into a settlement agreement in Arizona v. California with the Quechan Indian Tribe and other parties. The Tribe uses Colorado River water on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. Under the settlement agreement, the Tribe, in addition to the amounts of water decreed for the benefit of the Reservation in the 1964 decree in Arizona v. California, is entitled to (a) 20 TAF of diversions from the Colorado River, or (b) the amount necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of a specified number of acres, and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever is less. Of the additional diversions, 13 TAF became available to the Tribe in 2006. An additional 7 TAF becomes available to the Tribe in 2035. Metropolitan agreed 1 These projects, the SDCWA/IID transfer and the Coachella and All-American canal lining projects, will be discussed in SDCWA’s Urban Water Management Plan.
3-6 Colorado River
to provide annual incentive payments to the Tribe if the Tribe forbore diversion of the additional water, thereby allowing Metropolitan to divert it.
Current Dry Condition
The Colorado River Basin experienced a severe 5-year drought from 2000 to 2004 with both precipitation and runoff significantly below average. Since that time precipitation has been, on average, near normal, while runoff has been less than average in two out of every three years.
Overall, a potential change in the precipitation to runoff relationship may be resulting in conditions in which less runoff is generated from a given level of precipitation, pushing the system toward a drying trend that is often characterized as a long-term drought. For example, in 2020, the Upper Colorado River Basin snowpack peaked in April at 107 percent of median. However, April through July runoff was observed at just 52 percent of average due to hot and dry conditions in the late spring and early summer. The overall 21-year drying trend has resulted in Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage at 40 and 42 percent of capacity, respectively, leaving less of a buffer for a future period of reduced precipitation.
Quagga Mussels
Quagga mussels were discovered in January of 2007 in Lake Mead and rapidly spread downstream to the Lower Colorado River. The presence and spawning of quagga mussels in the Lower Colorado River and in reservoirs located in southern California pose an immediate threat to water and power systems serving more than 25 million people in the southwestern United States. Quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) are a related species to the better-known zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and are indigenous to Ukraine. They were introduced to the Great Lakes in the 1980s from fresh-water ballast of a transoceanic ship traveling from Eastern Europe. Although the introduction of these two species into drinking water supplies does not typically result in violation of drinking water standards, invasive mussel infestations can adversely impact aquatic environments and infrastructure. If unmanaged, invasive mussel infestations have been known to severely impact the aquatic ecology of lakes and rivers; clog intakes and raw water conveyance systems; reduce the recreational and aesthetic value of lakes and beaches; alter or destroy fish habitats; and render lakes more susceptible to deleterious algae blooms.
Implementation Approach
Metropolitan’s planning strategy recognized explicitly that program development would play an important part in reaching the target level of deliveries from the Colorado River. The implementation approach explored a number of water conservation programs with water agencies that receive water from the Colorado River or are located in proximity to the CRA.
Negotiating the QSA was a necessary first step for all of these programs. On October 10, 2003, after lengthy negotiations, representatives from Metropolitan, IID, and CVWD executed the QSA and other related agreements. Parties involved also included SDCWA, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California DFW, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties. One of those related agreements was the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement, which specifies to which agencies water will be delivered under priorities 3a and 6a of the Seven Party Agreement during its term.
Metropolitan has identified several programs that could be used to achieve the regional longterm development targets for the Colorado River, as shown in Table 3-1. Metropolitan has entered into or is exploring agreements with agencies as described in this section. In addition, Colorado River 3-7
Appendix 3 provides a detailed discussion of these programs and describes whether the programs are being implemented, are deferred, or are under investigation.
Colorado River Water Management Programs
Imperial Irrigation District/Metropolitan Water District Conservation Program Under agreements executed in 1988 and 1989, Metropolitan has funded water efficiency improvements within IID’s service area in return for the right to divert the water conserved by those investments. Under this program, IID implemented a number of structural and nonstructural measures, including the lining of existing earthen canals with concrete, constructing local reservoirs and spill-interceptor canals, installing non-leak gates, and automating the distribution system. Other implemented programs include the delivery of water to farmers on a 12-hour rather than a 24-hour basis and improvements in on-farm water management through irrigation management improvements. Through this program, IID has conserved an additional 105 TAF per year on average upon completion of program implementation. Execution of the QSA and amendments to the 1988 and 1989 agreements resulted in changes in the availability of water under the program, extending the term to 2078 if the term of the QSA extends through 2077, which guaranteed Metropolitan at least 85 TAF per year with the remainder of the conserved water available to CVWD when needed. In a 2019 agreement, Metropolitan and CVWD agreed to increase the amount of water guaranteed to Metropolitan to 90 TAF per year from 2020 to 2026, with the remainder of the conserved water available for Metropolitan’s delivery to CVWD at Whitewater.
Palo Verde Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program In May 2004, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a 35-year land management, crop rotation, and water supply program with PVID. Under the program, participating farmers in PVID are paid to reduce their water use by not irrigating a portion of their land. A maximum of 29 percent of the lands within the Palo Verde Valley can be fallowed in any given year. Under the terms of the QSA, water savings within the PVID service area are made available to Metropolitan. This program provides up to 133 TAF of water to be available to Metropolitan in certain years. Over the life of the program, an average of 84.5 TAF per year has been saved and made available to Metropolitan. Additionally, in March 2009, Metropolitan and PVID entered into a one-year supplemental fallowing program within PVID that provided for the fallowing of additional acreage, with savings of 24.1 TAF in 2009 and 32.3 TAF in 2010.
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program
In December 2019, Metropolitan’s Board authorized a seven-year seasonal fallowing program with the Bard Water District. Under the program, participating farmers in Bard are paid to reduce their water use by not irrigating their land between the late spring and summer months. A maximum of 3,000 acres will be fallowed in the Bard Unit. Estimated water savings are between
1.5 and 2.0 AF per irrigable acre. Bard is part of the Yuma Project Reservation Division. Bard therefore holds a higher priority than Metropolitan, and any reductions in their water consumption increases supplies available to Metropolitan. Metropolitan has the option to make a fallowing call every year. The fallowing call notifies Bard and the farmers if Metropolitan needs fallowing the following year. This program provides up to 6 TAF of water to be available to Metropolitan in certain years.
Management of Metropolitan-Owned Land in Palo Verde
In 2001, Metropolitan acquired 8,946 acres of irrigable farmland within the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID). These lands were leased to growers and were eventually enrolled in the PVID Land 3-8 Colorado River
Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program when it began in 2005. In 2015, Metropolitan acquired an additional 12,049 irrigable acres from Verbena LLC, bringing Metropolitan’s ownership in the Palo Verde Valley to approximately 20,995 acres of irrigated farmland. The lands have historically been leased to growers who produced high water-using crops such as alfalfa.
In 2017 and 2018, Metropolitan entered into new leases on the lands with the goal of reducing consumptive water use while maintaining the lands as productive farmland. Strategies for reducing water use include incentivizing lessees to grow lower water-using crops, experimenting with different crop rotation cycles, and studying alternative irrigation practices. To assist in these studies, Metropolitan has deployed technologies for measuring crop water use via remote sensing imagery and ground-based sensors.
If long-term water savings from these farm leases is realized, Metropolitan may explore ways to have them formally accounted for in Metropolitan’s Colorado River supplies in the future.
Southern Nevada Water Authority and Metropolitan Storage and Interstate Release Agreement SNWA has undertaken extraordinary water conservation measures to maintain its consumptive use within Nevada’s basic apportionment of 300 TAF. The success of the conservation program has resulted in unused basic apportionment for Nevada. As SNWA expressed interest in storing a portion of the water with Metropolitan, the agencies, along with the United States and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, entered into a storage and interstate release agreement in October 2004. Under the agreement, additional Colorado River water supplies are made available to Metropolitan when there is space available in the CRA to receive the water. SNWA stored approximately 422 TAF with Metropolitan through 2019, 330 TAF of which is available for return to SNWA. In addition to providing capacity for SNWA to store unused water, the program has been beneficial to Metropolitan, providing additional water during dry years, especially during the recent California drought (2011 to 2016). SNWA is not expected to call upon Metropolitan to return water until after 2026.
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project
The Lower Colorado Water Supply Project was authorized by Congress in the 1980s to provide up to 10 TAF of water per year to the City of Needles and other entities adjacent to the river in California that do not have rights or have insufficient rights to use Colorado River water. In March 2007, Metropolitan, the City of Needles, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) executed a Lower Colorado Water Supply Project contract. Under the contract, Metropolitan receives, on an annual basis, project water left unused by the project contractors along the River.
The water supply for the project comes from groundwater wells located along the All-American Canal. A portion of the payments made by Metropolitan to the City of Needles is placed in a trust fund for potentially acquiring a new water supply for the project should the groundwater pumped from the project’s wells become too saline for use. Metropolitan received 9.5 TAF from this project in 2019 and will receive an estimated 8.8 TAF in 2020 based on the amount of water pumped and used by other project water users.
Exchange with SDCWA
SDCWA has acquired conserved Colorado River water reaching an annual volume of 277.7 TAF by 2023. SDCWA makes this water available at Lake Havasu for Metropolitan diversion, where Metropolitan takes possession of the water and provides a matching volume from Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA by exchange in equal monthly amounts. The conserved water is Colorado River 3-9
acquired by SDCWA through its transfer agreement with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and from the lining of the All-American and Coachella canals.
Under the transfer agreement with IID, 192.5 TAF was transferred and exchanged with Metropolitan in 2020. In 2021, the transfer reaches 205 TAF, reduces to 202.5 TAF in 2022, then stabilizes at 200 TAF per year in 2023. The water is being conserved through on-farm efficiency conservation arrangements made by IID with its customers and other system efficiency measures.
The Coachella Canal Lining Project consists of a 35-mile concrete-lined canal, including siphons, which replaced an earthen canal. The project was completed in December 2006 and conserves 30,850 AF annually. The All-American Canal Lining Project consists of a concrete-lined canal constructed parallel to 23 miles of earthen canal. The project was completed in 2009 and conserves 67,700 AF annually.
Pursuant to the QSA and related agreements, the 98,550 AF of water resulting from these projects annually is allocated as follows: 16,000 AF to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties in San Diego County, 77,700 AF to SDCWA, and 4,850 AF for Coachella Canal Lining Project mitigation. Any portion of the latter volume not used for mitigation is allocated to SDCWA; however, whether SDCWA can actually receive such water is subject to other laws, agreements, and factors.
The combined volume IID transferred water and canal lining water that Metropolitan will exchange with SDCWA is limited to 282.7 TAF in 2021, 280.2 TAF in 2022, and 277.7 TAF each year thereafter.
Exchange with the United States
Of the 16,000 AF allocated to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties from the water conserved from the All-American Canal Lining Project and Coachella Canal Lining Project, the United States furnishes this water at Metropolitan’s Colorado River Intake on Lake Havasu. Metropolitan takes possession of the water and by exchange delivers an equal volume of Metropolitan’s blended supplies to SDCWA. By separate agreement, SDCWA conveys the water to the San Luis Rey Settlement Parties.
Lake Mead Storage Program
In May 2006, Metropolitan and the USBR executed an agreement for a demonstration program that allowed Metropolitan to leave conserved water in Lake Mead, for exclusive use by Metropolitan in later years, that Metropolitan would otherwise have used in 2006 and 2007. The program required that such water left in Lake Mead must be through reduced use resulting from implementation of extraordinary conservation measures and not simply be water that was not needed by Metropolitan in the year it was stored. This extraordinary conservation was accomplished through savings realized under the Palo Verde Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program. Through the two-year demonstration program, Metropolitan created
44.8 TAF of “Intentionally Created Surplus” (ICS) water.
In December 2007, Metropolitan entered into agreements to set forth the rules under which ICS water is developed, stored in, and delivered from Lake Mead. According to these rules, the amount of water stored in Lake Mead, created through extraordinary conservation, that is available for delivery in a subsequent year was reduced by a one-time deduction of five percent, resulting in additional system water in storage in the lake, and an annual evaporation loss of three percent, beginning in the year following the year the water is stored.
The 2019 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (Lower Basin DCP; see below) changed these rules such that, for ICS creators party to the DCP (including Metropolitan), a one-time10 percent deduction is assessed on ICS in the year it is created, without additional future evaporation losses.
Metropolitan created ICS water in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 and 3-10 Colorado River
withdrew ICS water in 2008, 2013, 2014, and 2015. As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan had a total of 866 TAF of Extraordinary Conservation ICS water in Lake Mead.
Under these agreements, Metropolitan also agreed to store excess conservation by IID, up to 25 TAF per year with a cumulative cap of 50 TAF, with return upon the request of IID, subject to the conditions of the agreement. This was later amended in 2015 to temporarily increase the amount of excess conservation that Metropolitan would store, to account for the success of IID’s conservation programs and the extreme drought conditions within the State of California.
Metropolitan stored water for IID in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. As of January 1, 2020, Metropolitan has stored approximately 168 TAF of IID’s excess conservation either through application of the California ICS Agreement and its amendment, or through application of 3.B.8 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines (aka Lake Mead Storage Program)
The December 2007 federal guidelines concerning the operation of the Colorado River system reservoirs provided the ability for agencies to create “System Efficiency ICS” through the development and funding of system efficiency projects that save water that would otherwise be lost from the Colorado River. To that end, in 2008 the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), SNWA, and Metropolitan contributed funds for the construction of the Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir by the USBR. The purpose of the Drop 2 (Brock) Reservoir is to increase the capacity to regulate deliveries of Colorado River water at Imperial Dam, reducing the amount of lost storage in Lake Mead due to excess flow downstream of Imperial Dam by approximately 70 TAF annually.
In return for its $25 million net contribution toward construction, operation, and maintenance, 100 TAF of water that was stored in Lake Mead was assigned to Metropolitan as System Efficiency ICS. Through 2019, Metropolitan has diverted 35 TAF of this amount, with 65 TAF remaining in storage.
In 2009, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with the United States, SNWA, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, and CAWCD to have USBR conduct a one-year pilot operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant at one-third capacity. The pilot project operated between May 2010 and March 2011 and provided data for future decision-making regarding long-term operation of the Plant and developing a near-term water supply. Metropolitan’s contribution toward plant operating costs secured 24.4 TAF of System Efficiency ICS which is still stored in Lake Mead as of January 1, 2020.
Quagga Mussel Control Program
The presence and spawning of quagga mussels in the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead through Lake Havasu pose a threat to Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) system and other Colorado River water users due to the potential to continuously seed water conveyance systems with mussel larvae.
Metropolitan developed the Quagga Mussel Control Program (QMCP) in 2007 to address the long-term introduction of mussel larvae into the CRA from the lower Colorado River. The QMCP consists of surveillance activities and control measures. Inspections for adult mussel infestation of submerged infrastructure are conducted during annual CRA shutdowns (usually three to four weeks). Microscopic larvae are routinely monitored throughout the year in infested lakes and at non-infested locations.
Control activities consist of continuous chlorination of the CRA system (target residual = 0.1 –
0.5 mg/L) at the outlets of Copper Basin (5 miles downstream of the intake from the Colorado River), Lake Skinner, and Lake Mathews at the western terminus of the CRA. The outlet towers at Lakes Skinner and Mathews are also chlorinated for two weeks every quarter when operations allow (0.6 mg/L target residual). Attached mussels are removed during routine cleaning of the Colorado River 3-11
trash racks at the Whitsett Intake Pumping Plant at the start of the CRA. The annual CRA shutdowns desiccate exposed quagga mussels, thus providing an additional control measure.
Recent shutdown inspections have demonstrated that the combined use of chlorine and regularly scheduled shutdowns effectively control mussel infestation along the length of the CRA since only few and small mussels are usually found during these inspections.
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan
In April 2019, the President signed legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to sign and implement four DCP agreements related to the Upper and Lower Basin DCPs without delay. The agreements were executed, and the Upper and Lower Basin DCPs became effective on May 20, 2019 and will continue to be effective through 2026. The Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement requires California, Arizona, and Nevada to store defined volumes of water (“DCP Contributions”) in Lake Mead at specified lake levels. California would begin making contributions if Lake Mead’s elevation is projected to be at or below 1,045 feet above sea level on January 1. Depending on the lake’s elevation, California’s contributions would range from 200 to 350 TAF a year. Pursuant to intrastate implementation agreements that terminate in 2026, Metropolitan is responsible for 93 percent of any California DCP Contribution that may be required under the Lower Basin DCP. CVWD is responsible for 7 percent of California’s required DCP Contributions. In January 2020, the Lake Mead elevation was 1,090 feet; thus, no California DCP Contributions are necessary at this time. As noted above, under the Lower Basin DCP, the one-time deduction on new ICS was increased to 10 percent while the annual evaporation loss was removed.
Implementation of the Lower Basin DCP enhances Metropolitan’s ability to store water in Lake Mead and to ensure that water in storage can be delivered at a later date. The Lower Basin DCP increases the total volume of water that California may store in Lake Mead by 200 TAF, which Metropolitan will have the right to use. Water stored as ICS will be available for delivery as long as Lake Mead’s elevation remains above 1,025 feet. Previously, that water would likely have become inaccessible below a Lake Mead elevation of 1,075 feet. Rules are set for delivery of DCP ICS through 2026 and between 2027 and 2057.
Achievements to Date
Metropolitan has developed a number of supply and conservation programs to increase the amount of supply available from the Colorado River. The Colorado River faces long-term challenges of water demands exceeding available supply with additional uncertainties due to climate change. Metropolitan’s supply and conservation programs, as well as planned additional water management programs for 2035, are shown in Table 3-1. 3-12 Colorado River
Table 3-1
Colorado River Program Capabilities
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
Basic Apportionment – Priority 4 550,000 550,000 550,000 DCP Contribution Reduction1 0 0 0
IID/MWD Conservation Program 85,000 85,000 85,000
Priority 5 Apportionment (Surplus) 0 0 0
PVID Land Management, Crop Rotation,
and Water Supply Program 130,000 130,000 117,000
Bard Seasonal Fallowing Program 6,000 6,000 6,000
Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 9,000 9,000 9,000
Lake Mead ICS Storage Program 337,500 337,500 337,500
Binational ICS 51,000 0 51,000
Forbearance for Present Perfected Rights (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) CVWD SWP/QSA Transfer Obligation (35,000) (35,000) (35,000) DWCV SWP Table A Obligation (51,000) (12,000) (113,000) DWCV Advance Delivery Account 51,000 12,000 113,000
IID Payback 0 0 0
SNWA Agreement Payback (22,000) (22,000) (22,000)
Subtotal of Current Programs 1,109,500 1,058,500 1,096,500 Programs Under Development
Additional Transfer Programs 0 0 0
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Additional Colorado River Exchange Supplies
Exchange with SDCWA 278,000 278,000 278,000
Exchange with United States 16,000 16,000 16,000
Subtotal of Additional Colorado River Supplies 294,000 294,000 294,000 Maximum CR Supply Capability2 1,403,500 1,352,500 1,390,500 Less CRA Capacity Constraint
(amount above 1.25 MAF) (153,500) (102,500) (140,500)
Maximum Expected CRA Deliveries3 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1 DCP contribution beyond capacity of ICS accounts.
2 Total amount of supplies available without taking into consideration CRA capacity constraint. 3 The CRA delivery capacity is 1.25 MAF annually.
State Water Project 3-13
3.2 State Water Project
Much of the SWP water supply passes through the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta). The SWP consists of a series of pump stations, reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, and power plants operated by DWR. Figure 3-2 shows SWP facilities. This statewide water infrastructure provides water to 29 urban and agricultural agencies throughout California. More than two-thirds of California’s residents receive some of their drinking water from the Bay-Delta.
The original State Water Contract called for an ultimate delivery capacity of 4.2 MAF, with 1,911 TAF allocated to Metropolitan pursuant to its participation in the SWP. For decades, the Bay-Delta has experienced water quality and supply reliability challenges and conflicts due to variable hydrology and environmental standards that limit pumping operations. SWP deliveries in the most recent critically dry years lagged these projections and were 5 percent of contractual amounts in 2014 and 20 percent of contractual amounts in 2015. Dry conditions in 2020 also supported a supply allocation of only 20 percent. Consequently, Metropolitan’s key concern is the continual deterioration of water supply reliability.
Another important concern for Metropolitan is sustained improvement in SWP water quality.
Metropolitan must be able to meet the increasingly stringent drinking water regulations that are expected for disinfection by-products and pathogens in order to protect public health.
Meeting these regulations will require improving the Bay-Delta water supply by cost effectively combining alternative source waters, source improvement, and treatment facilities. Additionally, Metropolitan requires water quality improvements of Bay-Delta water supplies to meet its 500 mg/L salinity blending objective in a cost-effective manner, while minimizing resource losses and helping to ensure the viability of regional recycling and groundwater management programs.
Background
Endangered Species Act Permits - The listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered under the federal or California Endangered Species Acts (respectively, the “Federal ESA” and the “California ESA” and, collectively, the “ESAs”) has adversely impacted operations and limited the flexibility of the SWP. Currently, five species (the winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, North American green sturgeon, and Central Valley steelhead) are listed under the ESAs. In addition, on June 25, 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission declared the longfin smelt a threatened species under the California ESA. Because of the listing of the various species, the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and SWP are prohibited from “taking” the fish in their operations and must consult with federal fisheries agencies to determine whether their operations will jeopardize the existence of the species. If so, CVP and SWP must establish “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (RPAs) to normal project operations to minimize their impacts on the smelt and salmon.
In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued biological opinions and incidental take statements that governed operations of the SWP and the CVP with respect to the Delta smelt, the winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, and the Central Valley steelhead. In July 2006, the USBR reinitiated consultation with the USFWS and NMFS with respect to the 2004 and 2005 biological opinions (with the addition of the North American green sturgeon, which was listed in April 2006) following the filing of legal challenges to those biological opinions and incidental take statements. 3-14 State Water Project
Figure 3-2
Current and Projected Facilities of the State Water Project Thermalito Diversion
Dam Power Plant
Thermalito PumpingGenerating Plant
Thermalito Afterbay South Fork Feather River
North Bay Aqueduct
Las Perillas Pumping Plant
Badger Hill Pumping Plant
Bluestone Pumping Plant
Clifton Court Forebay
Banks Pumping Plant
Bethany Reservoir
South Bay Pumping Plant
Del Valle Pumping Plant
Lake Del Valle
Polonio Pass Pumping Plant
Oso Pumping Plant
Castaic Power Plant
Elderberry Forebay
Teerink Pumping Plant
Chrisman Pumping Plant
Edmonston Pumping Plant
------ Mojave Siphon Power Plant
Silverwood Lake
Devil Canyon Power Plant
.,-East Branch Extension
East Branch
State Water Project 3-15
In 2008, USFWS issued a Biological Opinion with RPAs including criteria for operation of the CVP and SWP in a manner not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Delta smelt or adversely modify designated critical habitat. NMFS made a similar finding with respect to project operation effects on the listed salmon and steelhead in its revised Biological Opinion in 2009.
Coordinated CVP/SWP operations were required to incorporate RPAs suggested by the agencies in the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions to ensure they are exempt from the otherwise applicable prohibition on “take” of Federal ESA-listed species.
To comply with the California ESA, DWR obtained consistency determinations for species listed under both ESAs and a separate Fish & Game Code Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit that authorized the incidental take of the state-listed Longfin smelt from SWP operations. 2019 Biological Opinions - In August 2016, USBR and DWR reinitiated consultation with NMFS and USFWS on the Coordinated Long-term Operations of the CVP and SWP due to new information and science on declining listed fish species populations. USBR submitted the initial biological assessment to USFWS and NMFS. The biological assessment contains a description of USBR’s and DWR’s proposed long-term coordinated operations plan (the “2019 Long-Term Operations Plan”). On October 21, 2019, USFWS and NMFS released their Biological Opinions. On February 18, 2020, USBR signed a Record of Decision, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, completing its environmental review and adopting the 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan.
The 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan incorporates and updates many of the requirements contained in the previous 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions. It also includes over $1 billion over a ten-year period in conservation, monitoring and new science, some of which is in the form of commitments carried forward from the previous 2008/2009 Biological Opinions. Those costs are shared by the SWP and CVP. The prior 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions resulted in an estimated reduction in SWP deliveries of 0.3 million acre-feet during critically dry years to 1.3 million acrefeet in above normal water years as compared to the previous baseline. The 2019 Long-Term Operations Plan and 2019 Biological Opinions are expected to increase SWP deliveries by an annual average of 200,000 acre-feet as compared to the previous Biological Opinions. However, as explained further below, DWR committed to forego the anticipated improvement in the California ESA permitting process.
On December 2, 2019, a group of non-governmental organizations, including commercial fishing groups and the Natural Resources Defense Council (the “NGOs”), sued the Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, USFWS, NMFS, and USBR alleging the 2019 Biological Opinions are arbitrary and capricious, later amending the lawsuit to include claims alleged against USBR under the federal ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act. On February 20, 2020, the California Natural Resources Agency (Natural Resources), the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Attorney General (collectively, the “State Plaintiffs”) sued the federal agencies, making allegations similar to the NGOs, but also alleging that USBR must obtain a California ESA permit for CVP operations that cause incidental take of the state-listed Longfin smelt. The State Water Contractors intervened in both cases to defend the 2019 Biological Opinions. In May 2020, the court granted, in part, a preliminary injunction that affected CVP operations only for a short time in May. The federal defendants are nearing completion of the administrative records that will form the evidentiary basis for briefing the merits of the cases, and the court has issued a briefing schedule for any objections to the administrative records. Once the administrative records are finalized, the parties anticipate filing cross-motions for summary judgment. The outcome of those cross-motions may obviate the need for a trial.
California ESA Incidental Take Permit - DWR described and analyzed its proposed SWP long-term operations plan for purposes of obtaining a new California ESA permit in its November 2019 Draft EIR under CEQA. Its 2019 Draft EIR proposed essentially the same operations plan as for the 3-16 State Water Project
federal 2019 Biological Opinions, with the addition of operations for the California ESA-listed Longfin smelt. The proposed project included an estimated $540 million in conservation, monitoring and science, much of which overlapped with DWR’s share of the estimated $1 billion under the federal 2019 Biological Opinions. In December 2019, DWR submitted its application for an incidental take permit under the California ESA to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), with a modified State operations plan that added new outflow and environmental commitments. On March 27, 2020, DWR released its final EIR and Notice of Determination, describing and adopting a State operations plan with additional operational restrictions and additional conservation commitments. On March 31, 2020, CDFW issued a California ESA incidental take permit for the SWP that included further operational restrictions and outflow. The final approved project and incidental take permit reduce long-term average SWP deliveries by more than 200 TAF, which more than erased any potential improvement in SWP water supplies that were anticipated to result from the 2019 Biological Opinions. In addition, the approved project and incidental take permit add another estimated $218 million over a ten-year period in environmental commitments for the SWP beyond the SWP’s share of the $1 billion required to comply with the 2019 Biological Opinions.
On April 28, 2020, Metropolitan and Mojave Water Agency (Mojave) jointly sued CDFW, DWR and Natural Resources, alleging that the new California ESA permit and Final EIR violate CEQA and the California ESA. Metropolitan and Mojave also allege that DWR breached their respective State Water Contracts and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, among other things, accepting an incidental take permit containing mitigation or other measures in excess of that required by law. The State Water Contractors and the Kern County Water Agency also filed CEQA and CESA actions, and a CEQA challenge was filed by several federal contractors. In addition, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District sued CDFW and DWR, alleging CEQA and CESA violations, breach of its State Water Contract and the implied covenant, as well as unconstitutional takings and anticipatory repudiation of contract claims. Four other lawsuits also have been filed by certain commercial fishing groups and a tribe, several environmental groups, and two in-Delta water agencies challenging the Final EIR as inadequate under CEQA and, in some of the cases, alleging violations of the California ESA, Delta Reform Act, public trust doctrine and, in one of the cases, certain water right statutes. Since the initial filings, Coachella Valley Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County have joined Metropolitan’s case; and nine individual State Water Contractors joined the SWC and Kern County Water Agency in their case, adding breach of contract and implied covenant claims. All eight cases have been ordered coordinated, and a stay has been imposed on any discovery until modified or lifted by the coordination trial judge. At this time, Metropolitan is unable to assess the likelihood of success of any litigation relating to the California ESA permit, including any future litigation or any future claims that may be filed, or any potential effect on Metropolitan’s SWP water supplies.
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update/Voluntary Agreements – The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the agency responsible for setting water quality standards and administering water rights throughout California. The SWRCB exercises its regulatory authority over the Bay-Delta and its tributaries by means of public proceedings leading to regulations and decisions that can affect the availability of water to Metropolitan and other users of SWP water.
These include the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan), which establishes the water quality objectives and proposed flow regime of the estuary, and water rights decisions, which assign responsibility for implementing the objectives of the Bay-Delta Plan to users throughout the system by adjusting their respective water rights permits.
State Water Project 3-17
Since 2000, SWRCB’s Water Rights Decision 1641 (D-1641) has governed the SWP’s ability to export water from the Bay-Delta for delivery to Metropolitan and other agencies receiving water from the SWP. D-1641 allocated responsibility for meeting flow requirements and salinity and other water quality objectives established earlier by the Bay-Delta Plan.
The Bay-Delta Plan gets reviewed periodically, and new standards and allocations of responsibility can be imposed on the SWP as a result. The last review was completed in 2006, and the current review has been ongoing since approximately 2010 in a phased approach.
Phase 1 focuses on the southern Delta salinity objectives for the protection of agriculture, San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife, and a program of implementation for achieving those objectives. Phase 2 considers the comprehensive review of the other elements of the Bay-Delta Plan, including but not limited to Sacramento River and Delta outflow objectives.
The SWRCB has also encouraged all stakeholders to work together to reach one or more voluntary agreements for consideration by the SWRCB that could implement the proposed amendments to the Bay-Delta Plan through a variety of tools, while seeking to protect water supply reliability. Metropolitan is participating in the Phase 2 proceedings and voluntary agreement negotiations. In March of 2019, DWR and CDFW put forward a project description and planning agreement that would allow the SWRCB to analyze the environmental impacts and benefits of the voluntary agreement alternative to the percentage of unimpaired flow framework.
In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted the Phase 1 Bay-Delta Plan amendments and Final Substitute Environmental Document. Among other things, the Phase 1 updates established new Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) flow objectives and revised southern Delta salinity objectives. The LSJR flow objectives for February through June require 40 percent of unimpaired flow, based on a minimum 7-day running average, from each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers, with the ability to adjust between 30 and 50 percent through adaptive management, and with certain minimum base flows. The SWRCB estimates that the new LSJR flow objectives will reduce water available for human consumptive use by between 7 and 23 percent, on average, and 38 percent in critically dry years.
On February 25, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Phase 1 amendments, which are now in effect. The SWRCB plans to fully implement the new LSJR flow objectives through adjudicatory (water rights) and regulatory (water quality) processes by 2022. The SWRCB has stated that it encourages voluntary agreements that will assist in implementing the LSJR flow objectives through a combination of flow and non-flow habitat restoration measures, and will consider such agreements as part of its proceedings to implement the Phase 1 Bay-Delta Plan update, consistent with its obligations under applicable law.
In July of 2018, the SWRCB released a framework that describes the draft proposal for Phase 2, which will update the flow requirements for the Delta and its contributing watersheds, including the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The framework provides additional details about the flow requirements staff is likely to propose, how these new requirements could be implemented, and preliminary information on their potential environmental benefits and water supply effects.
Among other things, SWRCB staff anticipate proposing an inflow level of 45-65 percent of unimpaired flow, with a starting point of 55 percent. The proposed program of implementation would allow voluntary agreements with nonflow measures to be lower in the range – so long as the measures provide the same level of resource protection as 55 percent, and that the agreement is still within the range of 45-65 percent. The framework states that the SWRCB is interested in receiving potential Bay-Delta Plan amendment language developed through the 3-18 State Water Project
voluntary agreement process that would authorize, with the affirmative concurrence from CDFW, a coordinated control of flows and other, non-flow factors that would achieve benefits comparable to the unimpaired flow requirements.
Other issues, such as the recent decline of some fish populations in the Bay-Delta and surrounding regions and certain operational actions in the Bay-Delta, may significantly reduce Metropolitan’s water supply from the Bay-Delta. Future new or revised Biological Opinions or incidental take authorizations under the Federal ESA and California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and CVP operations. Additionally, new litigation, listings of additional species under the ESAs, or new regulatory requirements imposed by the SWRCB could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. Metropolitan cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any of the litigation or regulatory processes described above, but believes they could have an adverse impact on the operation of the SWP pumps, Metropolitan’s SWP supplies, and Metropolitan’s water reserves.
Operational constraints likely will continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay-Delta is identified and implemented. The Delta Vision process, established by Governor Schwarzenegger, was aimed at identifying long-term solutions to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta, including natural resource, infrastructure, land use, and governance issues. In addition, State resource agencies and various water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Delta Conveyance Project, which is aimed at making physical and operational improvements to the SWP system in the Delta necessary to access south-of-Delta SWP water supplies and restore and protect water quality by addressing anticipated sea-level rise, seismic risks, and by providing operational flexibility to improve aquatic conditions in the Delta and better manage risks of further regulatory constraints on SWP operations.
Changed Conditions
In August 2020, DWR released the 2019 State Water Project Delivery Capability Report. The 2019 Delivery Capability Report presents the current DWR estimate of the amount of water deliveries for current (2019) conditions and conditions 20 years in the future for each SWP contractor under a range of hydrologic conditions. These estimates incorporate regulatory requirements in accordance with the SWRCB Water Quality Control Plan, the USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions and the CDFW Incidental Take Permit. In addition, these estimates incorporate 2018 amendments to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the SWP and CVP. Future capability estimates also reflect the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise.
Under the 2019 Delivery Capability report, the delivery estimates for the SWP for 2019 conditions as a percentage of Table A amounts are 7 percent, equivalent to 134 TAF for Metropolitan, under a single dry year (1977) condition and 58 percent, equivalent to 1.1 MAF for Metropolitan, under long-term average conditions.
Implementation Approach
Metropolitan’s implementation approach for the SWP depends on the full use of the current State Water Contract provisions, including its basic contractual amounts and Article 21 interruptible supplies. In addition, it requires successful negotiation and implementation of a number of agreements. Each of these stakeholder processes or agreements involves substantial Metropolitan and member agency staff involvement to represent regional interests.
Metropolitan is committed to working collaboratively with DWR, SWP contractors, and other stakeholders to ensure the success of these extended negotiations and programs.
State Water Project 3-19
SWP Reliability
This discussion provides details of the major actions Metropolitan is undertaking to improve SWP reliability.
Delta Conveyance Project – Planning for a Delta conveyance project to address declining populations of sensitive fish species and the increasingly restrictive permit conditions began decades ago. In the mid-1990s, a consortium of federal, state, and local agencies including Metropolitan entered the Bay-Delta Accord, which included hundreds of millions of dollars for ecosystem restoration in the Delta and its salmon-bearing tributaries. In 2000, a similar consortium completed the CALFED analysis of a program of ecosystem restoration and improvements to Delta conveyance and issued a Record of Decision that included dual conveyance as an alternative. In April 2006, the CALFED Program issued a 10-year Action Plan to refocus the program based on new scientific and policy information. The scientific information indicated that the current physical configuration of the Delta did not lead to a sustainable condition due to increasing risk of seismic events and sea level rise; and that population levels for Delta pelagic (open water) organisms were at record low levels and were appearing to continue to decline.
The 10-year Action Plan also indicated that several water users were considering the development of a habitat conservation plan for the Delta. This effort was the initiation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which began with the support and participation of water suppliers, including Metropolitan. One of the conservation measures included new points of diversion on the Sacramento River in the north Delta connected by a canal or two tunnels to Clifton Court Forebay (part of the SWP) in the south Delta.
In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-17-06, which launched the Delta Vision process by establishing a Blue-Ribbon Task Force, a cabinet-level Delta Vision Committee, Delta Science Advisors, and a Stakeholder Coordination Group. The executive order charged the Blue-Ribbon Task Force with developing both a long-term vision for a sustainable Delta and a plan to implement that vision. The Delta Vision Committee recommended, among other things, creation of a state plan for the Delta and Suisun Marsh aimed at landscape-scale ecosystem restoration and a new Delta conveyance infrastructure to create a dual system of conveyance. On February 28, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger, in a letter to state Senators Perata, Machado, and Steinberg, stated his intention to direct DWR to proceed with preparation of environmental review and permitting activities for the BDCP.
In 2009, in light of the Delta Vision reports and recommendations, the Legislature enacted the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, which established the coequal goals for the Delta of ecosystem restoration and restoration of reliable SWP and CVP supplies, created the Delta Stewardship Council, and charged the new agency with development of a Delta Plan to further the coequal goals in a manner that protects and enhances the Delta as an evolving place. The Delta Reform Act and the first Delta Plan, adopted in 2013, called for incorporation of the BDCP into the Delta Plan if it met state and federal requirements for a habitat conservation plan and natural communities’ conservation plan.
The BDCP planning process continued under Governor Brown, but in light of comments on the BDCP, DWR began analyzing three new sub-alternatives to the BDCP that involved new conveyance independent of any landscape-scale habitat restoration called the California WaterFix. At the same time, Governor Brown initiated California EcoRestore, which was aimed at restoration of 30,000 acres of fish habitat in the Delta. In July 2017, DWR approved California WaterFix. Metropolitan’s Board authorized participation in California WaterFix in October 2017, and again in April and July of 2018.
3-20 State Water Project
In his State of the State address delivered February 12, 2019, Governor Newsom announced that he did not “support WaterFix as currently configured,” but does “support a single tunnel.” On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19, directing several agencies to (among other things) “inventory and assess… [c]urrent planning to modernize conveyance through the Bay Delta with a new single tunnel project.” The Governor’s announcement and Executive Order led to DWR’s withdrawal of all approvals and environmental compliance documentation associated with California WaterFix. The CEQA process identified in this notice for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project will, as appropriate, utilize relevant information from the past environmental planning process for California WaterFix, but the proposed project will undergo a new stand-alone environmental analysis leading to issuance of a new EIR.
On January 15, 2020, DWR issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the DCP, stating:
DWR’s underlying, or fundamental, purpose in proposing the project is to develop new diversion and conveyance facilities in the Delta necessary to restore and protect the reliability of State Water Project (SWP) water deliveries and, potentially, Central Valley Project (CVP) water deliveries south of the Delta, consistent with the State’s Water Resilience Portfolio.
The above stated purpose, in turn, gives rise to several project objectives. In proposing to make physical improvements to the SWP Delta conveyance system, the project objectives are:
• To address anticipated rising sea levels and other reasonably foreseeable consequences of climate change and extreme weather events.
• To minimize the potential for public health and safety impacts from reduced quantity and quality of SWP water deliveries, and potentially CVP water deliveries, south of the Delta resulting from a major earthquake that causes breaching of Delta levees and the inundation of brackish water into the areas in which the existing SWP and CVP pumping plants operate in the southern Delta.
• To protect the ability of the SWP, and potentially the CVP, to deliver water when hydrologic conditions result in the availability of sufficient amounts, consistent with the requirements of state and federal law, including the California and federal Endangered Species Acts and Delta Reform Act, as well as the terms and conditions of water delivery contracts and other existing applicable agreements.
• To provide operational flexibility to improve aquatic conditions in the Delta and better manage risks of further regulatory constraints on project operations The proposed project would construct and operate new conveyance facilities in the Delta that would add to the existing SWP infrastructure. New intake facilities as points of diversion would be located in the north Delta along the Sacramento River between Freeport and the confluence with Sutter Slough. The new conveyance facilities would include a single main tunnel to convey water from the new intakes to the existing Banks Pumping Plant and potentially the federal Jones Pumping Plant in the south Delta. The new facilities would provide an alternate location for diversion of water from the Delta and would be operated in coordination with the existing south Delta pumping facilities. The new north Delta facilities would be sized to convey up to 6,000 cfs of water from the Sacramento River to the SWP facilities in the south Delta. DWR would operate the dual conveyance system in compliance with all state and federal regulatory requirements and would not reduce DWR’s current ability to meet standards in the Delta to protect biological resources and water quality for beneficial uses.
State Water Project 3-21
Contract Amendments – Metropolitan and other State Water Contractors have undertaken negotiations with DWR to extend their State Water Contracts. In June 2014, DWR and the State Water Contractors reached an Agreement in Principle (the “Agreement in Principle”) on an amendment to the State Water Contracts to extend the contracts and to make certain changes related to financial management of the SWP in the future. DWR and 25 of the State Water Contractors, including Metropolitan, have signed the Agreement in Principle. Under the Agreement in Principle, the term of the State Water Contract for each Contractor that signs an amendment would be extended until December 31, 2085. The Agreement in Principle served as the “proposed project” for purposes of environmental review under CEQA. DWR issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the proposed project on August 17, 2016. DWR released the Final EIR on November 16, 2018 and certified the final EIR and issued a Notice of Determination on December 11, 2018. Concurrently, Metropolitan considered the certified final EIR and approved the water supply contract extension amendment at its December 11, 2018 Board meeting. That same day, DWR filed a lawsuit seeking to validate the contract extension. In January of 2019, two groups of plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging DWR’s Final EIR and approval of the Contract Extension under CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, and public trust doctrine. Those cases have been related to the validation action and are pending before the same judge. To date, 21 of the 29 State Water Contractors have executed the amendment, achieving the DWR established threshold needed for it to be fully executed. DWR is awaiting a decision from the trial court on the validation litigation described above before moving forward with execution of the amendments with individual State Water Contractors.
In a process separate from the State Water Contract extension amendment described above, Metropolitan and other State Water Contractors undertook public negotiations with DWR to amend their State Water Contracts to clarify how costs would be allocated for the California WaterFix, as well as to clarify the criteria applicable to certain water management tools including single and multi-year water transfers and exchanges between State Water Contractors. DWR and the State Water Contractors reached an Agreement in Principle in 2018 (the “2018 AIP”), and DWR issued a Draft EIR. On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued the executive order directing State agencies to develop a comprehensive statewide strategy to build a climateresilient water system that included consideration of a single-tunnel Delta conveyance facility instead of the approved California WaterFix project. DWR removed the WaterFix cost provisions from the 2018 AIP and, on February 28, 2020, recirculated the Draft EIR for only the 2018 AIP’s water management provisions. DWR certified a Final EIR for the water management tools AIP in August 2020 and finalized contract language in October 2020. Since then, all but three of the SWP contractors have approved and signed the amendments, including Metropolitan, which approved the amendments on February 9, 2021. As a result, the amendments became effective on February 28, 2021. The water management provisions allow for greater flexibility for transfers and exchanges among those public agencies with State Water Contracts. Specifically, it would confirm existing practices for exchanges, allow more flexibility for non-permanent water transfers, and allow for the transfer and exchange of certain portions of Article 56 carry over water.
In light of the shift from California WaterFix to the Delta Conveyance Project, Metropolitan and other State Water Contractors embarked on a third public process to further negotiate proposed amendments related to cost allocation for a potential new Delta Conveyance Project. In March of 2020, DWR and the State Water Contractors reached an Agreement in Principle (“Delta Conveyance AIP”) for the allocation of costs and benefits for a Delta Conveyance project based on an allocation of proportionate shares. The Delta Conveyance AIP provides a mechanism that would allow for the costs related to any Delta Conveyance project to be allocated for and collected by DWR. The Delta Conveyance AIP also provides for the allocation of benefits for any Delta Conveyance project. Additionally, the Delta Conveyance AIP includes a white paper that 3-22 State Water Project
describes how DWR would account for and administer any Delta Conveyance project benefits and costs if a project were implemented today. Contract language is under development, and any contract approval would follow DWR completing the Delta Conveyance Project environmental review.
COA Addendum – DWR operates the SWP in coordination with the federal CVP, which is operated by USBR. Since 1986, the coordinated operations have been undertaken pursuant to a Coordinated Operations Agreement for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (the “COA”). The COA defines how the State and federal water projects share water quality and environmental flow obligations imposed by regulatory agencies. The agreement calls for periodic review to determine whether updates are needed in light of changed conditions. After completing a joint review process, DWR and USBR agreed to amend the COA to reflect water quality regulations, Biological Opinions, and hydrology updated since the 1986 agreement was signed. On December 13, 2018, DWR and USBR executed an Addendum to the COA (the “COA Addendum”). Through the COA Addendum, DWR will adjust current SWP operations to modify pumping operations, as well as project storage withdrawals to meet in-basin uses, pursuant to revised calculations based on water year types. The COA Addendum will shift responsibilities for meeting obligations between the CVP and the SWP, resulting in a shift of approximately 120 TAF in long-term average annual exports from the SWP to the CVP. In executing the COA Addendum, DWR found the agreement to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an ongoing project and that the adjustments in operations are within the original scope of the project. On January 16, 2019, commercial fishing groups and a tribe (“petitioners”) filed a lawsuit against DWR alleging that entering into the COA Addendum violated CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. The parties are in the process of completing the administrative record, which will form the evidentiary basis at trial, which has not been set at this time.
Ecosystem Restoration – The main objective under the EcoRestore Program is the restoration of at least 30,000 acres of Delta habitat, with the near-term goal of making significant strides toward that objective by 2020. These restoration programs include projects and actions that comply with pre-existing regulatory requirements designed to improve the overall health of the Delta.
Other priority restoration projects would also be identified by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy and other agencies and local governments. Funding is provided through multiple sources, including various local and federal partners, state bonds, and other state-mandated funds. SWP/CVP contractors have provided funds as part of existing regulatory obligations imposed on the SWP and CVP.
Delta Science Initiatives – Metropolitan’s Bay-Delta science program supports water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration by protecting the Bay-Delta environment, driving better management decisions, and fostering effective regulations. Metropolitan is conducting a science program to ensure that regulations effectively protect aquatic species while ensuring a reliable water supply. The key elements of the science program include: (1) staff with scientific expertise to design, manage and participate in scientific investigations addressing Metropolitan’s priorities; (2) funding science studies through direct funding, collaborations, staff in-kind contributions, and by pursuing external grant funding sources to leverage Metropolitan’s science investments; (3) collaborations with external organizations to conduct science studies, including the State Water Contractors, Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP), Interagency Ecological Program agencies, Delta Stewardship Council Delta Science Program, and university scientists; and (4) participation in the Bay-Delta science community through communication of science study findings, participation in science conferences and publishing results of scientific studies in peer reviewed journals.
State Water Project 3-23
Metropolitan’s Bay-Delta science efforts focus on three priority areas of water operations to protect Delta fish, Delta stressors and habitat needs of listed fish species. • Water Operations to Protect Delta Fish. A priority focus for the science program is to develop a better understanding of the effect of water project operations on the health, abundance, and distribution of listed fish species, including Delta smelt, longfin smelt and Chinook salmon.
The science program includes investigation of the mechanisms behind flow-abundance relationships observed in analysis of fish survey data for Delta smelt and longfin smelt, factors that affect adult Delta smelt, salmon and steelhead entrainment risk at the CVP and SWP export facilities, potential bias in fish survey data, and development of effective methods to study Delta smelt without collecting or harming the fish. • Delta Stressors. Multiple stressors in the Bay-Delta ecosystem affect the health, abundance, and distribution of listed fish species; however, we have limited understanding of the impacts of various stressors and their specific role in the decline of listed species. The science program includes investigation into key stressors to develop information that can support development of effective management actions. These studies include investigation into predation impacts on salmon, toxic contaminant effects on Delta smelt and juvenile salmon, and the effects of nutrients on the food web.
• Habitat Needs for Delta Fish. Compared to the historical Delta, the modern Delta is highly altered and has a small fraction of tidal marsh habitat remaining and greatly reduced levels of primary production. Food and habitat limitation have been identified as important stressors for listed species. The science program includes investigation of salmon habitat needs, pilot studies to enhance the food web, longfin smelt habitat studies, pilot projects to benefit Delta smelt, monitoring the effectiveness of habitat improvement actions, and evaluation of land use and habitat opportunities on Metropolitan’s Delta Island properties.
SWP Terminal Storage
Metropolitan has contractual rights to 65 TAF of flexible storage at Lake Perris (East Branch terminal reservoir) and 154 TAF of flexible storage at Castaic Lake (West Branch terminal reservoir). This storage provides Metropolitan with additional options for managing SWP deliveries to maximize yield from the project. Over multiple dry years, it can provide Metropolitan with 44 TAF of additional supply. In a single dry year like 1977, it can provide up to 219 TAF of additional supply to Southern California.
Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program
In December 2007, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with DWR providing for Metropolitan’s participation in the Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program between Yuba Water Agency and DWR. This program provides for transfers of water from the Yuba Water Agency during dry years through 2025.
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley WD SWP Table A Transfer Under the transfer agreement, Metropolitan transferred 100 TAF of its SWP Table A contractual amount to Desert Water Agency/CVWD (DWCV). Under the terms of the agreement, DWCV pays all SWP charges for this water, including capital costs associated with capacity in the California Aqueduct to transport this water to Perris Reservoir, as well as the associated variable costs. The amount of water actually delivered in any given year depends on that year’s SWP allocation. Water is delivered through the existing exchange agreements between Metropolitan and DWCV, under which Metropolitan delivers Colorado River supplies to DWVC equal to the SWP supplies delivered to Metropolitan. While Metropolitan transferred 100 TAF of its Table A amount, it retained other rights, including interruptible water service; its full carryover amounts in 3-24 State Water Project
San Luis Reservoir; its full use of flexible storage in Castaic and Perris Reservoirs; and any rate management credits associated with the 100 TAF.
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley WD Exchange and Advance Delivery Program Under this program, Metropolitan delivers Colorado River water to the Desert Water Agency and CVWD in advance of the exchange for their SWP Contract Table A allocations. In addition to their Table A supplies, Desert Water Agency and CVWD may take delivery of other SWP supplies available to SWP Contractors. By delivering enough water in advance to cover Metropolitan’s future exchange obligations, Metropolitan is able to receive Desert Water Agency and CVWD’s available SWP supplies without having to deliver an equivalent amount of Colorado River water.
This program allows Metropolitan to maximize delivery of SWP water in wet years by enabling delivery of Colorado River supplies to storage in the Advance Delivery Program instead of to the service area. These Table A deliveries are incorporated into the estimate of SWP Deliveries under Current Programs shown in Table 3-2.
Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley WD Other SWP Deliveries Since 2008, Metropolitan has provided Desert Water Agency and CVWD written consent to take delivery of non-SWP supplies separately acquired by each agency from the SWP facilities. These deliveries include water acquired from the Yuba Dry Year Water Purchase Program, the MultiYear Water Pool, the 2009 Drought Water Bank, and long-term water supplies purchased by CVWD from Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District. Metropolitan has also consented to:
• 10 TAF of exchange deliveries to CVWD for non-SWP water acquired from the San Joaquin Valley from 2008 through 2010,
• 36 TAF of exchange deliveries to Desert Water Agency for non-SWP water acquired from the San Joaquin Valley from 2008 through 2015, and
• 16.5 TAF of exchange deliveries to CVWD from groundwater storage of Kern River flood flows or SWP water delivered from Kern County Water Agency provided by Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District from 2012 through 2035.
Effective in 2020, Metropolitan, Desert Water Agency and CVWD executed an amendment to the Advance Delivery Program and exchange of water. Among its provisions is the termination of Metropolitan’s right to an annual option to call-back the 100,000 acre-feet Table A transfer. It also provides that Metropolitan will deliver Article 21 and non-SWP water supplies for Desert and CVWD to the extent that Metropolitan has available capacity. This agreement also includes an additional exchange of 15 TAF per year from 2020 to 2026. However, as the source of the exchange is water CVWD can call from the ID/MWD Conservation Program, which is Colorado River water, this exchange is discussed in more detail in the IID/MWD Conservation Program section.
Table 3-2 summarizes Metropolitan’s SWP supply range for 2035. Appendix 3 provides a detailed discussion of the current SWP programs and programs that are under development.
State Water Project 3-25
Table 3-2
California Aqueduct
Program Capabilities
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
MWD Table A 1 499,000 122,000 1,108,000
DWCV Table A 51,000 12,000 113,000
San Luis Carryover 2 57,000 283,000 283,000
Article 21 Supplies 0 0 20,000
Yuba River Accord Purchase 0 0 0
Subtotal of Current Programs 607,000 417,000 1,524,000
Programs Under Development
Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 0
Maximum Supply Capability 607,000 417,000 1,524,000
1 Includes Port Hueneme lease.
2 Includes DWCV carryover.
SWP Water Quality
Metropolitan requires a safe drinking water supply from the Bay-Delta to meet current and future regulatory requirements for public health protection. Finding cost-effective ways to reduce total organic carbon (TOC), bromide concentrations, pathogenic microbes, and other unknown contaminants from the Bay-Delta water supply is one of Metropolitan’s top priorities.
Metropolitan also requires a SWP supply that is consistently low in salinity - Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - so it can blend SWP water with higher-salinity Colorado River water to achieve salinity goals for its member agencies. In addition, Metropolitan needs consistently low-salinity SWP water to increase in-basin water recycling and groundwater management programs. These programs require that blended water supplied to the member agencies meets the TDS goal adopted by Metropolitan’s Board, which specifies a salinity objective of 500 mg/L for blended imported water.
Metropolitan is actively involved in DWR’s Municipal Water Quality Investigations (MWQI) Program. The highly variable quality of SWP water influences the operation of Metropolitan’s system and its water treatment process. Increasingly restrictive State and Federal drinking water standards, concerns over emerging contaminants such as personal care products and pharmaceuticals, algal taste and odors, and Delta ecosystem fisheries issues are critical variables. DWR’s MWQI Program strives to monitor, protect, and improve drinking water quality of Delta water deliveries to the urban State Water Contractors and other users of Delta water.
The program focuses on issues related to drinking water quality through regular water quality monitoring, special field and laboratory studies, the use of forecasting tools such as computer models and data management systems, and reporting. While the program has developed extensive monitoring in the Delta including real-time monitoring, increased monitoring along the California Aqueduct is the next major step.
3-26 State Water Project
Levee modifications at Franks Tract and other source control actions may significantly reduce ocean salinity concentrations in Delta water, which would benefit Delta water users and export interests alike. Franks Tract is an island located in the central Delta that was actively farmed until levee breaches in 1936 and 1938. Since 1938, the tract has remained a flooded island, and its levees remain in disrepair. Tidal flows in the Delta entrap saline ocean water in the flooded tract, resulting in degraded water quality for both in-Delta and export users. Computer modeling analyses by Metropolitan, DWR, and the US Geological Survey indicate that reducing this salinity intrusion by partially closing existing levee breach openings and/or building radial gate flow control structures will significantly reduce TDS and bromide 2 concentrations in water from the Delta during the summer and fall months and in drought years.
In 2016, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as part of the 2016 Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy, began a process of working with the local community, local agencies, and interested stakeholders in developing a habitat enhancement plan for Franks Tract called the Franks Tract Restoration Feasibility Study. The objective was to assess the feasibility of restoring components of the historic tidal marsh form and function to create habitat suitable for Delta Smelt, reduce the extent of aquatic weeds, decrease predation on Delta Smelt and other native fishes by lowering habitat suitability for non-native species, modify hydrology to something more similar to historical conditions, improve food webs, and improve water quality in the interior Delta, which would benefit both in-Delta diverters and SWP and CVP supplies. In its current state of shallow open water, Franks Tract facilitates salinity intrusion into the mid-Delta as a result of tidal pumping through False River. Restoration designs focus on minimizing tidal pumping from False River. In 2018, CDFW determined that it is feasible to achieve the project objectives. In response to community concerns, in July 2019, CDFW, in cooperation with the Department of Parks and Recreation, launched a second round of planning that lasted from August 2019 through September 2020. Stakeholders, advisors, and the public chose the Central Landmass as the preferred design concept as documented in the Franks Tract Futures 2020 Reimagined report published in September 2020.
The state has adopted an “equivalent level of public health protection” (ELPH) program that targets water quality actions outside the Delta. The Bay-Delta Program is coordinating a feasibility study on water quality improvement in the California Aqueduct.
Metropolitan and the Friant Water Users Authority (FWUA) have entered into a partnership to investigate the potential of enhancing the quantity and affordability of the eastern San Joaquin Valley's water supply while improving Southern California's water quality. The FWUA and Metropolitan studied projects that benefited both regions. Using Proposition 13 funds, an existing canal belonging to the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District was enlarged, enabling greater volumes of water to be exchanged between their groundwater and the California Aqueduct.
SWP System Outage and Capacity Constraints
The California Aqueduct is experiencing reduction in flow capacity in certain areas due to ongoing land subsidence. Subsidence has been observed in the San Joaquin Valley since the 1920s, and subsidence was included in the planning and design of the California Aqueduct. The DWR published a detailed study in 2017 describing the impacts of subsidence in the reduction of concrete liner freeboard and the ability to store water in certain pools, reducing operational flexibility and increasing power costs. Through 2016, no contracted deliveries had been curtailed due to subsidence, but DWR has a subsidence program aimed to proposed improvements to the California Aqueduct and restore capacity, as well as work with the Groundwater 2 The importance of managing bromides is discussed in the Water Quality chapter.
State Water Project 3-27
Sustainability Agencies that cover the extension of the California Aqueduct to minimize future subsidence.
In 2015, Metropolitan, DWR, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power formed the Seismic Resilience Water Supply Task Force (SRWSTF). The goal of the SRWSTF is to collaborate on studies and mitigation measures aimed at improving the reliability of imported water supplies to Southern California. The SRWSTF aims to identify options to accelerate initial repairs acting as one agency and establish consensus on regional priorities for aqueduct repairs.
Because of the risk of a prolonged shutdown of the SWP caused by seismic or hydrologic events either within the Delta or along the California Aqueduct, Metropolitan has acted to ensure that Southern California has adequate emergency storage. Diamond Valley Lake (DVL) and SWP terminal reservoir storage, combined with member-agency emergency storage, are jointly capable of providing the region with a six-month supply of water if combined with a temporary 25 percent reduction in demand. Metropolitan engineering studies indicate this would provide sufficient time to repair the SWP and resume delivery.
Following the February 2017 Oroville spillways incident, DWR initiated a Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA). The CNA is led by DWR and technically reviewed by an Independent Review Board (IRB) composed of dam safety experts. The CNA is not investigating the causes of the February 2017 incident, but rather aims to identify actions to be taken by DWR to improve the resilience of the Oroville Dam complex. The report was released in November 2020 with a determination that Oroville is safe to operate, and no urgent repairs are needed. Several riskreduction projects are currently being implemented and more projects are anticipated into the near future.
DWR is also investing to reduce seismic and hydrologic risk of aging SWP infrastructure critical in Southern California. A major retrofit to Perris Dam (Riverside County) was completed in April 2018, and other two major projects to improve seismic stability are currently under development with planned construction to start in a few years. Pyramid Dam and Castaic Dam (Los Angeles County) are also being studied with the planned assessment work estimated to be completed by 2022 and complete modernization work to take about 10 years to complete.
Achievements to Date
SWP Reliability
Metropolitan’s Long-Term Action Plan
Besides the short- and mid-term actions described earlier in Section 1.4, Metropolitan’s adopted Delta action plan in June 2007 includes a long-term Delta Plan. The long-term action plan recognizes the need for a global, comprehensive approach to the fundamental issues and conflicts in the Delta to result in a truly sustainable Delta. A piecemeal approach cannot satisfy the many stakeholders that have an interest in the Delta and will fail; there must be a holistic approach that deals with all issues simultaneously. In dealing with the basic issues of the Delta, solutions must address the physical changes required, as well as the financing and governance.
There are three basic elements that must be addressed: Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, and flood control protection and storage development. In addition, the state needs to establish governance structures and financing approaches to implement and manage the three identified elements.
Governor’s Delta Vision Process
Through this enduring Delta crisis, the Legislature and the Governor initiated in 2006 a process to develop a new long-term vision for the Delta. SB 1574 (Kuehl/2006) required a cabinet 3-28 State Water Project
committee to present recommendations for a Delta strategic vision. The governor created a Delta Vision Blue-Ribbon Task Force to advise the Cabinet Committee. The Task Force produced an October 2008 Strategic Plan, which the Cabinet Committee largely adopted and submitted, with its recommendations, to the Legislature on January 3, 2009. Metropolitan, as a stakeholder in the process, provided input to the Task Force.
The 2009 Delta Legislation
After delivery of the Delta Vision recommendations, the Legislature held informational hearings from Delta experts, Task Force members, and the Schwarzenegger Administration, as well as the public at large, and engaged in vigorous water policy discussions. Following the informational hearings, several legislators began developing detailed legislation which culminated in pre-print proposals being issued in early August of 2009 for public review and discussion over the summer recess. The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee then held joint informational hearings on the pre-print proposals and received extensive public comment. Thereafter, legislative leadership appointed a conference committee, which convened and held additional public hearings, with further legislator discussions on key issues. That work continued into the 7th Extraordinary Session, which was called by the governor specifically to address the pending Delta and water issues, and culminated in the signing of a historic package of bills. One of the keystones of that package was SB X7-1, which reformed Delta policy and governance. Specifically, SB X7-1:
• Established a new legal framework for Delta management, emphasizing the coequal goals of "providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem" as foundation for state decisions as to Delta management. • Reconstituted and redefined the role of the Delta Protection Commission (DPC) to narrow membership to focus on local representation and to expand the DPC’s role in economic sustainability.
• Created a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (Conservancy) to support efforts that advance environmental protection and the economic well-being of Delta residents.
• Created the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) as an independent state agency to guide actions in the Delta which furthers the coequal goals of Delta restoration and water supply reliability.
• Repealed the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority Act and transfers existing staff, contracts, etc. to the Council.
• Created the Delta Independent Science Board (Science Board) and Delta Science Program. • Required the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop by August 12, 2010, new flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem necessary to protect public trust resources. • Required the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), now the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), by December 31, 2010, to develop and recommend to the SWRCB flow criteria and quantifiable biological objectives for aquatic and terrestrial species. • Created a Delta Watermaster as the enforcement officer for the SWRCB Division of Water Rights in the Delta.
• Required the Council to develop, adopt, and commence implementation of the "Delta Plan" by January 1, 2012, with a report to the Legislature by March 31, 2012.
State Water Project 3-29
• Required the DPC to develop a proposal to protect, enhance, and sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural, and economic values of the Delta as an evolving place.
• Required the Delta Plan to further the coequal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and a reliable water supply.
• Required the Delta Plan to promote statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable use of water, as well as improvements to water conveyance/storage and operation of both to achieve the coequal goals.
• Required the Delta Plan to attempt to reduce risks to people, property, and state interests in the Delta by promoting effective emergency preparedness, appropriate land uses, and strategic levee investments.
• Announced a statewide policy to reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs through a statewide strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use efficiency. Each region that depends on water from the Delta watershed shall improve its regional self-reliance for water through investment in water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply projects, and improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts. • Required the Council to include the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) in the Delta Plan and made the BDCP eligible for state funding if:
o The BDCP complies with Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and is approved as a Habitat Conservation Plan under the Federal ESA. o The BDCP complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and includes a full range of alternatives, including a reasonable range of flow criteria, rates of diversion, and other operational criteria.
o DWR consults with the Council and Science Board during development of the BDCP. o DFW approves the BDCP as a Natural Community Conservation Plan and determines that it meets the requirements for incorporation into the Delta Plan.
SWP Water Quality
The most significant achievement for SWP water quality has been continued definition and advancement of the Delta Improvement Package. Most notably, the Franks Tract studies identified cost-effective ways to achieve significant improvements in the quality of Delta export water.
SWP System Reliability
The completion and filling of DVL marked the most important achievement with respect to protecting Southern California against an SWP system outage. Water deliveries to the reservoir commenced in November 1999, and the lake was filled by early 2003. The lake can hold up to 810 TAF which provides Southern California with emergency water supply, as well as carryover and regulatory storage. As of December 2020, the DVL storage is at 704 TAF.
Inland Feeder
The Inland Feeder is a 44-mile-long conveyance system that connects the SWP to DVL and the CRA. The Inland Feeder provides greater flexibility in managing Metropolitan’s major water supplies and allows greater amounts of SWP water to be accepted during wet seasons for storage 3-30 State Water Project
in DVL. In addition, the Inland Feeder increases the conveyance capacity from the East Branch of the SWP by up to 1,000 cubic feet per second, allowing the East Branch to operate up to its full capacity. The project also improves the quality of the Southland's drinking water by allowing more uniform blending of lower salinity water from the SWP with Colorado River supplies, which have a higher mineral content. Construction of the Inland Feeder was completed in September 2009.
Inland Feeder-Lakeview Pipeline Intertie
The Inland Feeder-Lakeview Pipeline Intertie connects the two conveyance pipelines at the PC-1 control structure on the Inland Feeder. The project allows for delivery of water from Diamond Valley Lake to the Mills Water Treatment Plant. Completed in 2016, the project was a direct response to the extreme drought period in 2014, which saw a 5 percent allocation of Metropolitan’s SWP supplies. The intertie enables the Mills Plant to withstand an extended interruption of supplies from the California Aqueduct East Branch. The intertie also provides delivery flexibility to handle any required repairs by DWR to the Santa Ana Valley Pipeline north segment.
Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs 3-31
3.3 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs Metropolitan endeavors to increase the reliability of supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible SWP storage and transfer programs. Over the years, Metropolitan has developed numerous voluntary SWP storage and transfer programs to secure additional dry-year water supplies.
Background
Metropolitan has a long history of managing the wide fluctuations of SWP supplies from year to year by forming partnerships with Central Valley agricultural districts along the California Aqueduct, as well as with other Southern California SWP Contractors. These partnerships allow Metropolitan to store its SWP supplies during wetter years for return in future drier years. Some programs also allow Metropolitan to purchase water in drier years for delivery via the California Aqueduct to Metropolitan’s service area.
Because yields from individual programs can vary widely depending on hydrologic conditions and CVP/SWP operations, the dry-year yields for the various programs reported in this section are expected values only. In any given year, actual yields could depart from the expected values.
Despite that uncertainty, Metropolitan’s models of these programs indicate that in the aggregate, they can meet the resource target under a wide range of hydrologic conditions and CVP/SWP operations.
In addition, the SWP storage and transfer programs have served to demonstrate the value of partnering, and, increasingly, Central Valley agricultural interests see partnering with Metropolitan as a sensible business practice beneficial to their local district and regional economy.
Implementation Approach
Metropolitan is currently operating several SWP storage programs that serve to increase the reliability of supplies delivered through the California Aqueduct. Metropolitan pursues SWP water transfers on an as-needed basis. Table 3-3 lists the expected yields from these storage and transfer programs. Figure 3-3 shows the location of Metropolitan’s statewide groundwater banking programs.
Storage and Transfer Programs
Semitropic Storage Program
Metropolitan has a groundwater storage program with Semitropic Water Storage District located in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley. The maximum storage capacity of the program is 350 TAF. The specific amount of water Metropolitan can store in and subsequently expect to receive from the program depends upon hydrologic conditions, any regulatory requirements restricting Metropolitan’s ability to export water for storage, and the demands placed on the Semitropic Program by other program participants. In 2014, Metropolitan amended the program to increase the return yield by an additional 13.2 TAF per year. The minimum annual yield available to Metropolitan from the program is currently 34.7 TAF, and the maximum annual yield is 236.2 TAF, depending on the available unused capacity and the SWP allocation. During wet years, Metropolitan has the discretion to use the program to store portions of its SWP water that are in excess of the amounts needed to meet Metropolitan’s service area demand. In Semitropic, the water is delivered to district farmers who use the water in lieu of pumping groundwater. During dry years, the district returns Metropolitan’s previously stored water to Metropolitan by direct groundwater pump-in return and the exchange of SWP supplies. 3-32 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs Arvin-Edison Storage Program
Metropolitan amended the groundwater storage program with Arvin-Edison Water Storage District in 2008 to include the South Canal Improvement Project. The project increases the reliability of Arvin-Edison returning higher water quality to the California Aqueduct. In addition, Metropolitan and Arvin-Edison often enter into annual operational agreements to optimize program operations in any given year. The program storage capacity is 350 TAF. The specific amount of water Metropolitan can expect to store in and subsequently receive from the program depends upon hydrologic conditions and any regulatory requirements restricting Metropolitan’s ability to export water for storage. The storage program is estimated to deliver 75 TAF. During wet years, Metropolitan has the discretion to use the program to store portions of its SWP supplies which are in excess of the amounts needed to meet Metropolitan’s service area demand. The water can be either directly recharged into the groundwater basin or delivered to district farmers who use the water in lieu of pumping groundwater. During dry years, the district returns Metropolitan’s previously stored water to Metropolitan by direct groundwater pump-in return or by exchange of surface water supplies. In 2015, Metropolitan funded the installation of three new wells at a cost of $3 million that will restore the return reliability by 2.5 TAF per year. The funding will ultimately be recovered through credits against future program costs. As a result of recent detection of 1,2,3-trichloropropane in Arvin-Edison wells, Metropolitan has temporarily suspended operation of the program until the water quality concerns can be further evaluated and managed.
Table 3-3 summarizes Metropolitan’s Central Valley/SWP transfer programs supply range for 2035.
The supply capabilities shown reflect actual storage program conveyance constraints. In addition, SWP supplies are estimated using DWR’s 2019 SWP Delivery Capability Report released in August 2019. Appendix 3 provides a detailed discussion of the current Central Valley and SWP storage and transfers programs and programs that are under development.
Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs 3-33 Table 3-3
Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs Supply Projection
Year 2035
(acre-feet per year)
Five Year Single Dry Normal
Drought Year Year
Hydrology (1988-1992) (1977) (1922-2017)
Current Programs
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange and Purchase 2,000 2,000 2,000 Central Valley Storage and Transfers
Semitropic Program 50,000 45,000 68,000
Arvin Edison Program1 0 0 0
Mojave Storage Program 0 0 0
Antelope Valley/East Kern Acquisition and Storage 43,000 70,000 70,000 Kern Delta Program 42,000 50,000 50,000
Transfers and Exchanges 50,000 50,000 50,000
Subtotal of Current Programs 187,000 217,000 240,000
Programs Under Development
San Bernardino Valley Water District Program 0 0 13,000 Subtotal of Proposed Programs 0 0 13,000
Maximum Supply Capability 187,000 217,000 253,000
1 Take and put amounts limited due to water quality considerations.
San Bernardino Valley MWD Transfer Program
The San Bernardino Valley MWD Transfer Program allows for the purchase of a portion of San Bernardino Valley MWD’s SWP supply under surplus conditions. Each calendar year, a determination will be made on how much surplus supplies are available, and Metropolitan will then decide how much will be purchased. The agreement term is until December 31, 2035 and can be extended with a State Water Contract extension.
San Gabriel Valley MWD Exchange Program
The San Gabriel Valley MWD program allows for the exchange of up to 5 TAF each year. For each acre-foot Metropolitan delivers to the City of Sierra Madre, a San Gabriel Valley MWD member agency, San Gabriel Valley MWD provides two acre-feet to Metropolitan in the Main San Gabriel Basin, up to 5 TAF. The program provides increased reliability to Metropolitan by allowing additional water to be delivered to Metropolitan’s member agencies Three Valleys MWD and Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD.
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency Exchange and Storage Program The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) exchange and storage program provides Metropolitan with additional supplies and increased reliability. Under the exchange program, for every two acre-feet Metropolitan receives, Metropolitan returns one acre-foot to AVEK to improve its reliability. The exchange program is expected to deliver 30 TAF over ten years, with 10 TAF available in dry years. Under the program, Metropolitan will also be able to store up to 30 TAF in the AVEK’s groundwater basin, with a dry year return capability of 10 TAF. 3-34 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs High Desert Water Bank Program
In December 2019, Metropolitan entered into an agreement with AVEK for the High Desert Water Bank Program to improve water supply reliability during dry years or emergencies and provide greater operational flexibility to balance supplies and demands. Under the Program, Metropolitan will have the ability to store up to 280 TAF of its SWP Table A or other supplies in the Antelope Valley groundwater basin. Metropolitan will provide up to $131 million for the construction of monitoring and production wells, turnouts from the California Aqueduct, underground and aboveground pipelines, recharge basins, water storage, and booster pump facilities. Metropolitan will have first priority to 70 TAF per year of both put and take capacity.
The project is anticipated to be in operation by 2024.
Kern-Delta Water District Storage Program
This groundwater storage program has 250 TAF of storage capacity. The program is capable of providing up to 50 TAF of dry-year supply. In 2015, Metropolitan agreed to fund the cross-river pipeline that, when completed, will help improve Metropolitan’s return reliability by reducing losses during exchanges. Metropolitan has not incurred any cost to date, as the pipeline has not been constructed. Environmental and regulatory issues have delayed implementation of the pipeline. Water for storage can be either directly recharged into the groundwater basin or delivered to district farmers who use the water in lieu of pumping groundwater. During dry years, the district returns Metropolitan’s previously stored water to Metropolitan by direct groundwater pump-in return or by exchange of surface water supplies.
Mojave Storage Program
Metropolitan entered into a groundwater banking and exchange transfer agreement with Mojave Water Agency on October 29, 2003. This agreement was amended in 2011 to extend the term of the program through 2035 and to allow for the cumulative storage of up to 390 TAF. The agreement allows for Metropolitan to store water in an exchange account for later return. Through 2021, Metropolitan can annually withdraw the Mojave Water Agency’s SWP contractual amounts in excess of 10%. After 2021, the withdraw rate lowers, reserving 20% of Mojave Water Agency’s SWP contractual amounts. Under a 100% allocation, the State Water Contract provides Mojave Water Agency 82.8 TAF of water.
Presently, the Mojave Water Agency is not accepting additional water from Metropolitan. As of January 2021, Metropolitan has approximately 19 TAF remaining in storage. Without additional deliveries to the exchange account, the program may not be able to provide return supplies beyond 2025.
Central Valley Transfer Programs
Metropolitan secures Central Valley water transfer supplies via spot markets and option contracts to meet its service area demands when necessary. Hydrologic and market conditions, and regulatory measures governing Delta pumping plant operations, will determine the amount of water transfer activity occurring in any year. Transfer market activity, described below, provides examples of how Metropolitan has secured water transfer supplies as a resource to fill anticipated supply shortfalls needed to meet Metropolitan’s service area demands.
In 2003, Metropolitan secured options to purchase approximately 145 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley during the irrigation season. These options protected against potential shortages of up to 650 TAF within Metropolitan’s service area that might have arisen from a decrease in Colorado River supply or as a result of drier-than-expected hydrologic conditions. Using these options, Metropolitan purchased approximately 125 TAF of water for delivery to the California Aqueduct.
Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs 3-35 In 2005, Metropolitan, in partnership with seven other State Water Contractors, secured options to purchase approximately 130 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was 113 TAF. Metropolitan also had the right to assume the options of the other State Water Contractors if they chose not to purchase the transfer water. Due to improved hydrologic conditions, Metropolitan and the other State Water Contractors did not exercise these options.
In 2008, Metropolitan, in partnership with seven other State Water Contractors, secured approximately 40 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 27 TAF.
In 2009, Metropolitan, in partnership with 8 other buyers and 21 sellers, participated in a statewide Drought Water Bank, which secured approximately 74 TAF, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 37 TAF.
In 2010, Metropolitan, in partnership with three other State Water Contractors, secured approximately 100 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 88 TAF. Metropolitan also purchased approximately 18 TAF of water from Central Valley Project Contractors located in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, Metropolitan entered into an unbalanced exchange agreement that resulted in Metropolitan receiving approximately 37 TAF.
In 2015, Metropolitan, in partnership with eight other State Water Contractors, secured approximately 20 TAF of water from willing sellers in the Sacramento Valley, of which Metropolitan’s share was approximately 13 TAF.
In addition, Metropolitan has secured water transfer supplies under the Yuba Accord, which is a long-term transfer agreement. To date, Metropolitan has purchased approximately 200 TAF.
Finally, Metropolitan has secured water transfer supplies under the Multi-Year Water Pool Demonstration Program. In 2013, 2015, and 2016 Metropolitan secured 30 TAF, 1.3 TAF, and 7 TAF respectively.
Metropolitan’s recent water transfer activities demonstrate Metropolitan’s ability to develop and negotiate water transfer agreements either working directly with the agricultural districts who are selling the water or through a statewide Drought Water Bank. Because of the complexity of crossDelta transfers and the need to optimize the use of both CVP and SWP facilities, DWR and USBR are critical players in the water transfer process, especially when shortage conditions increase the general level of demand for transfers and amplify ecosystem and water quality issues associated with through-Delta conveyance of water. Therefore, Metropolitan views state and federal cooperation to facilitate voluntary, market-based exchanges and sales of water as a critical component of its overall water transfer strategy.
Achievements to Date
Metropolitan has made rapid progress to date developing SWP storage and transfer programs.
Most notably, Metropolitan has utilized approximately 122 TAF to supplement its SWP supplies during the recent 2016-2020 period. Of this total, approximately 90 TAF are from SWP storage program extractions in Semitropic, Arvin, Kern Delta, and Mojave; 13 TAF are from the San Gabriel Valley MWD program; and 19 TAF of SWP transfer supplies were purchased from the Yuba water purchase programs.
3-36 Central Valley/State Water Project Storage and Transfer Programs Figure3-3
METROPOLITAN STATEWIDE
GROUNDWATER BANKING
PROGRAMS
Kern Delta Water District
Water Management Program High Desert
Water Bank Program
Mojave Water Agency
ExchangeDemonstratton
Program
Semitropic
Water Storage
Program
Arvin-Edison
Water Management
Program
L.A.
uedu
Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
Exchange and Storage Program
Coachella Valley
Advance Delivery Program
San Bernardino Valley
Transfer Program
Demand Management and Conservation 3-37
3.4 Demand Management and Conservation
Demand management through conservation is a core element of Metropolitan’s long-term water management strategy. Metropolitan continues to build on a 30-year investment in conservation of more than $823 million, reflecting a long-term commitment to water conservation. Among other measures, this investment has resulted in the replacement of more than 3.8 million toilets with more water efficient models, rebates of more than 620,000 highefficiency clothes washers (HECWs), and removal of approximately 195 million square-feet of grass from both commercial and residential properties. Collectively, Metropolitan’s conservation programs and other conservation in the region will reduce Southern California’s reliance on delivery of imported water by almost 1.2 MAF per year by 2030.
Metropolitan’s continued approach to conservation has put its service area on target to achieve California’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan per capita goal of less than 145 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Continuous conservation messaging, along with active conservation programs, have contributed to Metropolitan maintaining its water demand to sustainable levels, while also meeting its regional target.
Background
Metropolitan’s conservation policies and programs are designed to maintain a sustainable water demand level and meet the conservation savings target adopted in the IRP. These policies and programs directly relate to the demand management measures for wholesale water agencies in the Urban Water Management Planning Act.
Water conservation savings result from active, code-based, and price-effect conservation efforts. Active conservation consists of water-agency funded programs such as rebates and incentives for water efficient fixtures and equipment and turf removal. Code-based and pricebased conservation consists of demand reductions attributable to conservation-oriented plumbing codes and usage reductions resulting from increases in the price of water.
Metropolitan does not currently assign a savings value for public awareness campaigns and conservation education because any initial effect on demand reduction and the longevity of the effect are difficult to measure. It is generally accepted that these outreach programs prompt consumers to install water saving fixtures and change water-use behavior, thereby creating a residual benefit of increasing the effectiveness of complementary conservation programs.
Distinguishing between active, code-based, and price-effect conservation can be analytically complex when, for example, active programs for fixtures are concurrent with conservationrelated plumbing codes. Metropolitan uses specially designed estimating models to quantify and project conservation savings. This plan combines active, code-based, and price-effect conservation savings using methods that avoid double counting.
Conservation savings are commonly estimated from a base-year water-use profile. Metropolitan uses 1980 as the base year because it marked the effective date of a new plumbing code in California requiring toilets in new construction to be rated at 3.5 gallons per flush or less. Between 1980 and 1990, the region saved an estimated 250 TAF per year as the result of this 1980 plumbing code and unrelated water rate increases. These savings are referred to as “pre-1990 savings.” Metropolitan’s resource planning target combines pre-1990 savings and estimates of more recently achieved savings.
Including regional pre-1990 conservation savings, Metropolitan anticipates savings of 1.19 MAF by 2030. A large share of the savings has already been achieved through existing Metropolitan and member agency programs, pre-1990 savings, price-effects, and continued savings that 3-38 Demand Management and Conservation
accrue from plumbing codes. The remainder is expected to be achieved through additional agency-sponsored active conservation programs, code changes, and price-effects.
Implementation Approach
Metropolitan’s approach to achieving the conservation target depends on implementing a suite of demand management measures, including public education and outreach, a variety of conservation programs, metering, research and development, and asset management. These programs include cost-effective active conservation programs and new, innovative programs that address regional water uses. Metropolitan also provides support to member agencies for local programs that assist with implementing local conservation programs while reducing per capita water use. Metropolitan continues to seek state and federal grant funding for conservation in coordination with its member agencies.
As the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) disbanded, Metropolitan worked with other California water agencies to form the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CALWEP). CALWEP’s mission is to maximize urban water efficiency and conservation throughout California by supporting and integrating innovative technologies and practices; encouraging effective public policies; advancing research, training, and public education; and building collaborative approaches and partnerships. Metropolitan is an active participant on the CALWEP Board, the Program Committee, and Research Committee.
Metropolitan also participates in national water efficiency efforts. Metropolitan is a USEPA WaterSense partner, helping to promote water efficient products and practices in Southern California. Metropolitan is also a member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency, participating on its Board and in the committees on research, WaterSense and water efficient products, and education and outreach.
The following sections describe Metropolitan’s demand management measures and conservation programs, including education and outreach.
Public Education and Outreach
Since 1983, Metropolitan’s Education Unit has provided award-winning water education programs, supplemental materials, teacher in-services and classroom presentations for K-12 teachers and students in Southern California. Since that time, materials and outreach programs have expanded to the pre-K and college education levels. In 2015, Metropolitan implemented an education strategic plan which sought to:
1. Expand working programs
2. Develop an “Educational Pipeline” to jobs in the water industry
3. Leverage collaborations
4. Invest in educational technology
These initiatives, as well as Metropolitan’s curricula and materials, have impacted a generation of students, expanded their understanding of California’s water supply and distribution systems, water sources, water use and conservation, the science of water, public policies, and the importance and responsibility of stewardship. All Metropolitan programs correlate to California Content Standards including Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).
These programs are continually evaluated for effectiveness and improved upon. Metropolitan’s most recent online education programs are summarized in Table 3-4.
Demand Management and Conservation 3-39
Public Education Programs
Metropolitan has continued to update and expand its comprehensive K-12 water education curriculum that meets all California education standards for each grade level in the areas of science, math, language arts and social studies classroom materials. Metropolitan worked with its member agencies to annually hold more than 700 outreach events which directly interact with more than 170,000 students, teachers, parents, and participants through its water education programs, curricular materials, and engagements. More than 12,000 public visitors and students annually tour the Diamond Valley Lake Visitor Center to learn more about Metropolitan’s water systems and programs. These efforts led to Metropolitan’s Education Unit being awarded the 2015 Governor's Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA), California's highest environmental honor.
In 2015, Metropolitan redesigned its museum-quality exhibit at the Vista del Lago visitor’s center at Pyramid Lake, part of the State Water Project.
Throughout 2016, Metropolitan worked to develop virtual reality tours of the Colorado River Aqueduct and augmented reality watershed exhibits to encourage students to think critically about water issues in Southern California. This work led to a collaboration with the Department of Water Resources to create a virtual reality tour of the State Water Project which received firstplace recognition from the National Association of Government Communicators.
In 2017, Solar Cup, the nation’s largest high school solar boat race, celebrated its 15-year anniversary. This program engages 40 teams and more than 750 high school students annually in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art and math) topics associated with water stewardship and renewable energy.
In 2018, Metropolitan’s “Water is Life” Student Art Exhibit and Calendar celebrated its 30-year anniversary. This program annually compiles more than 12,000 pieces of art generated by K-12 students throughout Metropolitan’s service area.
In 2019, Metropolitan’s World Water College Grant Program increased solicited proposals from $10,000 to $20,000 grants to conduct research and development on improving water quality, environmental science of watersheds, and the implementation of water-use efficiency technologies. Since 2004, Metropolitan's World Water College Grant Program has disbursed approximately $800,000 in grants to 26 colleges, benefitting more than 800 students.
Outreach
Since late 2013, the primary focus of Metropolitan’s conservation and education outreach programs has been on the drought response and the need for additional conservation in order to maintain the region’s water supply reserves. That message has evolved to emphasize conservation and stewardship as a sustainable way of life, rather than only a response to dry conditions.
Each year, Metropolitan implements a variety of conservation and education outreach programs. The “Let’s All Take a Turn” campaign launched July 1, 2015 and continued in 2016, but added additional messaging around a new trademarked logo of H2Love, and the tagline, “Love Water. Save Water.” This message emphasized the value of water conservation not only during the drought, but every day. Working with Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies, the research-based advertising campaign includes several months of media coverage through radio live reads, 53 community newspapers, digital and online advertising, other customized materials and special outreach events throughout Southern California. The entire campaign was 3-40 Demand Management and Conservation
produced in five languages: English, Spanish, Mandarin, Korean, and Vietnamese, and Print advertising included Tagalog language materials.
The campaign’s design was informed by extensive research through focus groups, telephone interviews, and web surveys conducted in two languages throughout Metropolitan’s service area. The media strategy was developed to effectively target the diverse communities, age groups, socioeconomic factors, and languages spoken in the region. The “Let’s All Take A Turn” campaign supplements Metropolitan’s strong program of outreach activities, social and traditional media, and business outreach efforts to spread the word to residents, businesses, community leaders and elected officials about the importance of water conservation.
A new component of the conservation campaign was an official sponsorship with Major League Soccer’s LA Galaxy. This partnership provided digital signage at the StubHub Center in Carson, water-awareness exhibit booths at four home games, public service announcements and social media videos featuring LA Galaxy goalie Brian Rowe, cross-promotion of water-saving messages on Metropolitan and LA Galaxy social media platforms, Facebook Live events with actor Johnny Rey Diaz, and outreach activities with the LA Galaxy community foundation organization.
As part of the campaign, Metropolitan also conducted several television interviews and placed a series of advertorial news stories in the online editions of the Los Angeles Times and Nativo for added value news stories. Metropolitan placed advertorials on digital media focusing on the seriousness of the drought, what people can do to save water, and offering landscape and gardening advice including a Facebook Live broadcast by Sunset Magazine which was viewed by more than 7,000 people. In addition, Metropolitan used social and digital media to reach large audiences in cost effective and optimized strategies, including setting up playlists on Pandora and its Spanish-language equivalent, Uforia. The playlists promote shorter showers by listening to five-minute-long songs about water or rain. These elements promoted the ongoing need for conservation in Southern California, describing long-term benefits of investments in water storage and local water resources, and the availability of rebates and incentives for turf removal and water-saving devices and appliances.
The H2Love advertising campaign continued to support sustainable, lifelong water conservation.
The campaign included digital ads, billboards, bus wraps and transit shelters, as well as a continued partnership with the Major League Soccer’s LA Galaxy, its own Pandora song list, and a takeover of the Santa Monica Pier Ferris wheel.
Metropolitan’s online conservation portal, bewaterwise.com®, was redesigned with a more userand mobile-friendly navigation and translated into Chinese and Spanish. A Garden of the Month video series was launched on bewaterwise.com® and multiple social media platforms featuring California Friendly® inspiration gardens.
Metropolitan’s multilingual H2Love campaign concluded in spring 2018 with a successful 12-week media strategy featuring outdoor billboards, radio ads, community newspapers and a sponsorship with Major League Soccer’s LA Galaxy. With nearly two billion media impressions delivered and a toolkit of informational resources and files, the campaign successfully reached its target audiences as demonstrated in a post-campaign public survey. Outreach efforts increased traffic to the district’s bewaterwise.com® conservation website by more than 300 percent, and social media growth in views increased more than one-hundred-fold.
While social media and search engine optimization maintained message consistency and visibility, Metropolitan initiated a request for proposal process for a new three-year water conservation outreach media campaign. Metropolitan’s Board of Directors awarded a $14.7 million contract to the Los Angeles-based firm Quigley-Simpson & Heppelwhite, which produced Metropolitan’s award-winning Take a Turn and H2Love campaigns. The new “Save Demand Management and Conservation 3-41
Water 365” campaign launched in July 2018. The campaign encouraged Southern Californians to save water every day. It also reminded residents to take advantage of rebate programs – including incentives for indoor and outdoor water-saving devices, as well as rebates for landscape transformation that requires more efficient irrigation systems, design and plants. The campaign also reached very diverse audiences in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog through traditional and grassroots marketing efforts. Creative messaging included signs on food trucks, local convenience and hardware stores, and a sponsorship with the LA Dodgers.
The “Save Water 365” campaign delivered more than 1 billion media impressions. Working with Metropolitan’s 26 member agencies, the research-based advertising campaign included:
• Digital and online advertising
• Total of 1,475 billboards and television commercials
• Radio messages on more than 50 stations
• Animated digital ads with general rebate and landscape transformation program messaging • Print ads in community newspapers
• English and Spanish language Pandora radio stations and other customized materials and special outreach events throughout Southern California
The campaign also included a grass-roots outreach effort in multiple languages through advertising at convenience and hardware stores and on food trucks, as well as a presence on a popular Chinese game show. The media strategy was designed to effectively target diverse communities, age groups, socioeconomic factors and languages spoken in the region.
In August 2018, Metropolitan began an official sponsorship with Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers. This sponsorship included a title night event before more than 40,000 fans featuring former Metropolitan Board Chairman Randy Record throwing the opening pitch. The evening highlighted a Dodger groundskeeper and the many ways in which the Dodger organization conserves water. Public service announcements were displayed on LED boards throughout the stadium, as well as cross promotions on conservation on Metropolitan’s and the Dodgers’ social media platforms.
Growth in social media activity was dramatic. In 2018, Metropolitan’s Facebook page received more than 55 million impressions, with more than 27,000 followers. On Twitter, Metropolitan received strong engagement for its water efficiency posts, including short videos and animated gifs to reach a broader audience during its conservation campaign and for Delta Conveyance initiatives. Metropolitan used Facebook Live and Snapchat geo-filters to reach a broader audience throughout 2017-18.
The success of Metropolitan’s outreach activities was recognized with several prestigious awards including the best in show for the National Association of Government Communicators in 2018.
This organization is a national association of communication officials from local, state and federal public agencies. Metropolitan was a finalist in 13 of 40 award categories.
In April 2019, the general conservation message of the “Save Water 365” campaign became more targeted and focused on promoting the incentive under Metropolitan’s revamped turf replacement program. The incentive provides Southern Californians $2 for every square-foot of grass replaced with more water efficient sustainable landscaping. The campaign continued to reach diverse audiences on multi-media platforms: digital billboards featured in shopping malls, grocery stores and movie theaters encouraged residents to “ditch their grass and claim their 3-42 Demand Management and Conservation
rebate.” Radio spots promoting the “ditch your grass” message in English and Spanish were featured on nearly 40 radio stations, and creative digital display ads generated nearly 120 million impressions on digital media and nearly 300,000 ad clicks.
Local community outreach also played an important role in this campaign through strengthened partnerships between Metropolitan and its member agencies. Turf Replacement Program advertisements in English, Spanish, and Chinese ran in 25 publications from May to June 2019, and together, these advertisements reached 1.7 million readers across the district’s area.
Metropolitan also partnered with Los Angeles- and San Diego-based news shows to develop water conservation programming in English and Spanish. On-air talent spoke about the benefits of replacing your lawn with California Friendly® and native landscaping and promoted Metropolitan’s turf rebate.
In fall 2019, Metropolitan launched a multilingual digital campaign that continued to promote the turf rebate incentive. Digital display banners on home improvement and lifestyle websites encouraged viewers to save money by converting their lawns to sustainable landscapes.
Together with search advertising, these display ads generated 151 million impressions and thousands of turf rebate applications. The Hispanic market saw a significant increase in online engagement and drove the most landing page visits with 200k link clicks. Part of the fall campaign’s communications strategy was to collaborate with Los Angeles- and San Diegobased news shows to develop water conservation programming in English and Spanish. On-air talent spoke about the benefits of replacing your lawn with California Friendly® and native landscaping and promoted Metropolitan’s turf rebate.
To supplement digital outreach, Metropolitan partnered with Los Angeles Dodgers, Angels, Rams, Chargers, Lakers, Clippers and Kings sports organizations to promote advertisements with water use efficiency messaging. The ads appeared in game-day programs and annual yearbooks, reaching millions of fans across Southern California. These creative assets also received more than half a million impressions on Metropolitan’s social media channels.
Additionally, Metropolitan initiated in-house design and advertising campaigns to reach new online demographics. Staff designed an award-winning social media campaign called Patch Match in the format of a dating app that ‘matches’ consumers with the perfect California Friendly® plants and promotes water conservation. The social media campaign was significantly more efficient than other digital and online advertising, reaching more than 200,000 people with nearly 400,000 impressions, resulting in nearly 3,000 page views to bewaterwise.com. The National Association of Government Communicators honored Patch Match with a first-place award in the social media category.
In late 2019, staff brought their creative concepts to fruition with the “Wasting Water Is…” campaign. This three-part digital commercial series was produced entirely in-house and featured scenarios where water wasters learn how scary, tragic and offensive wasting water really is. Production costs for all three commercials totaled less than $50,000 compared to typical advertising agency costs of $300,000 to $500,000 per video. Movie posters and animated GIFs promoted on Metropolitan social media channels resulted in more than 5.5 million impressions with more than 79,000 link clicks. Staff also advertised the videos on YouTube and connected TV devices such as Apple TV, Chromecast and Roku, targeting entertainment, lifestyle and sports themed content that outperformed targeted goals at an average 44 percent view through rate.
Throughout these years, Metropolitan officials conducted hundreds of interviews with news reporters from major TV and print media outlets, ethnic media and community publications to discuss a wide range of water-related issues. Topics included the effect of climate change and drought on Colorado River resources, water supply reliability and conservation, and raising Demand Management and Conservation 3-43
awareness about Metropolitan’s new turf replacement program. As part of this public outreach, Metropolitan’s General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger blogged on Metropolitan’s webpage mwdh2o.com and wrote guest blogs and op-eds encouraging conservation in 2019.
Metropolitan continues to provide outreach to Southern California’s businesses and industry.
Metropolitan is an active member in many chambers of commerce and other business organizations and provides regular updates to members on water policy issues and programs.
Water use efficiency programs that help reduce demand for potable water are a key focus of these partnerships. In addition, Metropolitan hosts hundreds of community and business leaders on inspection trips of the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct to help them better understand the challenges of providing reliable water to Southern California and how the Colorado River is managed to provide water for urban areas and agriculture.
Community Partnering Program
Over the past five fiscal years, Metropolitan has engaged in approximately 270 sponsorship programs and projects through its Community Partnering Program. Investments totaling $540,000 were provided to non-profit organizations, member agencies, other public resource agencies and educational institutions for programs including California native plant gardens and outdoor classrooms, Earth day events, water quality laboratory test kits, and multi-lingual educational publications addressing conservation, water-use efficiency, recycling, watersheds and more regional issues.
California Friendly Landscape Education and Training Program Metropolitan provides education and training on ways to conserve water in homes and landscapes. Offerings include in-person and online classes, surveys, and audits.
Landscape Classes
Metropolitan offers in-person and online courses in irrigation efficiency and water-wise garden design through its California Friendly Landscape and Native Plant Training Program.
Metropolitan also offers Turf Removal Classes. In FY 2019-20 Metropolitan conducted 45 classes for 1,200 students throughout Metropolitan’s service area. After COVID-19 forced the temporary cancellation of in-person classes, Metropolitan created online Zoom courses with its vendors to continue offering Southern California residents valuable water saving landscape education.
Landscape Irrigation Surveys
Metropolitan provides irrigation surveys for large landscape customers. These surveys are performed by a certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor and provide the customer with specific recommendations on how to improve irrigation efficiency at the site. The survey report generated by the auditor also provides information on incentives to help the customer fund the needed improvements. In fiscal year 2019-20, 21 surveys were conducted.
Irrigation Evaluations and Residential Surveys
Metropolitan provides funding to its member agencies that choose to implement irrigation evaluations and indoor surveys for residents. Irrigation evaluations provide customers with a recommended irrigation schedule and suggested improvements for irrigation systems. Indoor residential surveys provide customers with information on identifying leaks and making changes to water-using devices in the home.
3-44 Demand Management and Conservation
Water Conservation Programs
Metropolitan’s water conservation programs focus on two main areas: (1) residential water use, and (2) commercial, industrial, and institutional water use. Metropolitan directly manages regional programs and provides financial support for local programs that are implemented by the member agencies. Metropolitan’s Water Use Efficiency team provides program development, implementation, administration, monitoring, evaluation, and research.
Metropolitan’s Conservation Credits Program (CCP) provides the basis for financial incentives and funding for the conservation programs and other demand management related activities.
Established in 1988, this funding mechanism supports Metropolitan’s commitment to conservation as a long-term water management strategy.
The basis of Metropolitan’s financial support to member agency conservation efforts is estimated at $195 per acre-foot of water saved up to the device cost. In general, CCP-funded water conservation project proposals must:
• Have demonstrable water savings;
• Reduce water demands on Metropolitan’s system; and
• Be technically sound and require Metropolitan’s participation to make the project financially and economically feasible.
Metropolitan introduced two new funding options for member agency conservation efforts.
Member agencies may use a portion of their funding for projects that provide value to the region, but the water savings may be difficult to measure. In addition, member agencies can use funding to target disadvantaged communities.
Table 3-5 summarizes CCP savings and investments. Additional funding for conservation programs has been made available through federal and state government agencies.
Metropolitan has worked to obtain a share of this funding to enhance the region’s water conservation investments. Table 3-6 describes past sources and uses of these funds.
Table 3-7 summarizes the types and numbers of efficient devices that have been installed through Metropolitan’s conservation programs since they began in fiscal year 1990-91.
Regional Conservation Programs
As mentioned above, Metropolitan’s conservation programs focus on two main sectors:
(1) residential water use, and (2) commercial, industrial and institutional water use.
Residential Programs
Metropolitan’s residential conservation activities consist of two major programs:
• SoCal Water$mart – Metropolitan provides a region-wide residential rebate program named SoCal Water$mart. Since its inception in 2008, rebate activity has increased dramatically as many residential customers became increasingly aware of the financial incentives available to them to help offset the purchase of water-efficient devices. To date, this program helped to replace over 277,000 toilets, 319,000 washing machines, 50,000 smart irrigation controllers, 459,000 rotating nozzles, and hundreds of thousands of other devices and appliances. • Metropolitan-Funded Residential Programs Administered by Member Agencies – Metropolitan’s member and retail agencies also implement local residential water conservation programs within their respective service areas and receive Metropolitan incentives for qualified retrofits and other water-saving actions. Typical projects include Demand Management and Conservation 3-45
premium high-efficiency toilet (HET) distributions, locally administered clothes washer directinstallation programs, turf removal programs, and residential water audits.
Residential Rebate Items
Metropolitan provides incentives on a variety of water efficient devices for the residential sector.
The following is a brief description of current and past devices that contribute to projected conservation savings:
• Turf Removal (Residential) – About 50 percent of residential household water demand is used for outside irrigation where opportunities to conserve water are substantial. Southern California residents have turned the turf removal program into Metropolitan’s most popular conservation measure. To encourage market transformation, Metropolitan has paid over $198 million in the regional turf removal program for residential properties since program inception.
• High-Efficiency Clothes Washers – HECWs continue to be a major component of indoor water conservation. The water efficiency of clothes washers is represented by the “integrated water factor,” which is a measure of the amount of water used to wash a standard load of laundry. Washers with a lower integrated water factor will save more water per wash cycle.
Metropolitan has continued to move the water conservation rebate standards by requiring lower integrated water factors for eligible washers. The program eligibility requirement is currently set at an integrated water factor 3.2, which saves over 10,700 gallons per year per washer over a conventional top loading washer. Metropolitan has also partnered with Southern California Gas on a direct-installation program for high-efficiency clothes washers in low-income households.
• High-Efficiency Toilets – Metropolitan has provided incentives for water efficient toilets since 1988. Metropolitan changed its rebate program to provide funding for toilets that flush at 1.1 gallons or less. Metropolitan uses the Maximum Performance of Premium Toilet Models testing list to distinguish qualifying models.
• High Efficiency Sprinkler Nozzles – Pop-up, high efficiency spray heads provide significant outdoor water savings over conventional nozzles. Field tests and studies have demonstrated these nozzles apply water more evenly than traditional nozzles with fixed fan spray patterns, creating the potential for water savings. Low precipitation rates associated with these nozzles can also reduce run-off, thereby offering a significant value-added benefit when irrigating sloping landscapes.
• Irrigation Controllers – Smart irrigation controllers and soil moisture sensors adjust irrigation schedules based on water needs, temperature, sunlight, soil moisture, soil conditions, plant types, slope or some combination of indicators. Metropolitan uses the USEPA WaterSense list for eligible controllers.
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Programs
Metropolitan’s commercial industrial and institutional (CII) conservation consists of three major rebate and incentive programs:
• SoCal Water$mart Program – The majority of the commercial conservation activity comes from Metropolitan’s regional SoCal Water$mart program, which also issues rebates to multifamily properties. • Water Savings Incentive Program – The Water Savings Incentive Program provides financial incentives for customized landscape irrigation and industrial process improvements. This program allows large-scale water users to create their own conservation projects and receive 3-46 Demand Management and Conservation
incentives for up to 10 years of water savings for measured water-use efficiency improvements.
• Metropolitan-Funded Commercial Programs Administered by Member Agencies – Member and retail agencies also implement local commercial water conservation programs using Metropolitan incentives. Projects target specific commercial sectors, with some programs also receiving assistance from state or federal grant programs. Metropolitan incentives are also used as the basis for meeting cost-share requirements for the grants.
Commercial Rebate Items
Metropolitan’s CII programs provide rebates for water-saving plumbing fixtures, landscaping equipment, food-service equipment, cleaning equipment, HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) equipment, and medical equipment.
• Turf Removal (Commercial) – Similar to the residential sector, water demand for landscape irrigation on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties is significant. Opportunities to conserve water are substantial, particularly in areas with ornamental turf. With an increased incentive rate ($2 per square foot of turf removed), approximately 92 million square feet of grass has been removed from commercial, industrial, and institutional properties since program inception through the regional rebate program, and member agency turf programs. To encourage market transformation, Metropolitan has paid over $138 million for the regional turf removal program for commercial properties since inception. • Commercial Devices – Following is a list of current and past devices that contribute to projected conservation savings:
o Connectionless Food Steamers
o Cooling Tower Conductivity Meters
o Dry Vacuum Pumps
o High-Efficiency Clothes Washers
o High-Efficiency Toilets
o High-Efficiency Urinals
o Ice Machines
o In-Stem Flow Regulators
o Large Rotors - High Efficiency Nozzles
o Laminar Flow Restrictors
o High Efficiency Nozzles
o pH Cooling Tower Controllers
o Plumbing Flow Control Valves
o Premium High Efficiency Toilets
o Pre-rinse Spray Heads
o Soil Moisture Sensors
o Steam Sterilizers
o Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets
o Ultra-Low-Flush Urinals
o Water Brooms
o Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers
o X-ray Processors
o Zero/Ultra Low Water Urinals
Disadvantaged Communities Program Initiative
Metropolitan initiated an effort to increase water efficiency within disadvantaged communities (DACs) in Metropolitan’s service area through the Disadvantaged Communities Program. This program has been executed in three parts. First, a Regional Pilot Program for Multi Family/Apartments Pre-1994 offering an enhanced incentive for Premium High-Efficiency Toilets, targeting pre-1994 structures for retrofits combined with rigorous data collection and analysis.
Part two is an effort to help Metropolitan’s member agencies implement local DAC projects by providing intensive member agency local support and technical assistance with program design Demand Management and Conservation 3-47
and administration. And finally, Metropolitan looks for grant support to fund regional and local DAC projects.
Metering
Metropolitan’s water distribution system is metered. Metropolitan has over 400 service connections that meter water deliveries to our member agencies. Meters at these service connections are checked every six months or sooner to verify that they are measuring correctly.
More extensive maintenance is done on a yearly basis to ensure the meter systems continue to operate reliably.
Research and Development Programs
Metropolitan is committed to conservation research as a way to advance technology, improve program results, and help transform markets. Self-funded studies include determining water savings from municipal leak detection programs, effectiveness of single-family home pressure relief valves on lowering water demand, quantifying residential water use and water fixture inventory, and analyzing savings attributed from landscape irrigation system improvements.
Metropolitan’s Innovative Conservation Program (ICP) is a competitive grant program that evaluates water savings and reliability of new water saving devices, technologies, and strategies.
With funding provided by USBR, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Project, Southern California Gas, Western Resource Advocates, and Metropolitan, approximately $570,000 of funding was available for research for the 2018 ICP. After evaluating over 60 project proposals, twelve were selected. The projects focused on landscape, commercial, industrial, and residential water use applications. The next round of grants will be implemented in fiscal year 2021.
Metropolitan has partnered with the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) for water conservation research. The current research project involves exploring the water efficiency potential of cooling towers through process improvements and operational management. Past projects have included: lessons learned through a drought management study of Australia, a water neutral development ordinance, a study on commercial kitchen efficiency, a study on outdoor impacts of the drought, and reasons and rationale for landscape choices.
Measurement and Evaluation
Measurement and evaluation are important components of Metropolitan’s conservation programs. These serve four primary functions:
• Providing a means to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of current and potential conservation programs
• Developing reliable estimates of various conservation programs and assessing the relative benefits and costs of these interventions
• Providing technical assistance and support to member agencies in the areas of research methods, statistics, and program evaluation
• Documenting the results and the effectiveness of Metropolitan-assisted conservation efforts Metropolitan’s staff has served as technical advisors for a number of state and national studies involving the quantification and valuation of water savings. 3-48 Demand Management and Conservation
Recognition for Conservation Achievements
Conservation is an integral part of water supply planning at Metropolitan. Metropolitan works to improve the understanding of the costs and benefits of conservation so investment decisions are both efficient and effective at meeting program goals. As a cooperative member of California’s water conservation community, Metropolitan has made significant contributions to the development and coordination of conservation activities throughout the state. These contributions have been recognized in the form of “Gold Star” certification from the Association of California Water Agencies and awards from the USBR and California Municipal Utilities Association.
Demand Management and Conservation 3-49
Table 3-4
Online School Education Programs
Online
Education
Offerings Grades Notes
Water Journeys Grades 4 –
College
In partnership with Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, Water Journeys begins with a presentation on water awareness, aqueducts, conservation and
recycling followed by a walking tour of the Regional
Recycled Water Purification Center.
DVL Online
Fieldtrip
Grades 4-8 Diamond Valley Lake, the largest reservoir in Southern California, located in Riverside County near Hemet.
Students experience a variety of standards-based,
water-related, hands-on science activities.
Girl Scout
Programs
K - 12 Daisies,
Brownies &
Juniors,
Cadettes,
Seniors and
Ambassadors
Metropolitan is offering a FREE online patch program
about Southern California’s water sources and
conveyance systems.
Scout
Programs
K - 12 Metropolitan is offering a FREE online patch program about Southern California’s water sources and
conveyance systems aligned with Environmental
Science Merit Badge Requirements
On-line class
presentations
PreK -
College
Metropolitan staff will create a customized watereducation presentation or "H2O Show" for students from pre-K to college.
Online Story
Time
PreK – 3rd Bring story times to life with our engaging educators and colorful stories about water.
All About
Water
Curriculum
K - 2nd New video experiments and interdisciplinary activities about water conservation, water quality and
distribution, the water cycle, and fresh and saltwater.
VR Trip SWP Grades 4 –
College
Immerse your students in the State Water Project system and discover the 444-mile journey that water makes to
Southern California. Students will virtually visit the Bay Delta, Banks Pumping Plant, the California Aqueduct,
Chrisman Pumping Plant, and Lake Perris.
VR Trip CRA Grades 4 –
College
Follow the journey of water to Southern California via
Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct. The tour is
available as a virtual reality app
for Apple and Android mobile devices.
3-50 Demand Management and Conservation
Table 3-5
Metropolitan’s Conservation Credits Program
Fiscal Year
Annual Water Savings
(AF)
Lifetime Water Savings
(AF) Investment
2019 – 2020 212,000 55,719 $25.7 million
2018 – 2019 208,000 55,263 $16.4 million
2017 – 2018 213,000 82,435 $12.6 million
2016 - 2017 206,000 137,065 $41.4 million
2015 - 2016 203,000 731,093 $229 million
Demand Management and Conservation 3-51
Table 3-6
Grant Program Funding
Funding
Source Program/Project
Funding
Amount
($1,000s) Description Status
CALFED
Residential HECW $925 Increase rebate amount Completed
Protector del Agua $100 Course development Completed
Prop 13 Grants
HECW $2,500 Increase rebate amount Completed
ET Controllers $1,800 Initiate rebates Completed
CPUC (w/CUWCC)
2003 Pre-Rinse Spray Valves: Phase 1 $1,6001 12,000 direct installations1 Completed 2004 Pre-Rinse Spray Valves: Phase 2 $2,2001 17,000 direct installations1 Completed USBR
2003 CA-Friendly Landscapes $182 New home landscapes Completed 2003 Data Loggers $50 Software error analysis Deferred
2004 CA-Friendly Landscapes $60 New home landscapes Completed 2004 Synthetic Turf pilot $220 Provide incentives Completed 2004 World Forum $50 College/university grants Completed 2004 CII Region wide $250 Additional dollars to
rebate amounts and for
administration
Completed
2005 Protector del Agua $50 Develop web classes Completed 2005 Landscape Market Analysis $50 Analyze landscape
conservation opportunities
Completed
2005 City Makeover $50 Public landscapes Completed
2006 Innovative Conservation Program $300 Support research projects Completed 2008 Innovative Conservation Program $300 Support research projects Completed 2012 Sprinkler Nozzle Incentive
Program
$1,501 Provide incentives Completed
2013 High Efficiency Clothes Washer
Program
Innovative Conservation Program
$500
$100
Provide incentives
Support research projects
Completed
Completed
2014
2015
2017
California Friendly Turf
Replacement – Phase 2 Incentive
Program
Innovative Conservation Program
Innovative Conservation Program
$300
$100
$100
Provide incentives
Support research projects
Support research projects
Completed
Completed
Completed
Water for the West
Protector del Agua $25 Develop web classes Completed
Prop 50
Residential HECW $1,660 Increase rebate amount Completed CA-Friendly Landscapes $423 Common area landscapes Completed High Efficiency Toilets $1,000 Increase rebate amount Completed Protector del Agua $78 Develop on-line classes Completed 2008 Residential HECW $2,000 Increase rebate amount Completed 1 This is the funding amount and number of installations that represent Metropolitan’s share of the project. 3-52 Demand Management and Conservation
Table 3-7
Conservation Achievements in Metropolitan's Service Area Quantity Units
Commercial Rebated Devices (FY 1990-91 to FY 2019-20)
Audits/Surveys 14,419 ea
Connectionless Food Steamers 219 ea
Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers 1,232 ea
Dry Vacuum Pump 40 ea
Toilets 241,015 ea
Urinals 40,849 ea
Ice Machines 145 ea
In-stem Flow Regulators 35,265 ea
High-Efficiency Washers 36,545 ea
pH Conductivity Controllers 398 ea
Plumbing Flow Control Valves 56,148 ea
Pre-Rinse Spray Heads 17,192 ea
Laminar Flow Restrictors 27,627 ea
High-Efficiency Nozzles 1,730,313 ea
Soil Moisture Sensors 790 ea
Steam Sterilizers 28 ea
Water Brooms 6,931 ea
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers 13,106 acres
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers 573,226 stations
X-Ray Processors 185 ea
Large Rotors - High-Efficiency Nozzles 86,870 ea
Synthetic Turf 7,455,647 sq. ft.
Turf Removal 85,350,839 sq. ft.
Residential Rebated Devices (FY 1990-91 to FY 2019-20)
Aerators 158,817 ea
Audits/Surveys 152,544 ea
Cisterns
High-Efficiency Clothes Washers
2,010
585,607 ea
Toilets 3,596,694 ea
High-Efficiency Rotating Nozzles 1,274,686 ea
Rain Barrels 176,552 ea
Soil Moisture Sensors 15 ea
Showerheads 1,735,436 ea
Turf Removal 101,786,618 sq. ft.
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers 69,493 ea
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers 28,527 stations
Demand Management and Conservation 3-53
Asset Management Program
In compliance with California Water Code § 10631(e)(2), below is a description of Metropolitan’s distribution system asset management program.
Metropolitan’s approach to asset management is contained within its Infrastructure Reliability Strategy. The goal of Metropolitan’s Infrastructure Reliability Strategy is to ensure long-term reliable performance of the system in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Infrastructure reliability is addressed through three programs: the Maintenance Management Program, the Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the Dam Safety Program. The activities performed under these programs allow for Metropolitan to extend the life span of its facilities and equipment and improve the overall reliability of the entire conveyance, treatment, and distribution system.
Metropolitan is also completing a Strategic Asset Management Plan that will further expand the use of asset data for improved planning, maximizing the value of infrastructure assets and enhancing the longer-term visibility for its Capital Investment Plan.
Maintenance Management Program
Metropolitan manages the maintenance on approximately 135,000 pieces of equipment located at its five treatment plants, sixteen hydro-electric power plants, five desert pumping plants, 242 miles of canals, and over 5,000 structures on 830 miles of pipeline.
Computerized Maintenance Management System: A Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) is used to track, plan, and schedule the required activities. The system currently has over 28,000 preventative maintenance cycles scheduled with approximately 96 percent of these performed at fixed intervals (Time Based). The remaining four percent are performed based on the condition or use of the equipment (Condition Based).
Routine Maintenance, Inspection, and Monitoring
Monitoring, inspection, and maintenance of equipment and facilities are a proactive effort to assess the overall condition of the assets. This effort encompasses identifying needed repairs and performing routine maintenance.
Time-Based Maintenance
Metropolitan currently uses time-based maintenance as the primary means of maintaining equipment reliability. Time-based maintenance for equipment is set at specific time intervals using manufacturer recommendations. These recommendations are used to develop Job Plans in the CMMS which detail the individual steps required for a particular maintenance operation.
Condition-Based Maintenance
Condition-based maintenance (CBM) relies on an understanding of how a piece of equipment degrades or fails to meet its intended function. It requires a greater depth of understanding of the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance, industry standards, or practices. This knowledge is used in conjunction with field experience to develop a technique to gauge the equipment’s condition. Through trending or analysis, a determination can then be made as to when the equipment may reach a point where corrective maintenance will be required including rehabilitation or replacement. A regular inspection cycle is set in the CMMS software to evaluate current equipment condition. High and low condition alarms are also set that trigger a corrective maintenance activity when equipment is starting to degrade or its use has reached a servicing checkpoint.
Predictive maintenance is a subcategory of CBM that uses diagnostic equipment or testing to determine the equipment condition. Predictive maintenance is also used to detect impending 3-54 Demand Management and Conservation
problems before the equipment malfunctions. In some cases, Metropolitan has automated the inspections such as through online vibration monitoring systems that trend the performance of critical and large equipment. A fundamental characteristic of this type of maintenance is that it provides the capability to anticipate potential problems while the equipment is still operating.
This provides several key benefits when compared to time-based maintenance or allowing equipment to reach a point where corrective maintenance is required. These benefits include:
improved availability or uptime, enhanced reliability, and reduced cost.
Corrective Maintenance
Corrective maintenance is performed on equipment that either has already failed or has had a problem detected during routine (time or condition based) maintenance. Corrective maintenance needs to be scheduled, requires replacing equipment components, or involves a shutdown of the impacted system. Corrective maintenance is also tracked, planned, and scheduled in the CMMS.
Major Scheduled Outages/Shutdowns
In addition to the general maintenance described above, Metropolitan may take major systems out of service, such as water treatment plants, large pipelines, conveyance systems, or other large facilities, typically for periods of seven to twenty-one days. This is done to perform major maintenance or repairs on several components or systems, upgrade or add new processes, or perform other important work.
Reports and Metrics
Metropolitan produces internal reports that track maintenance management activities including overall backlog and past due work orders (including any missed regulatory preventive maintenance). In addition, other CMMS reports are available that provide managers, planners/schedulers, and maintenance staff with the data needed to evaluate and track work.
Metropolitan utilizes best management practices and performance metrics from the Society of Maintenance & Reliability Professionals to ensure a reliable and cost-effective maintenance management program.
Infrastructure Protection Plan
Activities under the Infrastructure Protection Plan ensure long-term infrastructure reliability by conducting special condition assessments and vulnerability assessments of Metropolitan’s facilities.
Special Condition Assessments
Special Condition Assessments are extensive inspections, investigations, and evaluations of Metropolitan facilities and equipment that go beyond routine maintenance and monitoring activities. The assessments are conducted to identify needed rehabilitation and replacement projects which can lead to long-term reliability programs. These assessments include: inspections of facilities during shutdowns when the facility may otherwise be non-accessible, investigations of systemic issues, and evaluations of Metropolitan's ability to maintain deliveries in the event of an unplanned facility outage or loss of water supply.
Special Condition Assessments may be initiated through requests from Water Systems Operations, in response to a specific event or concern within Metropolitan’s system, or due to an issue identified within the water industry that could potentially affect Metropolitan. Through these activities, long-term infrastructure reliability programs are developed and executed to ensure Demand Management and Conservation 3-55
that the reliability of Metropolitan’s distribution system is unimpeded, and the overall lifeexpectancy of its assets is maintained to the most cost-effective standard possible.
Vulnerability Assessments
Vulnerability Assessments involve simulating hazards such as vehicle impact, flooding, fire, equipment failure, third-party impacts, and earthquakes in order to identify their potential impacts to Metropolitan’s ability to deliver water. Like the condition assessments, Vulnerability Assessments utilize operator experience and event reviews to identify potential vulnerabilities and impacts. The assessments evaluate both the reliability of individual facilities, as well as the reliability of Metropolitan’s system as a whole, if it is exposed to a potential hazard. It is through these assessments that mitigation options are identified to improve reliability.
Potential mitigation includes facility and equipment upgrades, and procedural changes for designing, operating, or maintaining facilities. In addition, mitigation options may include recommendations for Metropolitan’s emergency response planning to improve the capability to respond to an unplanned outage and restore service as quickly as possible. The types of hazards assessed include: seismic activity, hydraulic surge, vehicle impact, equipment malfunction, erosion or flooding, fire, corrosion, wind-blown projectiles, third party construction, and vandalism.
As a part of the Vulnerability Assessments, a specific set of reliability design criteria for water treatment plants have been developed to ensure optimal reliability, starting in the design phase.
These reliability design criteria establish design practices that ensure that reliability is designed into new facilities, and that the staff uses this criterion when reviewing each capital project.
Dam Safety Program
Metropolitan owns, operates, and maintains 20 facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). In total, there are 24 individual dams/reservoir facilities, with some reservoirs having multiple dams. The Dam Safety Program is a robust and proactive comprehensive management program that includes daily or weekly observations and regularly scheduled detailed inspections in addition to mandatory annual inspections with DSOD personnel.
Metropolitan also ensures dam integrity by incorporating surveillance and monitoring instrumentation that measures specific parameters, including, but not limited to, seepage and structural movement. Staff also conducts cyclical facility assessment to identify potential vulnerabilities to dam embankments, dam structures, foundations, outlet structures and spillways.
In addition, staff prepares Emergency Action Plans and regularly updates the associated inundation maps as required by the DSOD.
3-56 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
3.5 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Metropolitan continues to support local resources development through its Local Resources Program (LRP). The LRP provides financial incentives for local agencies to develop supplies including water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination. In addition, for the first time, Metropolitan is planning for its own recycled water supply. The Regional Recycled Water Program would provide advanced treated water that could be used for both potable and non-potable reuse.
Metropolitan’s involvement in local resources development started in 1982 as the Local Projects Program to provide financial incentives to its member agencies to develop recycled water projects. In 1991, Metropolitan established the Groundwater Recovery Program to provide financial assistance for the development of groundwater recovery projects. In 1995, these two programs combined into the LRP. Water recycling projects involve further treatment of treated wastewater that is currently discharged to the ocean, streams, or lands and use it instead for non-potable uses such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, commercial and industrial purposes, and for indirect potable uses such as groundwater replenishment, seawater intrusion barriers, and reservoir water augmentation. Currently, more than half of the water recycling in California occurs in Metropolitan’s service area.
Groundwater recovery projects involve treatment of high salinity or contaminated groundwater for potable uses. Groundwater recovery projects use a variety of treatment technologies to remove undesirable constituents such as nitrates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), perchlorate, color, and salt. Desalination of brackish groundwater and other local supplies enhances the continued supply reliability of the region by maximizing local groundwater resources.
Metropolitan’s service area is also leading the development of seawater desalination in California. The 56 TAF Carlsbad Desalination Project in San Diego County started operations in 2015 and represents the largest seawater desalination project in the country. Several other local water agencies are considering seawater desalination projects. One of the largest of these is the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, currently being developed by Poseidon Resources LLC (a private company). These projects have the potential to help meet Metropolitan’s current goals for new local supplies.
Metropolitan’s Regional Recycled Water Program, a partnership with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Sanitation Districts), would purify treated wastewater from the Sanitation Districts’ Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The program could produce up to 168,000 acre-feet of purified water for groundwater replenishment, industrial use, and potentially raw water augmentation. The agencies have been working together for over 10 years on the program.
They are currently operating a demonstration facility and seeking approval from their Boards of Directors to begin the environmental planning phase. At full-scale, the program could be one of the largest water reuse efforts of its kind in the world.
Background
Recycling
This section provides a description of the wastewater sources that potentially could be recycled.
This section also discusses the existing and potential uses of recycled water, as well as the technical and economic issues associated with those uses. In general, Metropolitan supports:
• Increasing water recycling in California and the Colorado River Basin Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-57
• Advocating funding assistance by parties that benefit both directly and indirectly from the use of recycled water
• Expanding recycled water uses
• Reviewing recycled water regulations to ensure streamlined administration, and public health and environmental protection
• Planning efforts and voluntary cooperative partnerships at the local and statewide levels • Conducting research and studies to address public acceptance, new technologies, and health effects assessments
• Increasing cooperation between agencies to serve recycled water in other agency service areas
Wastewater Disposal in the Service Area
As part of regional planning that encourages use of recycled water, a database has been developed that includes the name of each wastewater treatment facility, operating agency, location and elevation of the facility, extent of wastewater treatment, capacity and anticipated production, method of effluent disposal, and influent and effluent water qualities. Table 3-8 shows the existing and projected total effluent capacities of the wastewater treatment plants from a database of 89 plants identified within Metropolitan’s service area.
Wastewater treatment capacity provides an indication of the amount of wastewater being generated and disposed in Metropolitan’s service area. Most wastewater plants in the service area provide secondary treatment, a level of treatment that complies with the Clean Water Act.
Inland wastewater plants generally provide treatment to tertiary levels so the effluent may be disposed of in a stream or other water body or for beneficial reuse. A growing percentage of tertiary treated effluent undergoes reverse osmosis or electrodialysis reversal processes, producing high-quality recycled water for groundwater replenishment, industrial uses, or, in some instances, municipal uses.
Within Metropolitan’s service area, many local agencies collect and treat municipal wastewater.
Some of the largest agencies include:
• Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
• Orange County Sanitation District
• City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation
• San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department
• Eastern Municipal Water District
• Western Municipal Water District
• Inland Empire Utilities Agency
3-58 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Table 3-8
Existing and Projected Total Effluent Capacity
Wastewater Treatment Plants within Metropolitan’s Service Area1 Treatment Level
Existing
Capacity
(MGD)
2040 Capacity
(MGD)
Primary 1,770 3,139
Secondary 1,169 2,708
Tertiary 434 1,464
Advanced 104 229
1 This data was compiled as part of the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study in 2002. As of the date of this UWMP, this reuse study has not been updated to reflect new information.
Many small special-purpose wastewater agencies, dual-purpose (water and wastewater) special districts, and municipal wastewater agencies also provide wastewater treatment and disposal services within Metropolitan’s service area.
Wastewater is collected in a sewer collection system. From there, it flows to a wastewater treatment plant. Once treated, wastewater is disposed of through one of three mechanisms:
Ocean Outfalls
Treated wastewater is either disposed of directly through an ocean outfall or conveyed to the ocean outfall via a land outfall.
Reuse
Currently, about 441 TAF per year of recycled water is used for landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and groundwater replenishment applications in the region. A few inland treatment plants (in Riverside and San Bernardino counties) irrigate feed and fodder crops with recycled water. While this use is considered beneficial, it is not necessarily the highest and best use for recycled water. Higher value uses of recycled water include landscape or agricultural irrigation, commercial and industrial applications, groundwater replenishment, seawater intrusion barrier, and other uses such as street sweeping and dust control.
Stream Discharge
The majority of inland plants discharge treated effluent into local streams and rivers. That water is then used downstream for beneficial uses, eventually flowing to the ocean. Some of the affected rivers (or ephemeral streams) include:
• Los Angeles River
• Santa Ana River
• Calleguas Creek
• Rio Hondo & San Gabriel Rivers
• Santa Margarita River
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination 3-59
Uses of Recycled Water
Water recycling is a reliable water supply, and it helps local agencies comply with environmental regulations. Uses of recycled water can generally be categorized as non-potable, indirect potable for groundwater replenishment or reservoir water augmentation, and direct potable.
Non-Potable Reuse
• Industrial – Industrial users represent a large potential market for recycled water, particularly in heavily industrialized areas, such as the cities of Vernon, Commerce, Industry, and the Wilmington area of Los Angeles. Additionally, refineries in West Basin MWD’s service area and the city of Torrance use recycled water. Typical industrial uses include cooling tower makeup water, boiler feed water, paper manufacturing, carpet dying, and process water. Industrial users are high-demand, continuous-flow customers, which allows greater operational flexibility by allowing plants to base load operations rather than contend with seasonal and diurnal flow variations. Because of these operational benefits, industrial users reduce the need for storage and other peak demand facilities and management. • Irrigation – Recycled water is used to irrigate golf courses, parks, schoolyards, cemeteries, greenbelts, roadway medians, and agricultural purposes throughout Southern California.
Using recycled water for irrigation reduces the need for imported water during the critical summer months and in drought situations when water supplies are scarce. Unlike industrial uses, irrigation demands have large seasonal variations in reuse.
Indirect Potable Reuse
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) refers to the use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment, and reservoir water augmentation purposes. These types of uses require additional treatment levels beyond irrigation uses and use of an environmental buffer. • Groundwater Replenishment – Metropolitan’s service area overlies numerous groundwater basins, most of which rely on artificial recharge to sustain groundwater production, and some of which are threatened by seawater intrusion. Water agencies along the Los Angeles and Orange Counties coastline inject water into the underlying groundwater basins to create a barrier against this seawater intrusion and protect groundwater quality. The use of recycled water for seawater intrusion barrier projects is increasing and is replacing imported water used for this purpose. Increasing the proportion of recycled water can free imported water for direct consumption. For example, Metropolitan’s Regional Recycled Water Program would provide purified recycled water instead of imported water to replenish multiple groundwater basins in the region, making imported water available for other purposes. Table 3-9 presents a summary of this recycled water use.
• Reservoir Water Augmentation – Reservoir Water Augmentation (previously identified as surface water augmentation) includes use of advanced treated recycled water to augment a surface water reservoir. The reservoir serves as an environmental buffer (similar to groundwater aquifer in the case of groundwater replenishment) prior to when recycled water is treated for potable uses. Blended water from the reservoir is then treated at a conventional water treatment plant for potable purposes. There is currently no reservoir water augmentation with recycled water in Metropolitan’s service area. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the surface water augmentation regulations, required under SB 918, in 2018. The City of San Diego is currently operating a demonstration project to evaluate the feasibility and expected permitting requirements of a full-scale reservoir water augmentation project.
3-60 Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Desalination
Table 3-9
20201 Recycled Water Use for
Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Barrier Injection (TAF per year)
Groundwater Basin
Recycled
Water Use
Central Basin 56
Chino Basin 13
Orange County Basin 97
West Coast Basin 12
Other Basins 1
Total 179
1 Data for 2020 not available at the time of publication, used average of 2017-2019.