Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem K 2015 Seal Beach Urban Water Management Plan 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT May 2016 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Seal Beach Prepared for: Jim Basham, Interim Director of Public Works City of Seal Beach 218 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3650 Los Angeles California 90071 Tel 213 486 9884 Fax 213 486 9894 Our Ref.: 4109039.0000 Date: May 2016 FINAL DRAFT [Signature 1 Name] [Title] arcadis.com 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Urban Water Management Plan Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Agency Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Service Area and Facilities .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 Seal Beach Service Area ................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.2 Seal Beach Water Facilities ............................................................................................. 1-7 2 Demands .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Factors Affecting Demand ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Climate Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Water Use by Customer Type ..................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2 Non-Residential ................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.4 Non-Revenue Water ......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.4.1 AWWA Water Audit Methodology ........................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Demand Projections..................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.1 Demand Projection Methodology ..................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.2 Agency Refinement .......................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.3 25 Year Projections .......................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.4 Total Water Demand Projections ..................................................................................... 2-9 2.4.5 Water Use for Lower Income Households ....................................................................... 2-9 2.5 SBx7-7 Requirements ................................................................................................................2-10 2.5.1 Baseline Water Use ........................................................................................................2-11 2.5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD) ...............................................2-11 2.5.1.2 Five-Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation) ................................................2-12 arcadis.com i 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.5.1.3 Service Area Population .......................................................................................2-12 2.5.2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets ............................................................................................2-12 2.5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods ........................................................................................2-12 2.5.2.2 2015 and 2020 Targets ........................................................................................2-13 2.5.3 Regional Alliance ............................................................................................................2-14 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Imported Water ............................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Colorado River Supplies ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 State Water Project Supplies ........................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Storage ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.1 Basin Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.2 Basin Production Percentage .........................................................................................3-11 3.3.2.1 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan .....................................................3-11 3.3.2.2 OCWD Engineer’s Report ....................................................................................3-12 3.3.3 Groundwater Recharge Facilities ...................................................................................3-13 3.3.4 Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program ......................................................3-13 3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program .........................................................................3-13 3.3.6 Groundwater Historical Extraction ..................................................................................3-14 3.3.7 Overdraft Conditions.......................................................................................................3-14 3.4 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water ................................................................3-14 3.5 Recycled Water ..........................................................................................................................3-17 3.6 Supply Reliability........................................................................................................................3-17 3.6.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................3-17 3.6.2 Factors Impacting Reliability ..........................................................................................3-17 3.6.2.1 Environment ..........................................................................................................3-17 3.6.2.2 Legal .....................................................................................................................3-17 3.6.2.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................................3-18 3.6.2.3.1 Imported Water ...........................................................................................3-18 3.6.2.3.2 Groundwater ...............................................................................................3-18 arcadis.com ii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.6.2.4 Climate Change ....................................................................................................3-20 3.6.3 Normal-Year Reliability Comparison ..............................................................................3-20 3.6.4 Single-Dry Year Reliability Comparison .........................................................................3-20 3.6.5 Multiple-Dry Year Period Reliability Comparison ...........................................................3-21 3.7 Supply and Demand Assessment ..............................................................................................3-21 4 Demand Management Measures......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Metering ....................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Conservation Pricing .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Public Education and Outreach ................................................................................................... 4-3 4.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss .............................................. 4-4 4.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support ............................................... 4-5 4.7 Other Demand Management Measures ...................................................................................... 4-5 4.7.1 Residential Programs ....................................................................................................... 4-5 4.7.2 CII Programs .................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.7.3 Landscape Programs ....................................................................................................... 4-6 5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Shortage Actions.......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Metropolitan Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan .......................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan ...................................................................... 5-3 5.2.3 MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan............................................................................ 5-4 5.2.4 City of Seal Beach ............................................................................................................ 5-5 5.3 Three-Year Minimum Water Supply ............................................................................................ 5-6 5.4 Catastrophic Supply Interruption ................................................................................................. 5-7 5.4.1 Metropolitan ...................................................................................................................... 5-7 5.4.2 Water Emergency Response of Orange County .............................................................. 5-7 5.4.3 City of Seal Beach ............................................................................................................ 5-8 5.4.3.1 Water Shortage Emergency Response .................................................................. 5-8 5.4.3.2 Supplemental Water Supplies ................................................................................ 5-8 5.5 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods .................................................... 5-8 arcadis.com iii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.5.1 Prohibitions ....................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.5.2 Penalties .........................................................................................................................5-12 5.5.3 Consumption Reduction Methods ..................................................................................5-13 5.6 Impacts to Revenue ...................................................................................................................5-13 5.7 Reduction Measuring Mechanism .............................................................................................5-13 6 Recycled Water ..................................................................................................................................6-15 6.1 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................6-15 6.1.1 OCWD Green Acres Project ...........................................................................................6-15 6.1.2 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System ................................................................6-15 6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal .......................................................................................6-16 6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses ...................................................................................................6-16 6.4 Potential Recycled Water Uses .................................................................................................6-16 6.4.1 Direct Non-Potable Reuse ..............................................................................................6-17 6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse ...................................................................................................6-17 6.5 Optimization Plan .......................................................................................................................6-17 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs ...................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Water Management Tools ........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities ............................................................................................ 7-1 7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs ........................................................................... 7-1 7.4 Desalination Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4.2 Ocean Water .................................................................................................................... 7-3 8 UWMP Adoption Process .................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.2 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3 UWMP Submittal .......................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3.1 Review 2010 UWMP Implementation............................................................................... 8-2 8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015 Actual Programs8- 3 8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP........................................................................................................ 8-3 References ................................................................................................................................................. 8-4 arcadis.com iv 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLES Table 1-1: Plan Identification ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 Table 1-2: Plan Identification ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 Table 1-3: Public Water Systems ............................................................................................................... 1-8 Table 1-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange ...................................................................................... 1-9 Table 2-1: Population – Current and Projected .......................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual (AF) ................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-3: Water Loss Audit Summary (AF) .............................................................................................. 2-7 Table 2-4: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected (AF) ............................................................ 2-8 Table 2-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections ........................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-6: Total Water Demands (AF) ....................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-7: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income ................................................2-10 Table 2-8: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AFY) ............2-10 Table 2-9: Baselines and Targets Summary ............................................................................................2-13 Table 2-10: 2015 Compliance ..................................................................................................................2-13 Table 3-1: Metropolitan Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities .................................................. 3-6 Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF) ........................................................................................3-14 Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual (AF) ....................................................................................................3-15 Table 3-4: Water Supplies, Projected (AF) ...............................................................................................3-16 Table 3-5: Retail: Bases of Water Year Data ...........................................................................................3-21 Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) ..............................................................3-22 Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) .........................................................3-22 Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) ....................................................3-22 Table 4-1: Water Waste Prohibition ........................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Seal Beach Water Usage Rates ............................................................................................... 4-2 Table 5-1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan ........................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-2: Minimum Supply Next Three Years (AF) .................................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-3: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses ............................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods .................5-13 arcadis.com v 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach ......................................................................................... 8-1 Table 8-2: Notification to Cities and Counties ............................................................................................ 8-2 FIGURES Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier ............................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2: City of Seal Beach’s Service Area ........................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 1-3: City of Seal Beach Distribution System ................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 2-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use ................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1: Water Supply Sources in the City (AF) .................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Map of the Orange County Groundwater Basin and its Major Aquifer Systems ...................3-10 Figure 5-1: Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, and Supply Declarations ........................................... 5-2 APPENDICES A UWMP Checklist B Standardized Tables C Groundwater Management Plan D City Ordinance E Notification of Public and Service Area Suppliers F Adopted UWMP Resolution G Bump Methodology H Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report I AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet J CUWCC BMP Report arcadis.com vi 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 20x2020 20% water use reduction in GPCD by year 2020 Act Urban Water Management Planning Act AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-FeetpPer Year AWWA American Water Works Association Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin BEA Basin Equity Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BPP Basin Production Percentage CARL Current Annual Real Losses CCC California Coastal Commission CDR Center for Demographic Research CII Commercial/Industrial/Institutional City City of Seal Beach CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CUP Conjunctive Use Program CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP Central Valley Project Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta DMM Demand Management Measure DOF Department of Finance DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report FY Fiscal Year GAP Green Acres Project GCM General Circulation Model GCM Gallons per Capita per Day GSWC Golden State Water Company GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index IPR Indirect Potable Reuse IRP Integrated Water Resource Plan IWA International Water Association LBCWD Laguna Beach County Water District LRP Local Resources Program LTFP Long-Term Facilities Plan MAF Million Acre-Feet Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MF Microfiltration arcadis.com vii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MG Million Gallons MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units OC Orange County OCWD Orange County Water District PCH Pacific Coast Highway Poseidon Poseidon Resources LLC PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product PSI pounds per square inch RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis SBx7-7 Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCWD South Coast Water District SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SDP Seawater Desalination Program Study Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study SWP State Water Project SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board TAFY Thousand Acre-Feet per Year TDS Total Dissolved Solids UARL Unavoidable Annual Real Losses UV Ultraviolet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WEROC Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County WF-21 Water Factory 21 WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan WSDM Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan arcadis.com viii 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Urban Water Management Plan Requirements Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) require every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years in the years ending in zero and five. The 2015 UWMP updates are due to DWR by July 1, 2016. This UWMP provides DWR with a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands within the City of Seal Beach’s (City) service area and assesses the City’s water resource needs. Specifically, the UWMP provides water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five-year increments and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis must identify supply reliability under three hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single-dry year, and multiple-dry years. The City’s 2015 UWMP updates the 2010 UWMP in compliance with the requirements of the Act as amended in 2009, and includes a discussion of: • Water Service Area and Facilities • Water Sources and Supplies • Water Use by Customer Type • Demand Management Measures • Water Supply Reliability • Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs • Water Shortage Contingency Plan • Recycled Water Use Since the original Act's passage in 1983, several amendments have been added. The most recent changes affecting the 2015 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBx7-7) and SB 1087. SBx7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, is part of the Delta Action Plan that stemmed from the Governor’s goal to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 (20x2020). Reduction in water use is an important part of this plan that aims to sustainably manage the Bay Delta and reduce conflicts between environmental conservation and water supply; it is detailed in Section 3.2.2. SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to achieve the 20x2020 goal and the interim ten percent goal by 2015. Each urban retail water supplier must include in its 2015 UWMPs the following information from its target-setting process: • Baseline daily per capita water use • 2020 urban water use target • 2015 interim water use target compliance arcadis.com 1-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Compliance method being used along with calculation method and support data • An implementation plan to meet the targets The other recent amendment, made to the UWMP on September 19, 2014, is set forth by SB 1420, Distribution System Water Losses. SB 1420 requires water purveyors to quantify distribution system losses for the most recent 12-month period available. The water loss quantification is based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The sections in this UWMP correspond to the outline of the Act, specifically Article 2, Contents of Plans, Sections 10631, 10632, and 10633. The sequence used for the required information, however, differs slightly in order to present information in a manner reflecting the unique characteristics of the City’s water utility. The UWMP Checklist has been completed, which identifies the location of Act requirements in this Plan and is included in Appendix A. This is an individual UWMP for a retail agency, as shown in Tables 1- 1 and 1-2. Table 1-2 also indicates the units that will be used throughout this document. Table 1-1: Plan Identification Plan Identification Select Only One Type of Plan Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance Individual UWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) NOTES: arcadis.com 1-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 1-2: Plan Identification Agency Identification Type of Agency (select one or both) Agency is a wholesaler Agency is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Date that the Fiscal Year Begins (mm/dd) 7/1 Units of Measure Used in UWMP (select from Drop down) Unit AF NOTES: 1.2 Agency Overview The City is a predominantly residential community located along the California coastline in Orange County. It was incorporated in 1915 and became a charter city in 1964. The City is administered under a council-manager form of government, and is governed by a five-member City council elected by district serving four-year alternating terms. Current City Council districts are: • District One (Old Town and Surfside Colony) • District Two (Leisure World and College Park West) • District Three (Hill, Coves, Bridgeport, and Heron Pointe) • District Four (College Park East and Town Center) • District Five (Leisure World) The City has a 2015 population of 24,070 and the projected ultimate population is 24,327 by the year 2040. Total water demand in 2015 was 3,782 acre-feet per year (AFY). The City receives its water from two main sources, local well water from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is Orange County’s wholesale supplier and is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The City’s location within MWDOC is shown on Figure 1-1. arcadis.com 1-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier arcadis.com 1-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.3 Service Area and Facilities 1.3.1 Seal Beach Service Area The City is bordered to the north by the City of Los Alamitos, and the unincorporated Rossmoor community; to the east by the Cities of Garden Grove, Westminster, and Huntington Beach; to the south by the Pacific Ocean and City of Huntington Beach; and to the west by the City of Long Beach. Rossmoor Center, located in the City, is served by an investor owned water utility, the Golden State Water Company. Therefore, this UWMP is limited to those communities receiving water service from the City, and covers an areal extent of approximately 7,135 acres within the City’s boundaries. The Leisure World Retirement Community, with 6,808 dwelling units, is served by the City through three master meters. The City maintains the water distribution facilities and the fire hydrants within Leisure World. The service area is divided into several distinct communities as shown on Figure 1-2 and described below (AKM, Master Plan, July 2012). • Old Town, which is the area south of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Marina Drive, between First Street and Seal Beach Boulevard, was developed in the 1920’s. It is the oldest area of the City. High density residential and commercial land uses are prevalent. Large single-family residential lots are found in the Gold Coast District. The City’s mile long beach in Old Town is used for surfing and swimming. The Seal Beach Pier, located at the end of Main Street, provides fishing facilities and a restaurant. • Bridgeport is the area west of Pacific Coast Highway, north of Marina Drive and southeast of the San Gabriel River. It was primarily developed in the 1960’s and consists of medium and high density residential land uses. It includes the Seal Beach Trailer Park, and Oakwood Apartments. Old Town and Bridgeport cover 276 acres. • Marina Hill was developed in the 1950’s, and consists mostly of single-family homes. This area covers 201 acres north of Pacific Coast Highway and west of Seal Beach Boulevard, adjacent to the south edge of the Hellman Ranch property. It is further divided into Marina Hill-North and Marina Hill South, with Bolsa Avenue forming the boundary. • Hellman Ranch Covers 199 acres, and is located west of Seal Beach Boulevard and north of Marina Hill. The development includes 100 acres of open space, freshwater wetlands and 70 single-family residential units. • The Boeing Facility, Police Facility and City Yard are located on 107 acres between Hellman Ranch and Westminster Boulevard, west of Seal Beach Boulevard. This area is zoned for light industry. The Boeing Facility supports Boeing’s commercial aviation program. Engineering and design operations are also conducted from this facility. Development plans for the area include 31 acres of industrial, 19 acres of commercial, and a 120 room hotel on 2 acres. • Surfside, a colony that was incorporated in the 1930’s, became a part of Seal Beach in 1969. The area consists of single-family dwelling units located on 10 acres of the south spit of Anaheim Bay. Although a gated community, pedestrian and bicycle access to the beach is available. arcadis.com 1-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Leisure World, completed in 1962, covers the portion of the City between Westminster Boulevard and the San Diego Freeway westerly of Seal Beach Boulevard. It is a gated community of 533 acres with 6,608 dwelling units, four club houses, and a nine-hole golf course. Leisure World is a retirement community for seniors 55 years and older. Medical, religious, commercial and recreational facilities are all provided within the compound limits. The existing population is 8,400. • College Park East is a single-family residential area developed in the late 1960’s. It is located on 292 acres between the San Diego Freeway and Lampson Avenue, west of Bolsa Chica Channel in the northeast section of the City. • Bixby Old Ranch and Old Ranch Golf Course are located north of Lampson Avenue and east of Seal Beach Boulevard. Most of Bixby Old Ranch has recently been developed. This area covers 230 acres. The golf course is served through two meters. Irrigation water to the golf course is provided by a private on-site well. • College Park West is a 62 acre small residential community located along San Gabriel River northeast of Leisure World. Water service to College Park West is provided through a metered supply connection from Leisure World. • The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1972 and preserves 911 acres of salt marsh and upland area in Anaheim Bay. The refuge is located within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and there is no public access. • Sunset Aquatic Park was acquired by the County in 1962 from the U.S. Navy. It encompasses 67 acres of Anaheim Bay and is the site of a public marina and park. • The U.S. Naval Weapons Station was established in 1944. It covers approximately 5,000 acres of land located between Seal Beach Boulevard and Bolsa Chica Road from the San Diego Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway. arcadis.com 1-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 1-2: City of Seal Beach’s Service Area 1.3.2 Seal Beach Water Facilities The City’s Water Division of the Department of Public Works maintains 66 miles of pipeline, four active groundwater wells, an active service connection with Metropolitan, emergency interconnections with other utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations that constantly maintain water at approximately 60 pounds per square inch (psi), four disinfection sites, approximately 680 hydrants and approximately 5,500 service connections. Figure 1-3 illustrates the City’s water supply and distribution system (AKM, Master Plan, July 2012). arcadis.com 1-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 1-3: City of Seal Beach Distribution System The system connections and water volume supplied are summarized in Table 1-3, and the wholesalers informed of this water use as required are displayed in Table 1-4. Table 1-3: Public Water Systems Retail Only: Public Water Systems Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2015 Volume of Water Supplied 2015 CA3010041 City of Seal Beach 5,483 3,521 TOTAL 5,483 3,521 NOTES: arcadis.com 1-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 1-4: Water Supplier Information Exchange Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. MWDOC NOTES: arcadis.com 1-9 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 DEMANDS 2.1 Overview Since the last UWMP update, southern California’s urban water demand has been largely shaped by the efforts to comply with SBx7-7. This law requires all California retail urban water suppliers serving more than 3,000 AFY or 3,000 service connections to achieve a 20 percent water demand reduction (from a historical baseline) by 2020. The City has been actively engaged in efforts to reduce water use in its service area to meet the 2015 interim 10 percent reduction and the 2020 final water use target. Meeting this target is critical to ensure the City’s eligibility to receive future state water grants and loans. In April 2015 Governor Brown issued an Emergency Drought Mandate as a result of one of the most severe droughts in California’s history, requiring a collective reduction in statewide urban water use of 25 percent by February 2016, with each agency in the state given a specific reduction target by DWR. In response to the Governor’s mandate, the City is carrying out more aggressive conservation efforts. It is also implementing higher (more restrictive) stages of its water conservation ordinance in order to achieve its demand reduction target of 8 percent set for the City itself and the Regional Alliance of all participating MWDOC utility agencies (discussed later in Section 2.5). In addition to local water conservation ordinances, the City has engaged in activities that range from being a signatory member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s (CUWCC) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Memorandum of Understanding since 2000 to ongoing water audit and leak detection programs. The City has also partnered with MWDOC on educational programs, indoor retrofits and training. These efforts have been part of statewide water conservation ordinances that require watering landscape watering, serving water in restaurants and bars, and reducing the amount of laundry cleaned by hotels. Further discussion on the City’s water conservation ordinance is covered in Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan. This section analyzes the City’s current water demands by customer type, factors that influence those demands, and projections of future water demands for the next 20 years. In addition, to satisfy SBx7-7 requirements, this section provides details of the City’s SBx7-7 compliance method selection, baseline water use calculation, and 2015 and 2020 water use targets. 2.2 Factors Affecting Demand Water demands within the City’s service area are dependent on many factors such as local climate conditions and the evolving hydrology of the region, demographics, land use characteristics, and economics. In addition to local factors, southern California’s imported water sources are also experiencing drought conditions that impact availability of current and future water supplies. arcadis.com 2-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.2.1 Climate Characteristics The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that encompasses all of Orange County, and the urban areas of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The SCAB climate is characterized by southern California’s “Mediterranean” climate: a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall. Local rainfall has limited impacts on reducing demand for the City. Water that infiltrates into the soil may enter groundwater supplies depending on the local geography. However, due to the large extent of impervious cover in southern California, rainfall runoff quickly flows to a system of concrete storm drains and channels that lead directly to the ocean. OCWD is one agency that has successfully captured stormwater along the Santa Ana River and in recharge basins for years and used it as an additional source of supply for groundwater recharge. Metropolitan's water supplies come from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), influenced by climate conditions in northern California and the Colorado River Basin, respectively. Both regions have been suffering from multi-year drought conditions with record low precipitation which directly impact water supplies to southern California. 2.2.2 Demographics The City has a 2015 population of 23,706 according to the California State University at Fullerton’s Center of Demographics Research (CDR). The City is almost completely built-out, and its population is projected to increase only 1.1 percent by 2040, representing an average growth rate of 0.04 percent per year. However, the City attracts a significant number of visitors during the summer months that contributes to increased water demands. Growth has increased slightly since the 2010 UWMP as housing is becoming denser and new residential units are multi-storied. A single new development within the City is moving forward on the last available piece of ocean front property. On September 9, 2015 the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved the Ocean Place development for 28 single family residences and four overnight accommodations. Table 2-1 shows the population projections in five-year increments out to 2040 within the City’s service area. Table 2-1: Population – Current and Projected Retail: Population - Current and Projected Population Served 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 23,706 24,086 24,089 24,302 24,349 24,327 NOTES: Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2015 2.2.3 Land Use The City’s service area can best be described as a predominately single and multi-family residential community located along the coast in northern Orange County. There is a large U.S. Naval Weapons Station within the City along with light industrial and institutional land uses. The City is mostly developed arcadis.com 2-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses. Figure 2-1 shows the breakdown by land use within the City (AKM, Master Plan, July 2012). Figure 2-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use 2.3 Water Use by Customer Type An agency’s water consumption can be projected by understanding the type of use and customer type creating the demand. Developing local water use profiles helps to identify quantity of water used, and by whom within the agency’s service area. A comprehensive profile of the agency’s service area enables the impacts of water conservation efforts to be assessed and to project the future benefit of water conservation programs. The following sections of this UWMP provide an overview of the City’s water consumption by customer account type as follows: • Single-family Residential • Multi-family Residential • Commercial • Institutional/ Government arcadis.com 2-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Other water uses including sales to other agencies and non-revenue water are also discussed in this section. 2.3.1 Overview There are 5,483 current customer active and inactive service connections in the City’s water distribution system with all existing connections metered. Approximately 43.7 percent of the City’s water demand is residential; commercial, including dedicated landscape, accounts for the remaining 56.3 percent of the total demand. Table 2-2 contains a summary of the City’s total water demand in fiscal year (FY) of 2014-15 for potable water. Table 2-2: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual (AF) Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual Use Type 2015 Actual Additional Description Level of Treatment When Delivered Volume Other Single & Multi. Family Drinking Water 1,533 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 140 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies GSWC Drinking Water 13 Commercial Drinking Water 1,834 TOTAL 3,521 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Retail Tracking. 2.3.2 Non-Residential Non-residential use includes commercial and institutional water demands. Institutional water use accounts for 4 percent of total water demands and commercial accounts for 52.3 percent of total water demand. The City has a mix of commercial uses (markets, restaurants, etc.), public entities (schools, fire stations and government offices), office complexes, light industrial and warehouses. 2.3.3 Sales to Other Agencies The City sells a small amount of water, approximately 13 AFY, to Golden State Water Company (GSWC) for a small residential neighborhood located off of Lampson Avenue in the City of Los Alamitos. 2.3.4 Non-Revenue Water Non-revenue water is defined by the International Water Association (IWA) as the difference between distribution systems input volume (i.e. production) and billed authorized consumption. Non-revenue water arcadis.com 2-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN consists of three components: unbilled authorized consumption (e.g. hydrant flushing, firefighting, and blow-off water from well start-ups), real losses (e.g. leakage in mains and service lines, and storage tank overflows), and apparent losses (unauthorized consumption, customer metering inaccuracies and systematic data handling errors). A water loss audit was conducted per AWWA methodology for the City to understand the relationship between water loss, operating costs and revenue losses. This audit was developed by the IWA Water Loss Task Force as a universal methodology that could be applied to any water distribution system. This audit meets the requirements of SB 1420 that was signed into law in September 2014. Understanding and controlling water loss from a distribution system is an effective way for the City to achieve regulatory standards and manage their existing resources. 2.3.4.1 AWWA Water Audit Methodology There are five data categories that are part of the AWWA Water Audit: 1) Water Supplied 2) Authorized Consumption 3) Water Losses 4) System Data and 5) Cost Data. Data was compiled from questionnaires, invoices, meter test results, and discussion with the City. Each data value has a corresponding validation score that evaluates the City’s internal processes associated with that data entry. The scoring scale is 1- 10 with 10 representing best practice. The Water Supplied section represents the volume of water the City delivered from its own sources, purchased imported water, or water that was either exported or sold to another agency. Validation scores for each supply source correspond to meter accuracy and how often the meters are calibrated. If the calibration results of supply meters were provided, a weighted average of errors was calculated for master meter adjustment. This adjustment factor was applied to reported supply volumes for meters that were found to register either over or under the true volume. Validity scores for meter adjustment are based on how often the meter is read and what method is used. The Authorized Consumption section breaks down consumption of the volume of Water Supplied. Billed metered water is billed and delivered to customers and makes up the majority of an agency’s consumption. Billed unmetered water is water that is delivered to a customer for a set fee but the actual quantity of water is not metered. Customer accounts for this type of use are typically determined by utility policy. Unbilled metered water is the volume used and recorded, but the customer is not charged. This volume is typically used for City facilities per City policy. Unbilled unmetered water is authorized use that is neither billed nor metered which typically includes activities such as firefighting, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, and fire flow testing. The AWWA Water Audit recommends using the default value of 1.25 percent to represent this use, as calculating an accurate volume is often tedious due to the many different components involved and it represents a small portion of the City’s overall use. For each consumption type listed above the associated validation score reflects utility policy for customer accounts, frequency of meter testing and replacement, computer-based billing and transition to electronic metering systems. Water Losses are defined as the difference between the volume of water supplied and the volume of authorized consumption. Water losses are further broken down into apparent and real losses. Apparent losses include unauthorized consumption, customer meter inaccuracies and systematic data handling errors. Default percentages were provided for the Audit by AWWA for unauthorized consumption and systematic data handling error as this data is not often available. The corresponding default validation arcadis.com 2-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN score assigned is 5 out of 10. A discrete validation score was included for customer meter inaccuracies to represent quality of meter testing records, testing procedures for meter accuracy, meter replacement cycles, and inclusion of new meter technology. System Data includes information about the City’s physical distribution system and customer accounts. The information included is: length of mains, number of active and inactive service connections, location of customer meters in relation to the property line, and the average operating pressure of the system. The number of service connections is automatically divided by the length of mains to find the service connection density of the system. The calculated service connection density determines which performance indicators best represent a water system’s real loss performance. The validity scores in this section relate to the water system’s policies and procedures for calculating and documenting the required system data, quality of records kept, integration with an electronic database including GIS and SCADA, and how often this data is verified. The final section is Cost Data and contains three important financial values related to system operation, customer cost and water production. The total annual cost of operating the water system, customer retail unit cost and the variable production cost per AF are included. The customer retail unit value is applied to the apparent losses to determine lost revenue, while the variable production cost is typically applied to real losses. In water systems with scarce water supplies, a case can be made for real losses to be valued at the retail rate, as this volume of water could be sold to additional customers if it were not lost.] Validity scores for these items consider how often audits of the financial data and supporting documents are compiled and if third-party accounting professionals are part of the process. Calculations based on the entered and sufficiently valid data produce a series of results that help the City quantify the volume and financial impacts of water loss and facilitate comparison of the City’s water loss performance with that of other water systems who have also performed water loss audits using the AWWA methodology. The City’s Data Validity Score was 73 out of 100, with a total water loss volume of 159 AFY. The Non-Revenue Water volume represents 4.2 percent of the total water supplied by the City. The value of non-revenue water is calculated to be $80,207 per year. The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a performance indicator developed from the ratio of Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). CARL was developed as part of the workbook and explained as real losses above. UARL is developed on a per system basis with an equation based on empirical data, developed by IWA that factors in the length of mains (including fire hydrant laterals), number of service connections, average distance of customer service connection piping between the curb stop and the customer meter and the total length of customer service piping, all multiplied by average system pressure. The City received an ILI score of 0.30 which taken at face value is a very high score and indicates that real losses are well managed. This value suggests that the City’s real loss volume is beneath the technically achievable minimum, which is possible but unlikely. This requires further field investigation of leakage if leakage detection and control practices are not extensively implemented and/or, given the Data Validity Score for some components in the Audit, further investigation/confirmation of entries such as water supplied/accuracy of supply meters, accuracy of customer meters, systematic data handling errors, and applicability of the default percentages applied in the audit. Apparent losses make up a significant portion of the City’s total water loss at 84 percent; as most of this was developed from default percentages provided by the AWWA Water Audit. Based on this information, arcadis.com 2-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN the City can improve water loss by taking a closer look at apparent losses and developing a strategy to better quantify this data in the future. The overall Water Audit score can also be improved by meeting the standards AWWA has developed for each data point through clear City procedures and reliable data. The result of the AWWA Water Audit completed for the City as required by the 2015 UWMP is summarized in Table 2-4. The water loss summary was calculated over a one-year period from available data and the methodology explained above. Table 2-3: Water Loss Audit Summary (AF) Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting Reporting Period Start Date (mm/yyyy) Volume of Water Loss 07/2013 159 NOTES: 2.4 Demand Projections Demand projections were developed by MWDOC for each agency within their service area based on available data as well as land use, population and economic growth. Three trajectories were developed representing three levels of conservation: 1) continued with existing levels of conservation (lowest conservation), 2) addition of future passive measures and active measures (baseline conservation), and 3) aggressive turf removal program - 20 percent removal by 2040 (aggressive conservation). The baseline demand projection was selected for the 2015 UWMP. The baseline scenario assumes the implementation of future passive measures affecting new developments, including the Model Water Efficient Landscape, plumbing code efficiencies for toilets, and expected plumbing code for high- efficiency clothes washers. It also assumes the implementation of future active measures, assuming the implementation of Metropolitan incentive programs at historical annual levels seen in Orange County. 2.4.1 Demand Projection Methodology The water demand projections were an outcome of the Orange County (OC) Reliability Study led by MWDOC where demand projections were divided into three regions within Orange County: Brea/La Habra, Orange County Groundwater Basin, and South County. The demand projections were obtained based on multiplying a unit water use factor and a demographic factor for three water use sectors, including single-family and multi-family residential (in gallons per day per household), and non-residential (in gallons per day per emplo yee). The unit water use factors were based on a survey of Orange County water agencies (FY 2013-14) and represent a normal weather, normal economy, and non-drought condition. The demographic factors are future demographic projections, including the number of housing units for single and multi-family residential areas and total employment (number of employees) for the non-residential sector, as provided by CDR. The OC Reliability Study accounted for drought impacts on 2016 demands by applying the assumption that water demands will bounce back to 85 percent of 2014 levels i.e. pre-drought levels by 2020 and 90 percent by 2025 without future conservation, and continue at 90 percent of unit water use through 2040. The unit water use factor multiplied by a demographic factor yields demand projections without new arcadis.com 2-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN conservation. To account for new conservation, projected savings from new passive and active conservation were subtracted from these demands. As described above, the OC Reliability Study provided demand projections for three regions within Orange County: Brea/La Habra, Orange County Groundwater Basin, and South County. The City’s water demand represents a portion of the OC Groundwater Basin region total demand. The City’s portion was estimated as the percentage of the City’s five-year (FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15) average usage compared to the OC Groundwater Basin region total demand for the same period. 2.4.2 Agency Refinement Demand projections were developed by MWDOC for the City as part of the OC Reliability Study. The future demand projections were reviewed and accepted by the City as a basis for the 2015 UWMP. 2.4.3 25 Year Projections A key component of the 2015 UWMP is to provide insight into the City’s future water demand outlook. The City’s current potable water demand is 3,521 AFY, met through locally pumped groundwater and purchased imported water from MWDOC. Table 2-4 is a projection of the City’s water demand for the next 25 years. Table 2-4: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected (AF) Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected Use Type Additional Description Projected Water Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Other SF/MF 1,519 1,630 1,642 1,641 1,644 Institutional/Governmental 139 149 150 150 151 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies GSWC 13 14 14 14 14 Commercial 1,817 1,950 1,964 1,963 1,966 TOTAL 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and Retail Water Agency Projections. The above demand values were provided by MWDOC and reviewed by the City as part of the UWMP effort. As the regional wholesale supplier for much of Orange County, MWDOC works in collaboration with each of its retail agencies as well as Metropolitan, its wholesaler, to develop demand projections for imported water. The City will aim to decrease its reliance on imported water by pursuing a variety of water conservation strategies, per capita water use is developed in Section 2.5 below. arcadis.com 2-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? Yes If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, etc… utilized in demand projections are found. Section 4.1 Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes NOTES: The demand data presented in this section accounts for passive savings in the future. Passive savings are water savings as a result of codes, standards, ordinances and public outreach on water conservation and higher efficiency fixtures. Passive savings are anticipated to continue for the next 25 years and will result in continued water saving and reduced consumption levels. 2.4.4 Total Water Demand Projections Based on the information provided above, the total demand for potable water is listed below in Table 2-6. The City has no plans to provide recycled water in its service area. Table 2-6: Total Water Demands (AF) Retail: Total Water Demands 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water 3,521 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Recycled Water Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 3,521 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 NOTES: 2.4.5 Water Use for Lower Income Households Since 2010, the UWMP Act has required retail water suppliers to include water use projections for single- family and multi-family residential housing for lower income and affordable households. This will assist the City in complying with the requirement under Government Code Section 65589.7 granting priority for providing water service to lower income households. A lower income household is defined as a household earning below 80 percent of the median household income (MHI). DWR recommends retail suppliers rely on the housing elements of city or county general plans to quantify planned lower income housing with the City's service area (DWR, 2015 UWMP Guidebook, February 2016). The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assists jurisdictions in updating general plan's housing elements section. The RHNA identifies housing needs and assesses households by income level for the City through 2010 decennial Census and 2005-2009 American Community Survey data. The fifth cycle of the RHNA covers the planning period of October 2013 to October 2021. The Southern California arcadis.com 2-9 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the RHNA Allocation Plan for this cycle on October 4, 2012 requiring housing elements updates by October 15, 2013. The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the housing elements data submitted by jurisdictions in the SCAG region and concluded the data meets statutory requirements for the assessment of current housing needs. The housing elements from the RHNA includes low income housing broken down into three categories: extremely low (less than 30 percent MHI), very low (31 percent - 50 percent MHI), and lower income (51 percent - 80 percent MHI). The report gives the household distribution for all households of various income levels in the City which can be seen in Table 2-7. Altogether the City has 55.1 percent low income housing (SCAG, RHNA, November 2013). In Table 2-8, the amount of total households, 12,876, is greater than the total residential accounts, 2,263, as multi-family residences typically have one meter for an entire complex. Table 2-7: Household Distribution Based on Median Household Income Number of Households by Income Extremely Low Income 2,828 Very Low Income 2,261 Lower Income 2,005 Moderate Income 1,725 Above Moderate Income 4,057 Total Households 12,876 Table 2-8 provides the projected water needs for low income residential households. The projected water demands shown here represent 55.1 percent of the projected water demand for the residential category provided in Table 2-4 above. For example, the total residential demand is projected to be 1,524 AFY in 2020 and 1,649 AFY in 2040 with low income demands of 840 and 909 AFY for 2020 and 2040. Table 2-8: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AFY) Low Income Water Use Water Use Sector Fiscal Year Ending 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Residential Demand 1,519 1,630 1,642 1,641 1,644 Total Low Income Households Demand 837 898 905 904 906 2.5 SBx7-7 Requirements The Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SBx7-7, signed into law on February 3, 2010, requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. The City must determine baseline water use during their baseline period and water use targets for the years 2015 and 2020 to meet the state’s water reduction goal. The City may choose to comply with SBx7-7 individually or arcadis.com 2-10 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN as a region in collaboration with other retail water suppliers. Under the regional compliance option, the City is still required to report its individual water use targets. The City is required to be in compliance with SBx7-7 either individually or as part of the alliance, or demonstrate they have a plan or have secured funding to be in compliance, in order to be eligible for water related state grants and loans on and after July 16, 2016. For the 2015 UWMP, the City must demonstrate compliance with its 2015 water use target to indicate whether or not they are on track to meeting the 2020 water use target. The City also revised their baseline per capita water use calculations using 2010 U.S. Census data. Changes in the baseline calculations also result in updated per capita water use targets. DWR also requires the submittal of SBx7-7 Verification Forms, a set of standardized tables to demonstrate compliance with the Water Conservation Act in this 2015 UWMP. This form is included as Appendix B. 2.5.1 Baseline Water Use The baseline water use is the City’s gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Gross water use is a measure of water that enters the distribution system of the supplier over a 12-month period with certain allowable exclusions. These exclusions are: • Recycled water delivered within the service area • Indirect recycled water • Water placed in long term storage • Water conveyed to another urban supplier • Water delivered for agricultural use • Process water Water suppliers within the OCWD Groundwater Basin, including the City, have the option of choosing to deduct recycled water used for indirect potable reuse from their gross water use to account for the recharge of recycled water into the basin by OCWD, historically through Water Factory 21, and now by GWRS. Water suppliers must report baseline water use for two baseline periods, the 10- to 15-year baseline (baseline GPCD) and the five-year baseline (target confirmation) as described below. 2.5.1.1 Ten to 15-Year Baseline Period (Baseline GPCD) The first step to calculating the City’s water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use (baseline water use). The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous (rolling) 10-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. Water suppliers whose recycled water made up 10 percent or more of their 2008 retail water delivery can use up to a 15-year average for the calculation. Recycled water use was less than 10 percent of the City’s retail delivery in 2008; therefore, a 10-year baseline period is used. arcadis.com 2-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City’s baseline water use is 156.0 GPCD, obtained from the 10-year period July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2008. 2.5.1.2 Five-Year Baseline Period (Target Confirmation) Water suppliers are required to calculate water use, in GPCD, for a five-year baseline period. This number is used to confirm that the selected 2020 target meets the minimum water use reduction requirements. Regardless of the compliance option adopted by the City, it will need to meet a minimum water use target of 5 percent reduction from the five-year baseline water use. This five-year baseline water use is calculated as a continuous five-year average during a period, which ends no earlier than December 31, 2007 and no later than December 31, 2010. The City’s five-year baseline water use is 154.6 GPCD, obtained from the five-year period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008. 2.5.1.3 Service Area Population The City’s service area boundaries correspond with the boundaries for a city or census designated place. This allows the City to use service area population estimates prepared by the Department of Finance (DOF). The CDR at California State University, Fullerton, is the entity which compiles population data for Orange County based on DOF data. The calculation of the City’s baseline water use and water use targets in the 2010 UWMP was based on the 2000 U.S. Census population numbers obtained from CDR. The baseline water use and water use targets in this 2015 UWMP have been revised based on the 2010 U.S. Census population obtained from CDR in 2012. 2.5.2 SBx7-7 Water Use Targets In the 2015 UWMP, the City may update its 2020 water use target by selecting a different target method than what was used in 2010. The target methods and determination of the 2015 and 2020 targets are described below. 2.5.2.1 SBx7-7 Target Methods DWR has established four target calculation methods for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. The City is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: • Option 1 requires a simple 20 percent reduction from the baseline by 2020 and 10 percent by 2015. • Option 2 employs a budget-based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics o Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD o Landscape water use commensurate with the Model Landscape Ordinance o 10 percent reduction in baseline commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) water use • Option 3 is to achieve 95 percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. arcadis.com 2-12 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Option 4 requires the subtraction of Total Savings from the baseline GPCD: o Total savings includes indoor residential savings, meter savings, CII savings, and landscape and water loss savings. With MWDOC’s assistance in the calculation of the City’s base daily per capita use and water use targets, the City selected to comply with Option 3 consistent with the option selected in 2010. 2.5.2.2 2015 and 2020 Targets Under Compliance Option 3, to achieve 95 percent of the South Coast Hydrologic Region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the City’s 2015 target is 148.8 GPCD and the 2020 target is 141.6 GPCD as summarized in Table 2-9. The 2015 target is the midway value between the 10- year baseline and the confirmed 2020 target. In addition, the confirmed 2020 target needs to meet a minimum of 5 percent reduction from the five-year baseline water use. Table 2-9: Baselines and Targets Summary Baselines and Targets Summary Retail Agency Baseline Period Start Year End Year Average Baseline GPCD* 2015 Interim Target * Confirmed 2020 Target* 10-15 year 1998 2008 156 148.8 141.6 5 Year 2003 2008 154.6 *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Table 2-10 compares the City’s 2015 water use target to its actual 2015 consumption. Based on this comparison, the City is in compliance with its 2015 interim target and has already met the 2020 water use target. Table 2-10: 2015 Compliance 2015 Compliance Retail Agency Actual 2015 GPCD* 2015 Interim Target GPCD* Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015? Y/N 110 148.8 Yes *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: arcadis.com 2-13 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.5.3 Regional Alliance A retail supplier may choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or it may form a regional alliance with other retail suppliers to meet the water use target as a region. Within a Regional Alliance, each retail water supplier will have an additional opportunity to achieve compliance under both an individual target and a regional target. • If the Regional Alliance meets its water use target on a regional basis, all agencies in the alliance are deemed compliant. • If the Regional Alliance fails to meet its water use target, each individual supplier will have an opportunity to meet their water use targets individually. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC, its wholesaler. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County as described in MWDOC’s 2015 UWMP. MWDOC provides assistance in the calculation of each retail agency’s baseline water use and water use targets. In 2015, the regional baseline and targets were revised to account for any revisions made by the retail agencies to their individual 2015 and 2020 targets. The regional water use target is the weighted average of the individual retail agencies’ targets (by population). The Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance weighted 2015 target is 175.9 GPCD and 2020 target is 156.4 GPCD. The actual 2015 water use in the region is 125 GPCD, i.e. the region has already met its 2020 GPCD goal. arcadis.com 2-14 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 WATER SOURCES AND SUPPLY RELIABILITY 3.1 Overview The City relies on a combination of imported water and local groundwater to meet its water needs. The City works together with three primary agencies, Metropolitan, MWDOC, and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and SWP provided by Metropolitan and delivered through MWDOC. The City’s groundwater supply is drawn from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, also known as the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Currently, the City relies on 70 percent groundwater and 30 percent imported water. It is projected that through 2040, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The City’s projected water supply portfolio is shown on Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: Water Supply Sources in the City (AF) The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the City’s water sources as well as the future water supply portfolio for the next 25 years. Additionally, the City’s projected supply and demand under various hydrological conditions are compared to determine the City’s supply reliability for the 25 year planning horizon. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2,442 2,621 2,639 2,638 2,642 1,046 1,123 1,131 1,131 1,132 Groundwater Imported arcadis.com 3-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2 Imported Water The City supplements its local groundwater with imported water purchased from Metropolitan through MWDOC, which purchases it from Metropolitan. Imported water represents approximately 30 percent of the City’s total water supply. Metropolitan’s principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the CRA and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California via the SWP. The raw water obtained from these sources is, for Orange County, treated at Metropolitan’s Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the Metropolitan Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. Imported water is supplied to the City by MWDOC via West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB), which is a joint powers agency formed in 1955 with the purpose of providing a reliable imported water supply to its member agencies. MWDOC supplies WOCWB member agencies imported water through two turnouts, OC-9 and OC-35. WOCWB Feeder No. 2 originates at OC-35 and conveys water to the City as well as to the Cities of Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, and Westminster. The maximum flow capacity at the City’s turnout is 10 cfs. Imported water is conveyed to the City via the OC-35 Connection to the Metropolitan system. The connection is located at Springdale Street and Westminster Avenue and is shared with the City of Huntington Beach, who is responsible for operating the facility and communicating flow data to MWDOC and Metropolitan. The maximum capacity of the connection for the City is 9.9 cfs (Seal Beach, Water Master Plan Update, July 2012). 3.2.1 Colorado River Supplies The Colorado River was Metropolitan’s original source of water after Metropolitan’s establishment in 1928. The CRA, which is owned and operated by Metropolitan, transports water from the Colorado River to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The actual amount of water per year that may be conveyed through the CRA to Metropolitan’s member agencies is subject to the availability of Colorado River water for delivery. The CRA includes supplies from the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and related agreements to transfer water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. The 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement enabled California to implement major Colorado River water conservation and transfer programs, stabilizing water supplies for 75 years and reducing the state’s demand on the river to its 4.4 MAF entitlement. Colorado River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 million acre-feet (MAF) on an as-needed basis. Water from the Colorado River or its tributaries is available to users in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as to Mexico. California is apportioned the use of 4.4 MAF of water from the Colorado River each year plus one-half of any surplus that may be available for use collectively in Arizona, California, and Nevada. In addition, California has historically been allowed to use Colorado River water apportioned to but not used by Arizona or Nevada. Metropolitan has a basic entitlement of 550,000 AFY of Colorado River water, plus surplus water up to an additional 662,000 AFY when the following conditions exists (Metropolitan, 2015 Draft UWMP, March 2016): • Water unused by the California holders of priorities 1 through 3 arcadis.com 3-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Water saved by the Palo Verde land management, crop rotation, and water supply program • When the U.S. Secretary of the Interior makes available either one or both: o Surplus water is available o Colorado River water is apportioned to but unused by Arizona and/or Nevada Unfortunately, Metropolitan has not received surplus water for a number of years. The Colorado River supply faces current and future imbalances between water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin due to long term drought conditions. Over the past 16 years (2000-2015), there have only been three years when the Colorado River flow has been above average (Metropolitan, 2015 Draft UWMP, March 2016). The long-term imbalance in future supply and demand is projected to be approximately 3.2 MAF by the year 2060. Approximately 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its tributaries for water with 5.5 million acres of land using Colorado River water for irrigation. Climate change will affect future supply and demand as increasing temperatures may increase evapotranspiration from vegetation along with an increase in water loss due to evaporation in reservoirs, therefore reducing the available amount of supply from the Colorado River and exacerbating imbalances between increasing demands from rapid growth and decreasing supplies. Four water supply scenarios were developed around these uncertainties, each representing possible water supply conditions. These four scenarios are as follow: • Observed Resampled: future hydrologic trends and variability are similar to the past approximately 100 years. • Paleo Resampled: future hydrologic trends and variability are represented by reconstructions of streamflow for a much longer period in the past (approximately 1,250 years) that show expanded variability. • Paleo Conditioned: future hydrologic trends and variability are represented by a blend of the wet-dry states of the longer paleo-reconstructed period. • Downscaled General Circulation Model (GCM) Projected: future climate will continue to warm, with regional precipitation and temperature trends represented through an ensemble of future downscaled GCM projections. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Study) assessed the historical water supply in the Colorado River Basin through two historical streamflow data sets, from the year 1906 through 2007 and the paleo-reconstructed record from 762 through 2005. The following are findings from the study: • Increased temperatures in both the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins since the 1970s has been observed. • Loss of springtime snowpack was observed with consistent results across the lower elevation northern latitudes of the western United States. The large loss of snow at lower elevations strongly suggest the cause is due to shifts in temperature. arcadis.com 3-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • The deficit between the two year running average flow and the long-term mean annual flow that started in the year 2000 is more severe than any other deficit in the observed period, at nine years and 28 MAF deficit. • There are deficits of greater severity from the longer paleo record compared to the period from 1906 through 2005. One deficit amounted to 35 MAF through a span of 16 years. • A summary of the trends from the observed period suggest declining stream flows, increases in variability, and seasonal shifts in streamflow that may be related to shifts in temperature. Findings concerning the future projected supply were obtained from the Downscaled GCM Projected scenario as the other methods did not consider the impacts of a changing climate beyond what has occurred historically. These findings include: • Increased temperatures are projected across the Colorado River Basin with larger changes in the Upper Basin than in the Lower Basin. Annual Basin-wide average temperature is projected to increase by 1.3 degrees Celsius over the period through 2040. • Projected seasonal trends toward drying are significant in certain regions. A general trend towards drying is present in the Colorado River Basin, although increases in precipitation are projected for some higher elevation and hydrologically productive regions. Consistent and expansive drying conditions are projected for the spring and summer months throughout the Colorado River Basin, although some areas in the Lower Basin are projected to experience slight increases in precipitation, which is thought to be attributed to monsoonal influence in the region. Upper Basin precipitation is projected to increase in the fall and winter, and Lower Basin precipitation is projected to decrease. • Snowpack is projected to decrease due to precipitation falling as rain rather than snow and warmer temperatures melting the snowpack earlier. Areas where precipitation does not change or increase is projected to have decreased snowpack in the fall and early winter. Substantial decreases in spring snowpack are projected to be widespread due to earlier melt or sublimation of snowpack. • Runoff (both direct and base flow) is spatially diverse, but is generally projected to decrease, except in the northern Rockies. Runoff is projected to increase significantly in the higher elevation Upper Basin during winter but is projected to decrease during spring and summer. The following future actions must be taken to implement solutions and help resolve the imbalance between water supply and demand in areas that use Colorado River water (U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, December 2012): • Resolution of significant uncertainties related to water conservation, reuse, water banking, and weather modification concepts. • Costs, permitting issues, and energy availability issues relating to large-capacity augmentation projects need to be identified and investigated. • Opportunities to advance and improve the resolution of future climate projections should be pursued. • Consideration should be given to projects, policies, and programs that provide a wide-range of benefits to water users and healthy rivers for all users. arcadis.com 3-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2.2 State Water Project Supplies The SWP consists of a series of pump stations, reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, and power plants operated by DWR and is an integral part of the effort to ensure that business and industry, urban and suburban residents, and farmers throughout much of California have sufficient water. The SWP is the largest state-built, multipurpose, user-financed water project in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of residents in California receive at least part of their water from the SWP with approximately 70 percent of SWP’s contracted water supply going to urban users and 30 percent to agricultural users. The primary purpose of the SWP is to divert and store water during wet periods in Northern and Central California and distribute it to areas of need in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and southern California. The availability of water supplies from the SWP can be highly variable. A wet water year may be followed by a dry or critically dry year and fisheries issues can restrict the operations of the export pumps even when water supplies are available. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is key to the SWP’s ability to deliver water to its agricultural and urban contractors. All but five of the 29 SWP contractors receive water deliveries below the Delta (pumped via the Harvey O. Banks or Barker Slough pumping plants). However, the Delta faces many challenges concerning its long-term sustainability such as climate change posing a threat of increased variability in floods and droughts. Sea level rise complicates efforts in managing salinity levels and preserving water quality in the Delta to ensure a suitable water supply for urban and agricultural use. Furthermore, other challenges include continued subsidence of Delta islands, many of which are below sea level, and the related threat of a catastrophic levee failure as the water pressure increases, or as a result of a major seismic event. Ongoing regulatory restrictions, such as those imposed by federal biological opinions (Biops) on the effects of SWP and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) operations on certain marine life, also contributes to the challenge of determining the SWP’s water delivery reliability. In dry, below-normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies delivered through the California Aqueduct by developing flexible CVP/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of the storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry-year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Harvey O. Banks pumping plant capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has set water quality objectives that must be met by the SWP including minimum Delta outflows, limits on SWP and CVP Delta exports, and maximum allowable salinity level. Metropolitan’s Board approved a Delta Action Plan in June 2007 that provides a framework for staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan aims to prioritize immediate short-term actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid-term steps to maintain the Delta while a long-term solution is implemented. Currently, Metropolitan is working towards addressing three basin elements: Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, and flood control protection and storage development. “Table A” water is the maximum entitlement of SWP water for each water contracting agency. Currently, the combined maximum Table A amount is 4.17 MAFY. Of this amount, 4.13 MAFY is the maximum arcadis.com 3-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table A water available for delivery from the Delta pumps as stated in the State Water Contract. However, deliveries commonly are less than 50 percent of the Table A. SWP contractors may receive Article 21 water on a short-term basis in addition to Table A water if requested. Article 21 of SWP contracts allows contractors to receive additional water deliveries only under specific conditions, generally during wet months of the year (December through March). Because an SWP contractor must have an immediate use for Article 21 supply or a place to store it outside of the SWP, there are few contractors like Metropolitan that can access such supplies. . Carryover water is SWP water allocated to an SWP contractor and approved for delivery to the contractor in a given year but not used by the end of the year. The unused water is stored in the SWP’s share of San Luis Reservoir, when space is available, for the contractor to use in the following year. Turnback pool water is Table A water that has been allocated to SWP contractors that has exceeded their demands. This water can then be purchased by another contractor depending on its availability. SWP Delta exports are the water supplies that are transferred directly to SWP contractors or to San Luis Reservoir storage south of the Delta via the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant. Estimated average annual Delta exports and SWP Table A water deliveries have generally decreased since 2005, when Delta export regulations affecting SWP pumping operations became more restrictive due to the Biops. A summary of SWP water deliveries from the years 2005 and 2013 is summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Metropolitan Colorado River Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year Average Annual Delta Exports (MAF) Average Annual Table A Deliveries (MAF) 2005 2.96 2.82 2013 2.61 2.55 Percent Change -11.7% -9.4% The following factors affect the ability to estimate existing and future water delivery reliability: • Water availability at the source: Availability depends on the amount and timing of rain and snow that fall in any given year. Generally, during a single dry year or two, surface and groundwater storage can supply most water deliveries, but multiple dry years can result in critically low water reserves. • Water rights with priority over the SWP: Water users with prior water rights are assigned higher priority in DWR’s modeling of the SWP’s water delivery reliability, even ahead of SWP Table A water. • Climate change: mean temperatures are predicted to vary more significantly than previously expected. This change in climate is anticipated to bring warmer winter storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing total snowpack. From historical data, DWR projects that by 2050, the Sierra snowpack will be reduced from its historical average by 25 to 40 percent. Increased precipitation as rain could result in a larger number of “rain-on-snow” events, causing snow to melt earlier in the year and over fewer days than historically, affecting the availability of water for pumping by the SWP during summer. arcadis.com 3-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Regulatory restrictions on SWP Delta exports due to the Biops to protect special-status species such as delta smelt and spring- and winter-run Chinook salmon. Restrictions on SWP operations imposed by state and federal agencies contribute substantially to the challenge of accurately determining the SWP’s water delivery reliability in any given year. • Ongoing environmental and policy planning efforts: the California WaterFix involves water delivery improvements that could reduce salinity levels by diverting a greater amount of lower salinity Sacramento water to the South Delta export pumps. The EcoRestore Program aims to restore at least 30,000 acres of Delta habitat, and plans to be well on the way to meeting that goal by the year 2020. • Delta levee failure: The levees are vulnerable to failure because most original levees were simply built with soils dredged from nearby channels and were not engineered. A breach of one or more levees and island flooding could affect Delta water quality and SWP operations for several months. When islands are flooded, DWR may need to drastically decrease or even cease SWP Delta exports to evaluate damage caused by salinity in the Delta. The Delta Risk Management Strategy addresses the problem of Delta levee failure and evaluates alternatives to reduce the risk to the Delta. Four scenarios were developed to represent a range of possible risk reduction strategies (Department of Water Resources, The State Water Project Final Delivery Capability Report 2015, July 2015). They are: • Trial Scenario 1 Improved Levees: This scenario looks at improving the reliability of Delta levees against flood-induced failures by providing up to 100-year flood protection. The report found that improved levees would not reduce the risk of potential water export interruptions, nor would it change the seismic risk of most levees. • Trial Scenario 2 Armored Pathway: This scenario looks at improving the reliability of water conveyance by creating a route through the Delta that has high reliability and the ability to minimize saltwater intrusion into the south Delta. The report found that this scenario would have the joint benefit of reducing the likelihood of levee failures from flood events and earthquakes, and of significantly reducing the likelihood of export disruptions. • Trial Scenario 3 Isolated Conveyance: This scenario looks to provide high reliability for conveyance of export water by building an isolated conveyance facility on the east side of the Delta. The effects of this scenario are similar to those for Trial Scenario 2 but with the added consequence of seismic risk of levee failure on islands that are not part of the isolated conveyance facility. • Trial Scenario 4 Dual Conveyance: This scenario is a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3 as it looks to improve reliability and flexibility for conveyance of export water by constructing an isolated conveyance facility and through-Delta conveyance. It would mitigate the vulnerability of water exports associated with Delta levee failure and offer flexibility in water exports from the Delta and the isolated conveyance facility. However, seismic risk would not be reduced on islands not part of the export conveyance system or infrastructure pathway. DWR has altered the SWP operations to accommodate species of fish listed under the Biops, and these changes have adversely impacted SWP deliveries. DWR’s Water Allocation Analysis indicated that export arcadis.com 3-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN restrictions are currently reducing deliveries to Metropolitan as much as 150 TAF to 200 TAF under median hydrologic conditions. Operational constraints likely will continue until a long-term solution to the problems in the Bay-Delta is identified and implemented. New biological opinions for listed species under the Federal ESA or by the California Department of Fish and Game’s issuance of incidental take authorizations under the Federal ESA and California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and CVP operations. Additionally, new litigation, listings of additional species or new regulatory requirements could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. 3.2.3 Storage Storage is a major component of Metropolitan’s dry year resource management strategy. Metropolitan’s likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan, is dependent on its storage resources. Lake Oroville is the SWP’s largest storage facility, with a capacity of about 3.5 MAF. The water is released from Oroville Dam into the Feather River as needed, which converges with the Sacramento River while some of the water at Bethany Reservoir is diverted from the California Aqueduct into the South Bay Aqueduct. The primary pumping plant, the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant, pumps Delta water into the California Aqueduct, which is the longest water conveyance system in California. The City has three categories of storage, fire suppression, operational, and emergency. Fire suppression storage is the volume required to supply the service area with the minimum fire flows established by the Orange County Fire Authority. The required fire suppression storage is currently 1.10 MG, a 15 percent increase from the previous requirement of 0.96 MG. Operational storage equalizes variations in source of supply and demand over short period of time and to use as a source to fight fires. The required operational storage is currently 2.39 MG, a 15 percent increase from the previous requirement of 2.08 MG. Emergency storage is used in the event of an interruption in the primary water supply sources. The City does not require emergency storage since the City’s well capacity exceeds the existing average day demand. Therefore, the City is required to have a total storage amount of 3.48 MG. The City currently have 6.3 MG of usable storage, which far exceeds its required amount (Seal Beach, Water master Plan Update, July 2012). 3.3 Groundwater Historically, local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for the City. The City has four active wells that draw water from the Basin. The Basin has historically provided over 300,000 AFY of groundwater to residents in Orange County (Seal Beach, Water Master Plan Update, July 2012). arcadis.com 3-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.3.1 Basin Characteristics The Basin underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin managed by OCWD covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The Basin boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line to the northwest, where groundwater flows across the county line into the Central Groundwater Basin of Los Angeles County. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the Basin is over 20,000 feet, with only the upper 2,000 to 4,000 feet containing fresh water. The Pleistocene or younger aquifers comprising this Basin are over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The Basin’s full volume is approximately 66 MAF. There are three major aquifer systems that have been subdivided by OCWD, the Shallow Aquifer System, the Principal Aquifer System, and the Deep Aquifer System. These three aquifer systems are hydraulically connected as groundwater is able to flow between each other through intervening aquitards or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shall Aquifer system occurs from the surface to approximately 250 feet below ground surface. Most of the groundwater from this aquifer system is pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use. The Principal Aquifer system occurs at depths between 200 and 1,300 feet below ground surface. Over 90 percent of groundwater production is from wells that are screened within the Principal Aquifer system. Only a minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer system, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the center of the Basin. The three major aquifer systems are shown on Figure 3-2. arcadis.com 3-9 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 3-2: Map of the Orange County Groundwater Basin and its Major Aquifer Systems The OCWD was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the California State Legislature to protect and manage the County's vast, natural, groundwater supply using the best available technology and defend its water rights to the Basin. This legislation is found in the State of California Statutes, Water – Uncodified Acts, Act 5683, as amended. The Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily-imposed physical solution. Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the Basin and to protect against land subsidence. OCWD regulates groundwater levels in arcadis.com 3-10 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN the Basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). 3.3.2 Basin Production Percentage The Basin is not adjudicated and as such, pumping from the Basin is managed through a process that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump a sustainable amount of water. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing the basin production percentage (BPP), the percentage of each Producer’s total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the Basin. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed a Replenishment Assessment (RA). While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency pumps from the Basin, there is a financial disincentive to pump above the BPP. Agencies that pump above the BPP are charged the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA), which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is greater than MWDOC’s full service rate. The BEA can be increased to discourage production above the BPP. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers by OCWD on an annual basis. The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and Basin management objectives. The supplies available for recharge must be estimated for a given year. The supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: 1) Santa Ana River stormflow, 2) Natural incidental recharge, 3) Santa Ana River baseflow, 4) GWRS supplies, and 5) other supplies such as imported water and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. The BPP is a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production from the Basin for that year. In some cases, OCWD encourages treating and pumping groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the BEA Exemption. A BEA Exemption is used to clean up and contain the spread of poor quality water. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor quality groundwater. When OCWD authorizes a BEA exemption for a project, it is obligated to provide the replenishment water for the production above the BPP and forgoes the BEA revenue that OCWD would otherwise receive from the producer (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). 3.3.2.1 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan OCWD was formed in 1933 by the California legislature to manage and operate the Basin in order to protect and increase the Basin’s sustainable yield in a cost-effective manner. As previously mentioned, the BPP is the primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping in the Basin. In 2013, OCWD’s Board of Directors adopted a policy to establish a stable BPP with the intention to work toward achieving and maintaining a 75 percent BPP by FY 2015-16. Although BPP is set at 75 percent, based on discussions with OCWD a conservative BPP of 70 percent is assumed through 2040. Principles of this policy include: • OCWD’s goal is to achieve a stable 75 percent BPP, while maintaining the same process of setting the BPP on an annual basis, with the BPP set in April of each year after a public hearing has been held and based upon the public hearing testimony, presented data, and reports provided at that time. arcadis.com 3-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • OCWD would endeavor to transition to the 75 percent BPP between 2013 and 2015 as construction of the GWRS Initial Expansion Project is completed. This expansion will provide an additional 31,000 AFY of water for recharging the groundwater basin. • OCWD must manage the Basin in a sustainable manner for future generations. The BPP will be reduced if future conditions warrant the change. • Each project and program to achieve the 75 percent BPP goal will be reviewed individually and assessed for their economic viability. The Basin’s storage levels would be managed in accordance to the 75 percent BPP policy. It is presumed that the BPP will not decrease as long as the storage levels are between 100,000 and 300,000 AF from full capacity. If the Basin is less than 100,000 AF below full capacity, the BPP will be raised. If the Basin is over 350,000 AF below full capacity, additional supplies will be sought after to refill the Basin and the BPP will be lowered. The Basin is managed to maintain water storage levels of not more than 500,000 AF below full condition to avoid permanent and significant negative or adverse impacts. Operating the Basin in this manner enables OCWD to encourage reduced pumping during wet years when surface water supplies are plentiful and increase pumping during dry years to provide additional local water supplies during droughts. OCWD determines the optimum level of storage for the following year when it sets the BPP each year. Factors that affect this determination include the current storage level, regional water availability, and hydrologic conditions. When the Basin storage approaches the lower end of the operating range, immediate issues that must be addressed include seawater intrusion, increased risk of land subsidence, and potential for shallow wells to become inoperable due to lower water levels (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). 3.3.2.2 OCWD Engineer’s Report The OCWD Engineer’s Report reports on the groundwater conditions and investigates information related to water supply and Basin usage within OCWD’s service area. The overall BPP achieved in the 2013 to 2014 water year within OCWD for non-irrigation use was 75.2 percent. However, a BPP level above 75 percent may be difficult to achieve. Therefore, a BPP ranging from 65 percent to 70 percent is currently being proposed for the ensuing FY 2015-16. Analysis of the Basin’s projected accumulated overdraft, the available supplies to the Basin (assuming average hydrology) and the projected pumping demands indicate that this level of pumping can be sustained for 2015-16 without harming the Basin. A BPP of 70 percent corresponds to approximately 320,000 AF of groundwater production including 22,000 AF of groundwater production above the BPP to account for several groundwater quality enhancement projects discussed earlier. In FY 2015-16 additional production of approximately 22,000 AF above the BPP will be undertaken by the City of Tustin, City of Garden Grove, Mesa Water District, and Irvine Ranch Water District. These agencies use the additional pumping allowance in order to accommodate groundwater quality improvement projects. As in prior years, production above the BPP from these projects would be partially arcadis.com 3-12 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN or fully exempt from the BEA as a result of the benefit provided to the Basin by removing poor-quality groundwater and treating it for beneficial use (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer’s Report, February 2015). 3.3.3 Groundwater Recharge Facilities Recharging water into the Basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the Basin. Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the Basin and consequently the threat of seawater intrusion. The Basin’s primary source of recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River, which is diverted into recharge basins and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration, recycled water, and imported water. Natural recharge consists of subsurface inflow from local hills and mountains, infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Recycled water for the Basin is from two sources. The main source of recycled water is from the GWRS and is recharged in the surface water system and the Talbert Seawater Barrier. The second source of recycled water is the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility which supplies water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier. Injection of recycled water into these barriers is an effort by OCWD to control seawater intrusion into the Basin. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. Untreated imported water can be used to recharge the Basin through the surface water recharge system in multiple locations, such as Anaheim Lake, Santa Ana River, Irvine Lake, and San Antonio Creek. Treated imported water can be used for in-lieu recharge, as was performed extensively from 1977 to 2007 (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). 3.3.4 Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program OCWD, MWDOC, and Metropolitan have developed a successful and efficient groundwater replenishment program to increase storage in the Basin. The Groundwater Replenishment Program allows Metropolitan to sell groundwater replenishment water to OCWD and make direct deliveries to agency distribution systems in lieu of producing water from the groundwater basin when surplus surface water is available. This program indirectly replenishes the Basin by avoiding pumping. In the in-lieu program, OCWD requests an agency to halt pumping from specified wells. The agency then takes replacement water through its import connections, which is purchased by OCWD from Metropolitan (through MWDOC). OCWD purchases the water at a reduced rate, and then bills the agency for the amount it would have had to pay for energy and the Replenishment Assessment (RA) if it had produced the water from its wells. The deferred local production results in water being left in local storage for future use. 3.3.5 Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program Since 2004, OCWD, MWDOC, and certain groundwater producers have participated in Metropolitan’s Conjunctive Use Program (CUP). This program allows for the storage of Metropolitan water in the \ Basin. The existing Metropolitan program provides storage up to 66,000 AF of water in the Basin in exchange for Metropolitan’s contribution to improvements in basin management facilities. These improvements include eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the seawater intrusion barrier, and construction arcadis.com 3-13 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline. The water is accounted for via the CUP program administered by the wholesale agencies and is controlled by Metropolitan such that it can be withdrawn over a three-year time period (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer’s Report, February 2015). 3.3.6 Groundwater Historical Extraction The City pumps groundwater through its four wells. Pumping limitations set by the BPP and the pumping capacity of the wells are the only constraints affecting the groundwater supply to the City. A summary of the groundwater volume pumped by the City is shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF) Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Alluvial Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,204 2,278 2,563 2,727 2,734 TOTAL 2,204 2,278 2,563 2,727 2,734 NOTES: 3.3.7 Overdraft Conditions Annual groundwater basin overdraft, as defined in OCWD's Act, is the quantity by which production of groundwater supplies exceeds natural replenishment of groundwater supplies during a water year. This difference between extraction and replenishment can be estimated by determining the change in volume of groundwater in storage that would have occurred had supplemental water not been used for any groundwater recharge purpose, including seawater intrusion protection, advanced water reclamation, and the in-Lieu Program. The annual analysis of basin storage change and accumulated overdraft for water year 2013-14 has been completed. Based on the three-layer methodology, an accumulated overdraft of 342,000 AF was calculated for the water year ending June 30, 2014. The accumulated overdraft for the water year ending June 30, 2013 was 242,000 AF, which was also calculated using the three-layer storage method. Therefore, an annual decrease of 100,000 AF in stored groundwater was calculated as the difference between the June 2013 and June 2014 accumulated overdrafts (OCWD, 2013-2014 Engineer’s Report, February 2015). 3.4 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water The actual sources and volume of water for the year 2015 is displayed in Table 3-3. arcadis.com 3-14 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 3-3: Water Supplies, Actual (AF) Retail: Water Supplies — Actual Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply 2015 Actual Volume Water Quality Groundwater Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,734 Drinking Water Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 787 Drinking Water Total 3,521 NOTES: arcadis.com 3-15 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A summary of the current and planned sources of water for the City is shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Water Supplies, Projected (AF) Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply Report To the Extent Practicable 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 1,046 1,123 1,131 1,131 1,132 Groundwater Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,442 2,621 2,639 2,638 2,642 Total 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 NOTES: arcadis.com 3-16 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.5 Recycled Water The City does not own or operate any wastewater or recycled water facilities. More information concerning how the City handles its wastewater can be found in Section 6. 3.6 Supply Reliability 3.6.1 Overview Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of their water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to ensure it has adequate supplies. Development of numerous local augment the reliability of the imported water system. There are various factors that may impact reliability of supplies such as legal, environmental, water quality and climatic which are discussed below. The water supplies are projected to meet full-service demands; Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet, full-service demands of its member agencies starting 2020 through 2040 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. Metropolitan’s 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resources that will be used to meet full-service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2020 through 2040. The foundation of Metropolitan’s resource strategy for achieving regional water supply reliability has been to develop and implement water resources programs and activities through its IRP preferred resource mix. This preferred resource mix includes conservation, local resources such as water recycling and groundwater recovery, Colorado River supplies and transfers, SWP supplies and transfers, in-region surface reservoir storage, in-region groundwater storage, out-of- region banking, treatment, conveyance and infrastructure improvements. 3.6.2 Factors Impacting Reliability The Act requires a description of water supply reliability and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. The following are some of the factors identified by Metropolitan that may have an impact on the reliability of Metropolitan supplies. 3.6.2.1 Environment Endangered species protection needs in the Delta have resulted in operational constraints to the SWP system, as mentioned previously in the State Water Project Supplies section. 3.6.2.2 Legal The addition of more species under the Endangered Species Act and new regulatory requirements could impact SWP operations by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. arcadis.com 3-17 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.6.2.3 Water Quality 3.6.2.3.1 Imported Water Metropolitan is responsible for providing high quality potable water throughout its service area. Over 300,000 water quality tests are performed per year on Metropolitan’s water to test for regulated contaminants and additional contaminants of concern to ensure the safety of its waters. Metropolitan’s supplies originate primarily from the CRA and from the SWP. A blend of these two sources, proportional to each year’s availability of the source, is then delivered throughout Metropolitan’s service area. Metropolitan’s primary water sources face individual water quality issues of concern. The CRA water source contains higher total dissolved solids (TDS) and the SWP contains higher levels of organic matter, lending to the formation of disinfection byproducts. To remediate the CRA’s high level of salinity and the SWP’s high level of organic matter, Metropolitan blends CRA and SWP supplies and has upgraded all of its treatment facilities to include ozone treatment processes. In addition, Metropolitan has been engaged in efforts to protect its Colorado River supplies from threats of uranium, perchlorate, and chromium VI while also investigating the potential water quality impact of emerging contaminants, N- nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). While unforeseeable water quality issues could alter reliability, Metropolitan’s current strategies ensure the deliverability of high quality water. The presence of Quagga Mussels in water sources is a water quality concern. Quagga Mussels are an invasive species that was first discovered in 2007 at Lake Mead, on the Colorado River. This species of mussels form massive colonies in short periods of time, disrupting ecosystems and blocking water intakes. They are capable of causing significant disruption and damage to water distribution systems. Controlling the spread and impacts of this invasive species within the CRA requires extensive maintenance and results in reduced operational flexibility. It also resulted in Metropolitan eliminating deliveries of CRA water into Diamond Valley Lake to keep the reservoir free from Quagga Mussels. 3.6.2.3.2 Groundwater OCWD is responsible for managing the Basin. To maintain groundwater quality, OCWD conducts an extensive monitoring program that serves to manage the Basin’s groundwater production, control groundwater contamination, and comply with all required laws and regulations. A network of nearly 700 wells provides OCWD a source for samples, which are tested for a variety of purposes. OCWD collects 600 to 1,700 samples each month to monitor Basin water quality. These samples are collected and tested according to approved federal and state procedures as well as industry-recognized quality assurance and control protocols. Salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of southern California, including Orange County. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water including both TDS and nitrates. OCWD continuously monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the Basin. TDS currently has a California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 500 mg/L. The portions of the Basin with the highest levels are generally located in the Cites of Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and Fullerton. There is also a broad area in the central portion of the Basin where TDS ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Sources of TDS include the water supplies used to recharge the Basin and from onsite wastewater arcadis.com 3-18 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN treatment systems, also known as septic systems. The TDS concentration in the Basin is expected to decrease over time as the TDS concentration of GWRS water used to recharge the Basin is approximately 50 mg/L. Nitrates are one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies, originating from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. The MCL for nitrate in drinking water is set at 10 mg/L. OCWD regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with producers to treat wells that have exceeded safe levels of nitrate concentrations. OCWD manages the nitrate concentration of water recharged by its facilities to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater. This includes the operation of the Prado Wetlands, which was designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted to be percolated into OCWD’s surface water recharge system. Although water from the Deep Aquifer System is of very high quality, it is amber-colored and contains a sulfuric odor due to buried natural organic material. These negative aesthetic qualities require treatment before use as a source of drinking water. The total volume of the amber-colored groundwater is estimated to be approximately 1 MAF. Other contaminants that OCWD monitors within the Basin include: • Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) – MTBE is an additive to gasoline that increases octane ratings but became a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. The greatest source of MTBE contamination comes from underground fuel tank releases. The primary MCL for MTBE in drinking water is 13 µg/L. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – VOCs come from a variety of sources including industrial degreasers, paint thinners, and dry cleaning solvents. Locations of VOC contamination within the Basin include the former El Toro marine Corps Air Station, the Shall Aquifer System, and portions of the Principal Aquifer System in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. • N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) – NDMA is a compound that can occur in wastewater that contains its precursors and is disinfected via chlorination and/or chloramination. It is also found in food products such as cured meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 ng/L and the Response Level is 300 ng/L. In the past, NDMA has been found in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier, which was traced to industrial wastewater dischargers. • 1,4-Dioxane – 1,4-Dioxane is a suspected human carcinogen. It is used as a solvent in various industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes. • Perchlorate – Perchlorate enters groundwater through application of fertilizer containing perchlorate, water imported from the Colorado River, industrial or military sites that have perchlorate, and natural occurrence. Perchlorate was not detected in 84 percent of the 219 production wells tested between the years 2010 through 2014. • Selenium – Selenium is a naturally occurring micronutrient found in soils and groundwater in the Newport Bay watershed. The bio-accumulation of selenium in the food chain may result in deformities, stunted growth, reduced hatching success, and suppression of immune systems in fish and wildlife. Management of selenium is difficult as there is no off-the-shelf treatment technology available. arcadis.com 3-19 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN • Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) – CECs are either synthetic or naturally occurring substances that are not currently regulated in water supplies or wastewater discharged but can be detected using very sensitive analytical techniques. The newest group of CECs include pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors. OCWD’s laboratory is one of a few in the state of California that continuously develops capabilities to analyze for new compounds (OCWD, Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, June 2015). 3.6.2.4 Climate Change Changing climate patterns are expected to shift precipitation patterns and affect water supply. Unpredictable weather patterns will make water supply planning more challenging. The areas of concern for California include a reduction in Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels causing increased risk of Delta levee failure, seawater intrusion of coastal groundwater basins, and potential cutbacks on the SWP and CVP. The major impact in California is that without additional surface storage, the earlier and heavier runoff (rather than snowpack retaining water in storage in the mountains), will result in more water being lost to the oceans. A heavy emphases on storage is needed in the State of California. In addition, the Colorado River Basin supplies have been inconsistent since about the year 2000, resulting in 13 of the last 16 years of the upper basin runoff being below normal. Climate models are predicting a continuation of this pattern whereby hotter and drier weather conditions will result in continuing lower runoff. Legal, environmental, and water quality issues may have impacts on Metropolitan supplies. It is felt, however, that climatic factors would have more of an impact than legal, water quality, and environmental factors. Climatic conditions have been projected based on historical patterns but severe pattern changes are still a possibility in the future. 3.6.3 Normal-Year Reliability Comparison The City has entitlements to receive imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC via connection to Metropolitan's regional distribution system. Although pipeline and connection capacity rights do not guarantee the availability of water, per se, they do guarantee the ability to convey water when it is available to the Metropolitan distribution system. All imported water supplies are assumed available to the City from existing water transmission facilities. The demand and supplies listed below also include local groundwater supplies that are available to the City through OCWD by a pre-determined pumping percentage. For the 2015 UWMP, the normal dry year was selected as the City’s 2015 demand. Due to ongoing drought conditions within California and the increased implementation of mitigation measures, 2015 was determined to represent an average water demand for this UWMP. 3.6.4 Single-Dry Year Reliability Comparison A Single-dry year is defined as a single year of no to minimal rainfall within a period that average precipitation is expected to occur. The City has documented that it is 100 percent reliable for single dry year demands from 2020 through 2040 with a demand increase of 6 percent using FY 2013-14 as the arcadis.com 3-20 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN single dry-year. This percentage was determined by MWDOC based on historical data for all of its retail agencies through the “Bump Methodology” that is explained in Appendix G. 3.6.5 Multiple-Dry Year Period Reliability Comparison Multiple-dry years are defined as three or more years with minimal rainfall within a period of average precipitation. The City is capable of meeting all customers’ demands with significant reserves held by Metropolitan, local groundwater supplies, and conservation in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040 with a demand increase of 6 percent using FY 2011-12 through FY 2013-14 as the driest years. MWDOC chose the highest average demand over a three year period for the multi-dry year demand increase. This value was repeated over the three year span as a conservative assumption where demand would increase significantly in a prolonged drought and would remain constant through the years. The basis of the water year is displayed in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Retail: Bases of Water Year Data Retail: Basis of Water Year Data Year Type Base Year If not using a calendar year, type in the last year of the fiscal, water year, or range of years, for example, water year 1999-2000, use 2000 Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP. Location __________________________ Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both. Volume Available % of Average Supply Average Year 2015 100% Single-Dry Year 2014 106% Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 2012 106% Multiple-Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 106% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 106% NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Demand Bump Methodology 3.7 Supply and Demand Assessment A comparison between the supply and demand for projected years between 2020 and 2040 is shown in Table 3-6. As stated above, the available supply will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. arcadis.com 3-21 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 3-6: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Demand totals 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: A comparison between the supply and the demand in a single dry year and multiple dry years are shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. As stated above, the available supply will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures. Table 3-7: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Table 3-8: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 First year Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Second year Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Third year Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology arcadis.com 3-22 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The Demand Management Measures (DMM) section is provides a comprehensive description of the water conservation programs that a supplier has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans to implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets. The reporting requirements for DMM were significantly modified and streamlined in 2014 by Assembly Bill 2067. For a retail agency such as the City the requirements changed from having 14 specific measures to six more general requirements plus an “other” category. 4.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances City Council adopted a Water and Water Conservation ordinance (Ordinance 1586) on June 8, 2009 revising and supplementing the City’s previous water conservation provisions. The ordinance established provisions for leak repair, runoff prevention, limits on watering hours and duration, and serving water at restaurants, excessive runoff from landscape irrigation, use of hose outdoors without a shut off nozzle, use of single pass cooling systems, and use of decorative water features with no recirculation, among other prohibitions against waste. The ordinance has a permanent water conservation clause i.e. the City’s water conservation ordinance is effective at all times and is not dependent upon a water shortage for implementation. In the event of a water supply shortage, the ordinance established provisions for three water conservation phases associated with increasingly restrictive prohibitions. Phase 1 corresponds to a water supply shortage or a threatened shortage, Phase 2 corresponds to a severe water supply shortage, and Phase 3 corresponds to an emergency condition. The provisions and water conservation measures to be implemented in response to each shortage phase are described in Section 5 of the UWMP. The City’s water conservation ordinance is included in Appendix D. Implementation of the City’s water conservation ordinance over the past five years, from 2010 through 2015, involved making significant efforts to educate the public of the ordinance and the provisions, and generate drought awareness. Water customers were notified via billing inserts about the drought and water conservation ordinance, and the conservation measures required therein. There have been newspaper articles and internet articles regarding the ordinance. The ordinance is highlighted on the City’s website. All Public Works Department vehicles have magnetic signs promoting water conservation. The City sent letters to all restaurant owners in the City advising them of the restrictions on serving water to customers. The letters included table placards to notify the public of the reason water was not being served. City staff has been trained on the provisions of the ordinance. Any time they observe a violation they take the opportunity to education the public on the requirements of the ordinance. The enforcement provisions of the ordinance allow for a three step enforcement program. The first step is a written notice from the City outlining the violation and the corrective measures needed. The second step allows for a 15 percent surcharge added to the water bill of the offending customer. The third step is for the City to install a flow restrictor on the water service. Violators are provided an appeal process. All citations and violations are reported annually. Over the period of this DMM implementation the City has seen a reduction in the number of violations. arcadis.com 4-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 4-1 summarizes the City’s water waste prohibition efforts in the past five years and the projected number of site visits and expenditures related to Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations. Table 4-1: Water Waste Prohibition Actual 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Waste Ordinance in Effect Y Y Y Y Y # of On-Site Visits 418 1309 Actual Expenditures ($) 43,446.75 76,665.00 Actual 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Waste Ordinance in Effect Y Y Y Y Y # of On-Site Visits 720 600 600 600 600 Actual Expenditures ($) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.2 Metering The City is fully metered for all customer sectors, including separate meters for single-family and multi- family residential, CII, dedicated landscape, and City-owned meters. The City will continue to install and read meters on all new services. The City’s program for meter replacement and calibration consists of replacing meters when stuck or when meters are reading low or high. After replacement, they are subsequently tested by flow testing and calibration. The City utilizes direct or touch meter reading. 4.3 Conservation Pricing The City has a two-tier inclining block rate structure for residential and commercial customer sectors. Other customer sectors are charged a uniform rate of $2.56 per HCF. The water rate also includes a minimum fixed charge based on meter size. The current residential rates are provided in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Seal Beach Water Usage Rates Tier Water Rate ($/CCF) Tier Allocation 1 $2.23/HCF 0 – 26 HCF 2 $2.88/HCF 27+ HCF Tier allocation for commercial customers is based on the customer’s meter size – more water is allocated to Block 1 for larger meters. The block consumption rates are the same for the two blocks for all meter size from 5/8”-3/4” to 10” at $2.25 per HCF for Block 1 and $2.81 per HCF for Block 2. For 12” meters, the consumption rates are $2.23 per HCF for Block 1 and $2.88 per HCF for Block 2. The City’s conservation pricing structure is always in place and is not dependent upon a water shortage for implementation. Although the rate structure includes a drought rate structure that would be arcadis.com 4-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN implemented as needed. Drought rate structures and surcharges are addressed in the Water Shortage Contingency Planning section. 4.4 Public Education and Outreach The City’s public education and outreach program is administered by its wholesaler, MWDOC. MWDOC has established an extensive public education and outreach program to assist its retail agencies in promoting water use efficiency awareness within their service areas. MWDOC’s public education and outreach programs consist of five primary activities as described below. In addition to the primary programs it administers, MWDOC also maintains a vibrant public website (www.mwdoc.com) as well as a social media presence on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. MWDOC’s Facebook page has more than 1,200 followers. The social media channels are used to educate the public about water-efficiency, rates and other water-related issues. The City also implements additional public education and outreach program on its own. The City distributes public information through bill inserts, brochures, and special events every year. The City (Public Works Department) also maintains a website, which includes information on water usage, conservation, and other resource issues. MWDOC's public education and outreach programs are described below: School Education Programs MWDOC school education programs reach more than 100,000 students per year. The program is broken into elementary and high school components. • Elementary School Program reaches 60,000 students throughout Orange County through assemblies hosted by the Discovery Science Center. MWDOC holds a $220,000 contract with the Discovery Science Center, funded proportionally by the participating MWDOC retail agencies. • High School Program is new in 2015-16 and will reach students in 20 high schools in Orange County. The program is administered by MWDOC and operated by two contractors, the OC Department of Education and the Ecology Center. Through the three-year contract, those agencies will train more than 100 county teachers on water education on topics such as, water sources, water conservation, water recycling, watersheds, and ecological solutions for the benefit of their current and future students. Teachers will learn a variety of water conservation methods, such as irrigation technology, rainwater harvesting, water recycling, and water foot printing through a tour at the Ecology Center facility. These trainings allow teachers to support student - led conservation efforts. The program will reach a minimum of 25,000 students by providing in- classroom water education and helping students plan and implement campus wide “Water Expos” that will allow peer-to-peer instruction on water issues. The $80,000 program is funded by participating agencies. arcadis.com 4-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Value of Water Communication Program MWDOC administers this program on behalf of 14 agencies. The $190,000 program involves the water agencies developing 30 full news pages that will appear weekly in the Orange County Register, the largest newspaper in the county, with a Sunday readership of 798,000. The campaign will educate OC residents and business leaders on water infrastructure issues and water efficiency measures, as well as advertise water related events and other pertinent information. Quarterly Water Policy Dinners The Water Policy Dinner events attract 225 to 300 water and civic leaders every quarter. The programs host speakers topical to the OC water industry, with recent addresses from Felicia Marcus of the state water board and Dr. Lucy Jones, a noted expert on earthquakes and their potential impact on infrastructure. Annual Water Summit The annual Water Summit brings together 300 Orange County water and civic leaders with state and national experts on water infrastructure and governance issues. The half-day event has a budget of $80,000 per year. Portions of the cost are covered by attendance and sponsorships, while MWDOC splits a portion with its event partner, OCWD. Water Inspection Trips Water Inspection trips take stakeholders on tours of the CRA, California Delta and other key water infrastructure sites. The public trips are required under Metropolitan’s regulations. While Metropolitan covers the cost of the trips, MWDOC has two members of the public affairs staff that work diligently on identifying OC residents and leaders to attend. MWDOC staff also attends each trip. In the past year, MWDOC participated in a dozen trips, each taking an average of 30 residents. MWDOC also works with Metropolitan on special trips to educate County Grand Jurors the key water infrastructure. 4.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss The City has been conducting water audits and leak detection and repair since 1991 in order to assess and manage distribution system real loss. The City performs water audit and leak detection when it receives high bill complaints from customers. It has also incorporated meter calibration (production and customer meters) programs into its utility operations. City staff is trained at AWWA sponsored training programs. On average, City Water Department crews spend about 30 days surveying approximately 10 miles of main and laterals per year. The City replaces and/or calibrates a minimum of 250 meters per year, which is approximately 5 percent of the total meters in the system. The City also has an annual valve exercise program, to ensure that interconnections with adjacent utilities actually work. The City repairs leaks in the distribution system as they occur. arcadis.com 4-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City does not have an advanced program in place to detect leaks. Leaks are repaired when they are visually identified at meters and valves or along mainlines after observing leakage protruding through the ground surface. Senate Bill 1420 signed into law in September 2014 requires urban water suppliers that submit UWMPs to calculate annual system water losses using the water audit methodology developed by the American Water works Association (AWWA). SB 1420 requires the water loss audit be submitted to DWR every five years as part of the urban water supplier’s UWMP. Water auditing is the basis for effective water loss control. DWR’s UWMP Guidebook include a water audit manual intended to help water utilities complete the AWWA Water Audit on an annual basis. A Water Loss Audit was completed for the City which identified areas for improvement and quantified total loss. Based on the data presented, the three priority areas identified were water imported, billed metered water, and unauthorized consumption. Multiple criteria are a part of each validity score and a system wide approach will need to be implemented for the City’s improvement. Quantified water loss for the FY 2014-15 was 159 AFY which is a significant volume and presents opportunities for improvement. 4.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City’s Public Works Director provides oversight of the City’s water use efficiency programs while the Deputy Director performs day-to-day water conservation coordinator activities and acts as the liaison between the City’s water department, Metropolitan, MWDOC, and other parties. The City has also hired a consultant to assist with the implementation of the Water Conservation Ordinance by conduct public outreach and inspection. Sources of funding for the City’s water conservation program include the City’s General Water Funds and Proprietary Funds. 4.7 Other Demand Management Measures During the past five years, FY 2010-11 to 2014-15, the City, with the assistance of MWDOC, has implemented many water use efficiency programs for its residential, CII, and landscape customers as described below. Appendix H provides quantities of rebates and installations achieved under each program since program inception. The City will continue to implement all applicable programs in the next five years. 4.7.1 Residential Programs Water Smart Home Survey Program The Water Smart Home Survey Program provides free home water surveys (indoor and outdoor). The Water Smart Home Survey Program uses a Site Water Use Audit program format to perform comprehensive, single-family home audits. Residents choose to have outdoor (and indoor, if desired) audits to identify opportunities for water savings throughout their properties. A customized home water audit report is provided after each site audit is completed and provides the resident with their survey results, rebate information, and an overall water score. arcadis.com 4-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program The High Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW) Rebate Program provides residential customers with rebates for purchasing and installing WaterSense labeled HECWs. HECWs use 35-50 percent less water than standard washer models, with savings of approximately 9,000 gallons per year, per device. Devices must have a water factor of 4.0 or less, and a listing of qualified products can be found at ocwatersmart.com. There is a maximum of one rebate per home. High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program The largest amount of water used inside a home, 30 percent, goes toward flushing the toilet. The High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebate Program offers incentives to residential customers for replacing their standard, water-guzzling toilets with HETs. HETs use just 1.28 gallons of water or less per flush, which is 20 percent less water than standard toilets. In addition, HETS save an average of 38 gallons of water per day while maintaining high performance standards. 4.7.2 CII Programs Water Smart Hotel Program Water used in hotels and other lodging businesses accounts for approximately 15 percent of the total water use in commercial and institutional facilities in the United States. The Water Smart Hotel Program provides water use surveys, customized facility reports, technical assistance, and enhanced incentives to hotels that invest in water use efficiency improvements. Rebates available include high efficiency toilets, ultralow volume urinals, air-cooled ice machines, weather-based irrigation controllers, and rotating nozzles. Socal Water$mart Rebate Program for CII The City through MWDOC offers financial incentives under the Socal Water$mart Rebate Program which offers rebates for various water efficient devices to CII customers, such as high efficiency toilets, ultralow volume urinals, connectionless food steamers, air-cooled ice machines, pH-cooling towers controller, and dry vacuum pumps. 4.7.3 Landscape Programs Turf Removal Program The Orange County Turf Removal Program offers incentives to remove non-recreational turf grass from commercial properties throughout the County. This program is a partnership between MWDOC, Metropolitan, and local retail water agency. The goals of this program are to increase water use efficiency within Orange County, reduce runoff leaving the properties, and evaluate the effectiveness of turf removal as a water-saving practice. Participants are encouraged to replace their turf grass with drought-tolerant landscaping, diverse plant palettes, and artificial turf, and they are encouraged to retrofit their irrigation systems with Smart Timers and drip irrigation (or to remove it entirely). Water Smart Landscape Program MWDOC’s Water Smart Landscape Program is a free water management tool for homeowner associations, landscapers, and property managers. Participants in the program use the Internet to track arcadis.com 4-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN their irrigation meter’s monthly water use and compare it to a custom water budget established by the program. This enables property managers and landscapers to easily identify areas that are over/under watered and enhances their accountability to homeowner association boards. Smart Timer Rebate Program Smart Timers are irrigation clocks that are either weather-based irrigation controllers (WBICs) or soil moisture sensor systems. WBICs adjust automatically to reflect changes in local weather and site-specific landscape needs, such as soil type, slopes, and plant material. When WBICs are programmed properly, turf and plants receive the proper amount of water throughout the year. During the fall months, when property owners and landscape professionals often overwater, Smart Timers can save significant amounts of water. Rotating Nozzles Rebate Program The Rotating Nozzle Rebate Program provides incentives to residential and commercial properties for the replacement of high-precipitation rate spray nozzles with low-precipitation rate multi-stream, multi- trajectory rotating nozzles. The rebate offered through this Program aims to offset the cost of the device and installation. Spray to Drip Rebate Program The Spray to Drip Pilot Rebate Program offers residential and commercial customers rebates for converting planting areas irrigated by spray heads to drip irrigation. Drip irrigation systems are very water- efficient. Rather than spraying wide areas, drip systems use point emitters to deliver water to specific locations at or near plant root zones. Water drips slowly from the emitters either onto the soil surface or below ground. As a result, less water is lost to wind and evaporation. Socal Water$mart Rebate Program for Landscape The City through MWDOC also offers financial incentives under the SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program for a variety of water efficient landscape devices, such as Central Computer Irrigation Controllers, large rotary nozzles, and in-stem flow regulators. arcadis.com 4-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN 5.1 Overview In connection with recent water supply challenges, the State Water Resources Control Board found that California has been subject to multi-year droughts in the past, and the Southwest is becoming drier, increasing the probability of prolonged droughts in the future. Due to current and potential future water supply shortages, Governor Brown issued a drought emergency proclamation on January 2014 and signed the 2014 Executive Order that directs urban water suppliers to implement drought response plans to limit outdoor irrigation and wasteful water practices if they are not already in place. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 106, it is the declared policy of the state that domestic water use is the highest use of water and the next highest use is irrigation. This section describes the water supply shortage policies Metropolitan, MWDOC, and the City have in place to respond to events including catastrophic interruption and reduction in water supply. 5.2 Shortage Actions 5.2.1 Metropolitan Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan Metropolitan evaluates the level of supplies available and existing levels of water in storage to determine the appropriate management stage annually. Each stage is associated with specific resource management actions to avoid extreme shortages to the extent possible and minimize adverse impacts to retail customers should an extreme shortage occur. The sequencing outlined in the Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan reflects anticipated responses towards Metropolitan’s existing and expected resource mix. Surplus stages occur when net annual deliveries can be made to water storage programs. Under the WSDM Plan, there are four surplus management stages that provides a framework for actions to take for surplus supplies. Deliveries in DVL and in SWP terminal reservoirs continue through each surplus stage provided there is available storage capacity. Withdrawals from DVL for regulatory purposes or to meet seasonal demands may occur in any stage. The W SDM Plan distinguishes between shortages, severe shortages, and extreme shortages. The differences between each term is listed below. • Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full-service demands and partially meet or fully meet interruptible demands using stored water or water transfers as necessary. • Severe Shortage: Metropolitan can meet full-service demands only by using stored water, transfers, and possibly calling for extraordinary conservation. • Extreme Shortage: Metropolitan must allocate available supply to full-service customers. There are six shortage management stages to guide resource management activities. These stages are defined by shortfalls in imported supply and water balances in Metropolitan’s storage programs. When Metropolitan must make net withdrawals from storage to meet demands, it is considered to be in a shortage condition. Figure 5-1 gives a summary of actions under each surplus and shortage stages when arcadis.com 5-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN an allocation plan is necessary to enforce mandatory cutbacks. The goal of the WSDM plan is to avoid Stage 6, an extreme shortage. Figure 5-1: Resource Stages, Anticipated Actions, and Supply Declarations Metropolitan’s Board of Directors adopted a Water Supply Condition Framework in June 2008 in order to communicate the urgency of the region’s water supply situation and the need for further water conservation practices. The framework has four conditions, each calling increasing levels of conservation. Descriptions for each of the four conditions are listed below: • Baseline Water Use Efficiency: Ongoing conservation, outreach, and recycling programs to achieve permanent reductions in water use and build storage reserves. • Condition 1 Water Supply Watch: Local agency voluntary dry-year conservation measures and use of regional storage reserves. • Condition 2 Water Supply Alert: Regional call for cities, counties, member agencies, and retail water agencies to implement extraordinary conservation through drought ordinances and other measures to mitigate use of storage reserves. • Condition 3 Water Supply Allocation: Implement Metropolitan’s Water Supply Allocation Plan As noted in Condition 3, should supplies become limited to the point where imported water demands cannot be met, Metropolitan will allocate water through the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) (Metropolitan, 2015 Final Draft UWMP, March 2016). arcadis.com 5-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.2.2 Metropolitan Water Supply Allocation Plan Metropolitan’s imported supplies have been impacted by a number of water supply challenges as noted earlier. In case of extreme water shortage within the Metropolitan service area is the implementation of its Water Supply Allocation Plan. Metropolitan’s Board of Directors adopted the WSAP in February 2008 to fairly distribute a limited amount of water supply and applies it through a detailed methodology to reflect a range of local conditions and needs of the region’s retail water consumers. The WSAP includes the specific formula for calculating member agency supply allocations and the key implementation elements needed for administering an allocation. Metropolitan’s WSAP is the foundation for the urban water shortage contingency analysis required under Water Code Section 10632 and is part of Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP. Metropolitan’s WSAP was developed in consideration of the principles and guidelines in Metropolitan’s 1999 Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM) with the core objective of creating an equitable “needs-based allocation”. The WSAP’s formula seeks to balance the impacts of a shortage at the retail level while maintaining equity on the wholesale level for shortages of Metropolitan supplies of up to 50 percent. The formula takes into account a number of factors, such as the impact on retail customers, growth in population, changes in supply conditions, investments in local resources, demand hardening aspects of water conservation savings, recycled water, extraordinary storage and transfer actions, and groundwater imported water needs. The formula is calculated in three steps: 1) based period calculations, 2) allocation year calculations, and 3) supply allocation calculations. The first two steps involve standard computations, while the third step contains specific methodology developed for the WSAP. Step 1: Base Period Calculations – The first step in calculating a member agency’s water supply allocation is to estimate their water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of supply and demand is calculated using data from the two most recent non-shortage fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014. Step 2: Allocation Year Calculations – The next step in calculating the member agency’s water supply allocation is estimating water needs in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates of retail demand for population growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Supply Allocation Calculations – The final step is calculating the water supply allocation for each member agency based on the allocation year water needs identified in Step 2. In order to implement the WSAP, Metropolitan’s Board of Directors makes a determination on the level of the regional shortage, based on specific criteria, typically in April. The criteria used by Metropolitan includes, current levels of storage, estimated water supplies conditions, and projected imported water demands. The allocations, if deemed necessary, go into effect in July of the same year and remain in effect for a 12-month period. The schedule is made at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Although Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP forecasts that Metropolitan will be able to meet projected imported demands throughout the projected period from 2020 to 2040, uncertainty in supply conditions can result arcadis.com 5-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN in Metropolitan needing to implement its WSAP to preserve dry-year storage and curtail demands (Metropolitan, 2015 Draft UWMP, March 2016). 5.2.3 MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan To prepare for the potential allocation of imported water supplies from Metropolitan, MWDOC worked collaboratively with its 28 retail agencies to develop its own WSAP that was adopted in January 2009 and amended in 2015. The MWDOC WSAP outlines how MWDOC will determine and implement each of its retail agency’s allocation during a time of shortage. The MWDOC WSAP uses a similar method and approach, when reasonable, as that of the Metropolitan’s WSAP. However, MWDOC’s plan remains flexible to use an alternative approach which differs from Metropolitan’s method that determines a member agency’s allocation by preferential rights. The MWDOC WSAP model follows five basic steps to determine a retail agency’s imported supply allocation. Step 1: Determine Baseline Information – The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the last two non-shortage fiscal years ending 2013 and 2014. Step 2: Establish Allocation Year Information – In this step, the model adjusts for each retail agency’s water need in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates for increased retail water demand based on population growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Metropolitan’s Declared Shortage Level – This step sets the initial water supply allocation for each retail agency. After a regional shortage level is established, MWDOC will calculate the initial allocation as a percentage of adjusted Base Period Imported water needs within the model for each retail agency. Step 4: Apply Allocation Adjustments and Credits in the Areas of Retail Impacts and Conservation– In this step, the model assigns additional water to address disparate impacts at the retail level caused by an across-the-board cut of imported supplies. It also applies a conservation credit given to those agencies that have achieved additional water savings at the retail level as a result of successful implementation of water conservation devices, programs and rate structures. Step 5: Sum Total Allocations and Determine Retail Reliability – This is the final step in calculating a retail agency’s total allocation for imported supplies. The model sums an agency’s total imported allocation with all of the adjustments and credits and then calculates each agency’s retail reliability compared to its Allocation Year Retail Demand. The MWDOC WSAP includes additional measures for plan implementation, including the following: • Appeal Process – An appeals process to provide retail agencies the opportunity to request a change to their allocation based on new or corrected information. MWDOC anticipates that under most circumstances, a retail agency’s appeal will be the basis for an appeal to Metropolitan by MWDOC. • Melded Allocation Surcharge Structure – At the end of the allocation year, MWDOC would only charge an allocation surcharge to each retail agency that exceeded their allocation if MWDOC exceeds its total allocation and is required to pay a surcharge to Metropolitan. Metropolitan enforces arcadis.com 5-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN allocations to retail agencies through an allocation surcharge to a retail agency that exceeds its total annual allocation at the end of the 12-month allocation period. MWDOC’s surcharge would be assessed according to the retail agency’s prorated share (acre-feet over usage) of MWDOC amount with Metropolitan. Surcharge funds collected by Metropolitan will be invested in its Water Management Fund, which is used to in part to fund expenditures in dry-year conservation and local resource development. • Tracking and Reporting Water Usage – MWDOC will provide each retail agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each retail agency’s current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterly reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. • Timeline and Option to Revisit the Plan – The allocation period will cover 12 consecutive months and the Regional Shortage Level will be set for the entire allocation period. MWDOC only anticipates calling for allocation when Metropolitan declares a shortage; and no later than 30 days from Metropolitan’s declaration will MWDOC announce allocation to its retail agencies. 5.2.4 City of Seal Beach City Council adopted Water Conservation Ordinance No. 1586 on June 8, 2009, which established a staged water conservation program that will encourage reduced water consumption within the City through conservation, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, and maximize the efficient use of water within the City. Along with permanent water conservation requirements, the City’s Water Conservation Program consists of three stages to respond to a reduction in potable water available to the City for distribution to its customers. For the first two stages, the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. The third stage is declared by the City Council as a water shortage emergency and residents and businesses are notified that a significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety. A summary of the stages of water shortage is displayed in Table 5-1 (Seal Beach, Ordinance Number 1586, June 2009). The City does not have set percent supply reduction for each water shortage stage. The City will implement the percent supply reduction on its own discretion as it enters into a water shortage stage. arcadis.com 5-5 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-1: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Phase Complete Both Percent Supply Reduction1 Water Supply Condition 1 Applies when a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists 2 Applies when a severe water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists 3 Applies when the city council declares a water shortage emergency 1 One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Percent supply reduction is not available 5.3 Three-Year Minimum Water Supply As a matter of practice, Metropolitan does not provide annual estimates of the minimum supplies available to its member agencies. As such, Metropolitan member agencies must develop their own estimates for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Act. Section 135 of the Metropolitan Water District Act declares that a member agency has the right to invoke its “preferential right” to water, which grants each member agency a preferential right to purchase a percentage of Metropolitan’s available supplies based on specified, cumulative financial contributions to Metropolitan. Each year, Metropolitan calculates and distributes each member agency’s percentage of preferential rights. However, since Metropolitan’s creation in 1927, no member agency has ever invoked these rights as a means of acquiring limited supplies from Metropolitan. As an alternative to invoking preferential rights, Metropolitan and its member agencies accepted the terms and conditions of Metropolitan’s shortage allocation plan, which allocated imported water under limited supply conditions. In fact, in FY 2015-2016, Metropolitan implemented its WSAP at a stage level 3 (seeking no greater than a 15 percent regional reduction of water use), which is the largest reduction Metropolitan has ever imposed on its member agencies. This WSAP level 3 reduction was determined when Metropolitan water supplies from the SWP was at its lowest levels ever delivered and water storage declined greater than 1 MAF in one year. MWDOC has adopted a shortage allocation plan and accompanying allocation model that estimates firm demands on MWDOC. Assuming MWDOC would not be imposing mandatory restrictions if Metropolitan is not, the estimate of firm demands in MWDOC’s latest allocation model has been used to estimate the minimum imported supplies available to each of MWDOC’s retail agencies for 2015-2018. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to the City is 3,834 AF as shown in Table 5-2 (MWDOC, Water Shortage Allocation Model, November 2015). arcadis.com 5-6 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-2: Minimum Supply Next Three Years (AF) Retail: Minimum Supply Next Three Years 2016 2017 2018 Available Water Supply 3,834 3,834 3,834 NOTES: 2015 MWDOC Shortage Allocation Model 5.4 Catastrophic Supply Interruption Imported water supplies conveyed to Orange County are vulnerable to service interruptions. The hundreds of miles aqueducts, pipelines, and other facilities associated with transporting water to the region are susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other natural or manmade disasters. 5.4.1 Metropolitan Metropolitan has comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address a catastrophic interruption in water supplies through its WSDM and WSAP. Metropolitan also developed an Emergency Storage Requirement to mitigate against potential interruption in water supplies resulting from catastrophic occurrences within the southern California region, including seismic events along the San Andreas Fault. In addition, Metropolitan is working with the state to implement a comprehensive improvement plan to address catastrophic occurrences outside of the southern California region, such as a maximum probable seismic event in the Delta that would cause levee failure and disruption of SWP deliveries. For greater detail on Metropolitan’s planned responses to catastrophic interruption, please refer to Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP. 5.4.2 Water Emergency Response of Orange County In 1983, the Orange County water community identified a need to develop a plan on how agencies would respond effectively to disasters impacting the regional water distribution system. The collective efforts of these agencies resulted in the formation of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) to coordinate emergency response on behalf of all Orange County water and wastewater agencies, develop an emergency plan to respond to disasters, and conduct disaster training exercises for the Orange County water community. WEROC was established with the creation of an indemnification agreement between its member agencies to protect each other against civil liabilities and to facilitate the exchange of resources. WEROC is unique in its ability to provide a single point of contact for representation of all water and wastewater utilities in Orange County during a disaster. This representation is to the county, state, and federal disaster coordination agencies. Within the Orange County Operational Area, WEROC is the recognized contact for emergency response for the water community, including the City. arcadis.com 5-7 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.4.3 City of Seal Beach 5.4.3.1 Water Shortage Emergency Response In 1991, in accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill IIX, the City Water Emergency Services Department developed a comprehensive water shortage contingency plan, which was incorporated into the City’s Emergency Response Plan in early 1992. Both plans contain procedures for the distribution of potable water in a disaster. These procedures are consistent with guidelines prepared by the California State Office of Emergency Services. The City recognizes the importance of the DMMs in reducing water demand and will strive to implement the programs within the constraints of small staff and resources. The City would call media attention to the water supply situation during a shortage and would step up public water education programs, encourage property owners to apply for a landscape and interior water use survey and continue to advertise the importance of customers to install ULF plumbing fixtures. During declared shortages, or when a shortage declaration appears imminent, the Public Works Director, who serves as the authorized representative, activates a City water shortage response plan. During a declared water shortage, the City will accept applications for new building permits but will not issue permits until the shortage declaration is rescinded. 5.4.3.2 Supplemental Water Supplies To offset future potential water shortages due to drought or disaster, the City is considering the following supplemental water supplies: • Water Transfers - The City is dependent upon MWDOC and Metropolitan for water transfers, as a result of minimal water demand. • Long Term Additional Water Supply Options - To meet future long-term water demand beyond 2035, the City is relying on MWDOC, OCWD, and Metropolitan. 5.5 Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods 5.5.1 Prohibitions The City’s Water Conservation Ordinance No. 1586 lists water conservation requirements that will take effect upon implementation by the City Council. These prohibitions will promote the efficient use of water, reduce or eliminate water waste, complement the City’s Water Quality regulations and urban runoff reduction efforts, and enable implementation of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Measures. Water conservation measures become more restrictive per each progressive phase in order to address the increasing differential between the water supply and demand. A list of restrictions and prohibitions that are applicable to each phase is shown in Table 5-3. arcadis.com 5-8 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-3: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Table 5-3 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Phase Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? Permanent Year-Round Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions are to be corrected in no more than seven (7) days after discovery. No Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation No Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of the lawn, landscape, or other vegetated area with potable water between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on any day, except by use of a bucket or device with a shut-off device or for very short period of time for the limited purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. No Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended for longer than 15 minutes watering per day per station. This section does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low - flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour and weather based controllers or stream rotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency standard. No Permanent Year-Round CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request No Permanent Year-Round Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains No person shall operate a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use recirculated water. No Permanent Year-Round Other No person shall install a single pass cooling system in connection with new water service. No Permanent Year-Round Other No person shall install non recirculating water systems in connection with commercial conveyor No arcadis.com 5-9 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-3 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Phase Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? car wash and commercial laundry systems. Permanent Year-Round Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water No 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Exception is during designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exception is made at any time if performed with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a hand-held faucet filled bucket of five gallons or less, or a drip irrigation system Yes 1 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall curtail all non-essential water use. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time Yes 1 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Washing of mobile vehicles, boats, airplanes, and other mobile equipment are permitted only on designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, food and perishable transport vehicles, and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare Yes 1 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes are permitted only on designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds, and recreational fields are to be performed only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to golf course greens Yes 1 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces A water user may only wash down these surfaces if necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards through the use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, a low- volume, high pressure leaning machines equipped to recycle any water used, or a low-volume high- pressure water broom Yes arcadis.com 5-10 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-3 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Phase Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? 1 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Ornamental fountains and similar structures are not to be filled and operated Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Prohibited except on designated days and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time Yes 2 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Washing of mobile vehicles, boats, airplanes, and other mobile equipment are prohibited except when performed on the immediate premise of a commercial car wash. This measure does not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, food and perishable transport vehicles, and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare Yes 2 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes shall be performed only on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 10::00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds, and recreational fields are to be performed only between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to golf course greens Yes 2 CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request Yes 2 Other The use of non-reclaimed and non-recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 20% Yes 2 Other New construction meters and permits for unmetered service shall not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit all landscape irrigation Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of Water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes is prohibited except for watering of Yes arcadis.com 5-11 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 5-3 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Phase Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? landscape irrigation livestock 3 Other Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes is prohibited Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Watering golf course areas is prohibited except for golf course greens. Watering of parks, school grounds, and recreational fields is prohibited except for plant materials classified as rare, exceptionally valuable or essential to the well-being of rare animals Yes 3 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces Except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards Yes 3 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Ornamental fountains and similar structures are not to be filled and operated Yes 3 Other The use of non-reclaimed and non-recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50% Yes 3 Other The use of water for commercial manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50% Yes 3 Other Water is prohibited from being used for air conditioning purposes Yes NOTES: 5.5.2 Penalties Any customer who violates provisions of the Water Conservation Ordinance by either excess use of water or by specific violation of one or more of the applicable water use restrictions for a particular mandatory conservation stage may be cited by the City where the severity is based on the number of violations committed by the user. The first violation will result in a written notice by the Director of Public Works. The second violation during a water conservation phase shall result in a surcharge in an amount equal to 15 percent of the violator’s water bill. Any subsequent violations during a water conservation phase shall result in the installation of a flow restricting device of one gallon per minute capacity for services up to 1.5 inches size, and a comparatively sized restrictor for larger service, on the service of the violator at the premises at which the violation occurred for a period of not less than 48 hours. The user will be charged the actual costs of the installation and removal of the device and for the restoration of normal service. Normal service will be resumed upon payment of all charges (Seal Beach, Ordinance Number 1586, June 2009). arcadis.com 5-12 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.5.3 Consumption Reduction Methods Table 5-4 lists the consumption reduction methods that will be used to reduce water use in restrictive stages. Table 5-4: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods Retail Only: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods Phase Consumption Reduction Methods by Water Supplier Additional Explanation or Reference 1 Other Phase 1 Conservation Measures 2 Other Phase 2 Conservation Measures 3 Other Phase 3 Conservation Measures NOTES: 5.6 Impacts to Revenue During a catastrophic interruption of water supplies, prolonged drought, or water shortage of any kind, the City will experience a reduction in revenue due to reduced water sales. Throughout this period of time, expenditures may increase or decrease with varying circumstances. Expenditures may increase in the event of significant damage to the water system, resulting in emergency repairs. Expenditures may also decrease as less water is pumped through the system, resulting in lower energy costs. The City receives water revenue from a service charge and a commodity charge based on consumption. The service charge recovers costs associated with providing water to the serviced property. The service charge does not vary with consumption and the commodity charge is based on water usage. Rates have been designed to recover the full cost of water service in the charges. Therefore, the total cost of purchasing water would decrease as the usage or sale of water decreases. However, there are significant fixed costs associated with maintaining a minimal level of service. The City will monitor projected revenues and expenditures should an extreme shortage and a large reduction in water sales occur for an extended period of time. To overcome these potential revenue losses and/or expenditure impacts, the City may use its financial reserves to maintain a minimum level of service. If necessary, the City may reduce expenditures by delaying implementation of its Capital Improvement Program and equipment purchases, and/or adjust the work force, implement a drought surcharge, and/or make adjustments to its water rate structure. 5.7 Reduction Measuring Mechanism Under normal water supply conditions, potable water supply figures are recorded daily. Totals are reported weekly to the Chief Water Operator. Totals are reported monthly to the Public Works Director and incorporated into the monthly water supply report presented to the City Council. Daily potable water supply figures will be reported to the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works will compare the weekly production to the target weekly production to verify that the reduction goal arcadis.com 5-13 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN is being met. Monthly reports are sent to the City Council. If reduction goals are not met, the Director of Public Works will notify the City Council so that corrective action can be taken. MWDOC will provide each retail agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each retail agency’s current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterl y reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. arcadis.com 5-14 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 6 RECYCLED WATER Recycled water opportunities have continued to grow in southern California as public acceptance and the need to expand local water resources continues to be a priority. Recycled water also provides a degree of flexibility and added reliability during drought conditions when imported water supplies are restricted. Recycled water is wastewater that is treated through primary, secondary and tertiary processes and is acceptable for most non-potable water purposes such as irrigation, and commercial and industrial process water per Title 22 requirements. 6.1 Agency Coordination The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities and sends all collected wastewater to OCSD for treatment and disposal. OCWD is the manager of the Basin and strives to maintain and increase the reliability of the Basin through replenishment with imported water, stormwater, and advanced treated wastewater. OCWD and OCSD have jointly constructed and expanded two water recycling projects to meet this goal that include: 1) OCWD Green Acres Project (GAP) and 2) OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). 6.1.1 OCWD Green Acres Project OCWD owns and operates the GAP, a water recycling system that provides up to 8,400 AFY of recycled water for irrigation and industrial uses. GAP provides an alternate source of water that is mainly delivered to parks, golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries in the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. Approximately 100 sites use GAP water, current recycled water users include Mile Square Park and Golf Courses in Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa Country Club, Chroma Systems carpet dyeing, Kaiser Permanente, and Caltrans. The City does not receive any GAP water. 6.1.2 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD’s GWRS receives secondary treated wastewater from OCSD and purifies it to levels that meet and exceed all state and federal drinking water standards. The GWRS Phase 1 plant has been operational since January 2008, and uses a three-step advanced treatment process consisting of MF, RO, and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. A portion of the treated water is injected into the seawater barrier to prevent seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin. The other portion of the water is pumped to ponds where the water percolates into deep aquifers and becomes part of Orange County’s water supply. The treatment process described on OCWD’s website is provided below (OCWD, GWRS, 2015). GWRS Treatment Process The first step of the treatment process after receiving the secondary treated wastewater is a separation process called MF that uses hollow polypropylene fibers with 0.2 micron diameter holes in the sides. Suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria and some viruses are filtered out when drawing water through the holes to the center of the fibers. arcadis.com 6-15 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The second step of the process consists of RO, semi-permeable polyamide polymer (plastic) membranes that water is forced through under high pressure. RO removes dissolved chemicals, viruses and pharmaceuticals in the water resulting in near-distilled-quality water that requires minerals be added back in to stabilize the water. This process was used by OCWD from 1975 to 2004 at their Water Factory 21 (WF-21) to purify treated wastewater from OCSD for injection into the seawater intrusion barrier. The third step of the process involves water being exposed to high-intensity UV light with hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) for disinfection and removal of any trace organic compounds that may have passed through the RO membranes. The trace organic compounds may include NDMA and 1-4 Dioxane, which have been removed to the parts-per trillion level. UV disinfection with H 2 O 2 is an effective disinfection/advanced oxidation process that keeps these compounds from reaching drinking water supplies. OCWD’s GWRS has a current production capacity of 112,100 AFY with the expansion that was completed in 2015. Approximately 39,200 AFY of the highly purified water is pumped into the injection wells and 72,900 AFY is pumped to the percolation ponds in the city of Anaheim where the water is naturally filtered through sand and gravel to deep aquifers of the groundwater basin. The Basin provides approximately 72 percent of the potable water supply for north and central Orange County. The design and construction of the first phase (78,500 AFY) of the GWRS project was jointly funded by OCWD and OCSD; Phase 2 expansion (33,600 AFY) was funded solely by OCWD. Expansion beyond this is currently in discussion and could provide an additional 33,600 AFY of water, increasing total GWRS production to 145,700 AFY. The GWRS is the world’s largest water purification system for indirect potable reuse (IPR). 6.2 Wastewater Description and Disposal The City does not provide wastewater services within its service area, but relies on OCSD for collection and treatment at their plants located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. OCSD has an extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. OCSD’s Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley has a capacity of 320 MGD and Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach has a capacity of 312 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all of its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD’s GWRS for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. 6.3 Current Recycled Water Uses There are currently no recycled water uses within the City’s service area. 6.4 Potential Recycled Water Uses The City is looking at the potential to begin discharging the Lampson Avenue Well’s pump waste into a storm drain that will empty into the adjacent Old Ranch Country Club to beneficially reuse for golf course irrigation. While the City recognizes the potential for beneficial reuse in their service area there is no source of recycled water supply in proximity to the City aside from the Lampson Avenue Well’s pump to arcadis.com 6-16 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN waste. The City’s wastewater is conveyed to OCSD’s regional treatment facility, where the wastewater is treated and reused. Recycled water analyses performed over the years have shown that installing local treatment and reuse facilities is not feasible. The City supports, encourages, and contributes to the continued development of recycled water and potential uses throughout the region with OCWD’s GWRS. Currently, the City does not have any potential or projected uses for recycled water. 6.4.1 Direct Non-Potable Reuse The City does not have any direct non-potable uses within their service area and does not currently have the potential for non-potable reuse as a result of nonexistent or planned recycled water infrastructure. 6.4.2 Indirect Potable Reuse The City benefits from OCWD’s GWRS system that provides indirect potable reuse through replenishment of Orange County’s Groundwater Basin with water that meets state and federal drinking water standards. 6.5 Optimization Plan The City does not use recycled water, therefore, there is no need for a recycled water optimization plan. In other areas of Orange County, recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, businesses, and communal landscaping, as well as for groundwater recharge. Analyses have indicated that present worth costs to incorporate recycled water within the City are not cost effective as compared to purchasing imported water from MWDOC, or using groundwater. The City will continue to conduct feasibility studies for recycled water and seek out creative solutions such as funding, regulatory requirements, institutional arrangement and public acceptance for recycled water use with MWDOC, OCWD, Metropolitan and other cooperative agencies. arcadis.com 6-17 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 7.1 Water Management Tools Resource optimization such as desalination and IPR minimize the City's and region's reliance on imported water. Optimization efforts are typically led by regional agencies in collaboration with local/retail agencies. 7.2 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities Interconnections with other agencies result in the ability to share water supplies during short term emergency situations or planned shutdowns of major imported water systems. The City maintains five emergency interconnections as follows: • Golden State Water Company: in Rossmoor at Saint Cloud Dr. • City of Westminster: Westminster Ave. east of Milan St. • City of Long Beach: Marina Dr. and 1st St. • City of Huntington Beach: Pacific Coast Highway and Philips Rd. • City of Huntington Beach: Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson St. MWDOC continues to help its retail agencies develop transfer and exchange opportunities that promote reliability within their systems. Therefore, MWDOC will look to help its retail agencies navigate the operational and administrative issues of transfers within the Metropolitan distribution system. Currently, there are no transfer or exchange opportunities. 7.3 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs The City’s Water Master Plan Update and 5 Year Capital Improvement Program identifies planned design and construction projects as described below. Leisure World Well - replace well discharge piping, pumps and motors between 2018 and 2020, and upgrade SCADA communications equipment in FY 2016-17 to increase supply reliability in the distribution system. Beverly Manor Booster Pump Station and Well Improvements – new electrical equipment, SCADA system, pumps, discharge piping, generator, motors, and reservoir in 2016 to increase supply reliability in the distribution system. Lampson Ave Water Well – install second connection on water well into City’s domestic water system to provide reliability in the event of a water main break. Water Meter Replacement Study – analyze need and feasibility to replace existing water meters with new technology that include wireless, real time data collection, and preventing future O&M involved with manual meter readings. arcadis.com 7-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Bolsa Chica Water Well – rehabilitate well pumps, generators, and water treatment equipment, replace motors, and upgrade SCADA system in FY 2015-16 to increase supply reliability in the distribution system. Navy Reservoir – upgrade chlorination system in FY 2015-16 and replace water valves as needed between 2015 and 2020 as part of water valve replacement program. 7.4 Desalination Opportunities In 2001, Metropolitan developed a Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) to provide incentives for developing new seawater desalination projects in Metropolitan’s service area. In 2014, Metropolitan modified the provisions of their Local Resources Program (LRP) to include incentives for locally produced seawater desalination projects that reduce the need for imported supplies. To qualify for the incentive, proposed projects must replace an existing demand or prevent new demand on Metropolitan’s imported water supplies. In return, Metropolitan offers two incentive formulas under the program: • Up to $340 per AF for 25 years, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the cost of Metropolitan supplies • Up to $475 per AF for 15 years, depending on the unit cost of seawater produced compared to the cost of Metropolitan supplies Developing local supplies within Metropolitan's service area is part of their IRP goal of improving water supply reliability in the region. Creating new local supplies reduce pressure on im ported supplies from the SWP and Colorado River. On May 6th, 2015, SWRCB approved an amendment to the state’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California (California Ocean Plan) to address effects associated with the construction and operation of seawater desalination facilities (Desalination Amendment). The amendment supports the use of ocean water as a reliable supplement to traditional water supplies while protecting marine life and water quality. The California Ocean Plan now formally acknowledges seawater desalination as a beneficial use of the Pacific Ocean and the Desalination Amendment provides a uniform, consistent process for permitting seawater desalination facilities statewide. If the following projects are developed, Metropolitan's imported water deliveries to Orange County could be reduced. These projects include the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, the Doheny Desalination Project, and the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project. Brackish groundwater is groundwater with a salinity higher than freshwater, but lower than seawater. Brackish groundwater typically requires treatment using desalters. The City has not investigated seawater desalination due to economic and physical impediments. 7.4.1 Groundwater There are currently no brackish groundwater opportunities within the City’s service area. arcadis.com 7-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 7.4.2 Ocean Water Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project – Poseidon Resources LLC (Poseidon), a private company, is developing the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project to be co-located at the AES Power Plant in the City of Huntington Beach along Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. The proposed project would produce up to 50 MGD (56,000 AFY) of drinking water to provide approximately 10 percent of Orange County’s water supply needs. Over the past several years, Poseidon has been working with OCWD on the general terms and conditions for selling the water to OCWD. OCWD and MWDOC have proposed a few distribution options to agencies in Orange County. The northern option proposes the water be distributed to the northern agencies closer to the plant within OCWD’s service area with the possibility of recharging/injecting a portion of the product water into the OC Groundwater Basin. The southern option builds on the northern option by delivering a portion of the product water through the existing OC-44 pipeline for conveyance to the south Orange County water agencies. A third option is also being explored that includes all of the product water to be recharged into the OC Groundwater Basin. Currently, a combination of these options could be pursued. OCWD’s current Long-Term Facilities Plan (LTFP) identifies the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination project as a priority project and determined the plant capacity of 56,000 AFY as the single largest source of new, local drinking water available to the region. In addition to offsetting imported demand, water from this project could provide OCWD with management flexibility in the OC Groundwater Basin by augmenting supplies into the Talbert Seawater Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. In May 2015, OCWD and Poseidon entered into a Term Sheet that provided the overall partner structure in order to advance the project. Based on the initial Term Sheet, Poseidon would be responsible for permitting, financing, design, construction, and operations of the treatment plant while OCWD would purchase the production volume, assuming the product water quality and quantity meet specific contract parameters and criteria. Furthermore, OCWD would then distribute the water in Orange County using one of the proposed distribution options described above. Currently, the project is in the late-stages of the regulatory permit approval process and Poseidon hopes to obtain the last discretionary permit necessary to construct the plant from the CCC in 2016. If the CCC permit is obtained, the plant could be operational as early as 2019. Doheny Desalination Project – In 2013, after five years and $6.2 million to investigate use of a slant well intake for the Doheny Desalination Project, it was concluded the project was feasible and could produce 15 MGD (16,800 AFY) of new potable water supplies to five participating agencies. These agencies consist of: South Coast Water District (SCWD), City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) and Moulton Niguel Water District. Only SCWD and LBCWD expressed interest in moving forward after work was completed, with the other agencies electing to monitor the work and consider options to subsequently come back into the project while considering other water supply investments. More recently, LBCWD has had success in using previously held water rights in the OC groundwater basin and may elect to move forward with that project instead of ocean desalination. A final decision is pending based on securing the necessary approvals on the groundwater agreement. arcadis.com 7-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SCWD has taken the lead on the desalination project and has hired a consulting team to proceed with project development for the Doheny Desalination Project. Major items scheduled over the next year include: • Preliminary Design Report and Cost Estimate • Brine Outfall Analysis • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Process • Environmental Permitting Approvals • Public Outreach • Project Funding • Project Delivery Method • Economic Analysis The schedule for this project includes start-up and operation of up to a 5 MGD (5,600 AFY) facility by the end of 2019. SCWD anticipates leaving the option open for other agencies to participate in a larger, 15 MGD facility, with subsequent permitting and construction of additional slant wells and treatment capacity. Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project – San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is studying a desalination project to be located at the southwest corner of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base adjacent to the Santa Margarita River. The initial project would be a 50 (56,000 AFY) or 100 (112,100) MGD plant with expansions in 50 MGD increments to a maximum capacity of 150 MGD (168,100 AFY), making this the largest proposed desalination plant in the US. The project is currently in the feasibility study stage and SDCWA is conducting geological surveys, analyzing intake options, and studying the effect on ocean life and routes to bring desalinated water to SDCWA’s delivery system. MWDOC and south Orange County agencies are maintaining an interest in the project. arcadis.com 7-4 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 8 UWMP ADOPTION PROCESS Recognizing that close coordination among other relevant public agencies is key to the success of its UWMP, the City worked closely with other entities such as MWDOC to develop and update this planning document. The City also encouraged public involvement by holding a public hearing for residents to learn and ask questions about their water supply. This section provides the information required in Article 3 of the Water Code related to adoption and implementation of the UWMP. Table 8-1 summarizes external coordination and outreach activities carried out by the City and their corresponding dates. The UWMP checklist to confirm compliance with the Water Code is provided in Appendix A. Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach External Coordination and Outreach Date Reference Encouraged public involvement (Public Hearing) 5/9/16 & 5/16/16 Appendix E Notified city or county within supplier’s service area that water supplier is preparing an updated UWMP (at least 60 days prior to public hearing) 3/8/16 Appendix E Held public hearing 5/23/16 Appendix E Adopted UWMP 6/13/16 Appendix F Submitted UWMP to DWR (no later than 30 days after adoption) Submitted UWMP to the California State Library and city or county within the supplier’s service area (no later than 30 days after adoption) Made UWMP available for public review (no later than 30 days after filing with DWR) This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on June 13, 2016. A copy of the adopted resolution is provided in Appendix F. A change from the 2004 legislative session to the 2009 legislative session required the City to notify any city or county within its service area at least 60 days prior to the public hearing. As shown in Table 8-2, the City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange on March 8, 2016 to state that it was in the process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix E). arcadis.com 8-1 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 8-2: Notification to Cities and Counties Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing MWDOC OCWD County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Orange County NOTES: 8.1 Public Participation The City has encouraged community participation in developing its urban water management planning efforts since the first plan was prepared in 1985. Public meetings were held prior to adoption of previous plans. For this UWMP update, a public meeting was held on May 23, 2016 to review and receive comments on the draft plan before City Council approval. Notices of public meetings were posted in the City Hall. Legal public notices for the meeting were published in the local newspaper and posted at City facilities. Copies of the draft plan were available at the City Hall and Library. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix E. 8.2 Agency Coordination The City's water supply planning relates to the policies, rules, and regulations of its regional and local water providers. The City is dependent on imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC, its regional wholesaler. The City is also dependent on groundwater from OCWD, the agency that manages the Basin. 8.3 UWMP Submittal 8.3.1 Review 2010 UWMP Implementation As required by California Water Code, the City summarized Water Conservation Programs implemented to date, and compares the implementation to those as planned in its 2010 UWMP. arcadis.com 8-2 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 8.3.2 Comparison of 2010 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2015 Actual Programs As a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California regarding urban water use efficiency, the City’s commitment to implement BMP-based water use efficiency program continues today. For the City’s specific achievements in the area of conservation, please see Section 4 of the UWMP. 8.3.3 Filing of 2015 UWMP The City Council reviewed the Final Draft Plan on June 23, 2016. The five-member City Council approved the 2015 UWMP on June 23, 2016. See Appendix F for the resolution approving the Plan. By July 1, 2016, the City’s Adopted 2015 UWMP was filed with DWR, California State Library, County of Orange, and cities within its service area, if applicable. arcadis.com 8-3 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources, 2015. Urban Water Management Plans, Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers. Department of Water Resources, 2015. State Water Project Final Delivery Capability Report 2015. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2016. Metropolitan Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015. Orange County Reliability Study. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015. Water Shortage Allocation Model. Orange County Water District, 2014. OCWD Engineer’s Report. Orange County Water District, 2015. OCWD Groundwater Managem ent Plan 2015 Update. Orange County Water District. (2015). Groundwater Replenishment Study [Brochure]. San Diego County Water Authority, 2003. Quantification Settlement Agreement. Seal Beach, California, 2015. City of Seal Beach 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. Seal Beach, California, Seal Beach Municipal Code Ordinance Number 1586 (2009). Seal Beach, California, Sewer System Master Plan Update (2005). Seal Beach, California, Water Master Plan Update (2012). Seal Beach, California, Water Rate Study Analysis Final Report (2009). Southern California Association of Governments, 2012. 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 2012. Colorado River Basin Study. Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code § 10610-10656 (2010). Water Conservation Act of 2009, California Senate SB x7-7, 7th California Congress (2009). Water Systems Optimization, 2016. California Department of Water Resources: Water Audit Manual. arcadis.com 8-4 APPENDIX A UWMP Checklist APPENDIX B Standardized Tables APPENDIX C Groundwater Management Plan APPENDIX D City Ordinance APPENDIX E Notification of Public and Service Area Suppliers APPENDIX F Adopted UWMP Resolution APPENDIX G Bump Methodology APPENDIX H Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report APPENDIX I AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet APPENDIX J CUWCC BMP Report Arcadis U.S., Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3650 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel 213 486 9884 Fax 213 486 9894 www.arcadis.com APPENDIX A UWMP Checklist UWMP C hecklist This checklist is developed directly from the Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB X7-7. It is provided to support water suppliers during preparation of their UWMPs. Two versions of the UWMP Checklist are provided – the first one is organized according to the California Water Code and the second checklist according to subject matter. The two checklists contain duplicate information and the water supplier should use whichever checklist is more convenient. In the event that information or recommendations in these tables are inconsistent with, conflict with, or omit the requirements of the Act or applicable laws, the Act or other laws shall prevail. Each water supplier submitting an UWMP can also provide DWR with the UWMP location of the required element by completing the last column of eitherchecklist. This will support DWR in its review of these UWMPs. The completed form can be included with the UWMP. If an item does not pertain to a water supplier, then state the UWMP requirement and note that it does not apply to the agency. For example, if a water supplier does not use groundwater as a water supply source, then there should be a statement in the UWMP that groundwater is not a water supply source. Checklist Arranged by Subject CWC Section UWMP Requirement Subject Guidebook Location UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Use) 10620(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. Plan Preparation Section 2.1 Section 1.1 10620(d)(2) Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.2 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.1 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Description Section 3.1 Section 1.3.1 10631(a) Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier. System Description Section 3.3 Section 2.2.1 10631(a) Provide population projections for 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. System Description Section 3.4 Section 2.2.2 10631(a) Describe other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. System Description Section 3.4 Section 2.2.2 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service area. System Description and Baselines and Targets Sections 3.4 and 5.4 Section 2.2.2 10631(e)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water Use Section 4.2 Section 2.3.1 and 2.4.3 10631(e)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for the most recent 12-month period available. System Water Use Section 4.3 Section 2.3.4 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier. System Water Use Section 4.5 Section 2.4.5 10608.20(b) Retail suppliers shall adopt a 2020 water use target using one of four methods. Baselines and Targets Section 5.7 and App E Section 2.5.2 10608.20(e) Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along Baselines and Targets Chapter 5 and App E Section 2.5.2.2 with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. 10608.22 Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100. Baselines and Targets Section 5.7.2 Section 2.5.2.2 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their interim target by December 31, 2015. Baselines and Targets Section 5.8 and App E Section 2.5.2.2 10608.24(d)(2) If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment. Baselines and Targets Section 5.8.2 Section 2.5.2.2 10608.36 Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. Baselines and Targets Section 5.1 N/A 10608.40 Retail suppliers shall report on their progress in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form. Baselines and Targets Section 5.8 and App E Section 3.4 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. System Supplies Chapter 6 Section 3.4 10631(b) Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System Supplies Section 6.2 Section 3.3 10631(b)(1) Indicate whether a groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization. System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section 3.3.2.1 10631(b)(2) Describe the groundwater basin. System Supplies Section 6.2.1 Section 3.3.1 10631(b)(2) Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump. System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section 3.3.2 10631(b)(2) For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as overdrafted, or projected to become overdrafted. Describe efforts by the supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. System Supplies Section 6.2.3 Section 3.3.7 10631(b)(3) Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water System Supplies Section 6.2.4 Section 3.3.6 supplier for the past five years 10631(b)(4) Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped. System Supplies Sections 6.2 and 6.9 Section 3.3 and 3.4 10631(d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System Supplies Section 6.7 Section 7.2 10631(g) Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. System Supplies Section 6.8 Section 3.6 10631(h) Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply. System Supplies Section 6.6 Section 7.4 10631(j) Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) – if any - with water use projections from that source. System Supplies Section 2.5.1 Section 3.4 10631(j) Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types. System Supplies Section 2.5.1 N/A 10633 For wastewater and recycled water, coordinate with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.1 Section 6.1 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier's service area. Include quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.2 Section 6.2 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.2.2 Section 6.2 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 Section 6.3 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.4 Section 6.4 10633(e) Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.4 Section 6.3 and 6.4 10633(f) Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.5 Section 6.4 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) Section 6.5.5 Section 6.5 10620(f) Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.4 Section 3.3 10631(c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 Section 3.6 10631(c)(1) Provide data for an average water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.2 Section 3.6.5 10631(c)(2) For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, describe plans to supplement or replace that source. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 Section 3.6 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.1 Section 3.6.2.3 10635(a) Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Section 7.3 Section 3.6.6 10632(a) and 10632(a)(1) Provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that specifies stages of action and an outline of specific water supply conditions at each stage. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.1 Section 5.2 10632(a)(2) Provide an estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three- year historic sequence for the agency. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.9 Section 5.3 10632(a)(3) Identify actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in case of a catastrophic interruption of water supplies. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.8 Section 5.4 10632(a)(4) Identify mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water shortages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.2 Section 5.5.1 10632(a)(5) Specify consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.4 Section 5.5.3 10632(a)(6) Indicated penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.3 Section 5.5.2 10632(a)(7) Provide an analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions in the water shortage contingency analysis on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.6 Section 5.6 10632(a)(8) Provide a draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.7 Appendix D 10632(a)(9) Indicate a mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the water shortage contingency analysis. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Section 8.5 Section 5.7 10631(f)(1) Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. Demand Management Measures Sections 9.2 and 9.3 Section 4 and Appendix H 10631(f)(2) Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program. Demand Management Measures Sections 9.1 and 9.3 N/A 10631(i) CUWCC members may submit their 2013- 2014 CUWCC BMP annual reports in lieu of, or in addition to, describing the DMM implementation in their UWMPs. This option is only allowable if the supplier has been found to be in full compliance with the CUWCC MOU. Demand Management Measures Section 9.5 Section 4 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.3 Section 8.1 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.2.1 Appendix E 10621(d) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2015 plan to the department by July 1, 2016. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Sections 10.3.1 and 10.4 Section 8.3.3 10635(b) Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 60 days after the submission of the plan to DWR. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.4.4 Section 8.3.3 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Sections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 Section 8.1 about the plan. 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Sections 10.2.1 Appendix E 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the plan has been adopted as prepared or modified. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.3.1 Appendix F 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.4.3 Section 8.3.3 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.4.4 Section 8.2 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 Section 8.3.3 10645 Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10.5 Section 8 APPENDIX B Standardized Tables Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2015 Volume of Water Supplied 2015 CA3010041 City of Seal Beach 5,483 3,521 5,483 3,521 Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems NOTES: TOTAL Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance NOTES: Table 2-2: Plan Identification Select Only One Type of Plan Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance if applicable drop down list Individual UWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) Agency is a wholesaler Agency is a retailer UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years Unit AF NOTES: Table 2-3: Agency Identification Type of Agency (select one or both) Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Date that the Fiscal Year Begins (mm/dd) Units of Measure Used in UWMP (select from Drop down) 7/1 Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. MWDOC NOTES: 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 23,706 24,086 24,089 24,302 24,349 24,327 Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Population Served NOTES: Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton Use Type (Add additional rows as needed) Use Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Description (as needed) Level of Treatment When Delivered Drop down list Volume Other Single & Multi. Family Drinking Water 1,533 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 140 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies GSWC Drinking Water 13 Commercial Drinking Water 1,834 3,521 Table 4-1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual 2015 Actual NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Retail Tracking. TOTAL Use Type (Add additional rows as needed) Use Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Other SF/MF 1,519 1,630 1,642 1,641 1,644 Institutional/Governmental 139 149 150 150 151 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies GSWC 13 14 14 14 14 Commercial 1,817 1,950 1,964 1,963 1,966 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Table 4-2 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected Additional Description (as needed) Projected Water Use Report To the Extent that Records are Available NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and Retail Water Agency Projections. TOTAL 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water From Tables 4-1 and 4-2 3,521 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Recycled Water Demand* From Table 6-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 3,521 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Table 4-3 Retail: Total Water Demands NOTES: Reporting Period Start Date (mm/yyyy) Volume of Water Loss* 07/2013 159 Table 4-4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting NOTES: Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook) Drop down list (y/n) Yes If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, etc… utilized in demand projections are found. Location in UWMP: Section 4.1 Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n)Yes Table 4-5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections NOTES: Baseline Period Start Year End Year Average Baseline GPCD* 2015 Interim Target * Confirmed 2020 Target* 10-15 year 1998 2008 156 148.8 141.6 5 Year 2003 2008 154.6 Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: 110 148.8 Yes *All values are in Gallons per Capita per NOTES: Table 5-2: 2015 Compliance Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only Actual 2015 GPCD* 2015 Interim Target GPCD* Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015? Y/N Groundwater Type Drop Down List May use each category multiple times Location or Basin Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Alluvial Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,204 2,278 2,563 2,727 2,734 2,204 2,278 2,563 2,727 2,734 Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped NOTES: TOTAL Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015 There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below. Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2015 No wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. The supplier will not complete the table below. Recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will not complete the table below. Table 6-4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Recycled water was not used in 2010 nor projected for use in 2015. The supplier will not complete the table below. Table 6-5 Retail: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual Section 6.4 Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation. Provide page location of narrative in UWMP No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below. Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format. Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Water Supply Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Actual Volume Water Quality Drop Down List Groundwater Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,734 Drinking Water Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 787 Drinking Water 3,521 Table 6-8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual Additional Detail on Water Supply 2015 NOTES: Total Water Supply Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Reasonably Available Volume Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 1,046 1,123 1,131 1,131 1,132 Groundwater Orange County Groundwater Basin 2,442 2,621 2,639 2,638 2,642 3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 NOTES: Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply Report To the Extent Practicable 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool % of Average Supply Average Year 2015 100% Single-Dry Year 2014 106.0% Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 2012 106.0% Multiple-Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 106.0% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 106.0% NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Demand Bump Methodology 3,521 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data Year Type Base Year If not using a calendar year, type in the last year of the fiscal, water year, or range of years, for example, water year 1999- 2000, use 2000 Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP. Location __________________________ Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both. Volume Available 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals (autofill from Table 6-9)3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Demand totals (autofill from Table 4-3)3,488 3,744 3,770 3,769 3,774 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison NOTES: 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison NOTES: 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Supply totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Demand totals 3,697 3,969 3,996 3,995 4,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison First year Second year Third year NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology Percent Supply Reduction1 Numerical value as a percent Water Supply Condition (Narrative description) 1 Applies when a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists 2 Applies when a severe water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists 3 Applies when the city council declares a water shortage emergency Table 8-1 Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Stage Complete Both 1 One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Percent supply reduction is not available Phase Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Explanation or Reference (optional) Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? Drop Down List Permanent Year-Round Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions are to be corrected in no more than seven (7) days after discovery. No Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation No Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of the lawn, landscape, or other vegetated area with potable water between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on any day, except by use of a bucket or device with a shut-off device or for very short period of time for the limited purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. No Table 8-2 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Permanent Year-Round Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended for longer than 15 minutes watering per day per station. This section does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low - flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour and weather based controllers or stream rotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency standard. No Permanent Year-Round CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request No Permanent Year-Round Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains No persan shall operate a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use recirculated water. No Permanent Year-Round Other No person shall install a single pass cooling system in connection with new water service. No Permanent Year-Round Other No person shall install non recirculating water systems in connection with commercial conveyor car wash and commercial laundry systems. No Permanent Year-Round Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water No 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Exception is during designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exception is made at any time if performed with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a hand- held faucet filled bucket of five gallons or less, or a drip irrigation system Yes 1 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall curtail all non- essential water use. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time Yes 1 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Washing of mobile vehicles, boats, airplanes, and other mobile equipment are permitted only on designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, food and perishable transport vehicles, and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare Yes 1 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes are permitted only on designated days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds, and recreational fields are to be performed only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to golf course greens Yes 1 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces A water user may only wash down these surfaces if necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards through the use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, a low-volume, high pressure leaning machines equipped to recycle any water used, or a low-volume high- pressure water broom Yes 1 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Ornamental fountains and similar structures are not to be filled and operated Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Prohibited except on designated days and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time Yes 2 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Washing of mobile vehicles, boats, airplanes, and other mobile equipment are prohibited except when performed on the immediate premise of a commercial car wash. This measure does not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, food and perishable transport vehicles, and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare Yes 2 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes shall be performed only on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 10::00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds, and recreational fields are to be performed only between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This measure does not apply to golf course greens Yes 2 CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request Yes 2 Other The use of non- reclaimed and non- recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 20% Yes 2 Other New construction meters and permits for unmetered service shall not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit all landscape irrigation Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes is prohibited except for watering of livestock Yes 3 Other Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds, and artificial lakes is prohibited Yes 3 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Watering golf course areas is prohibited except for golf course greens. Watering of parks, school grounds, and recreational fields is prohibited except for plant materials classified as rare, exceptionally valuable or essential to the well-being of rare animals Yes 3 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces Except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards Yes 3 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Ornamental fountains and similar structures are not to be filled and operated Yes 3 Other The use of non- reclaimed and non- recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50% Yes 3 Other The use of water for commercial manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50% Yes 3 Other Water is prohibited from being used for air conditioning purposes Yes NOTES: Stage Consumption Reduction Methods by Water Supplier Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Explanation or Reference (optional) 1 Other Phase 1 Conservation Measures 2 Other Phase 2 Conservation Measures 3 Other Phase 3 Conservation Measures Table 8-3 Retail Only: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods NOTES: 2016 2017 2018 Available Water Supply 3,834 3,834 3,834 Table 8-4 Retail: Minimum Supply Next Three Years NOTES: 2015 MWDOC Shortage Allocation Model City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing MWDOC OCWD County Name Drop Down List 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Orange County NOTES: Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties APPENDIX C Groundwater Management Plan Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update June 17, 2015 Greg Woodside, PG CHg, Executive Director of Planning and Natural Resources Marsha Westropp, Senior Watershed Planner                               The primary authors of the Groundwater Management Plan wish to acknowledge  Steve Strand who prepared the majority of maps and assisted with data  management.  Thanks also for the significant contributions of the following District staff in  preparing the Plan:  Nira Yamachika, Adam Hutchinson, Roy Herndon, John  Kennedy, Tim Sovich, Gary Yoshiba, David Field, Jason Dadakis, Karen Underhill,  Bill Dunivin, Li Li, Linda Koki, John Bonsangue, Diane Pinnick, Dick Zembal, Darla  Cirillo, Leticia Villarreal, Rae Krause, Nic Nguyen, Don Brown, Lynn McConnell, and  Renee Patterson.     Graphic art and design assistance provided by Scott Brown Graphics.  Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ii Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………… ES1 SECTION 1 HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE ........................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 History of the Orange County Water District .................................................... 1-2 1.3 OCWD Governance ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Groundwater Producers ................................................................................... 1-9 1.5 Public Education and Events ......................................................................... 1-10 SECTION 2 PREPARATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ........... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act .................................................... 2-2 2.3 Basin Management Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 2-3 2.4 Recommendations and Projects Completed 2009-2015 ................................. 2-7 2.5 Recommendations for 2015-2020 ................................................................. 2-10 2.6 Planning and Implementation Horizons ......................................................... 2-11 SECTION 3 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Description of Basin Hydrogeology .................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Determination of Total Basin Volume .............................................................. 3-6 3.3 Water Budget ................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Calculation of Change in Groundwater Storage ............................................ 3-13 3.5 Elevation Trends ............................................................................................ 3-17 3.6 Land Subsidence ........................................................................................... 3-22 3.7 Basin Model ................................................................................................... 3-25 SECTION 4 WATER SUPPLY MONITORING .......................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Recycled Water Monitoring ............................................................................ 4-10 4.4 Surface Water Monitoring .............................................................................. 4-11 4.5 Water Resources Management System: Database Management ................. 4-17 4.6 Water Sample Collection and Analysis .......................................................... 4-18 4.7 Ground and Surface Water Interactions ........................................................ 4-21 SECTION 5 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES ...... 5-1 5.1 History of Recharge Operations ...................................................................... 5-1 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update iii 5.2 Sources of Recharge Water Supplies .............................................................. 5-3 5.3 Surface Water Recharge Facilities ................................................................ 5-12 5.4 Maintenance of Recharge Facilities ............................................................... 5-17 5.5 Recharge Studies and Evaluations ................................................................ 5-18 5.6 Improvements to Recharge Facilities 2009-2014 .......................................... 5-25 SECTION 6 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM .................................. 6-1 6.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Advanced Water Treatment Process ............................................................... 6-5 6.3 Energy Efficient Operations ........................................................................... 6-76 6.4 Plant Optimization and Expansion ................................................................... 6-7 6.5 Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting .......................................................... 6-9 6.6 Public Outreach ............................................................................................. 6-10 SECTION 7 SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT ................. 7-1 7.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier ................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier .............................................................. 7-66 7.4 Sunset Gap Investigation ............................................................................... 7-88 7.5 Evaluation of Potential Impacts Due to Climate Change ............................... 7-99 SECTION 8 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ..................... 8-1 8.1 OCWD Groundwater Quality Protection Policy ................................................ 8-1 8.2 Well Development, Management and Closure ................................................ 8-2 8.3 Managing Salinity in Water Supplies ............................................................... 8-3 8.4 Management of Nitrates in Groundwater ....................................................... 8-10 8.5 OCWD Prado Wetlands ................................................................................. 8-12 8.6 Amber-Colored Groundwater Management ................................................... 8-15 8.7 Regulation and Management of Contaminants ............................................. 8-16 8.8 Constituents of Emerging Concern ................................................................ 8-20 8.9 Groundwater Quality Improvement Projects .................................................. 8-22 8.10 BEA Exemption for Improvement Projects .................................................... 8-26 SECTION 9 NATURAL RESOURCE AND COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 OCWD Natural Resource Programs – Overview ............................................ 9-1 9.2 Natural Resource Programs in the Watershed ................................................ 9-2 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update iv 9.3 Collaborative Watershed Programs ............................................................... 9-10 9.4 Management of Areas Within Basin 8-1 Outside OCWD Boundaries .......... 9-15 9.5 Orange County Water Resources-Related Plans .......................................... 9-16 9.6 Collaboration with Federal and State Agencies ............................................. 9-18 9.7 Land Use, Development and Environmental Reviews ................................... 9-21 SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT ............................................. 10-1 10.1 Background ................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Basin Operating Range ................................................................................ 10-2 10.3 Balancing Production and Recharge ............................................................ 10-5 10.4 Managing Basin Pumping ............................................................................. 10-6 10.5 Supply Management Strategies ................................................................... 10-10 10.6 Removing Impediments to Conjunctive Use ................................................ 10-11 10.7 Water Demands ........................................................................................... 10-12 10.8 Drought Management .................................................................................. 10-15 10.9 Record Keeping ........................................................................................... 10-16 SECTION 11 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 11-1 11.1 Background Financial Information ................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Operating Expenses ...................................................................................... 11-1 11.3 Operating Revenues ...................................................................................... 11-2 11.4 Reserves ........................................................................................................ 11-3 SECTION 12 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS ..................................................... 12-1 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update v Table Page Table 1-1: Major Groundwater Producers within OCWD Boundaries…………….……..1-9 Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Groundwater Quality …………….…..………2-3 Table 2-2: Basin Management Objective: Basin Sustainable Yield …………….……….2-5 Table 2-3: Basin Management Objective: Operational Efficiency ……………….………2-6 Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed ............................................................ 2-7 Table 2-5: 2009 Recommendations: On-going .............................................................. 2-8 Table 2-6: Completed Projects/Accomplishments 2009-2015 ....................................... 2-9 Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020 ............................................................... 2-10 Table 3-1: Estimated Basin Groundwater Storage by Hydrogeologic Unit .................... 3-8 Table 3-2: Example Annual Basin Water Budget ........................................................... 3-9 Table 4-1: Monitoring of Regulated and Unregulated Chemicals .................................. 4-6 Table 4-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Product Water Quality Monitoring ... 4-10 Table 4-3: Surface Water Quality Sampling Frequency within Orange County ........... 4-14 Table 4-4: OCWD Publications .................................................................................... 4-21 Table 5-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies ........................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: Annual Recharge by Source ......................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-3: Area and Storage Capacities of Surface Water Recharge Facilities .......... 5-12 Table 5-4: Estimated Future Santa Ana River Storm Flow Arriving at Prado Dam ...... 5-23 Table 5-5: Santa Ana River Flow Conditions and Estimated Average Inflow to Prado Dam ............................................................................................................ 5-23 Table 5-6: Annual Yield of Potential Surface Water Recharge System Projects ......... 5-24 Table 8-1: Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Selected Constituents ................. 8-4 Table 8-2: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones ........................................................................................................... 8-5 Table 8-3: Salt Inflows for Orange County and Irvine Management Zones ................... 8-7 Table 8-4: Nitrate-nitrogen Water Quality Objective for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones ……………………………………………….……8-11 Table 8-5: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects ........................................................ 8-26 Table 10-1: Benefits and Constraints of Changing Storage Levels ............................. 10-3 Table 10-2: Groundwater Production and Recharge Sources .................................... 10-5 Table 10-3: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage ............ 10-9 Table 10-4: Conjunctive Use Impediments and Opportunities ................................... 10-11 Table 10-5: Estimated Future Water Demands in OCWD Service Area .................... 10-13 Table 10-6: Projected Total Water Demands ............................................................. 10-13 Table 10-7: Projected Population within OCWD Boundaries ..................................... 10-14 Table 10-8: Approaches to Refilling the Basin ........................................................... 10-16 Table 11-1: FY 2014-15 Budget Operating Expenses ................................................. 11-1 Table 11-2: FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues ............................................................. 11-2 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update vi Figure Page Figure ES-1: Burris Basin ........................................................................................... ES1 Figure ES-2: DWR Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundary ................................................. ES2 Figure ES-3: OCWD Wells and Title 22 Drinking Water Wells .................................. ES3 Figure ES-4: Sources of Groundwater Recharge ...................................................... ES4 Figure ES-5: GWRS Facilities .................................................................................... ES5 Figure ES-6: Mesas and Gaps Along the Orange County Coast ............................... ES6 Figure ES-7: OCWD Prado Wetlands ........................................................................ ES7 Figure ES-8: Least Bell’s Vireo .................................................................................. ES8 Figure ES-9: Groundwater Production ....................................................................... ES9 Figure ES-10: Groundwater Storage .......................................................................... ES10 Figure ES-11: Impacts of Change in Groundwater Storage Levels ........................... ES11 Figure 1-1: OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1935 ......................................................... 1-1 Figure 1-2: District Boundary, 1933 ............................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-3: Anaheim Lake, circa 1961 .......................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-4: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 ....................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-5: GWRS Reverse Osmosis Building ............................................................. 1-5 Figure 1-6: Board of Directors Service Area .................................................................. 1-6 ................................ 1-7 Figure 1-7: OCWD Board of Directors Meeting in Fountain Valley Figure 1-8: Retail Water Agencies within OCWD ......................................................... 1-10 Figure 1-9: Group Attending the 2015 Children’s Water Education Festival ................ 1-11 Figure 1-10: 2014 Orange County Water Summit ........................................................ 1-12 Figure 1-11: 2014 Groundwater Adventure Tour ......................................................... 1-13 Figure 1-12: OCWD Public Tour .................................................................................. 1-14 Figure 2-1: Meeting of OCWD Staff with Groundwater Producers ................................. 2-1 Figure 3-1: Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1 ................. 3-1 Figure 3-2: Geologic Cross-Section, Orange County Groundwater Basin ..................... 3-3 Figure 3-3: Orange County Groundwater Basin ............................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-4: Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundaries ............................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5: Estimated Subsurface Recharge ............................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-6: Distribution of Groundwater Production, Water Year 2013-14 .................. 3-11 Figure 3-7: Relationship between OCWD Basin Storage and ..................................... 3-12 Figure 3-8: Schematic Cross-Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers .... 3-14 Figure 3-9: Groundwater Level Contour Map, June 2014 ............................................ 3-15 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Level Changes, June 2013-14 ........................................... 3-16 Figure 3-11: Change in Groundwater Storage, WY 1974-75 to 2013-14 ..................... 3-17 Figure 3-12: Principal Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Profiles, 1969 and 2013 .......... 3-18 Figure 3-13: Location of Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph ................... 3-18 Figure 3-14: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA-21 and GG-16 in Pressure Area . 3-19 Figure 3-15: Water Level Hydrographs of Well A-27 in Forebay ................................. 3-20 Figure 3-16: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 ................ 3-21 Figure 3-17: Orange County Public Works GPS Real Time Network .......................... 3-23 Figure 3-18: Available Storage Space and Ground Surface Elevation Change .......... 3-24 Figure 3-19: Basin Model Extent .................................................................................. 3-25 Figure 3-20: Model Development Flowchart ................................................................ 3-28 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update vii Figure 3-21: Basin Model Calibration Wells ................................................................. 3-30 Figure 3-22: Calibration Hydrograph of Monitoring Well AM-5A .................................. 3-31 Figure 3-23: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well SC-2 .................................... 3-32 Figure 3-24: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well GGM-1 ................................ 3-32 Figure 3-25: Talbert Gap Model and Basin Model Boundaries .................................... 3-35 Figure 3-26: Talbert Model Calibration Wells and Boundary Wells .............................. 3-36 Figure 3-27: Talbert Gap Model Aquifer Layering Schematic ...................................... 3-36 Figure 4-1: OCWD-Owned Monitoring Wells ................................................................. 4-2 Figure 4-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells ........................................... 4-2 Figure 4-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation, and Industrial Wells in .................................... 4-4 Figure 4-4: Wells in CASGEM Program ......................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-5: OCWD Staff Collecting Water Sample at Production Well .......................... 4-7 Figure 4-6: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ................ 4-8 Figure 4-7: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ............... 4-8 Figure 4-8: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells .......................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-9: GWRS Monitoring Wells ........................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations ....................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-11: Basin Monitoring Program Task Force Monitoring Locations .................. 4-15 Figure 4-12: OCWD Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory ......................... 4-19 Figure 4-13: Monitoring Well Designs .......................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-14: Westbay Well Schematic ......................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-15: Santa Ana River in Orange County,1938 ................................................ 4-22 Figure 5-1: Santa Ana River, view upstream ................................................................. 5-1 Figure 5-2: Anaheim Lake and Mini Anaheim Lake ....................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-3: Five Year Average Recharge by Source ..................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-4: Santa Ana River Watershed ........................................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-5: Area of Inundation and Storage Volume for Water Conservation Pools ...... 5-6 Figure 5-6: Annual Base and Storm Flow in the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam .......... 5-7 Figure 5-7: Precipitation at San Bernardino, Water Year (Oct.-Sept.) .......................... 5-8 Figure 5-8: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System ............................ 5-8 Figure 5-9: Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek .......................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-10: Net Incidental Recharge and Precipitation, WY 2000-01 to 2013-14 ..... 5-10 Figure 5-11: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities ............................................. 5-13 Figure 5-12: Recharge Basin showing Accumulated Clogging Layer ......................... 5-17 Figure 5-13: Bulldozer in Off-River Channel Removing Clogging Layer ...................... 5-18 Figure 5-14: Recharge Facilities Model System Overview ........................................... 5-20 Figure 5-15: Miraloma Basin ........................................................................................ 5-26 Figure 5-16: Santiago Basins Pump Station ................................................................ 5-27 Figure 5-17: Sand and Cobble Sediments in Santa Ana River Channel ...................... 5-28 Figure 6-1: Aerial View of the Groundwater Replenishment System ............................. 6-2 Figure 6-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Facilities ........................................... 6-3 Figure 6-3: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 ....................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-4: AWPF Process Flow Diagram ..................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-5: Flow Equalization Tanks .............................................................................. 6-8 Figure 6-6: Group Touring the Groundwater Replenishment System .......................... 6-10 Figure 7-1: Coastal Gaps in Orange County .................................................................. 7-1 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update viii Figure 7-2: Talbert Barrier Injection Wells ...................................................................... 7-3 Figure 7-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours ............................ 7-4 Figure 7-4: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at OCWD-M27 ....... 7-5 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at HBM-2/MP1 ....... 7-5 Figure 7-6: Alamitos Gap Injection and Monitoring Wells .............................................. 7-7 Figure 7-7: Sunset Gap Monitoring and Production Wells ............................................. 7-9 Figure 8-1: Groundwater Management Zones in Orange County .................................. 8-4 Figure 8-2: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells ........................................................ 8-6 Figure 8-3: Total Flow Weighted Average TDS of All Source Waters ............................ 8-8 Figure 8-4: Tons of Salt in GWRS vs. Imported Water .................................................. 8-9 Figure 8-5: Areas with Elevated Nitrate Levels ............................................................ 8-11 Figure 8-6: Location of Prado Wetlands ....................................................................... 8-12 Figure 8-7: Aerial View of Prado Wetlands .................................................................. 8-13 Figure 8-8: Wetlands Pond Schematic ......................................................................... 8-14 Figure 8-9: Extent of Amber-Colored Water ................................................................. 8-15 Figure 8-10: Groundwater Cleanup Projects ................................................................ 8-17 Figure 8-11: Sample Analysis at OCWD Laboratory .................................................... 8-18 Figure 8-12: Water Quality Improvement Projects ....................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume ..................................... 8-23 Figure 8-14: South Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume .................................... 8-24 Figure 9-1: View of Prado Basin Looking East with Prado Dam in Foreground ............. 9-2 Figure 9-2: Prado Mitigation Areas ................................................................................ 9-3 Figure 9-3: Least Bell’s Vireo ......................................................................................... 9-4 Figure 9-4: Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Data 1983 ........................................................... 9-5 Figure 9-5: Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Data 2014 ........................................................... 9-5 Figure 9-6: Arundo ........................................................................................................ 9-6 Figure 9-7: Santa Ana Sucker ........................................................................................ 9-7 Figure 9-8: Gabion in Santa Ana River .......................................................................... 9-8 Figure 9-9: Bird Habitat Island Constructed in Burris Basin ........................................... 9-9 Figure 9-10: Tree Swallows Nesting, Lower Santa Ana River, 2014 ........................... 9-10 Figure 9-11: Tree Swallow Nest Box ............................................................................ 9-10 Figure 9-12: WACO Meeting in Fountain Valley .......................................................... 9-14 Figure 9-13: Areas Outside OCWD Boundaries .......................................................... 9-15 Figure 9-14: OCWD Recharge Operations Staff .......................................................... 9-18 Figure 9-15: Aerial View of Orange County ................................................................. 9-21 Figure 10-1: Schematic Illustration of Impacts of Changing the Amount of Groundwater in Storage .................................................................................................. 10-4 Figure 10-2: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY 1999-00 to 2013-14 ........ 10-5 Figure 10-3: Assigned and Actual Basin Production Percentage ................................ 10-7 Figure 10-4: BPP Calculation ....................................................................................... 10-8 Figure 10-5: Areas Supplied by GAP Water .............................................................. 10-11 Figure 10-6: Historic Total District Water Demands ................................................... 10-12 Table of Contents OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ix APPENDICES Appendix A Public Notices Appendix B Groundwater Management Plan Mandatory and Recommended Components and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long- Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater Appendix D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy Appendix E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs Appendix F Monthly Water Resources Report Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) is a special district formed to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Water from the basin provides approximately 70 percent of the water supply for residents in north and central Orange County. INTRODUCTION OCWD was created in 1933 by the California legislature to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The District operates the basin in order to protect and increase the basin’s sustainable yield in a cost-effective manner. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.4 million residents living within the District boundaries. OCWD manages the groundwater basin and seeks to expand the basin’s annual yield by maximizing the amount of water recharged into the basin, developing new sources of water to recharge the basin, and increasing the effectiveness of the District’s facilities. OCWD is governed by a 10-member Board of Directors. Cities, water agencies and other groundwater producers meet on a monthly basis with District staff to provide input and advice on basin management issues. Water demands have grown substantially since the District’s founding. This has challenged OCWD to increase groundwater recharge, establish methods to effectively manage demands on the basin, and balance the amount of total recharge and total pumping to maintain water levels and storage within the established safe operating range. Figure ES-1: Burris Basin - OCWD Recharge Facility in Anaheim Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES2 The District’s first Groundwater Management Plan was published in 1989; the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update is the fifth update. In 2014, the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed. The new law provides authority for agencies to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. Elements to be included in sustainability plans as described in the California Water Code (§10727.2, 10727.4, and 10727.6) have been incorporated into this plan. Groundwater basin management goals are (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of District operations. BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County Groundwater Basin is located within an area designated by the California Department of Water Resources as Basin 8-1. The boundaries of the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin” and OCWD boundaries are shown in Figure ES-2. The basin stores an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water, although only a fraction of this can be sustainably pumped without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or potential land subsidence. Annual changes in the amount of groundwater stored in the basin are estimated using groundwater elevation measurements and aquifer storage coefficients for the three primary aquifer systems in the basin. These estimated storage changes are backed up with comprehensive measurements of groundwater production and managed recharge so that a fairly precise estimate of groundwater storage is known on a monthly basis. OCWD’s groundwater basin model was developed to evaluate basin production capacity and recharge requirements and has improved the district’s overall understanding of groundwater flow dynamics. Typical applications of the basin model include estimating annual change in groundwater storage and the effects of potential future pumping and recharge projects on groundwater levels, storage, and the water budget. Figure ES-2: DWR Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundary Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES3 WATER SUPPLY MONITORING OCWD collects water elevation and water quality data from nearly 700 wells, including over 400 District-owned monitoring wells, shown in Figure ES-3. Comprehensive water quality monitoring programs are conducted to comply with permits and drinking water regulations, to conduct research programs, and to manage the groundwater basin. The District operates its own laboratory that is state-certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses. All entities that operate large-capacity wells must equip their wells with meters and report their production totals every six months. Approximately 200 large-capacity municipal and privately- owned supply wells account for 97 percent of production. At the District’s request, for the purposes of more precise and current knowledge of basin conditions and model calibration, owners of large-capacity wells have reported monthly production for each of their wells since 1988. All production and monitoring wells are measured for groundwater elevation at least every six months. Water quality sampling programs vary year-to-year based on regulatory requirements and basin conditions. In 2014, OCWD water quality staff collected 17,046 samples, 4,142 of which were collected from drinking water wells. OCWD conducts Title 22 drinking water quality monitoring on behalf of the Groundwater Producers. Additional groundwater programs include monitoring of groundwater contamination plumes, recycled recharge water quality and extent of seawater intrusion. OCWD monitors surface water used for groundwater recharge including Santa Ana River water and imported water as well as recycled water produced by the District’s Groundwater Replenishment System. Flows in and out of the District’s Prado Wetlands are monitored to evaluate changes in water quality and to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment wetlands. Data collected by OCWD are stored in the District’s electronic database and geographic information system, known as the Water Resources Management System. The database Figure ES-3: OCWD-Owned Wells and Wells in Title 22 Drinking Water Monitoring Program Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES4 contains comprehensive well information, current and historical data, and information on sub- surface geology and groundwater modeling. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES Replenishing the groundwater basin is essential to support pumping from the basin. Although the amount of recharge and basin pumping may not be the same each year, over the long- term recharge needs to approximately equal total pumping, as it has for decades. Recharge water supplies and their respective proportion of total recharge supplies are shown in Figure ES-4. The District’s surface water recharge system is comprised of 23 recharge facilities with a combined maximum storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet. Recharge basins are located adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the City of Anaheim and Santiago Creek in the City of Orange. Figure ES-4 Sources of Groundwater Recharge Average for Water Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 Santa Ana River Base Flow Storm Flow Imported Water Recycled Water In-Lieu Program Incidental Recharge Santa Ana River Base Flow Storm Flow Imported Water Recycled Water In-Lieu Program Incidental Recharge Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES5 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is OCWD’s recycled water purification system in operation since 2008 (Figure ES-5). The plant was jointly constructed by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. Wastewater that would otherwise be discharged to the Pacific Ocean is purified using a three-step process (microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation/disinfection) to produce high-quality water used to recharge the groundwater basin and for injection into the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier. When first completed, the plant produced up to 70 million gallons per day or approximately 72,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of product water. Initial expansion of the plant was completed in 2015 increasing production up to 100,000 afy of recycled water. Figure ES-5: GWRS Facilities SEAWATER INTRUSION MONITORING AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones along the coast is a major component of OCWD’s sustainable basin management. Seawater intrusion became a critical problem in the 1950s. Overdraft of the basin caused water levels to drop as much as 40 feet below sea level; seawater intruded three miles inland. Risk of seawater intrusion is greatest in coastal lowland areas, or gaps, between relatively flat elevated areas referred to as mesas as shown in Figure ES-6. The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. The barrier facilities are jointly owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and OCWD and include 43 injection wells and 177 active monitoring well sites. OCWD constructed the Talbert Seawater Barrier in 1975 with 23 injection well sites to halt seawater intrusion through the Talbert Gap, a 2.5 mile geological feature between the Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES6 Newport and Huntington Mesas. Today, the Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of 36 well sites that are used to inject an average of 36,000 afy of water into four aquifer zones. This forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. Basin monitoring for potential seawater intrusion in the vicinity of the Sunset Gap began in the 1950s. In 2007, a well in the City of Huntington Beach was permanently removed from service due to high salinity levels. Studies commenced and monitoring wells were constructed. Strategies to control intrusion being considered include design of a potential future southerly extension of the Alamitos Barrier. Additional remedial measures beyond source control may be considered, such as brackish groundwater extraction and desalination. ES-6: Mesas and Gaps Along the Orange County Coast WATER QUALITY PROTECTION OCWD adopted the first Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in 1987; the latest revision was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2014. The policy guides the actions of OCWD to prevent groundwater quality degradation, undertake investigation and clean up as necessary to protect the basin from contamination, and encourage appropriate treatment of poor-quality groundwater. Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES7 Salinity Management Since Santa Ana River water is a major source of recharge for the basin, salt management programs in the upper watershed are vital to protect the water quality in Orange County. A watershed-wide salinity management program is implemented by watershed stakeholders under the direction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, recharging the Orange County Groundwater Basin with recycled water produced by the GWRS is expected to reduce salinity levels over the long-term. To reduce the level of nitrate in Santa Ana River water, OCWD operates an extensive system of wetlands in the Prado Basin, shown in Figure ES-7. OCWD diverts approximately half of the non-storm flows of the Santa Ana River through the wetland ponds that remove approximately 15 to 40 tons of nitrates a month, depending on the season. Figure ES-7: OCWD Prado Wetlands Groundwater Contamination OCWD efforts to protect the groundwater basin and to assess the potential threat to public health and the environment from contamination in the Santa Ana River watershed and within Orange County include: • Reviewing on-going groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports; • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities; and • Conducting third-party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup. OCWD lacks the regulatory authority to require responsible parties or potentially responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, the District has pursued legal action against entities that have contaminated the groundwater basin to recover the District’s remediation costs. In other cases, the District coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination. The District also uses financial incentives to encourage pumping and treatment of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality by reducing the spread of poor-quality groundwater. Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES8 NATURAL RESOURCES AND COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS OCWD’s collaborative efforts in the Santa Ana River Watershed include natural resource programs to replace invasive plants with native plants and manage habitat for endangered and threatened species. These programs protect the water quality in the Santa Ana River and fulfill mitigation requirements for impacts to natural resources from District operations in the Prado Basin. During the 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began working with OCWD to conserve water behind Prado Dam in order to support OCWD’s groundwater recharge operations. OCWD’s natural resource programs began in response to concerns that increased water storage behind the dam could negatively impact the Prado Basin ecosystem. The Prado Basin contains the single largest stand of forested riparian habitat remaining in coastal southern California, which supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife including many listed and sensitive species. Habitat management programs in the Prado Basin are responsible for the recovery of a federally endangered species, the least Bell’s vireo, shown in Figure ES-8. In addition to programs in the Prado Basin, the District is a partner in watershed-wide efforts to eradicate the invasive plant Arundo donax, to manage habitat for rare and endangered birds, and to protect the Santa Ana Sucker, an endangered fish. Wildlife protection programs within Orange County include the construction of a bird island on Burris Basin and on-going participation in programs to manage water resources in the watershed. SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT In the early 1950s, increased pumping from the basin outpaced the rate of recharge. Water levels dropped and seawater intruded into coastal areas threatening the basin’s water quality. The District began purchasing imported water to recharge the basin. Groundwater producers supported legislative changes to the OCWD Act that provided for management of the basin as a common pool of water rather than allocating individual basin water rights. The adopted legislation allowed all producers to pump as much as they wanted provided that they pay for the costs of replenishing the basin. Sustainable management has allowed for basin production to grow from less than 200,000 afy in the mid-1960s to over 300,000 acre-feet in the 2000s as shown in Figure ES-9. The basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In any given year, groundwater withdrawals may exceed water ES-8 Least Bell’s Vireo Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES9 recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years when water recharged exceeds withdrawals. OCWD calculates the basin storage level annually and sets the target amount of production to manage pumping to either increase or decrease groundwater storage levels in response to hydrological conditions. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The BPP is a percentage of each Producer’s water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set on an annual basis and is uniform for all Producers. Groundwater pumping above the BPP is assessed an additional charge that creates a disincentive for over-producing. The basin is managed to maintain water storage levels of not more than 500,000 acre-feet below full condition to avoid permanent and significant negative or adverse impacts. The basin is operated within a safe operating range as shown in Figure ES-10. Operating the basin in this manner enables the District to encourage reduced pumping during wet years when surface water supplies are plentiful and increased pumping during dry years to provide additional local water supplies during droughts. Figure ES-9: Groundwater Production, Water Year 1963-64 to 2013-14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1963-64 1973-74 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2013-14 Water Year Groundwater Production Acre-feet (x 1,000) Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES10 Each year, the District determines the optimum level of storage for the following year when it sets the BPP. This determination is affected by several factors, including the current storage level, regional water availability, and hydrologic conditions. The District manages the basin within an established operating storage range. When the basin storage approaches the lower end of the operating range, issues that become more of a concern include seawater intrusion, upwelling of amber-colored water into the Principal Aquifer from underlying aquifers, downward migration of poor-quality groundwater from the Shallow Aquifer, increased risk of land subsidence, and potential for shallow wells to become inoperable due to lower water levels (see Figure ES-11). When operating the basin at a higher storage level, the amount of energy required to pump groundwater is less but groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County may be greater. One of OCWD’s basin management objectives is to maximize groundwater recharge. This is achieved through increasing the efficiency of and expanding the District’s recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water. Operation of the GWRS provides a substantial increase in supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional District supply management programs include encouraging and using recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, and working with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1974-75 1978-79 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2002-03 2006-07 2010-11 2014-15 Water Year Available Storage (amount below full condition) Acre-feet (x1000) Figure ES-10: Groundwater Storage for Water Years 1974-75 to 2013-14 Amount of groundwater in storage varies yearly; managed within safe operating range Executive Summary OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES11 Figure ES-11: Impacts of Change in Groundwater Storage Levels Financial Management The District’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The annual operating budget and expected revenues for FY 2014-15 were approximately $134.4 million. This includes a budget of $26 million to purchase imported water for recharge. Revenue sources include assessments to groundwater producers, property taxes, grants, and low-interest loans. HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE The Orange County Water District, since its founding in 1933, has managed the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This section includes: History of the Orange County Water District 1933: OCWD created by California legislature 1949: First purchase of imported water for groundwater recharge 1957: First off-river recharge basin purchased 1975: Talbert Seawater Barrier begins operation 2008: Groundwater Replenishment System beings operation District Governance • Board of Directors comprised of 10 members, each representing one division • Groundwater Producers meet monthly with District staff Public Events • Groundwater Adventure Tours and GWRS Tours • Children’s Water Festival • OC Water Summit Recharge Facilities, downstream view of Santa Ana River with T & L Levees, 1971 Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-1 HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE SECTION 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Water District (OCWD, the District) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature. The District manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.4 million residents living within the District’s boundaries. Figure 1-1: OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1935 Nineteen major groundwater producers, including cities, water districts, and private water companies, pump water from about 200 large-capacity wells for retail water use. There are also approximately 200 small-capacity wells that pump water from the basin. OCWD protects and manages the groundwater resource for long-term sustainability, while meeting approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand within its service area. Since its founding, the District has grown in area from 162,676 to 243,968 acres and has experienced an increase in population from approximately 120,000 to 2.4 million people. The District has employed groundwater management techniques to increase the annual yield from the basin including operating over 1,500 acres of infiltration basins in the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Annual water production increased from approximately 150,000 acre-feet per year (afy) in the mid-1950s to a high of over 360,000 afy in water year 2007-08. OCWD has managed the basin to provide a reliable supply of relatively low-cost water, accommodating rapid population growth while at the same time avoiding the costly and time- Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-2 consuming adjudication of water rights experienced in many other major groundwater basins in Southern California. Facing the challenge of increasing demand for water has fostered a history of innovation and creativity that has enabled OCWD to increase available groundwater supply while protecting the long-term sustainability of the basin. 1.2 HISTORY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1800s: Population in the Santa Ana River Watershed increases rapidly as immigrants move into the region that for centuries was populated by Native Americans. 1900s: Growth of Orange County’s agricultural economy creates demand for water, straining available surface and groundwater supplies. Increased water use upstream in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties results in declining flows in the Santa Ana River. 1932: The Irvine Company, the county’s largest landowner, files suit against upper basin users to protect its rights to river flows. The Orange County Farm Bureau forms the Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association to consider options to secure adequate supplies. June 14, 1933: California Legislature creates the Orange County Water District by special act to protect surface water rights and manage the groundwater basin. The new district joins the Irvine Company’s lawsuit. 1930s: Groundwater pumping in Orange County exceeds the rate of recharge resulting in groundwater levels dropping. OCWD begins actively recharging the groundwater basin and looking for additional water supplies. 1936: OCWD begins purchasing portions of the Santa Ana River channel with the first purchase of 26 acres. Figure 1-2: District Boundary, 1933 Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-3 1942: The Irvine Company lawsuit is settled by setting limits on the amount of Santa Ana River water to be used for recharge in the upper basins as a means to provide Orange County with a share of this water supply. 1949: OCWD begins purchasing imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct for groundwater recharge. 1951: OCWD initiates legal action against cities upstream of Orange County to protect rights to Santa Ana River flow. Settlement of the suit in 1957 limits use of river water to the amount used in 1946. 1954: The District Act is amended giving OCWD authority to collect a Replenishment Assessment (RA) from groundwater pumpers to purchase imported water for groundwater recharge. The amendments also enlarged the District boundaries, and required the publication of an annual engineer’s report on groundwater production and basin conditions. 1956: Groundwater levels drop as much as 40 feet below sea level and seawater intrudes 3½ miles inland. Plans begin to construct seawater intrusion barriers in two areas – Alamitos Gap at the mouth of the San Gabriel River at the Orange County/Los Angeles County border and the Talbert Gap at the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Fountain Valley. 1957: OCWD purchases land and constructs Anaheim Lake, the District’s first off-river recharge basin. 1963: OCWD files a lawsuit against all upper watershed entities above Prado Dam to ensure a minimum amount of Santa Ana River water for Orange County. 1965: OCWD partners with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to begin injecting fresh water into the Alamitos Gap to prevent saltwater intrusion. 1968: OCWD purchases land and water rights owned by Anaheim Union Water Company and the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, which includes land upstream of Prado Dam that was acquired to protect Orange County’s interest in Santa Ana River water. Figure 1-3: Anaheim Lake, circa 1961 Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-4 1969: The lawsuit against upper watershed entities is settled. (Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Case no. 117628 – County of Orange). Large water districts agree to deliver at least 42,000 acre-feet of Santa Ana River baseflow to Orange County and OCWD gains the rights to all stormflows reaching Prado Dam. Parties to the judgment include Western Municipal Water District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 1969: The Basin Production Percentage and the Basin Equity Assessment are established. 1973: First water quality laboratory is constructed to analyze samples from the Santa Ana River and to begin analysis of demonstration injection wells for the planned construction of Water Factory 21. 1975: Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier begins operation. Control of seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap requires six times the amount of water needed for the Alamitos Gap. Water Factory 21 is built to supply water to the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier. Secondary-treated wastewater from the Orange County Sanitation District receives advanced treatment and is blended with potable water to produce a safe, reliable supply for barrier operations. 1991: Santiago Creek recharge project is completed, including purchase and development of Santiago Basins along Santiago Creek, a pump station at Burris Basin, and a pipeline to convey water back and forth from recharge basins along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Basins. Two rubber dams are installed on the Santa Ana River, allowing for more efficient diversion of river water to the downstream recharge facilities. The increased capture of water from the dams paid for the cost of the dams within the first year of operation. Figure 1-4: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-5 2008: The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) begins operation, replacing Water Factory 21. The GWRS is capable of producing up to 72 mgd of water for use in Talbert Barrier operations and for groundwater recharge. 2009: New Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory opens to handle over 400,000 analyses of nearly 20,000 water samples each year. 2015: GWRS Initial Expansion is completed, expanding plant capacity from 72 mgd to 100 mgd of product water. Figure 1-5: GWRS Reverse Osmosis Building 1.3 OCWD GOVERNANCE The Orange County Water District was created by a special act of the California legislature in 1933 for the purpose of: “providing for the importation of water into said district and preventing waste of water in or exportation of water from said district and providing for reclamation of drainage, storm, flood and other water for beneficial use in said district and for the conservation and control of storm and flood water flowing into said district; providing for the organization and management of said district and establishing the boundaries and divisions thereof and defining the powers of the district, including the right of the district to sue and be sued, and the powers and duties of the officers thereof; providing for the construction of works and acquisition of property by the district to carry out the purposes of this act; authorizing the incurring of indebtedness and the voting, issuing and selling of bonds and the levying and collecting of assessments by said district; and providing for the Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-6 inclusion of additional lands therein and exclusion of lands therefrom.” (Stats.1933, c. 924, p. 2400) The District is divided into 10 divisions as specified in the District Act. One director is elected or appointed from each division. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana appoint one member each to serve on the Board. The other seven Board members are elected by voters in the respective divisions. Boundaries of the 10 divisions are shown in Figure 1-6. Appointed members of the Board serve a four-year term and may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the appointing governing body. Elected members of the board serve four-year terms and may be re-elected without limits. Figure 1-6: Board of Directors Service Area Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-7 The ten divisions are comprised of the following areas: The full Board of Directors, shown in Figure 1-7, meets twice a month, normally on the first and third Wednesdays of the month. Board committees also meet on a monthly basis. These committees include the Water Issues, Communication/Legislation, Administration/Finance, Property/Management and Retirement. Division One: Garden Grove, Stanton, Westminster Division Two: Orange, Villa Park, and parts of Tustin Division Three: Buena Park, La Palma, Placentia, Yorba Linda, and parts of Cypress Division Four: Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and parts of Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Stanton, and Westminster Division Five: Parts of Irvine and Newport Beach Division Six: Parts of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach Division Seven: Costa Mesa and parts of Fountain Valley, Irvine, Newport Beach and Tustin Division Eight: Santa Ana Division Nine: Anaheim Division Ten: Fullerton Figure 1-7: OCWD Board of Directors Meeting in Fountain Valley Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-8 The Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee, a joint committee of OCWD and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) meets on a quarterly basis to manage and plan operation of and expansion of the Groundwater Replenishment System. As operation of the plant is a joint venture of the two agencies, the Steering Committee discusses issues such as flow availability from the OCSD plant, operational challenges, plant expansion, source control, water quality, and others. Section 2 of the District Act grants powers to the District as summarized below: • To construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, and to operate and maintain necessary waterworks, water rights, spreading grounds, lands, and rights necessary to replenish the groundwater basin and augment and protect the water quality of the common water supplies of the District; • Provide for the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water resources within the district area; • Store water in underground basins or reservoirs within or outside the District; • Regulate and control the storage of water and the use of groundwater basin storage space in the basin; • Purchase and import water into the District; • Transport, reclaim, purify, treat, inject, extract, or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons or property within the District and to improve and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies; • Determine the amount and percentage of water produced from the groundwater basin within the district to the total amount of water produced within the District by all persons and operators; • Require that persons and operators produce more or less of their total water needs from the groundwater within the District than the basin production percentage determined by the District, levy a basin equity assessment on each person and operator who produces more water from the basin, compensate persons and operators who are directed by the District to produce less than the basin production percentage; • Provide for the protection and enhancement of the environment within and outside the District in connection with the water activities of the district; and • To commence, maintain, intervene in, defend, and compromise, and assume the costs and expenses of all actions to prevent interference with water or water rights used within the District or diminution of the quality or pollution or contamination of the water supply of the District. A copy of the District Act can be found at: http://www.ocwd.com/Portals/0/Pdf/ocwd_district_act.pdf. Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-9 1.4 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS The local agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin are listed in Table 1-1 with geographic boundaries shown in Figure 1-8. District staff members meet monthly with 19 local, major water producers, referred to as the Producers, to discuss and evaluate important basin management issues in order to involve other affected agencies and work cooperatively where service areas or boundaries overlie the basin. Table 1-1 Major Groundwater Producers within OCWD Boundaries CITIES Anaheim Huntington Beach Santa Ana Buena Park La Palma Seal Beach Fountain Valley Newport Beach Tustin Fullerton Orange Westminster Garden Grove WATER DISTRICTS AND WATER COMPANIES East Orange County Water District Mesa Water District Golden State Water Company Serrano Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Yorba Linda Water District Generally, each year a chairman is elected to manage the Producers’ meetings and represent the Producers. This monthly meeting provides a forum for the Producers to provide their input to the District on important issues such as: • Setting the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each year; • Reviewing the merits of proposed capital improvement projects; • Purchasing imported water to recharge the groundwater basin; • Reviewing water quality data and regulations; • Maintaining and monitoring basin water quality; and • Budgeting and considering other important policy decisions. Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-10 Figure 1-8: Retail Water Agencies within OCWD 1.5 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EVENTS Proactive community outreach and public education are central to the operation of OCWD. The District is dedicated to the creation, promotion and management of water education and conservation programs throughout Orange County. Each year, staff members give more than 70 offsite presentations to community leaders and citizens, conduct nearly 200 onsite presentations and tours of District facilities, and take an active part in community events (see Figure 1-9). The goal of OCWD’s water-use efficiency and education programs, local water briefings, and outreach to organizations is to draw attention to state and local water needs and crises, teach useful and simple ways to reduce water consumption and respect this natural resource, and encourage local citizens to make life-long commitments to conserving water. The components that comprise OCWD’s water-use efficiency, outreach and public education events and programs are described in this section. Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-11 Children’s Water Education Festival The Children’s Water Education Festival, shown in Figure 1-9, is the largest event of its kind in the nation, serving approximately 7,000 elementary school students annually. Thanks to more than 400 volunteers and the support of the Disneyland Resort, the National Water Research Institute and OCWD’s Groundwater Guardian Team, the Festival celebrated its 19th anniversary in March 2015. The two-day Festival teaches children about water and the environment through hands-on educational activities. Topics include water resources, watersheds, wildlife and natural habitats, biology, chemistry and recycling at this unique event. The Festival has a legacy of hosting educational presenters who are experts from organizations such as National Geographic, NASA/JPL, Columbia Memorial Space Center, Wyland Foundation, California Department of Water Resources, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, UCLA, and UCI. Since inception, more than 110,000 students have attended. Figure 1-9: Group Attending the 2015 Children’s Water Education Festival O.C. Water Hero Program The O.C. Water Hero Program was designed to make water conservation fun while helping children and parents develop effective water-use efficiency habits that will last a lifetime. When children sign up to commit to saving 20 gallons of water per day, they will enjoy videos, games, trivia, and other incentives they can access via the website and smartphone applications. The Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-12 purpose of the O.C. Water Hero Program is to raise awareness of the need to conserve water and motivate county residents to reduce their water consumption by 20 gallons per day, per person. Since its inception in 2007, nearly 20,000 Water Heroes and Superheroes have enrolled in the program. In 2015, OCWD revamped the program to upgrade the technology platform in order to increase participation. Groundwater Guardian The District was recognized as a Groundwater Guardian member in 1996, thereafter forming the OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team. This program is designed to empower local citizens and communities to take voluntary steps toward protecting groundwater resources. The OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team primarily supports the Children’s Water Education Festival. Social Media Social media is a unique opportunity to provide information directly to people interested in OCWD and the topics associated with the organization. Through vehicles such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and others, the District posts information of immediate importance, as well as joins the conversation on trending topics. OCWD engages in social media practice several times during a given week, primarily to followers of its Facebook and Twitter accounts. OC Water Summit The annual OC Water Summit, shown in Figure 1-10, teaches individuals, business, and community and civic leaders where our water comes from, and provides information about the water supply crisis and water quality challenges we face. The event, held annually since 2008, educates the public on what temporary measures are in place to address these issues as well as possible solutions to water reliability and preserving the Bay-Delta River, California’s main source of water. A collaborative effort between businesses, water agencies and local governments, the OC Water Summit provides a platform for individuals in the community to work with water utilities and legislators on creating and implementing solutions that will see Orange County through future water challenges. Topics for each Summit are determined according to the water climate each year. This event is hosted in conjunction with the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Disneyland Resort. Figure 1-10: 2014 Orange County Water Summit Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-13 The Groundwater Adventure Tour Nearly 150 guests attend the Groundwater Adventure Tour (see Figure 1-11) that takes place each fall. The annual event highlights Orange County Water District operations that include the Groundwater Replenishment System, the Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, Recharge Operations, and Prado Wetlands. The day’s activities are designed to provide an inside look at Orange County’s water supply, as well as provide a better understanding of the District’s groundwater recharge operations. Tour attendees include staff from cities, offices of elected officials, water districts, universities, state and county agencies, students, chambers of commerce members, service club members, and other stakeholders. Information is presented to attendees in a variety of formats including speeches, tours, video and question and answer sessions. OCWD executive management and supporting staff share their knowledge and facilitate activities throughout the day. Figure 1-11: 2014 Groundwater Adventure Tour Website The Public Affairs Department hosts the District’s website, www.ocwd.com, to provide information on an array of subjects about OCWD, its board, facilities, and its programs. It includes access to important documents and forms providing transparency and public access. In 2015, the District merged the OCWD website with a separate site that was dedicated to information about the Groundwater Replenishment System, www.gwrsystem.com . The website helps to engage the citizens of north and central Orange County and water-related agencies to learn more about OCWD’s operations. Hydrospectives Newsletter The Hydrospectives newsletter is a monthly publication with a circulation of approximately 5,700 subscribers from the water industry, government officials and agencies, OCWD staff, and the general public. It reflects the progress and decisions of the District, its achievements and influences and information pertinent to the groundwater industry in north and central Orange Section 1 History and Governance OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-14 County. Each month, it offers a variety of subjects that include a message from the board president, important contributions from departments and staff, global and regional news, and celebrations and accomplishments of which OCWD is a part. Media Coverage/Exposure OCWD, its facilities and programs have been featured in thousands of print and broadcast stories, both mainstream and trade press, locally, nationally and internationally. The District and its Groundwater Replenishment System have been featured in National Geographic magazine, Wall Street Journal and on the 60 Minutes television program. They have also been featured in several documentaries including “Tapped – The Movie;” “Ecopolis” and “How Stuff Works” for Discovery TV; “Urban Evolution: The Story of Pure Water” for London’s Institution of Engineering & Technology; “America’s Infrastructure Report Card- Water” (ASCE 2009); in an episode of “Off Limits” for the Travel Channel; and referenced in the documentary titled “Last Call at the Oasis.” Facility Tours and Speakers Bureau OCWD receives hundreds of requests each year to provide tours and briefings for visitors from local colleges, water agencies, the surrounding community, and international organizations. Through its active speakers bureau program, OCWD also receives requests for representatives to go out to the community and speak to numerous organizations and schools, as well as at local, national and international conferences. Since the GWRS came online in January 2008, more than 24,000 visitors have toured the facility. During FY 2013-14, OCWD conducted 198 public tours of the GWRS plant and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory with a total of 3,432 participants. OCWD is committed to proactive public outreach and education and makes every effort to accommodate requests for speakers and tours. Educating the public about advanced wastewater purification is important to garnering support for future GWRS-like projects that are being planned around the world. Knowledge about Orange County’s water supply encourages water-use efficiency efforts and educates stakeholders about the importance of protecting groundwater supplies. Figure 1-12: OCWD Public Tour PREPARATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Groundwater Management Plan is a comprehensive description of and plan for District operations. This section includes: History of the District’s Groundwater Management Plan • First plan adopted in 1989 under authority granted by OCWD District Act • 2015 Update will be sixth updated plan • CA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act elements incorporated into 2015 Update Goals established for Basin Management Objectives • Protect and enhance groundwater quality • Protect and increase basin sustainable yield in cost-effective manner • Increase operational efficiency Accomplishments 2009 to 2014 • Status of 2009 recommendations • 19 completed projects Recommendations for 2015 to 2020 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 2-1 PREPARATION OF GROUNDWATER SECTION 2 MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.1 INTRODUCTION OCWD adopted its first Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 1989 under authority granted by the District Act. Updates to the plan were prepared and adopted by the Board of Directors in 1990, 1994, 2004, and 2009. The 2015 update sets forth basin management goals and objectives, describes accomplishments, explains changes in basin management, and provides information about projects completed by the District since publication of the latest update in 2009. OCWD’s goals and basin management objectives were reviewed and revised as necessary reflecting the need to protect and manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin for long-term sustainability. The District, as the groundwater basin manager, and the Producers, as the local retailers, cooperate to serve the 2.4 million residents within OCWD’s boundaries. The OCWD’s Board of Directors and the Producers served as the Advisory Committee for the preparation of this Groundwater Management Plan. The OCWD Board of Directors has the sole authority to adopt the GWMP. Specific projects developed as a result of recommendations in the GWMP are separately reviewed and approved by the District’s Board of Directors and processed for environmental review prior to project implementation. The GWMP describes the factors and key issues that are considered as the Board makes basin management decisions on a regular basis each year but does not commit the District to a particular program or level of groundwater production. To encourage public participation in the development of and adoption of the GWMP update, OCWD published a notice pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code of the District’s intention to prepare this document and invited interested individuals to participate in the preparation process. A notice was placed on OCWD’s website on the main page inviting public participation. In addition to the publicly-noticed public participation opportunities and postings on the website, the District held workshops with the Producers, shown in Figure 2-1. The Producers include Figure 2-1: Meeting of OCWD Staff with Groundwater Producers Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 2-2 cities, special districts and investor-owned utilities that produce more than 90 percent of the water pumped from the basin. The content of the GWMP was developed with input and review from the Producers by conducting workshops and seeking comments on drafts of the plan. The California Water Code (section 10750 et seq.) describes the process for development and adoption of a groundwater management plan that includes a public participation component. As explained above, the process of adopting this plan included publicly-noticed meetings held as part of the District’s regularly-scheduled board meetings and information posted on the OCWD website and the Hydrospectives newsletter. Appendix A contains copies of the public notices. Water Code Section 10753.7 and 10753.8 lists the mandatory and recommended components of a Groundwater Management Plan. A complete list of these components and their location in the OCWD’s GWMP can be found in Appendix B. This plan is developed to meet the requirements of the California Water Code. 2.2 SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB1168, AB1739, and SB1319) became law on September 16, 2014. This new law provides specific authority to establish groundwater sustainability agencies and sets forth procedures and requirements to prepare and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans. The new law establishes OCWD as the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within the District’s statutory boundaries with powers to comply with the provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (California Water Code Section 10723 (c) (1)). California Water Code Sections 10727 (a) and 10733.6 require groundwater sustainability agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans and submit the plans to DWR for review upon adoption. Section 10733.6 also provides for the preparation of an alternative plan that includes an analysis of basin conditions demonstrating that the basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. An alternative plan must be submitted no later than January 1, 2017. DWR is required to adopt regulations by June 1, 2016 for evaluating groundwater sustainability plans and the implementation of plans. Regulations shall identify necessary plan components (California Water Code Sections 10727.2, 10727.4 and 10727.6). Required elements include a description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system, measurable objectives, a planning and implementation horizon, components related to management of the basin, summary of monitoring programs, monitoring protocols, and a description of how the plan may affect other plans related to water resources. Required elements for Groundwater Sustainability Plans and additional plan elements have been incorporated into OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan. These elements are listed in Appendix B along with references to where the elements are contained in in the plan. A description of how each of the basin management objectives contributes to sustainable management of the basin can be found in Appendix C. Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-3 2.3 BASIN MANGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OCWD basin management goals are: 1. To protect and enhance the groundwater quality of the Orange County Groundwater Basin 2. To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner 3. To increase the efficiency of OCWD operations More specific basin management objectives set to accomplish the above mentioned goals are summarized below in Table 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. A section reference is provided for each of the objectives with detailed explanations of how the groundwater basin is managed to achieve the objective. Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Protect and Enhance Groundwater Quality Section Reference Groundwater Quality Collect & analyze water quality samples from 400 District monitoring wells as determined by program protocols (at least annually) 4.2 Collect & analyze water quality samples from 200 drinking water wells as determined by Title 22 protocols (at least annually) 4.2 Recharge Water Supplies Collect & analyze water quality samples of recharge supplies (surface, recycled, imported, & ground water) according to program protocols (at least quarterly) 4.2.5 4.3 Surface Water Supplies Sample & analyze 2 sites on Santa Ana River in Orange County as directed by NWRI Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Expert Panel (quarterly) 4.3 Sample & analyze 12 sites in upper watershed for constituents as directed by NWRI Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Expert Panel (annually) 4.3 Contamination Prevention and Remediation Implement the District’s Groundwater Quality Protection Policy 8.1 Evaluate & implement projects to address groundwater contamination in North Basin 8.9 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-4 Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Protect and Enhance Groundwater Quality Section Reference & South Basin areas Seawater Intrusion Collect samples & analyze water quality from 86 wells to assess control of seawater intrusion at Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos Gaps (annually) 4.2, 7 Prepare Talbert Gap area chloride concentration contour maps (every two years) 7 Operate Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier to (1) maintain protective groundwater elevation at well OCWD-M26 and (2) prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour 7.2 Participate in Alamitos Barrier Operations Committee to review barrier performance (at least annually) 7.3 Operate Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier with Los Angeles County agencies to prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour 7.3 Increase injection or implement other measures to prevent basin degradation if significant seawater intrusion occurs 7 Wetlands & Natural Resources Support natural resource programs in watershed to improve water quality 9 Participate in cooperative efforts with regulators and stakeholders within watershed 4.3.3, 9 Divert 50% of Santa Ana River flow through Prado Wetlands to improve river water quality; measure flow & nitrogen removal loads (monthly) 8.5 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-5 Table 2-2: Basin Management Objective: Protect and Increase Basin Sustainable Yield in Cost-Effective Manner Section Reference Collect & analyze at least 1,000 measurements of groundwater levels (at least 6 times/year) 4.2.2 Calculate change in basin storage (annually) 4.2.2 Collect production rate data from 19 large producers (monthly) & small producers (every six months) 4.2.1 Participate in state CASGEM program by reporting groundwater elevation measurements from 38 wells (annually) 4.2.4 Maintain groundwater storage within safe operating range (less than 500,000 acre- feet below full condition) 10 Set target level for total production, estimate total water demands & establish Basin Production Percentage (annually) 3.4, 10.2 Calculate total volume of water recharged (annually) 5 Report & publish, on website, total water recharged in Water Resources Summary (monthly) 5 Convene OCWD Recharge Enhancement Working Group (annually) 5.5.1 Evaluate potential new recharge projects using District’s Recharge Facilities Model 5.5.2 Promote local infiltration of stormwater 3.3.2 Participate in cooperative efforts with regulators & stakeholders in watershed 9.2, 9.3 Collect & review ground surface elevation measurement data from Orange County Surveyor (annually) 3.6 If significant levels of subsidence occur, conduct characterization & mitigation study 3.6 Produce 90,000 afy of GWRS recycled water 6 Publish the Engineer’s Report that includes total pumping, groundwater elevations, change in storage, & related water data (annually) 10.2 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-6 Table 2-3: Basin Management Objective: Increase Operational Efficiency Section Reference Maintain Water Resources Management System database as central repository for water quality, pumping, recharge, & related water management information 4.4 Manage District’s finances for long-term fiscal stability 11 Operate District programs in cost-effective & efficient manner 11 Manage natural resource programs in Santa Ana River Watershed in efficient manner 9.2 Implement efficient environmental management programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions & use alternative energy where feasible 6.3 Use Recharge Facilities Model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of potential new recharge basins & improvements to existing facilities 5.5 Make improvements to recharge facilities to increase efficiency 5.6 The District publishes the following reports to support achievement of the above listed management goals: • Update the Groundwater Management Plan every five years • Update the Long-Term Facilities Plan periodically approximately every five years • Publication of: o Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Report (biannually) o Engineer’s Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization (annually) o Santa Ana River Watermaster Report (annually) o Groundwater Replenishment System Annual Report • Preparation of the Water Resources Summary (monthly) • Periodic publication of Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-7 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROJECTS COMPLETED 2009-2015 In the 2009 GWMP Update, the District adopted recommendations to continue sustainable management of the basin. Those recommendations that have been achieved are listed in Table 2-4. Recommendations yet to be completed are listed in Table 2-5. The tables indicate which of the three basin management objectives (1) protecting and enhancing water quality, (2) protecting and increasing the basin’s sustainable yield, and (3) increasing the efficiency of OCWD’s operations apply to each of the recommendations. Table 2-6 lists the projects completed by OCWD between 2009 and 2015. Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed Water Quality Sustain- able Yield Effic- iency Monitor groundwater elevations & water storage levels   Monitor quality of groundwater & recharge water sources  Update the Groundwater Management Plan    Update the Long-Term Facilities Plan    Publish annually: Santa Ana River Water Quality; Engineer’s Report; Santa Ana River Watermaster Report ; GWRS Operations Annual Report    Publish Report on Managed Aquifer Recharge  Monitor water management & recycling plans in watershed   Complete study on reducing sediment loads in recharge water   Complete GWRS Initial Expansion   Increase drought preparedness by utilizing full capacity of GWRS  Develop improved tools and approaches to evaluate potential new recharge basins & proposed changes to existing operations   Expand removal of non-native vegetation & plant native vegetation   Promote incidental recharge  Manage recharge supplies to meet/exceed MCLs & Notification Levels  Operate Prado Wetlands to reduce nitrogen loads in Santa Ana River  Publish research study on emerging constituents with MWD and NWRI  Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-8 Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed Water Quality Sustain- able Yield Effic- iency Participate in cooperative efforts with watershed stakeholders   Maintain control of seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap   Open new water quality laboratory in Fountain Valley  Operate basin within safe & sustainable operating range  Set Basin Production Percentage to optimize sustainable use of groundwater  Manage finances to maintain high credit ratings  Maintain reserves for purchase of supplemental water supplies  Table 2-5: 2009 Recommendations: On-going Water Quality Sustain- able Yield Effic- ency Complete North Basin Groundwater Protection Program  Complete South Basin Groundwater Protection Program  Address MTBE contamination  Increase allowable storage of stormwater behind Prado Dam   Improve performance of Alamitos Seawater Barrier; evaluate need for more injection wells; construct necessary facilities   Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-9 Table 2-6: Completed Projects/Accomplishments 2009-2015 Completed Section Reference GWRS Initial Expansion: expand capacity from 70-100 mgd 2015 8 Miraloma Basin: new basin increased recharge by approx. 30,000 afy 2012 5.6 Construction of new water quality laboratory 2009 4.5 Olive Basin Pump Station: increase infiltration by 1,600-4,800 afy 2010 5.6 Burris & Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration: remove impermeable material to increase infiltration rates 2010 5.6 Santiago Basin Pump Station: remove water stored below outlet structure; increase of recharge capacity by 5,000 afy 2012 5.6 Alamitos Barrier Flow and Transport Models to improve evaluation of seawater intrusion 2014 3.7.5, 7.3 Recharge Facilities Model: evaluate existing & proposed operations to increase operational efficiency 2009 5.2.2 Santa Ana River Armoring Study of river sediments to evaluate alternatives for improved infiltration 2010 5.5 Recharge Water Sediment Removal Feasibility Study: pilot-study of filter systems to improve percolation rates 2010 5.6 Arundo Removal and Native Plantings: remove 5,000 acres of invasive plants; increase annual water yield of 3.75 cfs/acre removed 2014 9.2.2 Least Bell’s Vireo Habitat Management: increase populations in watershed 2014 9.2.1 Nesting Box Installation: 500 boxes in Prado Basin & Forebay to attract birds that eat insect pests to reduce pesticide use 2014 9.2 Regulatory approval to inject 100% recycled water at Talbert Barrier 2009 7.2 Adoption of a BPP Policy to assure long-term basin sustainability 2013 10.4.2 GWRS Plant Operational Optimization 2013 6.3 NWRI/MET/OCWD Study of constituents of emerging concern 2010 8.8 Completed testing for unregulated chemicals under the EPA UCMRI-List 1 program 2010 4.2.3 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-10 2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2015-2020 OCWD plans for the next five years include accomplishment of the recommendations listed in Table 2-7. Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020 PROJECT BENEFIT TO BASIN GWRS Final Expansion to 130 MGD Increase recharge water supply from 100,000 to134,000 afy Mid-Basin Injection Increase basin recharge in area of concentrated groundwater pumping Subsurface Recharge & Collection System Increase recharge Prado Basin Sediment Management Demonstration Project Remove sediment behind dam to increase storage capacity North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Remediate VOC contamination South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Remediate VOC contamination MTBE Investigation and Remediation Remediate MTBE contamination Fletcher Basin New recharge basin West Orange County Enhanced Pumping Reduce groundwater flow from Orange County into Los Angeles County La Palma Basin New recharge basin Prado Basin Enhanced Water Conservation Increase allowable storage of stormwater behind Prado Dam Increase recharge in Santiago Creek below Hart Park Increase recharge capacity Alamitos Barrier Improvements Protect water quality by increasing seawater intrusion facilities Alamitos Barrier Expansion (Landing Hill) Expand seawater intrusion facilities Sunset Gap Barrier/Desalter Improve water quality by capturing and treating brackish groundwater Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-11 Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020 PROJECT BENEFIT TO BASIN Huntington Beach Ocean Desalination Plant Increase water supply by up to 56,000 afy Enhanced Recharge in SAR Below Ball Road Increase capacity to capture and infiltrate stormwater 2.6 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION HORIZONS District management and operations incorporate a variety of planning and implementation horizons as explained below. The Long-Term Facilities Plan is updated approximately every five years to evaluate a large number of potential future projects. The planning horizon for consideration of new facilities is five years. The implementation horizon for projects varies from two to 10 years, depending on size and complexity of the individual project. The 2014 plan, for example, evaluated 64 potential projects ranging from those to increase water supply, institute changes in basin management, modify recharge facilities, and increase operational efficiency. Each proposed project is considered for future study based on cost-effectiveness, amount of new water supply provided, regulatory and institutional feasibility, and other factors. The cost-effectiveness of each project that provides additional groundwater recharge is evaluated in relationship to the current and projected cost of imported water. In this sense, the cost of imported water provides a benchmark for determination of project cost effectiveness. The District’s Groundwater Management Plan is updated approximately every five years. This plan provides an overview of all district operations, documents accomplishments and projects built since the last updated plan was published, and establishes basin management objectives. OCWD uses a variety of models and studies to assist in long-term planning. The Recharge Facilities Model, described in Section 5.5, provides the ability to simulate different water inflow scenarios, different Prado Dam conservation pool elevations and release rates, changes in basin recharge capacities, and amount of imported water recharged to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed recharge projects. In 2014, the District completed a study projecting future Santa Ana River flows. The planning horizon for this study is approximately 50 years. This work, explained in section 5.5.3, was done primarily to support work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in studying the feasibility of increasing the volume of water that can be temporarily impounded behind Prado Dam. The planning and implementation horizon for water demand projections is dependent upon the publication of Urban Water Management Plans for cities within the boundaries of OCWD, which currently have projected demands to 2035. BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY This section describes the hydrogeology of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, also refered to as Basin 8-1. Hydrogeology • Basin covers approximately 350 square miles in north and central Orange County • Basin divided into Forebay and Pressure Areas • OCWD determined total basin volume • Water budget incorporates basin inflows and outflows Groundwater in Storage • Estimated annually, based on 2007 comprehensive study • Land subsidence potential monitored Groundwater Basin Model • Model encompasses entire basin; updated every 3-5 years • Talbert Gap model used to assess seawater intrusion • Alamitos Barrier model constructed in 1965; latest update in 2010 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-1 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY SECTION 3 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County Groundwater Basin is located in the area designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin” in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). Figure 3-1 displays the OCWD boundary in relation to the boundary of Basin 8-1. Figure 3-1: Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-2 The basin underlies north and central Orange County beneath broad lowlands known as the Tustin and Downey plains. The basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The basin boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles line to the northwest, where groundwater flow is unrestricted across the county line into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone forms the southwestern boundary of all but the Shallow Aquifer in the basin. The groundwater basin formed in a synclinal, northwest-trending trough that deepens as it continues beyond the Orange-Los Angeles county line. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone, San Joaquin Hills, Coyote Hills, and Santa Ana Mountains form the uplifted margins of the syncline. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the basin surpasses 20,000 feet, of which only the upper 2,000 to 4,000 feet contain fresh water. In the southeastern area underlying the city of Irvine and along the basin margins, the thickness of fresh water-bearing sediments is less than 1,000 feet (Herndon and Bonsangue, 2006). Structural folding and faulting along the basin margins, together with down warping and deposition within the basin, have occurred since Oligocene time. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone, comprising the most significant structural feature in the basin from a hydrogeologic standpoint, consists of a series of faulted blocks which are generally up thrown on the southwest side. Folding and faulting along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone have created a natural restriction to seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin (Herndon and Bonsangue, 2006). Pleistocene or younger aquifers within the basin form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. In coastal and central portions of the basin, these deposits are extensively separated by lower-permeability clay and silt deposits or aquitards. In the inland areas, the clay and silt deposits become thinner and more discontinuous, allowing larger quantities of groundwater to flow more easily between shallow and deeper aquifers (California Department of Water Resources, 1967). Figure 3-2 presents a geologic cross section through the basin along the Santa Ana River. OCWD subdivided the groundwater basin into three major aquifer systems, based on geological data and vertical potentiometric head differences measured regionally at over 50 multi-depth monitoring wells, shown in Figure 3-8. The three aquifer systems, known as the Shallow, Principal, and Deep, are hydraulically connected, as groundwater is able to flow between them via leakage through the intervening aquitards or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shallow Aquifer system overlies the entire basin and includes the prolific Talbert Aquifer. It generally occurs from the surface to approximately 250 feet below ground surface. The majority of groundwater from the shallow aquifer is pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use, although the cities of Garden Grove and Newport Beach, and the Yorba Linda Water District, operate wells that pump from the shallow aquifer for municipal use. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-3 Over 90 percent of groundwater production occurs from wells that are screened within the Principal Aquifer system at depths between 200 and 1,300 feet. A minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the center of the basin. Hindering production from the Deep Aquifer system is the depth and the presence of amber colored groundwater in some areas. The treatment and use of amber colored groundwater is discussed in Section 8.6. Figure 3-2: Geologic Cross-Section, Orange County Groundwater Basin 3.1.1 Forebay and Pressure Areas The Department of Water Resources (DWR, 1934) divided the basin into two primary hydrologic divisions, the Forebay and Pressure areas, as shown in Figure 3-3. The Forebay/Pressure area boundary generally delineates the areas where surface water or shallow groundwater can or cannot move downward to the first producible aquifer in quantities significant from a water supply perspective. From a water quality perspective, the amount of vertical flow to deeper aquifers from surface water or shallow groundwater may be significant in terms of impacts of past agricultural or industrial land uses (e.g., fertilizer application and leaky underground storage tanks). The Forebay refers to the area of intake or recharge where most of the groundwater recharge occurs. Highly-permeable sands and gravels with few and discontinuous clay and silt deposits allow direct percolation of Santa Ana River and other surface water. The Forebay area Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-4 encompasses most of the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Villa Park and portions of the cities of Orange and Yorba Linda. The Pressure Area is generally defined as the area of the basin where large quantities of surface water and near-surface groundwater is impeded from percolating into the major producible aquifers by clay and silt layers at shallow depths (upper 50 feet). The Principal and Deep Aquifers in this area are under “confined” conditions (under hydrostatic pressure); the water levels of wells penetrating these aquifers exhibit large seasonal variations. Most of the central and coastal portions of the basin fall within the Pressure Area. Figure 3-3: Orange County Groundwater Basin Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-5 3.1.2 Groundwater Subbasins, Mesas, and Gaps The Orange County Groundwater Basin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118 Basin 8-1, can be subdivided into subbasins and the coastal region can be distinguished by higher and lower elevation areas, as described in this section and shown in Figure 3-3. Main Basin The Main Basin is the largest sub-basin where the majority of groundwater production occurs. Mesas and Gaps Four relatively flat elevated areas, known as mesas, occur along the coastal boundary of the basin. The mesas were formed by ground surface uplift along the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. Ancient meandering of the Santa Ana River carved notches through the uplifted area and left behind sand- and gravel-filled deposits beneath the lowland areas between the mesas, known as gaps (Poland et al., 1956). Groundwater in the shallow aquifers within the gaps is susceptible to seawater intrusion. The Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers were constructed to address this problem. Locations of mesas and details of seawater barrier operations are shown in Figure 7-1. Irvine Subbasin The Irvine subbasin, bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and the San Joaquin Hills, forms the southern-most portion of the basin. The Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard form the subbasin’s approximate western boundary with the Main Basin. Here, the aquifers are thinner and contain more clay and silt deposits than aquifers in the main portion of the basin. The aquifer base in the Irvine sub-basin ranges from approximately 1,000 feet deep beneath the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin to less than 200 feet deep at the eastern boundary of the former MCAS El Toro. East of former MCAS El Toro, the aquifer further thins and transitions into lower-permeability sandstones and other semi-consolidated sediments, which have minor water storage and transmission capacity. Groundwater historically flowed out of the Irvine subbasin westerly into the Main Basin since the amount of natural recharge in the area, predominantly from the Santa Ana Mountains, was typically greater than the amount of pumping (Singer, 1973; Banks, 1984). With the operation of the Irvine Desalter Project commencing in 2007, it is possible that groundwater production in the Irvine subbasin may exceed the natural replenishment from the adjacent hills and mountains, in which case groundwater would be drawn into the Irvine subbasin from the Main Basin. Yorba Linda Subbasin The Yorba Linda subbasin is located north of the Forebay recharge area in Anaheim, within the cities of Yorba Linda and Placentia. Due to low transmissivity and high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations (Mills, 1987) there is little groundwater pumped from this subbasin. Groundwater from the Yorba Linda subbasin flows southward into the Main Basin since the limited groundwater production is less than the natural replenishment from the adjacent Chino Hills. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-6 La Habra Subbasin The La Habra subbasin is located north of the Main Basin within the cities of La Habra and Brea. It comprises a shallow alluvial depression between the Coyote Hills and the Puente Hills. Prior to the 1950s, hundreds of wells produced water for domestic use and irrigation. The majority of these wells were abandoned due to high concentrations of nitrate, total dissolved solids, and metals and taste and odor problems. However, in recent years, the City of La Habra has explored options to increase groundwater production from this subbasin. Hydrogeologic studies have indicated that 2,200 to 5,500 afy of groundwater flows out of the La Habra Basin in two areas: (1) southerly into the Main Basin along the Brea Creek drainage between the East and West Coyote Hills and (2) westerly into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County (James M. Montgomery, 1977; Ramsey, 1980; OCWD, 1994). The areas that lie outside the District boundaries in the northern portion of Basin 8-1, as defined in DWR Bulletin 118, are located in the La Habra subbasin. 3.1.3 Coastal Plain of Orange County: Areas outside OCWD Boundaries The District boundaries do not encompass the entire area of Basin 8-1 as defined by DWR as shown in Figure 3-4. Areas that are outside of OCWD’s boundary are shown in red highlight. These areas include (1) a northern portion of DWR Basin 8-1 located in the La Habra subbasin, a portion of which is in Los Angeles County, (2) areas along the mountain fronts at the eastern side of the basin and in the southern portion of Basin 8-1 within the Irvine subbasin, and (3) a portion of Basin 8-1 immediately downstream of Prado Dam located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. None of the areas that are included in Basin 8-1 outside of OCWD boundaries are within the boundaries of other sustainability agencies and have not as yet been incorporated into a groundwater management plan or a groundwater sustainability plan. OCWD is coordinating with the City of La Habra, the County of Orange, Irvine Ranch Water District, and other stakeholders regarding management of these areas outside the OCWD boundary. 3.2 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL BASIN VOLUME A vast amount of fresh water is stored within the basin, although only a fraction of this water can be removed practically using pumping wells and without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or the potential for land subsidence (Alley, 2006). Nonetheless, it is important to note the total volume of groundwater that is within the active flow system, i.e., within the influence of pumping and recharge operations. OCWD used its geographic information system and the aquifer system boundaries described in Section 3.8 to calculate the total volume of each of the three major aquifer systems as well as the intervening aquitards. The total volume was calculated by multiplying the area and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Because groundwater fills the pore spaces that represent typically between 20 and 30 percent of the total volume, the total volume was multiplied by this porosity percentage to arrive at a total groundwater volume. Assuming the basin is completely full, based on District estimates, the total amount of fresh groundwater stored in the basin is approximately 66 million acre-feet, as shown in Table 3-1. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-7 For comparison, DWR (1967) estimated that about 38 million acre-feet of fresh water is stored in the groundwater basin when full. DWR used a factor known as the specific yield to calculate this volume. The specific yield (typically between 10 and 20 percent) is the amount of water that can be drained by gravity from a certain volume of aquifer and reflects the soil’s ability to retain and hold a significant volume of water due to capillary effects. Thus, DWR’s drainable groundwater volume can be considered consistent with OCWD’s estimate of total groundwater volume in the basin. Figure 3-4: Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundaries Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-8 Table 3-1: Estimated Basin Groundwater Storage by Hydrogeologic Unit (Volumes in Acre-feet) HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT PRESSURE AREA FOREBAY TOTAL Shallow Aquifer System 3,800,000 1,200,000 5,000,000 Aquitard 900,000 200,000 1,100,000 Principal Aquifer System 24,300,000 8,600,000 32,900,000 Aquitard 1,600,000 300,000 1,900,000 Deep Aquifer System 18,800,000 6,300,000 25,100,000 TOTAL 49,400,000 16,600,000 66,000,000 Notes: (1) Volumes calculated using the 3-layer basin model surfaces with ArcInfo Workstation GRID. (2) A porosity of 0.25 was assumed for aquifer systems. (3) A porosity of 0.30 was assumed for aquitards. 3.3 WATER BUDGET OCWD developed a hydrologic budget (inflows and outflows) for the purpose of constructing the basin-wide groundwater flow model, (“Basin Model”) and for evaluating basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The key components of the budget include measured and unmeasured (estimated) recharge, groundwater production, and subsurface flows along the coast and across the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. Because the basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over a period of several years, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance as explained in Section 10. Table 3-2 presents the components of an example balanced basin water budget (no annual change in storage). Note that it does not represent data for any particular year. The annual budget presented is based on the following assumptions: (1) average precipitation, (2) basin storage at 400,000 acre-feet below full, (3) recharge of 274,500 acre-feet in District facilities including surface spreading basins and seawater intrusion barrier wells, and (4) adjusted groundwater production so that total basin inflows and outflows are equal. The sources of recharge water used by the District include Santa Ana River base flow and storm flow, imported water, and GWRS recycled water. The major components of the water budget are described in the following sections. 3.3.1 Measured Recharge Measured recharge consists of all water artificially recharged at OCWD’s surface water recharge facilities and water injected in the Talbert and Alamitos Barriers. The majority of measured recharge occurs in the District’s surface water system, which receives Santa Ana River base flow and storm flow, imported water and GWRS recycled water. The importance of Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-9 these sources has changed over time, as shown in Figure 5-8. In recent years, GWRS and imported water have become more important as the volume of Santa Ana River base flow declines. OCWD’s Talbert Barrier is a series of injection wells that span the 2.5-mile wide Talbert Gap, between the Newport and Huntington Beach mesas. Purified water produced by the GWRS is injected into multiple aquifers; over 95 percent of the injected water flows inland and becomes part of the basin’s groundwater supply. The Alamitos Barrier is a series of wells injecting a blend of imported and recycled water into multiple aquifer zones that span the Alamitos Gap at the Los Angeles/Orange County line. Essentially all of the injected water flows inland, replenishing groundwater basins in the two counties. Inspection of groundwater contour maps indicates that roughly one-third of the Alamitos Barrier injection water remains within or flows into Orange County. Table 3-2: Example Annual Basin Water Budget FLOW COMPONENT Acre-feet per Year INFLOW Measured Recharge 1. Surface recharge facilities1 2. Talbert Barrier injection 3. Alamitos Barrier injection, Orange County portion only Subtotal: 243,000 30,000 2,000 275,000 Estimated Unmeasured or Incidental Recharge2 1. Subsurface Inflow 2. Areal recharge from rainfall/irrigation Subtotal: 47,000 19,000 66,000 TOTAL INFLOW: 341,000 OUTFLOW 1. Groundwater Production 2. Subsurface Outflow 335,000 6,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW: 341,000 CHANGE IN STORAGE: 0 1 Evaporation from surface recharge facilities is estimated to be 2,000 afy. 2 Assuming average precipitation (14 inches/year) Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-10 3.3.2 Unmeasured Recharge Unmeasured recharge also referred to as “incidental recharge” accounts for a significant amount of the basin’s sustainable yield. This includes recharge from precipitation, irrigation return flows, urban runoff, seawater inflow through the gaps as well as subsurface inflow at the basin margins along the Chino, Coyote, and San Joaquin Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains and beneath the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Subsurface inflow in the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek refers to groundwater that enters the basin at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon and in the Santiago Creek drainage below Villa Park Dam. Estimated average subsurface inflow to the basin is shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5: Estimated Subsurface Recharge Total unmeasured recharge ranges between 20,000 to 160,000 afy. This number is the volume left over after all the basin inputs and outputs are accounted for. Net unmeasured or incidental recharge is the amount of incidental recharge remaining in the basin after accounting for losses to Los Angeles County. Under average hydrologic conditions, net incidental recharge averages 66,000 acre-feet per year. This average was substantiated during calibration of the Basin Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-11 Model and is also consistent with the estimate of 58,000 afy reported by Hardt and Cordes (1971) as part of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) modeling study of the basin. Because unmeasured recharge is one of the least understood components of the basin’s water budget, the error margin for any given year is probably in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet. Since unmeasured recharge is well distributed throughout the basin, the physical significance (e.g., water level drawdown or mounding in any given area) of over- or underestimating the total recharge volume within this error margin is considered to be minor. 3.3.3 Groundwater Production Active wells pumping water from the basin are shown in Figure 3-6. The approximately 200 large- system wells account for an estimated 97 percent of the total basin production; 200 small production wells produce less than 25 afy. Large- capacity wells are all metered, as required by the District Act. Production data was recorded on a semi-annual basin until 1988 when the District began obtaining monthly individual well production measurements. Figure 3-6: Distribution of Groundwater Production, Water Year 2013-14 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-12 3.3.4 Subsurface Outflow Groundwater outflow from the basin across the Los Angeles/Orange County line has been estimated to range from approximately 1,000 to 14,000 afy based on groundwater elevation gradients and aquifer transmissivity (DWR, 1967; McGillicuddy, 1989). The Water Replenishment District of Southern California also has estimated underflow from Orange County to Los Angeles County within the aforementioned range. Modeling by OCWD indicates that assuming that groundwater elevations in Los Angeles County remain constant underflow to Los Angeles County increases by approximately 7,500 afy for every 100,000 acre-feet of increased groundwater in storage in Orange County (see Figure 3- 7). With the exception of unknown amounts of semi-perched (near-surface) groundwater being intercepted and drained by submerged sewer trunk lines and unlined flood control channels along coastal portions of the basin, no other significant basin outflows are known to occur. Figure 3-7: Relationship between OCWD Basin Storage and Estimated Outflow to Los Angeles County 3.3.5 Evaporation The total wetted area of the District’s recharge system is over 1,000 acres. OCWD estimates the evaporation from this system on a monthly basis. Generally, total evaporation is on the -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000 Outflow to LA Inflow from LA June 2014 342,000 acre- feet below full condition Available Storage Space (amount below full condition), acre-feet Simulated outflow to LA County, acre-feet/year Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-13 order of 2,000 acre-feet per year which is approximately one percent of the total volume recharged annually. The relatively minor impact of evaporation reflects high percolation rates (1 to 10 feet per day). 3.4 CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Even though the groundwater basin contains an estimated 66 million acre-feet when full, OCWD operates the basin from a full condition to approximately 500,000 acre-feet below full to protect against irreversible seawater intrusion and land subsidence. On a short-term basis, the basin can be operated at an even lower storage level in an emergency. The District manages storage and water levels in the groundwater basin within a safe operating range as described in Section 10. The safe operating range is defined as the upper and lower levels of groundwater storage in the basin that can be reached without causing negative or adverse impacts. In order to manage the basin within this safe operating range, OCWD calculates the amount of groundwater in storage on an annual basis. The estimated historical minimum storage level of 500,000 to 700,000 acre-feet below full condition occurred in 1956-57 (DWR, 1967; OCWD, 2003). Since this time, the basin storage fluctuated within the safe operating range reaching a full condition in 1969, and 1983. Even though the District calculates and reports accumulated overdraft in its annual Engineers Report, “overdraft” in the traditional sense does not exist in the Orange County Groundwater Basin because the basin is operated to continuously fluctuate within the safe operating range. The District uses two methods to calculate the storage condition of the basin: (1) water budget method and (2) three-layer storage change method. The water budget method is simply an accounting of the inflows to the basin and outflows. This data is collected and compiled on a monthly basis. Estimates of unmeasured or incidental recharge are used until trued up at the end of the year with the final reports of inflows and outflows. This method produces a monthly estimate of the change in groundwater storage and allows for virtually real-time decision making with respect to managing the basin. In 2007, OCWD instituted a new three-layer change in storage method for calculating the amount of groundwater in storage. The three-layer method involves creating groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers (Shallow, Principal, and Deep Aquifers) in the basin, schematically represented in Figure 3-8, for conditions at the end of June of each year. The need for this method was driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which water levels throughout the basin approached a near-full condition. An analysis of the amount of groundwater in storage compared to the estimate using a one-layer change in storage method showed a discrepancy of 150,000 acre-feet. The discrepancy of 150,000 acre-feet in two different calculations indicated that the current condition could not be properly rectified back to the prior 1969 benchmark. This brought to light three important discoveries: Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-14 • The one-layer storage change calculation contained considerable uncertainty that when cumulatively added over tens of years led to a large discrepancy in the level of water in storage relative to 1969. • Water level conditions in 1969 no longer represented a full basin, particularly because of change in pumping and recharge conditions. • A more accurate storage change calculation should be based on water level changes and storage coefficients for each of the three major aquifer systems. In February 2007, the District adopted an updated approach to defining the full basin condition and calculating storage changes. This updated approach includes: • A new full-basin groundwater level based on the following prescribed conditions: o Observed historical high water levels o Present-day pumping and recharge conditions o Protection from seawater intrusion o Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins • Calculation of the amount of groundwater in storage in each of the three major aquifer systems. A more detailed description of the three-layer methodology is presented in OCWD’s Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy (February 2007) and can be found in Appendix D. Figure 3-8: Schematic Cross-Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-15 Figure 3-9 shows the contoured water levels for the Principal Aquifer in June 2014. The maps are prepared annually and scanned and digitized into the District’s GIS database. The previous year’s water levels are subtracted from the current water levels to calculate change in water levels. Water level change contour maps are prepared for each of the three aquifer layers. Figure 3-10 shows the water level change for the Principal Aquifer from June 2013 to June 2014. For each of the three aquifers, the GIS is used to multiply the water level changes by a grid of aquifer storage coefficients from OCWD’s calibrated groundwater flow model. This results in a storage change volume for each of the three aquifers which are totaled to provide a net annual storage change for the basin, shown in Figure 3-11. In cases where there is a calculation discrepancy between the storage changes estimated by the two methods, the unmeasured recharge value is adjusted to eliminate the difference. Figure 3-9: Groundwater Level Contour Map, June 2014 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-16 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Level Changes, June 2013-14 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-17 3.5 ELEVATION TRENDS The groundwater elevation profile for the Principal Aquifer following the Santa Ana River from the ocean to the Forebay in Anaheim, for 1969, 2013, and the theoretical full condition are shown in Figure 3-12. A comparison of these profiles shows that groundwater elevations in the Forebay recharge area for all three conditions are similar while in the central and coastal areas of the basin elevations in 2013 are significantly lower. The lowering of coastal area groundwater levels relative to groundwater levels further inland in the Forebay translates into a steeper hydraulic gradient, which drives greater flow from the Forebay to the coastal areas. However, the lowering of coastal water levels also increases the risk of seawater intrusion. Groundwater elevation trends can be examined using five wells with long-term groundwater level data, the locations of which are shown in Figure 3-13. Figures 3-14 and 3-15 show water level hydrographs for wells SA-21 and GG-16, representing historical conditions in the Pressure area and well A-27, representing historical conditions in the Forebay. Water level data for well A-27 near Anaheim Lake dates back to 1932 and indicate that the historic low water level in this area occurred in 1951-52. The subsequent replenishment of Colorado River water essentially refilled the basin by 1965. Water levels in this well reached an historic high in 1994 and have generally remained high as recharge has been nearly continuous at Anaheim Lake since the late 1950s. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1974-75 1978-79 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2002-03 2006-07 2010-11 2014-15 Water Year Available Storage Space (amount below full condition) Acre-feet (x1000) Figure 3-11: Change in Groundwater Storage, WY 1974-75 to 2013-14 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-18 Figure 3-12: Principal Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Profiles, 1969 and 2013 Figure 3-13: Location of Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph Elevation (feet MSL) Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-19 Figure 3-14: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA-21 and GG-16 in Pressure Area Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-20 Figure 3-15: Water Level Hydrographs of Well A-27 in Forebay The hydrograph for well SA-21 indicates that water levels in this area have decreased since 1970. Also noteworthy is the large range of water level fluctuations from the early 1990s to early 2000s. The increased water level fluctuations during this period were due to a combination seasonal water demand-driven pumping and participation in the MWD Short-Term Seasonal Storage Program by local Producers (Boyle Engineering and OCWD, 1997), which encouraged increased pumping from the groundwater basin during summer months when MWD was experiencing high demand for imported water. Although this program did not increase the amount of pumping from the basin on an annual basis, it did result in greater water level declines during the summer during the period of 1989 to 2002 when the program was active. Figure 3-16 presents water level hydrographs of two OCWD multi-depth monitoring wells, SAR- 1 and OCWD-CTG1, showing the relationship between water level elevations in aquifer zones at different depths. The hydrograph of well SAR-1 in the Forebay exhibits a similarity in water levels between shallow and deep aquifers, which indicates the high degree of hydraulic interconnection between aquifers characteristic of much of the Forebay. The hydrograph of well OCWD-CTG1 is typical of the Pressure Area in that there are large differences in water levels in different aquifers, indicating a reduced level of hydraulic interconnectivity between shallow and deep aquifers caused by fine-grained layers that restrict vertical groundwater flow. Water levels in the deepest aquifer zone at well OCWD-CTG1 are higher than overlying aquifers, in part, because few wells directly produce water from these zones. The lack of production from the deepest aquifers is due to the presences of amber- colored water and the depth required to produce water from these zones. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-21 Figure 3-16: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-22 3.6 LAND SUBSIDENCE Land subsidence can be caused by a number of factors, including collapse of underground cavities, tectonic activity, natural consolidation of sediment, oxidation of organic deposits, hydrocompaction of moisture-deficient soil and sediments, development of geothermal energy, extraction of hydrocarbons from the subsurface, and extraction of groundwater. In California, a common cause of subsidence is associated with excessive groundwater withdrawals. In the case of thick sedimentary groundwater basins comprised of alternating “confined” or “pressure” aquifers (permeable sands and gravels) and aquitards (less permeable silts and clays), the extraction of groundwater reduces the fluid pressure of the saturated pore spaces within the buried sediments. The pressure reduction in the deeper sediments allows the weight of the overlying sediments to compact the deeper sediments, particularly the clays and silts. If groundwater withdrawals cause water levels to be sustained beyond historical lows, several years or more, the incremental amount of sediment compaction can eventually manifest itself in an irreversible permanent lowering of the land surface (USGS, 1999). In Orange County, subsidence in swampy low-lying coastal areas underlain by shallow organic peat deposits started as early as 1898 when development of these areas for agriculture resulted in excavation of unlined drainage ditches. The drainage ditches drained the swamps and intercepted the shallow water table which was lowered sufficiently to allow the land to drain adequately for irrigated agriculture. When the shallow water table was lowered, it exposed the formerly-saturated peat deposits to oxygen that caused depletion and shrinkage of the peat due to oxidation (Fairchild and Wiebe, 1976). Subsidence of shallow peat deposits was associated with land development practices that occurred in Orange County in the late 1800s and early 1900s and, as such, is not something associated with or controlled by groundwater withdrawals in the basin. Another documented cause of subsidence in Orange County unrelated to groundwater basin utilization is oil extraction along the coast, particularly in Huntington Beach (Morton et. al, 1978). Subsidence due to changes in groundwater conditions in the Orange County groundwater basin is variable and does not show a pattern of widespread irreversible permanent lowering of the ground surface. Storage conditions in the groundwater basin were at historical lows in the late 1950s, but since this time OCWD has operated the groundwater basin within a storage range above the historical low. There are reports that some subsidence may have occurred before OCWD began refilling the groundwater basin in the late 1950s (Morton, et al., 1976); however, the magnitude and scope of this subsidence is uncertain and it is not clear if this subsidence was permanent. More recent data show a consistent pattern of the ground surface rising and falling in tandem with groundwater levels and overall changes in basin groundwater storage. This is referred to as elastic subsidence. Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data collected from satellites and data collected by the Orange County Surveyor (Surveyor) show that ground surface elevations in Orange County both rise and fall in response to groundwater recharge and withdrawals. InSAR data during the period 1993-1999 shows temporary seasonal land surface Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-23 changes of up to 4.3 inches (total seasonal amplitude from high to low) in the Los Angeles- Orange County area and a net decline of approximately 0.5 inch/year near Santa Ana over the period 1993 to 1999, which happened to coincide with a period of net withdrawal of groundwater from the basin (Bawden, 2001; 2003). The Surveyor’s office maintains more than 1,500 elevation benchmarks throughout Orange County. Periodically, the Surveyor resurveys the benchmarks to detect changes in elevation. The Surveyor maintains the survey records and makes them available to the public (http://ocpublicworks.com/survey/services/ocrtn) and provides the data to OCWD upon request. The Surveyor also maintains an Orange County Real Time Network (OCRTN) that consists of continuously operating GPS reference stations that monitor horizontal and vertical movement throughout Orange County. Figure 3-17 shows the locations of the GPS stations in Orange County. Based on real time GPS data, the BLSA and SACY sites show the greatest range of elevation change of any of the sites in Orange County. Ground surface elevation changes at these sites from 2002 to 2014 correlate well with changes in groundwater storage, as shown on Figure 3- 18. Note that this period of time includes a very wet period (2004-05) when basin groundwater storage increased significantly and a dry period (2010-2014) when basin groundwater storage decreased significantly. In reviewing the available sources of data, it is clear that depending on the time period selected, the ground surface is rising, falling, or remaining stable. GPS data collected by the Surveyor over the past 12 years (2002-14) show that the ground surface fluctuations appear to be completely elastic, reversible, and well correlated with fluctuations in groundwater levels. These data indicate that there has not been any permanent, irreversible subsidence of the ground surface over the past 12 years. Figure 3-17: Orange County Public Works GPS Real Time Network Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-24 Finally, there is little potential for future widespread permanent, irreversible subsidence given OCWD’s statutory commitment to sustainable groundwater management and policy of maintaining groundwater storage levels within a specified operating range. Nevertheless, the District annually reviews Surveyor data to evaluate ground surface fluctuations within the District’s service area. If irreversible subsidence was found to occur in a localized area in relation to groundwater pumping patterns or groundwater storage conditions, OCWD would coordinate with local officials to investigate and develop an approach to address the subsidence. Figure 3-18: Available Storage Space in the Orange County Groundwater Basin and Ground Surface Elevation Change, 2002-2014 Available Storage Space Ground Surface Elevation Change Ac r e -fe e t Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-25 3.7 BASIN MODEL OCWD’s basin model encompasses the entire basin and extends approximately three miles into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County to provide for more accurate model results than if the model boundary stopped at the county line (see Figure 3-19). As noted previously in this chapter, the county line is not a hydrogeologic boundary, i.e., groundwater freely flows through aquifers that have been correlated across the county line. Coverage of the modeled area is accomplished with grid cells having horizontal dimensions of 500 feet by 500 feet (approximately 5.7 acres) and vertical dimensions ranging from approximately 50 to 1,800 feet, depending on the thickness of each model layer at that grid cell location. Basin aquifers and aquitards are grouped into three composite model layers thought sufficient to describe the three distinguishable flow systems corresponding to the Shallow, Principal, and Deep Aquifers. The three model layers comprise a network of over 90,000 grid cells. The widely-accepted computer program, “MODFLOW,” developed by the USGS, was used as the base modeling code for the mathematical model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). Analogous to an off-the-shelf spreadsheet program needing data to be functional, MODFLOW requires vast amounts of input data to define the hydrogeologic conditions in the conceptual model. The types of information that must be input in digital format (data files) for each grid cell in each model layer include the following: • Aquifer top and bottom elevations Figure 3-19: Basin Model Extent Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-26 • Aquifer lateral boundary conditions (ocean, faults, mountains) • Aquifer hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient/specific yield • Initial groundwater surface elevation • Natural and artificial recharge rates (runoff, precipitation, percolation, injection) • Groundwater production rates for approximately 200 large system and 200 small system wells These data originate from hand-drawn contour maps, spreadsheets, and the Water Resources Management System (WRMS) historical database. Because MODFLOW requires the input data files in a specific format, staff developed a customized database and GIS program to automate data compilation and formatting functions. These data pre-processing tasks form one of the key activities in the model development process. Before a groundwater model can be reliably used as a predictive tool for simulating future conditions, the model must be calibrated to reach an acceptable match between simulated and actual observed conditions. The basin model was first calibrated to steady-state conditions to numerically stabilize the simulations, to make rough adjustments to the water budget terms, and to generally match regional groundwater flow patterns. Also, the steady-state calibration helped to determine the sensitivity of simulated groundwater levels to changes in incidental recharge and aquifer parameters such as hydraulic conductivity. Steady-state calibration of the basin model is documented in more detail in the OCWD Master Plan Report (OCWD, 1999). Typical transient model output consists of water level elevations at each grid cell that can be plotted as a contour map for one point in time or as a time-series graph at a single location. Post-processing of model results into usable graphics is performed using a combination of semi- automated GIS and database program applications. Figure 3-20 presents a simplified schematic of the modeling process. Model construction, calibration, and operation were built upon 12 years of effort by OCWD staff to collect, compile, digitize, and interpret hundreds of borehole geologic and geophysical logs, water level hydrographs, and water quality analyses. The process was composed of 10 main tasks comprising over 120 subtasks. The major tasks are summarized as follows: • Finalize conceptual hydrogeologic model layers and program GIS/database applications to create properly formatted MODFLOW input data files. Over 40 geologic cross sections were used to form the basis of the vertical and lateral aquifer boundaries. • Define model layer boundaries. The top and bottom elevations of the three aquifer system layers and intervening aquitards were hand-contoured, digitized, and overlain on the model grid to populate the model input arrays with a top and bottom elevation for each layer at every grid cell location. Model layer thickness values were then calculated using GIS. • Develop model layer hydraulic conductivity (K) grids. Estimates of K for each layer were based on (in order of importance): available aquifer test data, well-specific capacity data, and lithologic data. In the absence of reliable aquifer test or specific capacity data for areas in Layers 1 and 3, lithology-based K estimates were calculated by assigning literature values of K Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-27 to each lithology type (e.g., sand, gravel, clay) within a model layer and then calculating an effective K value for the entire layer at that well location. Layer 2 had the most available aquifer test and specific capacity data. Therefore, a Layer 2 transmissivity contour map was prepared and digitized, and GIS was used to calculate a K surface by dividing the transmissivity grid by the aquifer thickness grid. Initial values of K were adjusted during model calibration to achieve a better match of model results with known groundwater elevations. • Develop layer production factors for active production wells simulated in the model. Many production wells had long screened intervals that spanned at least two of the three model layers. Therefore, groundwater production for each of these wells had to be divided among each layer screened by use of layer production factors. These factors were calculated using both the relative length of screen within each model layer and the hydraulic conductivity of each layer. Well production was then multiplied by the layer factors for each individual well. For example, if a well had a screened interval equally divided across Layers 1 and 2, but the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 1 was twice that of Layer 2, then the calculated Layer 1 and 2 production factors for that well would have been one-third and two-thirds, respectively, such that when multiplied by the total production for this well, the production assigned to Layer 1 would have been twice that of Layer 2. For the current three-layer model, approximately 25 percent of the production wells in the model were screened across more than one model layer. In this context, further vertical refinement of the model (more model layers) may better represent the aquifer architecture in certain areas but may also increase the uncertainty and potential error involved in the amount of production assigned to each model layer. • Develop basin model water budget input parameters, including groundwater production, artificial recharge, and unmeasured recharge. Groundwater production and artificial recharge volumes were applied to grid cells in which production wells or recharge facilities were located. The most uncertain component of the water budget – unmeasured or incidental recharge – was applied to the model as an average monthly volume based on estimates calculated annually for the OCWD Engineer’s Report. Unmeasured recharge was distributed to cells throughout the model, but was mostly applied to cells along margins of the basin at the base of the hills and mountains. The underflow component of the incidental recharge represents the amount of groundwater flowing into and out of the model along open boundaries. Prescribed groundwater elevations were assigned to open boundaries along the northwest model boundary in Los Angeles County; the ocean at the Alamitos, Bolsa, and Talbert Gaps; the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon; and the mouth of Santiago Creek Canyon. Groundwater elevations for the boundaries other than the ocean boundaries were based on historical groundwater elevation data from nearby wells. The model automatically calculated the dynamic flow across these open boundaries as part of the overall water budget. • Develop model layer storage coefficients. Storage coefficient values for portions of model layers representing confined aquifer conditions were prepared based on available aquifer test data and were adjusted within reasonable limits based on calibration results. • Develop vertical leakage parameters between model layers. Vertical groundwater flow between aquifer systems in the basin is generally not directly measured, yet it is one of the critically-important factors in the model’s ability to represent actual basin hydraulic processes. Using geologic cross-sections and depth-specific water level and water quality data from the OCWD multi-depth monitoring well network, staff identified areas where vertical groundwater Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-28 flow between the modeled aquifer systems is either likely to occur or be significantly impeded, depending on the relative abundance and continuity of lower-permeability aquitards between model layers. During model calibration, the initial parameter estimates for vertical leakage were adjusted to achieve closer matches to known vertical groundwater gradients. • Develop groundwater contour maps for each model layer to be used for starting conditions and for visual comparison of water level patterns during calibration. Staff used observed water level data from multi-depth and other wells to prepare contour maps of each layer for November 1990 as a starting point for the calibration period. Care was taken to use wells screened within the appropriate vertical interval representing each model layer. The hand-drawn contour maps were then digitized and used as model input to represent starting conditions. • Perform transient calibration runs. The nine-year period of November 1990 to November 1999 was selected for transient calibration, as it represented the period corresponding to the most detailed set of groundwater elevation, production, and recharge data. The transient calibration process and results are described in the next section. • Perform various basin production and recharge scenarios using the calibrated model. Criteria for pumping and recharge, including facility locations and quantities, were developed for each scenario and input for each model run. Figure 3-20: Model Development Flowchart Define objectives Compile data Analyze data geologic cross sections X-Y trend graphs contour maps water chemistry data Develop Hydrogeologic Model aquifer boundaries transmissivity storage coefficient basin water balance Build Computer Model create grid digitize layers create data input files define model conditions Run Model Scenarios develop production/recharge alternatives set up data for each alternative output results as contour maps and hydrographs Calibrate Model match historical water levels adjust until results acceptable Revise Hydrogeologic Model revise geologic cross sections, inferred faults refine conceptual model Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-29 3.7.1 Model Calibration Calibration of the transient basin model involved a series of simulations of the period 1990 to 1999, using monthly flow and water level data. The time period selected for calibration represents a period during which basic data required for monthly transient calibration were essentially complete (compared to pre-1990 historical records). The calibration period spans at least one “wet/dry” rainfall cycle. Monthly water level data from almost 250 target locations were used to determine if the simulated water levels adequately matched observed water levels. As shown in Figure 3-21, the calibration target points were densely distributed throughout the basin and also covered all three model layers. After each model run, a hydrograph of observed versus simulated water levels was created and reviewed for each calibration target point. In addition, a groundwater elevation contour map for each layer was also generated from the simulated data. The simulated groundwater contours for all three layers were compared to interpreted contours of observed data (November 1997) to assess closeness of fit and to qualitatively evaluate whether the simulated gradients and overall flow patterns were consistent with the conceptual hydrogeologic model. November 1997 was chosen for the observed versus simulated contour map comparison since these hand-drawn contour maps had already been created for the prior steady state calibration step. Although November 1997 observed data were contoured for all three layers, the contour maps for Layers 1 and 3 were somewhat more generalized than for Layer 2 due to a lower density of data points (wells) in these two layers. Depending on the results of each calibration run, model input parameters were adjusted, including hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, boundary conditions, and recharge distribution. Time-varying head boundaries along the Orange/Los Angeles County line were found to be extremely useful in obtaining a close fit with observed historical water levels in the northwestern portion of the model. Fifty calibration runs were required to reach an acceptable level of calibration in which model- generated water levels were within reasonable limits of observed water level elevations during the calibration period. Figures 3-22 through 3-24 show examples of hydrographs of observed versus simulated water levels for three wells used as calibration targets. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-30 Figure 3-21: Basin Model Calibration Wells Noteworthy findings of the model calibration process are summarized below: • The model was most sensitive to adjustments to hydraulic conductivity and recharge distribution. In other words, minor variations in these input parameters caused significant changes in the model water level output. • The model was less sensitive to changes in storage coefficient, requiring order-of-magnitude changes in this parameter to cause significant changes in simulated water levels, primarily affecting the amplitude of seasonal water level variations. • The vast amount of observed historical water level data made it readily evident when the model was closely matching observed conditions. • Incidental (unmeasured) recharge averaging approximately 70,000 afy during the 1990-1999 period appeared to be reasonable, as the model was fairly sensitive to variations in this recharge amount. • Groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County was estimated to range between 5,000 and 12,000 afy between 1990 and 1999, most of this occurring in Layers 1 and 3. • Groundwater flow at the Talbert Gap was inland during the entire model calibration period, indicating moderate seawater intrusion conditions. Model-derived seawater inflow ranged from 500 to 2,700 afy in the Talbert Gap and is consistent with chloride concentration trends during the Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-31 calibration period that indicated inland movement of saline groundwater in these areas. • Model-derived groundwater inflow from the ocean at Bolsa Gap was only 100-200 afy due to the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone, which offsets the Bolsa aquifer and significantly restricts the inland migration of saline water across the fault. • Model adjustments (mainly hydraulic conductivity and recharge) in the Santiago Basins area in Orange significantly affected simulated water levels in the coastal areas. • Model reductions to the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 2 (Principal Aquifer) along the Peralta Hills Fault in Anaheim/Orange had the desired effect of steepening the gradient and restricting groundwater flow across the fault into the Orange area. These simulation results were consistent with observed hydrogeologic data indicating that the Peralta Hills Fault acts as a partial groundwater barrier. • Potential unmapped faults immediately downgradient from the Santiago Basins appear to restrict groundwater flow in the Principal Aquifer, as evidenced by observed steep gradients in that area, which were reproduced by the model. As with the Peralta Hills Fault, an approximate order-of- magnitude reduction in hydraulic conductivity along these suspected faults achieved the desired effect of reproducing observed water levels with the model. Figure 3-22: Calibration Hydrograph of Monitoring Well AM-5A 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ( ) yg g (Model Layer 1 -- Anaheim Forebay) Observed Run 10 Run 50 11/1/90 11/1/92 11/1/9411/1/9611/1/98 Screened Interval: 168-175 ft bgs. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-32 Figure 3-23: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well SC-2 Figure 3-24: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well GGM-1 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) yg g (Model Layer 2 -- Santiago Pit Area) Observed Run 10 Run 50 11/1/90 11/1/9211/1/94 11/1/96 11/1/98 Port Depth: 412 ft bgs. -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 ( ) yg g (All Three Model Layers -- Garden Grove) 11/1/90 11/1/9211/1/9411/1/96 11/1/98 Port Depths: 150 ft bgs 1,074 ft bgs 2,011 ft bgs L1 Observed L1 Simulated L2 Observed L2 Simulated L3 Observed L3 Simulated Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-33 3.7.2 Model Advisory Panel The model development and calibration process was regularly presented to and reviewed by a Model Advisory Panel. This technical panel consisted of four groundwater modeling experts who were familiar with the basin and highly qualified to provide insight and guidance during the model construction and calibration process. Twelve panel meetings were held between 1999 and 2002. The panel was tasked with providing written independent assessments of the strengths, weaknesses and overall validity and usefulness of the model in evaluating various basin management alternatives. Two memoranda were prepared: one at the completion of the steady-state model calibration and steady-state scenarios (Harley et al., 1999) and one at the completion of the transient model calibration and initial transient basin operational scenarios (Harley et al., 2001). Key conclusions and findings of the panel regarding the transient model are summarized below. • Transient modeling has substantially improved the overall understanding of processes and conditions that determine how and why the basin reacts to pumping and recharge. This improved understanding, coupled with the model’s ability to simulate existing and possible future facilities and alternative operations, significantly improves the District’s potential ability to enhance and actively manage basin water resources. • Modeling has helped verify major elements of the basin conceptual model and has been instrumental in clarifying: o Variations in the annual water balance o Hydrostratigraphy of the basin o Horizontal flow between basin subareas o The potential degree of interconnection and magnitude of vertical flow between major aquifers o The potential hydraulic significance of the Peralta Hills Fault in the Anaheim Forebay o Variations in aquifer hydraulic properties o The relative significance of engineered versus natural recharge and groundwater outflow within the basin o Numerous other issues and conditions • The ability of the model to simulate known and projected future conditions will evolve and improve as new data become available and updated calibration runs are completed. • Parameters used to set up the model appear to be within limits justified by known, estimated, and assumed subsurface conditions based upon available historic data. • Initial transient calibration completed using a nine-year calibration period (1990-1999) is considered adequate to confirm the initial validity of the model for use in evaluating a variety of potential future projects and conditions. • Areas of the basin that could benefit from future exploration, testing, monitoring, analysis and/or additional model calibration were identified. • The model is not considered appropriate for assessing detailed local impacts related to new recharge facilities or well fields. These impacts should be assessed using more detailed local sub-models and by conducting detailed field studies. Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-34 • The model does not, nor is it intended to, address water supply availability, cost, water quality, or land subsidence. Recommendations of the panel included suggestions that thorough documentation be prepared on model configuration and calibration and that the model calibration period be extended as new data become available. 3.7.3 Groundwater Model Update and Applications OCWD staff update the basin groundwater model approximately every three to five years, guided by new information warranting the effort (new wells in critical areas) or by needed model evaluations using the most recent years, e.g., estimating the groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County. Major changes and improvements over the past five years include: 1. Model conversion from UNIX to PC using the Groundwater Vistas as the Graphical User Interface. 2. Extension of the model transient calibration through WY 2010-11. The new calibration period is November 1990 to June 2011 which includes a wide range of basin storage conditions as well as a wide range of hydrologic conditions. 3. Addition of several new Talbert Barrier injection wells and the addition of two new recharge basins, La Jolla and Miraloma Basins. Typical applications of the Basin Model include estimating the effects of potential future pumping and recharge projects on groundwater levels, storage, and the water budget. The storage coefficients determined during the original Basin Model calibration are also used to estimate annual change in groundwater storage. The Basin Model was also used in 2011 to estimate the effects of additional recharge from new Miraloma Basin on the GWRS subsurface retention time buffer area located in the Anaheim Forebay. In accordance with the CDPH Draft Groundwater Replenishment Regulations at the time of the permit’s adoption, OCWD developed a six-month buffer area downgradient of Kraemer and Miller Basins using a sulfur hexafluoride (SF-6) artificial tracer test, inside which drinking water wells could not be constructed or operated (Clark, 2009). OCWD subsequently acquired the Miraloma property and developed it into a recharge basin intended primarily for GWRS water recharge. The three-layer Basin Model and the existing tracer test-determined buffer area were used to determine the necessary modifications to the Anaheim Forebay GWRS buffer area. Two other applications of the Basin Model were related to operation of the Talbert Seawater Barrier. The first was to guide the planning, location and hydraulic effectiveness of supplemental injection wells for the Talbert Barrier during pre-GWRS planning activities. The second was to estimate the general flow paths and subsurface residence time of barrier Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-35 injection water to delineate the Talbert Barrier’s recycled water retention buffer area. Inside of this area new drinking water wells are not allowed, as required by the California Department of Public Health requirements contained within the original permit to operate the GWRS (RWQCB, 2004, OCWD, 2005). 3.7.4 Talbert Gap Model Between 1999 and 2000, OCWD contracted with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. to develop a detailed groundwater flow model of the Talbert Gap and surrounding area for the purpose of evaluating and estimating the amount and location of fresh water injection wells needed to control seawater intrusion under current and projected future basin conditions. The Talbert Gap modeling effort was undertaken as part of the design scope of work for Phase 1 of the GWRS, which included expansion of the existing Talbert Barrier. The configuration and initial calibration of the Talbert Gap Model and further model refinement and calibration were documented by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (2000, 2003). Consistent with the Basin Model Advisory Panel’s findings, OCWD determined that a more detailed model of the Talbert Gap was necessary to evaluate the local water level changes associated with various potential injection barrier alignments and flow rates. The Talbert model comprises an area of 85 square miles, 13 Layers (seven aquifers and six aquitards), and 509,000 grid cells (250 feet x 250 feet horizontal dimensions). Figures 2-25, 2-26 and 2-27 show the model area, Talbert Model Calibration Wells and boundary wells and layering schematic, respectively. Figure 3-25: Talbert Gap Model and Basin Model Boundaries Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-36 Figure 3-26: Talbert Model Calibration Wells and Boundary Wells Figure 3-27: Talbert Gap Model Aquifer Layering Schematic Talbert/Bolsa Alpha Beta Lambda Omicron/Upper Rho Main Lower Main Aquitard AQUIFER NAME Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-37 Key findings of the Talbert Gap groundwater model are summarized below. • Depending on the amount of basin production, particularly near the Talbert Barrier, 30 mgd (approximately 34,000 afy) of injection will substantially raise water levels, yet may not be sufficient to fully prevent seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap. Additional injection wells beyond those planned for Phase 1 of the GWRS might be required. • Under projected 2020 conditions, the future Talbert Barrier may require an annual average injection rate of up to 45 mgd based on the results of existing analyses. This estimated future injection requirement will be further evaluated as additional data are collected. • The Talbert model inland boundaries do not coincide with hydrologic or geologic features, e.g., recharge area, faults. Therefore, simulated water levels are highly influenced by the time-varying water levels specified along the boundaries. For future Talbert model predictive runs, the basin model should be used to generate water levels that can then be specified along the inland Talbert model boundaries. • The Talbert model was less sensitive to adjustment hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient than the basin model, primarily because of the stronger influence of the specified-head boundaries in the Talbert model. 3.7.5 Alamitos Barrier Model The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed by OCWD and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. The OCWD and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) purchase and provide the injection supply, which is primarily recycled water augmented with imported water. Barrier operations are described in Section 7. Elevated chloride concentrations were observed inland of the barrier, especially near the southeast portion of the barrier within Orange County, which suggested that seawater intrusion was occurring through and around the barrier into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD identified critical data gaps and installed new monitoring wells at three sites near the Orange County portion of the barrier in order to collect data to evaluate the extent and location of possible seawater intrusion in the area. In 2010 OCWD, WRD and LACDPW contracted with INTERA, Inc. to develop the Alamitos Barrier Flow Model (ABFM) and the Alamitos Barrier Transport Model (ABTM). These models were developed to simulate the relative differences in chloride transport, barrier performance for the existing barrier, and three selected barrier expansion configurations. The objectives of the models were to: (1) determine the existing and future potential for seawater intrusion in the Alamitos Gap and subsequent barrier expansion requirements, (2) optimize month-to-month operations of the existing barrier injection wells and (3) determine the travel time and Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-38 percentage of recycled injection water reaching nearby drinking water wells to fulfill regulatory permit requirements. The groundwater flow and solute transport models used the industry-standard computer codes MODFLOW (groundwater flow) and MT3D (solute transport). The model was constructed so that it can be operated by staff from any of the three agencies (OCWD, WRD and LACDPW) from a desktop personal computer using off-the-shelf industry-standard software and independently-run new simulations. Key findings of the models: 1. The dominant flow direction across and around the barrier into Orange County was found to be primarily west to east, rather than wrapping around the ends of the barrier in a south to north direction, as was previously thought. 2. Per-well injection capacity is limited due to relatively low aquifer hydraulic conductivities throughout most of the Orange County portion of the barrier. 3. Additional barrier injection is required to prevent further intrusion through or around the barrier. 4. Increasing injection, along with a westerly extension of the barrier in Long Beach to the Seal Beach Fault, would likely halt further seawater intrusion into Orange County, however, cut-off plumes of elevated salinity would likely continue to migrate easterly into Orange County landward of the barrier. A well calibrated groundwater model along with data from existing wells allowed the three agencies (OCWD, WRD, and LACDPW) to better assess and plan for necessary expansion of barrier facilities, as well as prioritize and optimize operation of the existing facilities. The models provided important new insight into the behavior of the hydrogeologic system in the vicinity of Alamitos Gap and the behavior and operation of the barrier. One application of the model was to help evaluate the Alamitos Barrier Improvement Project, which proposed to increase the injection capacity of the Orange County portion of the Alamitos Barrier. A total of eight new injection well locations were proposed along the east portion of the barrier. At each well locations, 2 to 4 depth-specific wells were assumed to inject into a specific aquifer unit (C, B, A, or I zones). WATER SUPPLY MONITORING OCWD’s comprehensive monitoring programs are conducted to safeguard the basin’s water quality and to operate the basin for long-term sustainability. Monitoring programs include water quality data from over 2,000 wells • Groundwater elevations collected annually at OCWD monitoring wells • All groundwater producers report production totals every six months • OCWD conducts Title 22 water quality monitoring for Producers • Additional monitoring for contamination sites and for seawater intrusion • Recycled water monitored daily, monthly, or quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbial constituents • Surface water monitoring includes Santa Ana River throughout the watershed Water Resources Management System • Database stores well information, historical and current data, sub-surface geology, water levels, and water quality • Reports generated for a variety of purposes and for several agencies Water Sample Collection and Analysis • In 2014, OCWD water quality staff collected over 17,000 samples for analysis • Most water quality samples analyzed at OCWD’s Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory OCWD staff collecting sample in Santa Ana River Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-1 WATER SUPPLY MONITORING SECTION 4 4.1 INTRODUCTION OCWD’s monitoring programs are a vital component of improving groundwater management and assuring sustainable basin management by: • Establishing a safe and sustainable level of groundwater production; • Monitoring coastal water quality and seawater intrusion; • Monitoring for potential groundwater contaminants; • Protecting the quality of surface water and recycled water used for groundwater recharge and assuring that such recharge is protective of groundwater quality; and • Assuring that the groundwater basin is managed in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. 4.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING OCWD collects samples and analyzes water elevation and water quality data from approximately 400 District-owned monitoring wells (shown in Figure 4-1) as well as between 200 and 220 privately-owned and publically-owned large and small system drinking water wells that are part of OCWD’s Title 22 program, shown in Figure 4-2. OCWD also has access agreements to sample a number of non-District-owned monitoring wells and privately-owned irrigation, domestic and industrial wells, shown in Figure 4-3. Inactive wells are included in District monitoring programs when feasible. An inactive well is defined as a well that is not currently being routinely operated but is capable of being made an operating well with a minimum of effort. The number and location of wells that are sampled change regularly as new wells come online and old ones are abandoned and destroyed. The District collects, stores, and uses data from wells owned and sampled by other agencies. For example, data collected by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California from wells in Los Angeles County along the Orange County boundary are part of the network of wells evaluated to determine annual groundwater elevations and are used for basin modeling. Another example is a network of wells that are owned and operated by the U.S. Navy for remediation of contamination plumes in the cities of Irvine, Seal Beach and Tustin. Wells sampled under various monitoring programs change in response to fluctuations in the number of available wells, basin conditions, observed water quality, and regulatory and non- regulatory requirements. A comprehensive list of all wells in OCWD’s database can be found in Appendix E. This list includes well name, owner, type of well, casing sequence number, depth, screened interval, and aquifer zone monitored, when known. In some cases well depth and screened intervals are listed on the data base as unknown but these wells are included because water quality or elevation data continues to be collected by the owner or operator and this data and used in a OCWD monitoring program, in groundwater Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-2 modeling, or other basin program. Wells on the list also include inactive wells when water quality or water elevation data continues to be collected or the data is utilized in one or more current basin program. The list includes wells located outside of District boundaries. These are included for a number of reasons. For example, all wells that are related to operation of the Alamitos Barrier that are located in Los Angeles County are monitored by OCWD in managing seawater intrusion along the Orange County-Los Angeles County border. Los Angeles County wells are also used to model the Orange County Groundwater Basin as groundwater flow is unrestricted across the county line. In other cases, a new well that is under construction appears on the list but the well depth and screened intervals have yet to be incorporated into the WRMS database. Groundwater sampling is conducted in accordance with ASTM protocols or their functional equivalent (ASTM D4448 - 01(2013), Standard Guide for Sampling Ground-Water Monitoring Wells). Groundwater elevation and monthly production data are used to quantify total basin pumping, evaluate seasonal groundwater level fluctuations and assess basin storage conditions. Comprehensive water quality monitoring programs fall roughly into three categories: (1) compliance with permits and drinking water regulations, (2) basin management, and (3) projects for research and other purposes. Water quality samples and water level data are collected at frequencies necessary for short- and long-term trend analyses, for analysis of the basin as a whole and to focus on local or sub-regional investigations. Thresholds that trigger a change in a monitoring program include (1) a recommendation by the GWRS Independent Advisory Panel (see explanation in Section 6) for resampling or increased Figure 4-1: OCWD-Owned Monitoring Wells Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-3 monitoring of a particular constituent of concern; (2) a recommendation by the Independent Advisory Panel that reviews OCWD use of Santa Ana River water for groundwater recharge and related water quality; (3) a change in regulation or anticipation of a change in regulation; (4) a constituent in a sample approaches or exceeds a regulatory water quality limit or Maximum Contaminant Level, notification level, or first time detection of a constituent; (5) the computer program built by OCWD to validate water quality data prior to transfer to the WRMS data base flags a variation in historical data that may indicate a statistically significant change in water quality; (6) analysis of water quality trends conducted by water quality, hydrogeology, or recycled water production staff indicate a need to change monitoring; and (7) OCWD initiates a special study, such as quantifying the removal of contaminants using treatment wetlands or testing the infiltration rate of a proposed new recharge basin. 4.2.1 Groundwater Production Monitoring All entities that pump groundwater from the basin are required by the District Act to report production every six months and pay a Replenishment Assessment. Private individual well owners pumping less than one acre-foot a year pay an annual flat fee instead of the Replenishment Assessment and do not have to report their production. Approximately 200 large-capacity municipal and privately-owned supply wells account for ninety-seven percent of production. Large-capacity well owners report monthly groundwater production for each of their wells. The production volumes are verified by OCWD field staff. Production data are used to manage basin storage and collect revenues. Figure 4-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells in Title 22 Monitoring Program Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-4 Figure 4-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation, and Industrial Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs 4.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Production and monitoring wells in the basin are measured for groundwater elevation at varying intervals, as explained below: • Water elevation measurements are collected for every OCWD monitoring well at least once a year with some wells measured bi-weekly; • Monitoring of municipal wells may be conducted more frequently depending on well maintenance, abandonment, new well construction, and related factors; • Over 1,000 individual measuring points are monitored for water levels on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate short-term effects of pumping, recharge or injection operations; and • Additional monitoring is done as needed in the vicinity of OCWD’s recharge facilities, seawater barriers, and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts or contamination are of concern. Beginning in 2011, OCWD began reporting seasonal groundwater elevation measurements to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-5 Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The CASGEM program was created by DWR in response to legislation passed in 2009 (SBx7-6). This amendment to the California Water Code required DWR to develop a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California’s groundwater basins. The CASGEM program aims to improve management of groundwater resources by establishing a permanent, locally- managed program of regular and systematic monitoring in all of California’s alluvial groundwater basins OCWD has been designated as the Monitoring Entity for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. A Monitoring Entity is a local agency that voluntarily takes responsibility for coordinating groundwater level monitoring and reporting for all or part of a groundwater basin. Wells monitored under the CASGEM program are listed in Appendix E. The monitoring network consists of monitoring stations distributed laterally and vertically throughout the Orange County Groundwater Basin as well as the La Habra Subbasin as shown in Figure 4-4. 4.2.3 Water Quality Monitoring OCWD monitors water quality in production wells on behalf of the Groundwater Producers for compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations (Figure 4-5). Samples are analyzed for more than 100 regulated and unregulated chemicals at frequencies established by regulation as shown in Table 4-1. The total number of water samples analyzed per year varies year-to-year due to regulatory requirements, conditions in the basin and applied research and/or special study demands. In 2014, over 17,000 samples were collected by the Water Quality Department and analyzed at OCWD’s state- certified Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, of which 24% were for drinking water. Federal and State Drinking Water Standards The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set health- based standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) for drinking water to protect public health against both naturally- occurring and man-made contaminants. EPA establishes MCLs for bacteriological, inorganic, organic, and radiological constituents. California administers and enforces the federal program and has adopted its own SDWA, which may contain more stringent state requirements. The regulations implementing the California SDWA are referred to as the Title 22 Drinking Water Standards. Figure 4-4: Wells in CASGEM Program Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-6 Table 4-1: Monitoring of Regulated and Unregulated Chemicals CA SWRCB Division of Drinking Water Title 22 Drinking Water: Groundwater Source Monitoring Frequency - Regulated Chemicals Chemical Class Frequency Monitoring Notes Inorganic - General Minerals Once every 3 years Inorganic - Trace Metals Once every 3 years Nitrate and nitrite Annually New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year Detected > 50% MCL Quarterly Perchlorate New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year Detected > DLR Quarterly State Detection limit = 4 ppb; OCWD RDL = 2.5 ppb Non-detect at < DLR Once every 3 years Volatile organic chemicals (VOC) Annually New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year Detected VOC Quarterly Synthetic organic chemicals (SOC) New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year; if non-detect, susceptibility waiver for 3 years Simazine Once every 3 years Must sample 2 consecutive quarters once every 3 years Radiological New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year (initial screening) to determine reduced monitoring frequency for each radionuclide Detected at > 1/2 MCL to MCL Once every 3 years Per radionuclide Detected at > DLR < 1/2 MCL Once every 6 years Per radionuclide Non-detect at < DLR Once every 9 years Per radionuclide EPA and DPH Unregulated Chemicals CDPH : 4-Inorganic and 5-Organic chemicals Two required GW samples: (1) Vulnerable period: May-Jun-Jul-Aug-Sep (2) 5 to 7 months before or after the sample collected in the vulnerable period. No further testing after completing the two required sampling events Monitoring completed for existing wells in 2001- 2003; new wells tested during 1st year of operation EPA UCMR1 - List 1: 1-Inorganic and 10-Organic chemicals UCMR1 program completed Jan 2001 - Dec 2003 EPA UCMR1 - List 2: 13-Organic chemicals EPA UCMR2 - List 1: 10 Organic chemicals UCMR2 program completed Jan 2008 - Dec 2010 EPA UCMR2 - List 2: 15 Organic chemicals EPA UCMR3 List 1: 7-Inorganic and 14-Organic chemicals All water utilities serving >10,000 people. Monitoring period: Jan 2013 - Dec 2015 EPA UCMR3 List 2: 7-Organic chemicals (Hormones) All water utilities serving population >100,000 and EPA selected systems serving <100,000 population. Monitoring period: Jan 2013 - Dec 2015 Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-7 Monitoring for Unregulated Chemicals EPA and the California Division of Drinking Water require monitoring for specified, unregulated chemicals. These are chemicals that do not have an established drinking water standard, but are new priority chemicals of concern. Monitoring provides information regarding their occurrence and levels detected in drinking water supply wells as the first assessment step to determine if the establishment of a standard (MCL) is necessary. Wells must be sampled twice within 12 months to comply with the unregulated chemical monitoring rules. Monitoring under the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 1 and Phase 2 was completed in 2003 and 2010, respectively. Monitoring for the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 3 began in January 2013 to be completed by December 2015. OCWD’s water quality monitoring program for drinking water wells includes: • Sampling of each production well (Figure 4-5) every three years (annual sampling of approximately one-third of production wells on a rotating basis) for general minerals, metals and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) constituents; • Sampling of every production well for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrates; • Monitoring of production wells when (1) VOCs or perchlorate are detected (2) when nitrate concentrations exceed 50 percent of the primary MCL or (3) constituents exceed the secondary MCL; • Testing for selected chemicals on the unregulated lists, chemicals with Notification Levels or new chemicals of concern at varying frequencies; • Monitoring of newly-constructed wells for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) for four consecutive quarters to provide seasonal data for the California Division of Drinking Water and determining long- term monitoring frequencies; and • Collecting and analyzing 1,161 samples in 2013 and 2014 to comply with the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 3. Figure 4-5: OCWD Staff Collecting Water Sample at Production Well Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-8 4.2.4 Monitoring of Groundwater Contamination Plumes In response to the discovery of VOCs in the mid-1980s, OCWD developed a comprehensive program to monitor contaminated groundwater in the basin. This extensive monitoring program led to the discovery of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station solvent plumes located in the City of Irvine. Continued monitoring and installation of additional monitoring wells also resulted in the discovery of two large plumes of contaminated groundwater, one located in the north part of the basin in the Anaheim/ Fullerton area and the other located in the south part of the basin in the City of Santa Ana. Groundwater contamination in these areas is the result of industrial activities, some dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. OCWD has and continues to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies overseeing identified sites that have contributed to groundwater contamination. OCWD has also embarked on developing projects to hydraulically contain and eventually clean up the contaminated groundwater. The northern and southern regions of contaminated groundwater are being addressed by the District’s North and South Basin Groundwater Protection Programs, respectively. These projects are described in Section 8. The current groundwater monitoring networks developed for these projects are shown in Figures 4-6 and 4-7. Figure 4-6: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells Figure 4-7: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-9 4.2.5 Monitoring for Seawater Intrusion Continual monitoring of groundwater near the coast is done to assess the effectiveness of the Alamitos and Talbert Barriers and track salinity levels in the Bolsa and Sunset Gaps. Over 425 monitoring and production wells are sampled semi-annually to assess water quality conditions during periods of lowest (winter) and peak production (summer). As explained in Section 7, the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier, located along the border of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, is jointly operated by OCWD and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). LACDPW maintains and samples all barrier monitoring and injection wells including those owned by OCWD. Data is shared between the two agencies with a joint report on the status of barrier operations prepared on an annual basis. Water levels are measured monthly in many of the coastal wells to evaluate seasonal effects of pumping and the operation of the injection barrier, as shown in Figure 4-8. A small subset of coastal wells is equipped with pressure transducers and data loggers for twice daily measurement and recording of water levels. Key groundwater monitoring parameters used to determine the effectiveness of the barriers include water level elevations, chloride, TDS, electrical conductivity, and bromide. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the aquifers most susceptible to seawater intrusion are prepared to evaluate whether or not the freshwater mound developed by the barrier injection wells is sufficient to prevent the inland movement of saline water. Figure 4-8: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-10 4.3 RECYCLED WATER MONITORING Recycled water produced by the GWRS is used for injection into the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier and for groundwater recharge, as described in Section 6. Use of GWRS water is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board – Santa Ana Region and the Division of Drinking Water. Similar monitoring is performed at the WRD-owned Leo J. Vander Lans Advanced Water Treatment Facility that supplies recycled water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier for injection. GWRS product water is monitored daily, weekly, and quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbiological constituents as summarized in Table 4-2. Focused research-type testing has been conducted on organic contaminants and selected microbial species. Table 4-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Product Water Quality Monitoring CATEGORY TESTING FREQUENCY General Minerals monthly Nitrogen Species (NO3, NO2, NH3, Org-N) twice weekly TDS weekly Metals quarterly Inorganic Chemicals quarterly Microbial daily Total Organic Carbon (TOC) daily Non-volatile Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOCs) quarterly Disinfection Byproducts quarterly Radioactivity quarterly Emerging Constituents quarterly To comply with the permit to operate the GWRS, groundwater samples are taken from 35 monitoring wells at nine sites to monitor GWRS water after percolation or injection. Samples are also taken from additional wells downgradient and along the groundwater flow path to collect data for long-term analysis of the effect of using GWRS supply for groundwater recharge. The location of these wells is shown in Figure 4-9. Because of the low concentration of salts in GWRS water, OCWD initiated a Metals Mobilization Study to analyze for trace metals in selected wells near and downgradient of basins used for recharge of GWRS water. The GWRS Independent Advisory Panel recommended this study to evaluate the potential of GWRS water to alter existing groundwater geochemical equilibria, such as causing metals currently bound to aquifer sediments to be released when GWRS water mixes with an aquifer matrix that is in equilibrium with the ambient groundwater. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-11 OCWD is investigating the feasibility of injecting 100 percent GWRS water directly into the Principal Aquifer in the central part of the basin. The Mid-Basin Injection Demonstration Project consists of a test injection well (MBI-1) along with seven nearby monitoring wells (SAR-10/1-4 and SAR-11/1-3) located approximately three miles north of the Talbert Barrier, along the GWRS pipeline at the Santa Ana River and Edinger Avenue in Santa Ana. Ambient water quality conditions are monitored in the vicinity of the demonstration project to establish a water quality baseline to evaluate the potential of metals mobilization upon injection of GWRS water and to access any other water quality changes should they occur once injection of GWRS water at the site commences. Quarterly samples are taken and analyzed for microbial, general minerals, trace metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and radiological constituents. Data from this Mid-Basin Injection Demonstration Project will support the design and permitting of a future, full-scale project. Figure 4-9: GWRS Monitoring Wells 4.4 SURFACE WATER MONITORING Surface water from the Santa Ana River is the predominate source of recharge supply for the groundwater basin. As a result, the quality of the surface water has a significant impact on groundwater quality. Several on-going programs monitor the condition of Santa Ana River water. Characterizing the quality of the river and its impact on the basin is necessary to verify the sustainability of continued use of river water for recharge and to safeguard a high-quality drinking water supply for Orange County. OCWD monitoring sites along the river and its tributaries are shown in Figure 4-10. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-12 4.4.1 Santa Ana River Monitoring OCWD captures and recharges nearly all of the non-storm flow (base flow) in the Santa Ana River that is released through the Prado Dam, which consists predominately of tertiary-treated and disinfected wastewater discharged upstream of Prado Dam. The District assesses the long- term impacts on groundwater quality from use of this water for groundwater recharge. Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study The Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health (SARWQH) Study (OCWD, 2004) was a voluntary $10 million eight-year study that applied advanced water quality characterization methods to assess both surface water and related post-recharge groundwater quality. The multi-disciplinary study design included an examination of hydrogeology, microbiology, inorganic and organic water chemistry, toxicology and public health. The organic water chemistry component included an analysis of trace (low concentration) constituents and dissolved organic compound characterization. Research for the SARWQH Study was conducted by scientists, researchers and water quality experts from numerous organizations, including Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USGS, Oregon State University, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. At the request of OCWD, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) conducted an independent review of the results from the SARWQH Study. NWRI assembled a group of experts in the fields of hydrogeology, water chemistry, microbiology, and the other requisite fields to form the Scientific Advisory Panel. This Panel met annually during the study to review the results and provide recommendations on future work. The results affirmed that OCWD recharge practices using Santa Ana River water are protective of public health, but that continued adaptive monitoring would be necessary. Findings from the SARWQH Study provided information necessary for the planning and permitting of other OCWD projects, such as the GWRS. National Water Research Institute Report The NWRI Panel concluded: “Based on the scientific data collected during the SARWQH Study, the Panel found that: “The SAR met all water-quality standards and guidelines that have been published for inorganic and organic contaminants in drinking water. No chemicals of wastewater origin were identified at concentrations that are of public health concern in the SAR, in water in the infiltration basins, or in nearby groundwaters.” The constituents that were considered included non- regulated chemicals (e.g., pharmaceutically active chemicals) and contaminants of concern that arose during the course of the SARWQH study (e.g., n-Nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]). The unprecedented classification of the major components of DOC and the transformations that occur within these chemical classes as water moves downstream and into the aquifer provided significant new evidence to support the conclusion that the product water is suitable for potable consumption and is also becoming comparable to other sources of drinking water, such as the Colorado River, in its organic profile.” (NWRI,2004) Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-13 Figure 4-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations Santa Ana River Monitoring Program OCWD continues to implement a comprehensive surface and groundwater monitoring program, referred to as the Santa Ana River Monitoring (SARMON) Program that includes an annual review and recommendations by the NWRI SARMON Independent Advisory Panel (IAP). Monitoring activities include sites on the Santa Ana River, Anaheim Lake, Santiago Basin and selected downgradient monitoring wells from the recharge basins to provide data on travel time and to assess water quality changes. On-going monthly surface water monitoring of the Santa Ana River is conducted at Imperial Highway near the diversion of the river to the off-river recharge basins and at a site below Prado Dam. Sampling frequencies for selected river sites and recharge basins are shown in Table 4-3. Several points on the river and key tributaries to the river above Prado Dam, as shown in Figure 4-10 are also monitored annually for general minerals and nutrients. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-14 Beginning 2015, the monitoring program was revised to shift monthly monitoring from Anaheim Lake to Imperial Highway. As a result of declining base flows in the Santa Ana River, more water is recharged in the riverbed and less is diverted to Anaheim Lake for percolation. Although a site on Temescal Creek is in the sampling program, it was last sampled in 2008 because the site has been dry since 2009. Table 4-3: Surface Water Quality Sampling Frequency within Orange County (A= annual, S= semi-annual, M = monthly, Q = quarterly) CATEGORY SAR Below Dam SAR Imperial Hwy Anaheim Lake Miraloma/ Kraemer/ Miller Basin Santiago Basins General Minerals M M Q Q M Nutrients M M Q Q M Metals Q Q Q Q Q Microbial M M Q M M Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Q M Q Q M Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SOC) Q Q Q Q Q Total Organic Halides (TOX) M M Q M Radioactivity Q Q Q Q Q Perchlorate M M Q Q M Chlorate Q M Q Q M NDMA Formation Potential (NDMA-FP)1 S Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CEC)2 Q Q Q Q Q Notes: 1 Monitoring for NDMA-FP was conducted monthly at Imperial Highway during 2008 and quarterly between 2009-2012 at Imperial Highway and Anaheim Lake, as well as at two sites at Prado Wetlands (upstream and downstream of the wetland ponds). Since 2015, monitoring occurs at the reduced frequency indicated in the table. 2 Samples from Imperial Highway are tested for a full suite of CECs. The other sites are tested for a reduced list of analytes. 4.4.2 Basin Monitoring Program Annual Report of Santa Ana Water Quality The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force) was formed in 1995 to determine and monitor the extent of and to evaluate the impact of increasing concentrations of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in groundwater basins in the Santa Ana River Watershed (see section 9.3 for more details). As a result of this work, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the Task Force prepare an annual report of the Santa Ana River water quality. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4-11. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-15 Figure 4-11: Basin Monitoring Program Task Force Monitoring Locations 4.4.3 Santa Ana River Watermaster Monitoring The Santa Ana River Watermaster produces an annual report in fulfillment of requirements of the Stipulated Judgment in the case of Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et.al., Case No. 117628-County of Orange, entered by the court on April 17, 1969. The Judgment settled water rights between entities in the Lower Area of the Santa Ana River Basin downstream of Prado Dam against those in the Upper Area tributary to Prado Dam. The court- appointed Watermaster Committee consists of representatives of four public entities who are responsible for fulfilling the obligations in the Judgment. These four are the Orange County Water District representing the Lower Area and San Bernardino Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, representing the Upper Area. The Watermaster annually compiles the basin hydrologic and water quality data necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of the Judgment. The data include records of stream discharge (flow) and quality for the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam and at Riverside Narrows as well as discharges for most tributaries; flow and quality of non-tributary water entering the river; rainfall records at locations in or adjacent to the watershed; and other data that may be used to support the determinations of the Watermaster. Data collected by the USGS at two gaging stations, “Santa Ana River Below Prado” and “Santa Ana River at Metropolitan Water District Crossing” are used. Discharge data at both stations consists of computed daily mean discharges based on continuous recordings and daily Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-16 maximum and minimum and mean values for electrical conductivity (EC) measured as specific conductance and twice monthly measured values for total dissolved solids. Stream gage data collected by the USGS at the following gaging stations are also used: Santa Ana River at E Street in San Bernardino, Chino Creek at Schaefer Avenue, Cucamonga Creek near Mira Loma, and Temescal Creek in the City of Corona. Precipitation data is collected at the USGS Gilbert Street Gage in San Bernardino and by OCWD in Orange County. 4.4.4 Metropolitan Water District Imported Water Imported water purchased by the District from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is monitored for general minerals, nutrients and other selected constituents. The District may also monitor metals, volatile organics and semi-volatile organics (e.g., pesticides and herbicides). MWD performs its own comprehensive monitoring and provides data to the District upon request. 4.4.5 Prado Wetlands Flow into and out of the District’s Prado Basin wetlands are monitored to evaluate changes in water quality and to evaluate the effectiveness of the wetlands treatment. More details concerning the operation of the Prado Wetlands can be found in Section 8.5. OCWD has been monitoring the Prado Wetlands since 1998. Water samples are analyzed for field parameters, biological, inorganic, and organic constituents. Research is currently being conducted at the Prado site to evaluate alternative methods of wetlands treatment. 4.4.6 Emerging Constituents OCWD participates in a watershed-wide Emerging Constituents Monitoring Program administered by SAWPA. This group was formed in 2010 to characterize emerging constituents in 1) municipal wastewater effluents, 2) the Santa Ana River at various locations, and 3) imported water. Three years of testing (2011-2013) were completed as directed by the Regional Water Board (R8-2009-0071). OCWD monitored two sites twice a year on the Santa Ana River for this program. Future testing may be conducted after completion of a statewide program currently being developed by the SWRCB. OCWD monitors two surface water sites quarterly on the Santa Ana River and at various locations within District recharge facilities below Prado Dam. Samples are analyzed for pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and other emerging constituents such as personal care products, food additives, and pesticides. In addition, OCWD samples for CECs at the diversion into the Prado Wetlands once during the winter and fall and monthly from spring through summer as part of a focused study with ReNUWit (see Prado POWUP Project described in Section 4.4.7). The District also conducts a groundwater monitoring program testing for representative constituents as described in Section 8.8. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-17 4.4.7 Special Surface Water Studies OCWD conducts additional water quality studies as needed. Current studies are described below. Sediment Removal Studies One of the key impediments to maximizing the recharge capacity of the surface water system is clogging, which is primarily caused by the deposition of silts and clays in the recharge basins. An extensive research project was conducted to evaluate various methods that could be used to reduce or remove the suspended sediments from surface water prior to recharge. The two methods that were identified for additional demonstration-scale testing were Riverbed and Cloth Filtration, which are discussed in Section 5.6. GWRS Focused Studies and Membrane Testing These studies evaluate treatment removal efficiencies and membrane integrity assessment (new and old membranes), focusing on specific water quality assessments and may include use of external contract lab support for specific process points to aid in possibly obtaining greater removal credit for the GWRS treatment system. Prado POWUP Project Prado Open Water Unit Process Wetlands (POWUP) Research Project is funded by the National Science Foundation. OCWD is conducting this project with ReNUWIt (Re-inventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure) and four primary member institutions (Stanford University, UC-Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University). OCWD’s Prado Wetlands are being used to test how wetlands treatment can be optimized with unit processes in series. The project will test the removal of pharmaceuticals and nitrates from wastewater effluent and effluent-dominated surface waters and assess the overall costs and benefits of alternative constructed wetland treatment systems. 4.5 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: DATABASE MANAGEMENT Data collected by OCWD are stored in the District’s custom electronic database called the Water Resources Management System (WRMS). WRMS provides a central point of access and storage of hydrologic and hydrogeologic information. The database contains comprehensive well information, current and historical data, as well as information on sub-surface geology, water level and water quality. This database provides for subsequent retrieval and analysis of data or preparation of data reports and data submittals to other agencies. OCWD analyzes and reports data in a number of regular publications as shown in Table 4-4. WRMS is an integrated system that is comprised of four primary components: (1) a relational database management system (RDBMS) using Oracle, (2) a geographic information system Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-18 (GIS) using ArcGIS, (3) a computer-aided drafting system (CAD) using AutoCAD, and (4) a web portal with custom applications to facilitate sharing of data between the systems and to provide an interface for users to enter, report, evaluate and analyze data. WRMS was designed to assist Orange County Water District’s engineers and scientists with the management of the groundwater basin. The foundation data set is the location and attributes of wells throughout the basin. Details about existing and historical wells, such as construction information and lithology logs, are stored in the RDBMS. Also stored in WRMS are all the historical and current time-series data, including water levels, water quality, production, and injection data associated with the wells. Additionally, the RDBMS stores information about recharge stations and percolation volumes. Typical applications include: Aerial maps Location of proposed new wells Water elevation contours Contamination plume maps Maps of basin change in storage Well logs Pumping volume Cross sections Basin volume calculation Well diagrams and casing details Seawater intrusion Time series data water level graphs Maps of well location Atlases and reports WRMS provides information in the form of reports and data extraction to agencies on a regular basis, such as: • Orange County Public Health Department • California Department of Water Resources • California Division of Drinking Water • California Regional Water Quality Control Board • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • OCWD Groundwater Producers The CAD applications query data stored in the WRMS assist the end-user in preparation of hydrogeologic graphics. Examples of the types of graphics include geologic cross-sections and stiff diagrams. The GIS component of WRMS provides two primary functions: production of maps and spatial analyses for planning-level studies, and as a pre- and post-processing tool for the numerical groundwater computer model of the groundwater basin. Spatial data used by the GIS includes well locations, recharge basins, water level contours, street networks, as well as additional layers, such as political boundaries. Digital aerial photography is also used for map production work. 4.6 WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OCWD’s laboratory, shown in Figure 4-12, is state-certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses. The District utilizes state-certified contractor laboratories to analyze asbestos, dioxin and radiological samples. Analytical methods approved by the Division of Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-19 Drinking Water and the EPA are used for analyzing water quality samples for the drinking water compliance program. As new chemicals are regulated, the OCWD laboratory develops the analytical capability and becomes certified in the approved method to process compliance samples. The amount of samples analyzed is dynamic, ranging from 600 to 1,700 samples in any given month. In 2014, the lab handled nearly 20,000 samples for a total of 427,000 analytes. Water quality samples are collected in the field in accordance with approved federal and state procedures and industry-recognized quality assurance and control protocols to ensure that sampled water is representative of ambient groundwater or surface water conditions. Analyses for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) including tests for herbicides, pesticides, plasticizers, and other semi-volatile organics require use of 12 or more analytical methods. Production wells that provide water for drinking water, irrigation/agriculture and industrial uses generally have well screens located in the permeable, water-bearing zones that may tap multiple aquifers. Therefore, water quality samples collected from these wells may represent water from one or more aquifers with some permeable zones providing a greater contribution than others to the overall water sample. In contrast, monitoring wells are designed and constructed with well screens placed at a specific depth and length to provide water quality at desired zones within an aquifer. Figure 4-13 illustrates the three monitoring well designs used for basin-wide water quality monitoring activities: multi-point, nested and cluster. Figure 4-12: OCWD Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-20 Well Cluster Nested Well Westbay Multipoint Well The multi-point well is a Westbay well design that contains a single casing with sampling ports located at specific depths in the underlying aquifers (Figure 4-14). Individual sampling points are hydraulically separated by packers. A computer-assisted sampling probe is used to collect a water sample at the desired depth. The sampling port has direct hydraulic connection between the port and the aquifer, allowing groundwater to flow into a detachable stainless steel sample container. OCWD has more than 50 multi-point wells ranging from a few hundred feet to over 2,000 feet in depth. Sampling the nested and cluster monitoring wells may require purging of 40 to nearly 2,000 gallons of groundwater prior to sample collection. Generally, a truck equipped with one or more submersible pumps and a portable generator is used to purge and sample groundwater from these wells. Portable submersible pump and reel systems provide additional flexibility to increase the efficiency of sampling monitoring wells without dedicated pumps. One truck is outfitted with a dual system of submersible pumps and environmental hoses installed separately on hydraulic booms to sample two wells simultaneously. Stainless steel sample container Sampling port Multiple sampling ports 3 18 Well depths, ft 255 1950 Stainless steel sample container Sampling port Multiple sampling ports 3 18 Well depths, ft 255 1950 Figure 4-13: Monitoring Well Designs Figure 4-14: Westbay Well Schematic Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-21 4.6.1 Publication of Data OCWD presents collected data in a number of regular publications listed in Table 4-4. Table 4-4: OCWD Publications Report Publication Frequency Contents Engineer’s Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District Annual Basin hydrology, groundwater conditions, total groundwater production, groundwater levels, coastal groundwater conditions, calculation water in storage, imported water purchases; required by District Act Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Report Annual Surface water quality data for Santa Ana River Groundwater Replenishment System Annual Report Annual Data related to the operation of the GWRS and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier; required by RWQCB permit Santa Ana River Watermaster Report Annual Amounts of Santa Ana River flows at Prado Dam and Riverside Narrows; required by 1969 stipulated judgment Report on Groundwater Recharge Periodically Total amount of recharge to basin, including natural recharge, managed aquifer recharge, source of recharge water, & recharge facility performance 4.7 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS Frequent and destructive flooding of the Santa Ana River in Orange County was the impetus for construction of the Prado Dam in 1941. Prior to the construction of flood control facilities, the banks of the Santa Ana River naturally overflowed periodically and flooded broad areas of Orange County as seen in Figure 4-15. Coastal marshes were inundated during winter storms and the mouth of the river moved both northward and southward of its present location. In the days before flood control, surface water naturally percolated into the groundwater basin, replenishing groundwater supplies. Subsequent flood protection efforts included construction of levees along the river with concrete-lined bottoms along portions of the river. Flood risk was reduced, increased pumping of groundwater lowered water levels and low-lying areas were filled in for development. Today, groundwater levels throughout Orange County are low enough that the rising and lowering of groundwater levels do not impact surface water flows or ecosystems. From Prado Dam to Imperial Highway, the wide soft-bottomed channel supports riparian habitats. Riparian habitat is dependent on river water released through Prado Dam, which is predominantly treated wastewater discharged in the upper watershed when storm flow is not Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-22 present. In aggregate, this stretch is generally considered to be in equilibrium between surface water and groundwater based on available stream gage data, although some infiltration may occur due to groundwater pumping in the vicinity of Green River Golf Course. From Imperial Highway to 17th Street in Santa Ana, the river is a losing reach with surface water percolating into groundwater. OCWD conducts recharge operations within the soft-bottomed river channel except for a portion of the river where the Riverview Golf Course occupies the river channel. The river levees are constructed of either rip-rap or concrete. Figure 4-15: Santa Ana River in Orange County,1938 Courtesy of the Anaheim Public Library From 17th Street to near Adams Avenue in Costa Mesa, the river channel is concrete-lined for flood control with sloping concrete side levees and a concrete bottom. From Adams Avenue to the coast, the channel has concrete side walls or rip-rap for flood control and a soft bottom. Estuary conditions within the concrete channel exist at the mouth of the river where the ocean encroaches at high tide. The tidal prism extends approximately from the ocean to the Adams Avenue Bridge. There are no surface water bodies within the boundaries of OCWD that are dependent on groundwater. Therefore, there are no groundwater dependent ecosystems issues in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Some areas in the basin experience relatively high groundwater levels due to perched groundwater where shallow groundwater is impeded from flowing into deeper groundwater by a layer of low-permeable clay known as an aquitard. Except in very low-lying areas near sea level, the high groundwater is not close enough to the surface to support hydrophilic vegetation. OCWD carefully monitors water levels in the vicinity of the Talbert Seawater Barrier in order to maintain injection well rates to assure that groundwater levels do not rise to levels that will threaten urban infrastructure. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES Management of recharge facilities to maximize groundwater recharge includes the following: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies • Santa Ana River • Recycled water • Imported water • Precipitation Facilities Operations • 23 recharge facilities with storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet • Volume of recharge estimated monthly Recharge Studies and Evaluations • Recharge Enhancement Working Group evaluates plans to maximize efficiency of system and develop concepts for increasing recharge capacity • Recharge Facilities Model developed to project additional recharge for potential new projects • Several studies evaluate future Santa Ana River flows Routine basin maintenance at Anaheim Lake Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-1 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF SECTION 5 RECHARGE FACILITIES 5.1 HISTORY OF RECHARGE OPERATIONS Replenishing the groundwater basin, through natural and artificial means, is essential to support pumping from the basin. Although the amount of recharge and basin pumping may not be the same each year, over the long-term recharge needs to approximately equal total pumping. Recharge water sources include water from the Santa Ana River and tributaries, imported water, and recycled water supplied by the Groundwater Replenishment System as well as incidental recharge from precipitation and subsurface inflow. OCWD owns over 1,500 acres of land on which there are 1,067 wetted acres of recharge facilities. These facilities are located in the Forebay of the groundwater basin adjacent to the Santa Ana River (Figure 5-1) and Santiago Creek. Managed aquifer recharge began in the 1930s, in response to declining water levels in the basin. Shortly after its formation in 1933, OCWD, in cooperation with the Orange County Flood Figure 5-1: Santa Ana River, view upstream Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-2 Control District (OCFCD) began experimenting with methods to increase the percolation capacity of the Santa Ana River Channel. Successful experiments included removing vegetation and re-sculpting the river bank and river bottom. The District began purchasing portions of the river channel, eventually acquiring six miles of the channel in Orange County, in order to maximize the recharge of Santa Ana River water to the basin. Recharge of imported water began in 1949 when OCWD began purchasing Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In 1958, OCWD purchased and excavated a 64-acre site one mile from the Santa Ana River to create Anaheim Lake, OCWD’s first recharge basin (Figure 5-2). Expansion of the surface water recharge system has continued to the present time; today OCWD operates a network of 25 facilities that recharge an average of over 230,000 afy. Although the surface water system provides the largest source of recharge to the basin, recharge from the seawater barriers is also an important source of recharge. Figure 5-2: Anaheim Lake and Mini Anaheim Lake, in foreground with Miller and Kraemer Basins in background Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-3 5.2 SOURCES OF RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES Water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin are listed in Table 5-1. Figure 5-3 and Table 5-2 show the average annual recharge by source between Water Years 2009-10 and 2013-14. Table 5-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies Supply Sources and Description Recharge Location Santa Ana River Base Flow Perennial flows from the upper watershed in Santa Ana River; predominately treated wastewater discharges Santa Ana River, recharge basins, and Santiago Creek Storm Flow Precipitation from upper watershed flowing in Santa Ana River through Prado Dam Santa Ana River, recharge basins, and Santiago Creek Santiago Creek Storm Flow / Santa Ana River Storm flows in Santiago Creek and Santa Ana River water pumped from Burris Basin via Santiago Pipeline Santiago Creek, Santa Ana River, recharge basins Natural Recharge Precipitation and subsurface inflow Precipitation and runoff from Orange County foothills, subsurface inflow from basin boundaries Basin-wide Recycled Water Groundwater Replenishment System Advanced treated wastewater produced at GWRS plant in Fountain Valley Injected into Talbert Barrier; recharged in Kraemer, Miller, and Miraloma basins Water Replenishment District of Southern CA Water purified at the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility in Long Beach Injected into Alamitos Barrier Imported Water Untreated State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct Various recharge basins Treated State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct treated at Diemer Water Treatment Plant Injected into Talbert and Alamitos Barriers Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-4 Table 5-2: Annual Recharge by Source, Water Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 (acre-feet per year) Water Year Santa Ana River Imported Water Recycled Water In lieu Recharge Incidental Recharge Total Base Flow Storm Flow 2009-10 103,000 59,000 22,000 67,000 0 83,000 334,000 2010-11 104,000 78,000 29,000 67,000 10,000 94,000 382,000 2011-12 95,000 32,000 42,000 72,000 31,000 27,000 299,000 2012-13 85,000 18,000 41,000 73,000 0 20,000 237,000 2013-14 65,000 25,000 53,000 66,000 0 32,000 241,000 Average 90,000 42,000 37,000 69,000 8,000 51,000 298,000 Average % 30% 14% 13% 23% 3% 17% 100% Notes: (1) “Storm Water” includes total storm flow recharged in both the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River (2) “Imported water” includes water used for Alamitos and Talbert Barriers, water purchased by and recharged by OCWD, MET CUP supply and MET CUP in lieu supply recharged in the Forebay. Santa Ana River Base Flow Storm Flow Imported Water Recycled Water In-Lieu Program Incidental Recharge Santa Ana River Base Flow Storm Flow Imported Water Recycled Water In-Lieu Program Incidental Recharge Figure 5-3: Five Year Average Recharge by Source Water Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-5 5.2.1 Santa Ana River The Santa Ana River begins in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows through the Prado Dam to Orange County, as shown in Figure 5-4. The dam was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) in 1941 “for flood control and other purposes.” Water from the Santa Ana River is the primary source of water used to recharge the groundwater basin. Downstream of the dam, OCWD diverts river water into recharge facilities where the water percolates into the groundwater basin. A 1969 legal settlement between OCWD and all upper watershed parties requires that a minimum of 42,000 afy of Santa Ana River base flows reach the Prado Dam. Since the 1973, base flow has exceeded the legal minimum, reaching a maximum of over 158,000 acre-feet in 1999. In July 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board approved Water Rights Permit No. 21243, which provides OCWD the right to divert and recharge up to 362,000 afy of Santa Ana River flows. District recharge facilities are capable of recharging nearly all of the base flow. OCWD also has rights to all storm flows that reach Prado Dam. When storm flows exceed the capacity of the diversion facilities, river water reaches the ocean and this portion is lost as a water supply. Storing water behind Prado Dam significantly increases the amount of stormwater that OCWD is able to recharge into the groundwater basin. Figure 5-4: Santa Ana River Watershed Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-6 In the 1960s, the Corps began working with OCWD to temporarily store storm water behind the dam. When rates of release through the dam are closely matched to the downstream diversion capacity, OCWD is able to maximize capture of this water supply and minimize the flow of water to the ocean. However, storing water behind the dam must be managed so as not to jeopardize the primary purpose of the dam for flood control. This is accomplished by limiting the volume of water stored behind the dam to a lower level during the storm season to maintain storage for future storm events. Outside of the storm season, the Corps allows a larger storage volume to be held behind the dam. Agreements between OCWD and the Corps signed in 1994 and 2006 set dam operating procedures to allow temporary storage behind Prado Dam up to an elevation of 498 feet mean sea level (msl) during the flood season (October 1 – February 28), which equates to just under 10,000 acre-feet of storage. During the non-storm season, which extends from March 1 to September 30, the allowable elevation increases to an elevation of 505 feet msl, which equates to just less than 20,000 acre-feet of storage. The areas inundated behind Prado Dam and the storage for the non-storm season and storm season pools are depicted in Figure 5-5. Figure 5-5: Area of Inundation and Storage Volume for Water Conservation Pools Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-7 Both the base flow and the storm flow in the Santa Ana River vary from year to year as shown in Figure 5-6. Recent trends show a decline in base flow, which may be a result of increased recycling, drought conditions, declining per capita water use, and changing economic conditions in the upper watershed. The volume of storm water that can be recharged into the basin is highly dependent on amount and timing of precipitation in the upper watershed, which is highly variable, as shown in Figure 5-7. Figure 5-8 shows the amount of stormwater captured since 1936. Although storm flow averages approximately 33 percent of the total Santa Ana River flows, only approximately half of that amount is recharged by OCWD. This is primarily because most of the flows that are lost to the ocean occur during relatively brief periods of high releases from Prado Dam that exceed the District’s diversion capacity. During dry years, very little water is lost to the ocean; however, in wet years, losses can be great. In water year 1997-98, for example, the District was able to capture and recharge over 74,000 acre-feet of storm flow, but was unable to capture approximately 270,000 acre-feet of storm flow. Water Year 1965-66 to 2013-14 (Oct.-Sept.) Figure 5-6: Annual Base and Storm Flow in the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam Source: Santa Ana River Watermaster, 2014 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1965-66 1971-72 1977-78 1983-84 1989-90 1995-96 2001-02 2007-08 2013-14 Base Flow Storm Flow Acre-feet (x1000) Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-8 Figure 5-7: Precipitation at San Bernardino, Water Year (Oct.-Sept.) 1934-35 to 2013-14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1936 1943 1950 1957 1964 1971 1978 1985 1992 1999 2006 2013 Year (1936-1990 is Oct-Sept water year, 1991-2014 is July-June Fiscal Year) Recharged Base Flow Recharged Storm Flow Imported Water GWRS Recycled Water Precipitation (inches) Accumulative Departure from Average (inches) Figure 5-8: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System Annual Recharge Acre-feet (x1000) Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-9 5.2.2 Santiago Creek Santiago Creek is the primary drainage for the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Mountains and ultimately drains into the Santa Ana River as shown on Figure 5-9. Water from Santiago Creek and imported water is impounded by Santiago Dam, creating Irvine Lake, which is owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District and Serrano Water District. Downstream of Santiago Dam is Villa Park Dam, which is a flood-control facility owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD’s Santiago Basins are located downstream of Villa Park Dam. These former gravel pits contain a large percentage of the storage capacity within the District’s recharge system and can recharge up to approximately 125 cfs. Prior to the early 1990s, the only source of water to Santiago Basins was runoff from Santiago Creek. In the early 1990s, the Burris Basin Pump Station and Santiago Pipeline were constructed, allowing Santa Ana River water to be pumped to Santiago Basins for recharge. Pumped water can also be diverted to the creek downstream of the basins for recharge. With completion of the Santiago Basin Pump Station in 2003, OCWD has the capacity to move water both directions in the Santiago Pipeline. This has allowed for faster draining of Santiago Basins, freeing up storage for stormwater capture and increasing the District’s recharge capacity. During average rainfall conditions, the District captures and recharges an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 afy of storm flow, with much of this recharge taking place in the Santiago Basins. Some groundwater producers in the general vicinity of the Santiago Basins have low groundwater levels at their production wells when the amount of groundwater in storage declines. This occurs to some extent because the aquifer is relatively thin in the east Orange area compared to the aquifer Figure 5-9: Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-10 thickness in the middle portion of the groundwater basin. OCWD seeks to recharge as much water possible in the Santiago Basins subject to various operational constraints and limitations on the amount of available recharge water. Currently recharge in Santiago Creek is limited to the reach between Santiago Basins and Hart Park in the city of Orange. The parking lot of Hart Park occupies the creek channel, making it difficult to convey water safely through the park. The District is currently evaluating projects that will allow for the lower reach of the creek downstream of Hart Park to be used for recharge of Santa Ana River water. 5.2.3 Natural Recharge Natural recharge, referred to in Section 3 as unmeasured or incidental recharge, is comprised of subsurface inflow from the local hills and mountains, (see Figure 3-5), infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Since the amount of natural recharge cannot be directly measured, it is commonly referred to as incidental or unmeasured recharge. Each year, an estimate is made of the amount of subsurface flow that flowed across the Los Angeles- Orange County line. In general, since the Central Basin in Los Angeles County is operated at a lower level than the Orange County basin, there is usually a net flow of water out of the Orange County basin to the Central Basin. This outflow is subtracted from the total incidental recharge to get the net incidental recharge to the basin, which is the value reported in this document. Figure 5-10 shows the amount of net incidental recharge from WY 2000-01 to 2013-14. Note the correlation between amount of precipitation and net incidental recharge. Figure 5-10: Net Incidental Recharge and Precipitation, WY 2000-01 to 2013-14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000-01 2003-04 2006-07 2009-10 2012-13 Incidental Recharge Precipitation in AnaheimIncidental Recharge acre-feet (x1000) Precipitation Inches Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-11 5.2.4 Recycled Water The basin receives two sources of recycled water for recharge. The main source is the GWRS, which has capacity to produce 102,000 afy of recycled water. This water is recharged in the surface water system and the Talbert Seawater Barrier. Operation of GWRS is explained in detail in Section 6. The second source of recycled water is the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility which supplies water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier. The capacity of the Vander Lans Treatment Facility was expanded from 3,300 afy to approximately 9,000 afy. Only a portion of the water recharged in the Alamitos Barrier recharges the Orange County Groundwater Basin with the remainder recharging the Central Basin in Los Angeles County. 5.2.5 Imported Water OCWD purchases imported water for recharge from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a member agency of MWD. Untreated imported water can be delivered to the surface water recharge system in multiple locations, including Anaheim Lake (OC-28/28A), Santa Ana River (OC-11), Irvine Lake (OC-13A), and San Antonio Creek near the City of Upland (OC-59). Connections OC-28, OC-11 and OC-13 supply OCWD with Colorado River Aqueduct water. Connection OC-59 supplies OCWD with State Water Project water and OC-28A supplies OCWD with a variable blend of water from these two sources. Treated imported water was used extensively for in-lieu recharge from 1977 to 2007. During this time frame, OCWD recharged over 900,000 acre-feet of water using in-lieu recharge purchased from MWD. The MWD discontinued the in-lieu program in 2012. When the program was operational, OCWD would ask groundwater pumpers to participate by turning off their wells and take imported treated water in-lieu of pumping groundwater. OCWD would pay the pumpers the incremental additional cost of taking imported water versus groundwater to make the cost of this water equivalent to groundwater. Control of Quagga Mussels Quagga mussels are an invasive species that were found in 2007 in Lake Mead, a reservoir on the Colorado River. These mussels grow quickly to form massive colonies. Not only are natural ecosystems disrupted, but spread of these invasives can block water intakes causing significant disruption and damage to water distribution systems. MWD has a Raw Water Discharge Plan to manage the spread of quagga mussels within the imported water system. Within Orange County, the mussels were found in Irvine Lake, Rattlesnake Reservoir, and Walnut Canyon Reservoir. Methods to control the quagga include desiccation and chlorination. OCWD recharges Colorado River water in Anaheim Lake, Mini-Anaheim Lake, Kraemer Basin, La Jolla Basin, and Raymond Basin. To control the spread of quaggas, OCWD only uses Colorado River Water in basins that can be completely drained and desiccated. As a result of Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-12 the quagga mussels, OCWD can no longer recharge Colorado River water in the Santa Ana River or any other facility that cannot be fully desiccated. 5.3 SURFACE WATER RECHARGE FACILITIES The District’s surface water recharge system is comprised of 23 facilities covering over 1,000 wetted acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet, as listed in Table 5-3. The locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 5-11. Section 5.3.1 illustrates the operation of the recharge system. OCWD carefully tracks the amount of water being recharged in each facility on a daily basis. Table 5-3: Area and Storage Capacities of Surface Water Recharge Facilities FACILITY Wetted Area (acre-feet) Maximum Storage Capacity (acre-feet)1 Anaheim Lake 72 2,260 Burris Basin 120 2,670 Conrock Basin 25 1,070 Five Coves Basin: Lower 16 182 Five Coves Basin: Upper 15 164 Foster-Huckleberry Basin 21 630 Kraemer Basin 31 1,170 La Jolla Basin 6.5 26 Lincoln Basin 10 60 Little Warner Basin 11 225 Miller Basin2 25 300 Mini-Anaheim Lake 5 13 Miraloma Basin 9.8 63 Off-River Channel 89 N/A Olive Basin 5.8 122 Placentia Basin2 9 350 Raymond Basin2 19 370 River View Basin 3.6 11 Santa Ana River: Imperial to Orangewood Ave. 291 N/A Santiago Basins 187 13,720 Santiago Creek to Hart Park3 10 N/A Warner Basin 70 2,620 Weir Ponds 1-4 33 252 TOTAL 1,085 26,278 Notes: (1) Maximum storage capacity is typically not achieved for most facilities due to need to reserve buffer space for system flow and level fluctuations. (2) Owned by Orange County Flood Control District. Maximum storage capacity shown is the maximum flood control storage. (3) Basin is not owned by OCWD. Owners include OCFCD, City of Orange, and MWD. Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-13 Three full-time hydrographers control and monitor the recharge system. These hydrographers and other OCWD staff prepare a monthly Water Resources Summary Report, which lists the source and volume for each recharge water supply, provides an estimate of the amount of water percolated in each recharge basin, documents total groundwater production from the basin, and estimates the change in groundwater storage. The report also estimates the amount of incidental recharge, evaporation and losses to the ocean. The monthly figures are compiled to determine yearly recharge and production totals. A monthly report from 2014 is presented in Appendix F. Figure 5-11: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-14 5.3.1 Surface Water Recharge System Water released at Prado Dam naturally flows downstream and percolates through the river’s 300-400 foot wide unlined channel bottom that consists of sandy, permeable sediment. OCWD actively manages recharge in an approximate 6 mile stretch of the river channel from Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue. This reach covers an area of over 290 acres The Imperial Inflatable Dam diverts up to 500 cfs of Santa Ana River water into the recharge system. Flows are also bypassed around the dam to downstream facilities. Below Prado Dam Santa Ana River in Anaheim Imperial Rubber Dam Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-15 Weir Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, also referred to as the Desilting System, are used to remove sediment from Santa Ana River water. Flows are split at Weir Pond 4 to flow either to the Warner Basin Subsystem (Foster-Huckleberry, Conrock, Warner, and Little Warner Basins) or to the Off-River Channel Water conveyed into the Off-River Channel, which parallels the main river channel, percolates into the sandy channel bottom. This 200-foot wide channel is separated from the Santa Ana River by a 2.3-mile-long levee. Remaining flows can be recharged in Olive Basin or conveyed to Five Coves Basins. The Five Coves Basins can also receive water directly from the Santa Ana River diverted at the Five Coves Inflatable Dam. From Five Coves, water flows into Lincoln and Burris Basins. Warner Basin From Warner Basin, water is conveyed by pipeline to Anaheim Lake and then to Miller and Kraemer Basins. Water can then be conveyed in Carbon Creek to La Jolla, Placentia and Raymond Basins. Kraemer Basin Off-River Channel Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-16 From Burris Basin, water is pumped to Santiago Basins by the Burris Basin Pump Station through the 60-inch diameter, five-mile long Santiago Pipeline. Pumped water is percolated in the Santiago Basins, (Blue Diamond Basin, Bond Basin, and Smith Basin), River View Basin and Santiago Creek. The Santiago Basins are used to recharge and store stormwater to be conveyed back to recharge basins when capacity is available. Water that remains in the Santa Ana River is managed to maximize infiltration; levees constructed in the river bed spread water across the width of the river channel. River water reaches the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach only when flow exceeds recharge capacity, which typically occurs only during large storm events. Recycled water produced at the GWRS in Fountain Valley is conveyed through a 13-mile pipeline located in the west levee of the Santa Ana River to OCWD recharge basins. GWRS recycled water is primarily percolated in Kraemer, Miller and Miraloma Basins. Pumps in Burris and Santiago Basins allow for release of water into Santiago Creek for percolation. Santiago Creek Santiago Basin Lower Santa Ana River Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-17 5.4 MAINTENANCE OF RECHARGE FACILITIES OCWD recharge basins range in depth from 10 to 60 feet. Portions of their side-walls and bottoms are composed of natural, sandy, permeable materials that allow water to percolate into the aquifer. Percolation rates vary depending on the size and depths of the basins; rates slow significantly as fine-grained sediment particles accumulate on the basin bottoms. Most of the basins can be drained and cleaned to remove this clogging layer, thereby restoring percolation rates and increasing recharge efficiency. Percolation rates tend to decrease with time as basins develop a thin clogging layer along the bottom. The clogging layer develops from fine grain sediment deposition and from biological growth, shown in Figure 5-12. Percolation rates are restored by mechanical removal of the clogging layer utilizing heavy equipment such as bulldozers and scrapers. Figure 5-12: Recharge Basin showing Accumulated Clogging Layer OCWD maximizes recharge in the Main River System by removing the clogging layer (Figure 5- 13) and bulldozing a series of sand levees in the river. These levees maximize recharge by spreading the water across the width of the river to maximize the wetted surface area. Typically, water flows at a velocity sufficient to prevent the accumulation of fine sediment and biological growth. The riverbed is also cleaned naturally, when winter and spring stormflows wash out the levees and scour the bottom. When necessary, heavy equipment is used to move sediments in order to restore the high percolation rate. Sand levees remain intact until flows exceed approximately 350 cfs, at which time they erode and water flows from bank to bank in the riverbed. Although percolation is believed to remain high during these high flow conditions, rates are difficult to measure. Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-18 Figure 5-13: Bulldozer in Off-River Channel Removing Clogging Layer 5.5 RECHARGE STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS The District has an ongoing program to continually assess potential enhancements to existing recharge facilities, evaluate new recharge methods and analyze potential new recharge facilities. The planning and implementation horizon for recharge facilities varies from a near term horizon of five to 10 years for development of specific projects to 50-year projections of the future availability of recharge water supplies, as described below. 5.5.1 Recharge Enhancement Working Group The Recharge Enhancement Working Group is comprised of staff from multiple departments that works to maximize the efficiency of existing recharge facilities and evaluate new concepts to increase recharge capacity. Staff from recharge operations, hydrogeology, engineering, research and development, regulatory affairs, and planning departments meets on a regular basis to review new data and evaluate potential new projects. Proposed projects under investigation are continually changing as needs and conditions change. Potential projects/concepts considered include reconfiguration of existing basins, operational improvements to increase flexibility in the management of the basins, alternative basin cleaning methods, potential sites for new basins, and control of sediment concentrations, are discussed and prioritized. Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-19 5.5.2 Computer Model of Recharge Facilities One of the challenges the District faces in determining the value of improving existing recharge facilities, storing more water at Prado Dam and purchasing new recharge facilities is estimating the amount of additional water that could be recharged due to a potential project. Given the complexity and interconnectivity of the recharge system, a model was needed to isolate the impacts of various proposed projects in order to determine the increased recharge potential due to a specific project. OCWD developed the Recharge Facilities Model, which is a computer model of the District’s recharge system that simulates Prado Dam operations, Santa Ana River flow and each recharge facility. This model is primarily a planning tool that is used to evaluate various conditions including estimating recharge benefits if new recharge facilities are constructed, existing facilities are improved, increased storage is achieved at Prado Dam, or baseflow changes occur in the Santa Ana River. The model can be operated by District staff from a desktop computer using a graphical user interface. The Recharge Facilities Model was completed in 2009 with the assistance of CH2M HILL and is based on GoldSim software, which is a general simulation software solution for dynamically modeling complex systems in business, engineering and science http://www.goldsim.com/ Home/) (CH2M HILL, 2009). Key features of the Recharge Facilities Model include: • Ability to simulate different surface water inflow scenarios (e.g., high base flow, low base flow, etc.) • Inflatable rubber dam operations (e.g., diversion rates, deflation/inflation) • Conveyance capacity of system (e.g., pipeline and pumping capacities) • Basin recharge capacities • Reductions in basin capacities caused by clogging • Maintenance thresholds that cause basins to be taken out of service and cleaned • Different Prado Dam conservation pool elevations and release rates • Different sedimentation levels behind Prado Dam • Ability to add imported water to system when excess capacity is available Output from the model includes: • Amount of water recharged in each facility, storage at Prado Dam, release rates from Prado Dam, storage in each facility, etc.; • Amount of water that could not be recharged and water losses to the ocean; • Optimal amount of cleaning operations; Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-20 • Available (unused) recharge capacity; and • Amount of imported water that can be recharged using unused capacity. The RFM is flexible and allows for the development and simulation of a wide array of different scenarios. Figure 5-14 presents an overview of the system as it appears in GoldSim. Examples of how the model has been used to evaluate potential recharge projects include: • Estimate of the additional amount of water available for recharge if the water conservation pool behind Prado Dam is raised to 505 msl year round (see Section 5.2.1). • Estimate of the impact of the recent trend toward decreasing base flows in the Santa Ana River. • Estimate of how much imported water could be purchased using unused system capacity. Figure 5-14: Recharge Facilities Model System Overview 5.5.3 Future Santa Ana River Flow Projections OCWD prepares projections or works with other agencies to prepare projections of Santa Ana River flows. The results of the projections are highly variable, as explained below. OCWD Assessment of Future Santa Ana River Flows Below Prado Dam, 2006 OCWD applied to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a permit to divert a wet-year maximum of 505,000 afy of water from the Santa Ana River at the District’s diversion facilities below Prado Dam. As part of the 2006 application, the SWRCB requested that OCWD Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-21 prepare a water availability assessment to confirm that the volume of water would be available in the future. To prepare the assessment, the District used flow data collected by the Santa Ana River Watermaster which showed that more than 505,000 afy of water was recorded in the lower Santa Ana River in recent years preceding the study. Future wet-year flow estimates were developed taking into account planned upstream diversions to calculate conservative future wet- year Santa Ana River flow below Prado Dam. This assessment concluded that the requested diversion of 505,000 afy is reasonably foreseeable in future wet years downstream of Prado Dam. The Corps Prado Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study, 2004 The Corps’ report Prado Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2004 estimated future Santa Ana River flows to assist in evaluating the flood control and water conservation capabilities of the dam. Between 1990 and 2003 the maximum flow occurred in 1993 when the USGS gage below Prado Dam recorded a total of 571,138 acre-feet. The Corps used a 39-year hydrologic base period (federal water year 1950-1988) and Corps projected watershed conditions through 2052. These projections factored in changes in stormwater runoff due to increased urbanization in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and population projections as well as estimates of wastewater effluent discharges to the river upstream of the dam. The Corps projected that future annual flow in the Santa Ana River at Imperial Highway will fluctuate between approximately 300,000 and 868,000 afy. These projections include a net contribution of 21,000 afy from the nine miles of the river between Prado Dam and Imperial Highway. SAWPA Santa Ana River Flow Estimates, 2004 SAWPA produced an independent estimate of future SAR flows at Prado Dam for the period 2010 and 2025. The estimates included baseflow and stormflow for dry, average, and wet years. Stormflow estimates were based on the average historical peaks ranging from 18,300 to 340,300 afy. Estimates of wastewater discharges included reductions in discharge due to increased recycling of wastewater. Base flow projections for 2025 ranged from 197,000 afy to 222,000 afy. OCWD/Corps Study, 2014 Projections of future Santa Ana River flows were developed for OCWD and the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of increasing the volume of water that can be stored behind Prado Dam. (WEI, 2014) An existing model developed by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI) called the Waste Load Allocation Model (WLAM), was used to estimate non-discharge inputs contributing Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-22 to river flows. The WLAM is a hydrologic simulation tool of the Santa Ana River watershed tributary to Prado Dam and was developed for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) by WEI (WEI, 2009). WEI began development of the WLAM for SAWPA in 1994 and has improved it over time to support numerous water resources investigations. The WLAM uses historic rainfall and stream flow along the model boundaries for the 50-year period from 1950 to 1999. The model also accounts for the contribution of rising groundwater to Santa Ana River flows. The volume of rising groundwater has decreased in recent years due to lower groundwater levels in the southern portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Groundwater levels in this area are expected to remain low as this is part of the basin management strategy to reduce the migration of poor quality groundwater into the Santa Ana River. Estimated future discharges of water from wastewater treatment plants to the Santa Ana River are expected to decline due to conservation and increased recycling. This, along with reductions in rising groundwater, means that projected Santa Ana River base flows reaching Prado Dam are significantly lower than what occurred from the early 1990s to 2005. As a result of this work, OCWD developed three Santa Ana River base flow projections: 1. High Base Flow Condition: 101,700 afy 2. Medium Base Flow Condition: 52,400 afy 3. Low Base Flow Condition: 36,000 afy Per the 1969 Stipulated Judgment in the case of Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Case No. 117628-County of Orange, a minimum annual Santa Ana River base flow of 42,000 afy is required to reach Prado Dam. However, a system of credits in the judgment allows the Santa Ana River base flow to be as low as 34,000 afy until the credits are exhausted. Given the large credit that exists due to many years of base flow exceeding 42,000 afy, the minimum flow of 34,000 afy could be in place for many decades. Even though the minimum allowable base flow is 34,000 afy, the annual base flow simulated was 36,000 afy due to minor variations in rising groundwater produced by the WLAM. In developing estimates of future Santa Ana River storm flows arriving at Prado Dam, land use conditions in the WLAM were reviewed. For future conditions, SCAG 2005 land use data was modified to represent future (2071) land uses. The assumptions made in modifying the 2005 land use data were: (1) already developed urban areas and surrounding mountain areas were assumed not to change; (2) dairy, poultry, intensive livestock, as well as land use classified as “other agriculture” were assumed to be developed; and, (3) vacant and undeveloped areas were also assumed to be developed by 2071. In addition, all new developed land use in 2071 was assumed to be high density residential. This analysis resulted in an increase in high density residential area of approximately 71 square miles, a decrease dairy, poultry, horse ranch, etc. areas by approximately 11 square miles, and a decrease in undeveloped areas by approximately 59 square miles. Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-23 The increased runoff generated by future land uses is offset by plans for storm water harvesting by upstream agencies. Plans were identified for future storm water harvesting from Seven Oaks Dam, diversions from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, and on-site infiltration that would be required by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. To develop the lowest flow condition possible, it was assumed that projects that have reached the environmental review stage would be constructed. As a result, the average annual storm flow arriving at Prado Dam is reduced by 27,360 afy (WEI, 2014b). Future estimates of Santa Ana River storm flow arriving at Prado Dam are presented in Table 5- 4. The three Santa Ana River base flow conditions were combined with the estimated storm flow arriving at Prado Dam to develop three inflow conditions as summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-4: Estimated Future Santa Ana River Storm Flow Arriving at Prado Dam STORM FLOW RUNOFF CONDITION Average Storm Flow to Prado Basin (afy) Current Land Uses 118,000 Future (2071) Land Uses 125,970 Future (2071) Land Uses, Maximum Storm Water Harvesting 98,610 Table 5-5: Santa Ana River Flow Conditions and Estimated Average Inflow to Prado Dam CONDITION DESCRIPTION Santa Ana River Flow to Prado (afy) Total Average Flow (afy) Average Base Flow Average Storm Flow High High Base Flow, Current Land Uses 101,700 118,000 219,700 Medium Medium Base Flow, Future (2071) Land Uses 52,400 125,970 178,370 Low Low Base Flow, Future (2071) Land Uses, Maximum Storm Water Harvesting 36,000 98,610 134,610 5.5.4 Evaluation of Potential Projects to Increase Basin Recharge Sixteen potential recharge projects were evaluated using the Recharge Facilities Model (RFM) as part of the preparation of the District’s Long-Term Facilities Plan 2014 Update. Key assumptions used in the RFM are as follows: Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-24 1. The Prado Dam conservation pool is operating at 505 feet year round. Work to raise the flood season pool from 498 to 505 feet is ongoing and is expected to be completed and implemented in the next few years. 2. All GWRS water conveyed to Anaheim, including flows from the final expansion of GWRS, will be recharged in Miraloma Basin and planned La Palma Basin. This assumption frees up the capacity of the remainder of the recharge system for Santa Ana River flows and imported water. The approach to modeling each project was to compare the total system recharge with and without the project for each flow condition. For example, total system recharge was modeled for the high flow condition with and without a project. The difference in the recharge obtained for the entire system comparing the two runs defined the benefit of the project being modeled. This was then repeated for the medium and low flow conditions. Table 5-6 shows the additional yield produced by each potential project for the high, medium, and low flow conditions. The RFM was also used to evaluate the loss of storm flow capture that will result as sediment continues to accumulate in the Prado Basin. Based on the historical rate of sediment accumulation of approximately 350 acre-feet per year, the storage within the conservation pool is projected to fill up within the next 50 years. When the conservation pool becomes filled with sediment, the eventual loss of storm water available for recharge will range from 30,000 to 38,000 acre-feet per year. Table 5-6: Annual Yield of Potential Surface Water Recharge System Projects based on Recharge Facilities Model PROJECT NAME Santa Ana River Flow Condition (afy) High Medium Low Desilting Santa Ana River Flows 10 390 10 Enhanced Recharge in Santiago Creek at Grijalva Park 10 10 85 Subsurface Collection and Recharge System in Off-River and Five Coves 610 730 150 Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana River Between Five Coves/Lincoln Ave. 10 220 20 Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana River Below Ball Road 730 600 230 Recharge in Lower Santiago Creek 270 150 90 Five Coves Bypass Pipeline 130 10 10 Five Coves Bypass Pipeline with Lincoln Basin Rehabilitation 710 490 100 Placentia Basin Improvements 75 170 260 Raymond Basin Improvements 40 230 350 River View Basin Expansion 10 100 10 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-25 PROJECT NAME Santa Ana River Flow Condition (afy) High Medium Low Additional Warner to Anaheim Lake Pipeline 10 10 30 Lakeview Pipeline 10 10 10 Warner System Modifications 210 250 10 Anaheim Lake Re-contouring 10 125 10 5.6 RECHARGE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND STUDIES 2009-2014 The District regularly evaluates potential projects and conducts studies to improve the existing recharge facilities and build new facilities. This may include: • Increasing the capacity to transfer water from one basin to another; • Improving the removal of the clogging layer that forms on the bottom of basins; • Removing shallow low-permeability silt or clay layers beneath recharge basins; • Reconfiguring a basin to improve infiltration rates; • Converting an underperforming basin to a new type of recharge facility; and • Evaluating potential sites for new recharge facilities such as existing flood control facilities and sites for construction of new basins. Recharge improvement projects and studies completed since publication of the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update include the following: Sediment Removal Demonstration Projects Clogging of the District’s recharge facilities is caused primarily by suspended sediments in Santa Ana River water. To a limited extent, clogging is also caused by biological growth supplied by the organic carbon and nutrients in the recharge water. Recharge rates achieved when using water with little to no suspended sediment, such as imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and highly treated recycled water from GWRS, are two to three times greater than what is achieved with Santa Ana River water. In an effort to maximize the recharge of storm water, the District embarked on a multi-phased Sediment Removal Study. Phase I of the study identified a number of sediment removal technologies for testing. Phase II of the study included bench-scale testing of five different treatment technologies, including: • Flocculation-Sedimentation • Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) • Ballasted Sedimentation Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-26 • Cloth Filtration (with and without chemical pre-treatment) • Riverbed Filtration In Phase III, research continued on two of the removal technologies: Cloth Filtration without chemical pretreatment in 2013 and Riverbed Filtration in 2014. The Riverbed Filtration Project is located in the Off-River Channel adjacent to the main Santa Ana River Channel. This project uses the natural treatment obtained by infiltration in native sediments to remove suspended sediments. For this system, a large underground network of collection pipes were installed three-to-five feet below the surface of the Off-River channel. Water flows by gravity into these pipes and then to Olive Basin, which has been plumbed to only receive this filtered water. Initial results indicate that this method removes virtually all of the suspended sediment in the water and improves water quality in ways similar to that seen in recharge basins. The Cloth Filter Demonstration Project is located at River View Basin. Extensive water quality testing showed that this technology was marginally effective in reducing suspended solids concentrations; however, it did not, as expected, affect other water quality parameters. Testing of the cloth filter system will continue, but the scope of water quality testing has been reduced to monitoring for turbidity and total suspended solids. Miraloma Basin Miraloma Basin is a new recharge basin that was placed online in 2012. OCWD acquired the former 13-acre industrial site adjacent to existing recharge basins in Anaheim as shown in Figure 5-15. Construction included excavation, demolition and hauling, construction of water supply pipelines with appurtenances for flow control and metering, a pump station, integration with OCWD supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, site improvements to facilitate operations and maintenance, as well as landscape improvements. The new 10-acre recharge basin is dedicated to recharge GWRS product water and has capacity to recharge approximately 20,000 to 30,000 afy. Mid-Basin Injection Demonstration Project As the GWRS is expanded, an increased supply of recharge water will be available. In order to recharge this supply of water, the Mid-Basin Injection Project is being considered. This would Figure 5-15: Miraloma Basin Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-27 involve using high-quality GWRS water for direct injection into the Principal Aquifer in the central portions of the groundwater basin. By directly injecting water into the Principal Aquifer where most of the pumping occurs, low groundwater levels due to pumping can be reduced. Also, mid-basin injection would reduce the recharge requirement in Anaheim and Orange area recharge basins, thus providing more capacity to recharge Santa Ana River and imported water. A demonstration well and two monitoring wells were constructed to evaluate the feasibility of a full-scale injection project. Burris and Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration Modifications to Burris and Lincoln basins were completed to improve recharge capability. Low- permeability sediments were excavated from Lincoln Basin and the northern end of Burris Basin and the conveyance channel between the two basins was reconfigured. Santiago Basins Pump Station A floating pump station, shown in Figure 5-16, was constructed to dewater the Santiago Basins to increase storm flow capture and percolation, to make storage available for winter season use, to provide water to the Santiago Creek for percolation, and to increase operational flexibility by pumping water back to Burris Basin when necessary. Operation of the pump station for the basins increased recharge capacity and allowed for more flexible and efficient operations. Figure 5-16: Santiago Basins Pump Station Olive Basin Pump Station A dewatering pump station was constructed to allow for more frequent basin cleanings and to maintain infiltration rates. The increase in average annual recharge capacity is estimated to be 1,600 afy with maximum increase of 4,800 afy. Improvements to Olive Basin will allow the basin to be drained more rapidly for cleaning. An intake structure with a 36-inch diameter fill pipe was constructed to allow water to flow from the Off-River System into the deepest part of the basin. This decreased the amount of sediment stirred up in the basin, thereby increasing the recharge performance. Santa Ana River Sediment Characterization Study The Santa Ana River channel is one of the District’s most productive recharge facilities, recharging approximately 100 cubic feet per second (cfs), similar to the performance of Anaheim Lake when freshly cleaned. The transport and deposition of sediment, primarily sand, is important to maintaining recharge in the river bottom. However, Prado Dam traps the majority Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-28 of sand flowing down the river just upstream of Orange County causing changes in bed material composition in the river downstream. Downstream loss of sand results in coarsening of sediment and armoring. Coarsening refers to the increase in sediment grain size, as seen in Figure 5-17, and armoring is a condition where coarser sediments eventually interlock or harden with fine sediments and form an armored layer. Both conditions cause a reduction in infiltration rates. An OCWD investigation studied trends in the sediment characteristics in the river (Golder Associates, 2009). The results highlight the importance of addressing long-term sediment transport in the Santa Ana River. The study reached the following conclusions: • Areas of armoring were observed in the river bed between Prado Dam and Imperial Highway, particularly in the floodplain portion of the river outside the natural low-flow channel. • Below Imperial Highway, coarsening of sediment was observed but armoring was not observed due to OCWD maintenance activities reworking sediment with earth moving equipment. • Continued coarsening of riverbed material and scour are expected in the river recharge reach below Imperial Highway. Coarsening may result from: 1) entrapment of sand at Prado Dam, 2) removal of fine material caused by moderate flows, and 2) deposition of coarse bed material originating from the reach between Imperial Highway and Prado Dam during high flows. • The erosion that is expected to occur downstream of grade control and drop structures during moderate to high flows could result in additional deposited coarse material concentrating in those sections. • The riverbed particle packing density is expected to increase as the riverbed material coarsens resulting in decreased permeability. Additionally, there is greater potential for fine-grained sediments transported by river flows to migrate to greater depth, such that they are more difficult to remove, causing a reduction in the permeability of the riverbed sediments. Figure 5-17: Sand and Cobble Sediments in Santa Ana River Channel GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM The Groundwater Replenishment System began operation in 2008. Overview • Produces up to 100 million gallons per day • Recycled water used for groundwater recharge and seawater barrier operations Treatment Process • Microfiltration • Reverse osmosis • Ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide Water Quality Monitoring • Independent Advisory Panel evaluates monitoring programs • Network of monitoring wells used to track travel times from recharge sites to production wells GWRS Water Pump Station and RO Electrical Building Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-1 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SECTION 6 SYSTEM 6.1 OVERVIEW The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is a joint project built by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that began operating in 2008 (see Figure 6-1). Wastewater that otherwise would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean is purified using a three- step advanced process to produce high-quality water used to control seawater intrusion and recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The GWRS produces up to 100 million gallons per day (mgd) of highly-treated recycled water. The system includes three major components (1) the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF), (2) the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier and (3) recharge basins where GWRS water is percolated into the groundwater basin, schematically illustrated in Figure 6-2. Secondary-treated wastewater is conveyed to OCWD from OCSD Plant No.1, located adjacent to the District’s facilities in Fountain Valley. The water undergoes an advanced treatment process that includes microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation/disinfection with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light exposure followed by de-carbonation and lime stabilization. The Full Advanced Treated (FAT) water is used for groundwater recharge, to supply the Talbert Seawater Barrier and provide recycled water for three industrial/commercial users. The AWPF produces up to 100 mgd or approximately 112,000 afy. Approximately 34% of the water is injected in the Talbert Barrier and 66% is percolated in the recharge basins. Industrial and commercial uses include cooling water for the City of Anaheim’s Canyon Power Plant, recycled water for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, and hydrostatic testing of new secondary treatment basins at OCSD Plant No.1. The Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier consists of a series of 36 injection well sites that are supplied by pipelines from AWPF. OCWD constructed the injection barrier to form an underground hydraulic mound, or pressure ridge, to manage seawater intrusion near the coast in the Talbert Gap area. The Talbert Barrier wells also serve to replenish the groundwater basin with injection of purified, recycled water into the Main Aquifer. In addition to supplying the Talbert Barrier, GWRS water is recharged in Kraemer, Miller and Miraloma basins, located in the city of Anaheim. Water is conveyed to these basins through a 13-mile pipeline in the west levee of the Santa Ana River through the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Orange, and Anaheim and along the Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel. Five feet in diameter at its end point, this pipeline is capable of delivering over 80 million gallons of highly- treated recycled water to the basins each day. Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-2 Figure 6-1: Aerial View of the Groundwater Replenishment System Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-3 Figure 6-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Facilities 6.1.1 History The need for a reliable water supply for the Talbert Barrier led to the construction of Water Factory 21 (WF 21) in 1975. This 15-mgd advanced water purification plant treated secondary treated wastewater from OCSD with lime clarification, ammonia stripping, re-carbonation, multimedia filtration, granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and chlorination. A 5-mgd reverse osmosis (RO) demineralization plant was added to the process in 1977 to reduce total dissolved solids in the product water. Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-4 WF 21 was the first plant in the world to use RO to purify wastewater to drinking water standards. The GAC-treated water and RO-treated water were blended with groundwater and imported water to supply the injection wells and recharge the groundwater basin. Due to new water quality issues in 2000, WF-21 subsequently used only RO-treated water. Figure 6-3: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 By the mid-1990s, OCWD needed a larger supply of water to manage seawater intrusion. Plans to build the GWRS plant coincided with OCSD’s need to build a second ocean outfall to dispose of increased wastewater flows. Expanding the advanced water treatment plant, therefore, would not only increase water supplies for OCWD but would also reduce the volume of secondary-treated wastewater and provide an alternative to a second ocean outfall. The original WF 21 ceased operations in 2004. At that time Interim Water Factory 21 (IWF 21) operated for two years while the GWRS was being built. In addition to continuing the seawater intrusion prevention effort, IWF 21 served as a training facility, enabling staff to become familiar with the treatment processes being developed for the GWRS facility. Plant modifications included the addition of microfiltration and low-pressure high-intensity ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide to create an advanced oxidation process. The new processes, together with the existing RO system retrofitted with thin film composite polyamide membranes, resulted in increased energy efficiency and more effective removal of contaminants. The addition of hydrogen peroxide upstream of the UV light enhanced the oxidation process and enabled the destruction of UV-resistant contaminants. In the interim between IWF 21 taken off-line until completion of GWRS in 2008, OCWD used potable water from imported sources and the City of Fountain Valley for barrier operations. Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-5 6.2 ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT PROCESS The advanced water treatment process consists of microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide and lime treatment. This process is illustrated in Figure 6-4 and explained in more detail below. Figure 6-4: AWPF Process Flow Diagram 6.2.1 Microfiltration Secondary-treated wastewater from the OCSD wastewater treatment plant is gravity-fed to OCWD. The effluent is fine-screened at the AWPF influent screening facility and then passes through the microfiltration (MF) process. Bundles of hollow polypropylene fibers in submerged racks remove particulate contaminants from water. Under a vacuum, water is drawn through the fibers’ minute pores, each approximately 0.2 microns in diameter; suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria, and some viruses are strained out. The MF cells are regularly backwashed to clean the membranes. The MF membranes are periodically cleaned-in-place using citric acid and sodium hydroxide with a proprietary chemical to remove foulants and restore membrane performance. Waste backwash and cleaning solutions are returned to OCSD for treatment. 6.2.2 Reverse Osmosis The MF product water advances to the next step in the process, reverse osmosis (RO). This system uses envelopes of semi-permeable polyamide membranes rolled into bundles and Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-6 encased in long pressure vessels. Pressurized micro-filtered water enters at one end of each vessel and passes through the membrane to the inside of the envelope where purified product water is collected, exiting through the product water pipes. The RO process demineralizes water and removes inorganics, organics, viruses and other contaminants. The RO process features pretreatment chemical addition using sulfuric acid and anti-scalant, cartridge filtration and high pressure feed pumps that supply the pressure vessels containing the RO membranes. Concentrate from the RO process is discharged to OCSD for disposal. 6.2.3 Ultraviolet Light with Hydrogen Peroxide and Lime Treatment After purification with MF/RO, water is exposed to high intensity ultraviolet light (UV) and treated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to disinfect the water and destroy remaining low molecular weight organic compounds including those that must be removed to parts per trillion levels. This process ensures that unwanted biological materials and organic chemical compounds are effectively destroyed or removed. Post-treatment consists of de-carbonation and lime stabilization to raise the pH and add hardness and alkalinity to make the recycled water less corrosive and more stable. Excess residual carbon dioxide is removed from the RO permeate by five forced-draft decarbonators in order to stabilize the finished product water. The de-carbonation system treats about 80% of the UV disinfected recycled water while the remaining flow bypasses the decarbonators. Hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) is added to neutralize the remaining carbon dioxide and stabilize the finished product water. 6.3 ENERGY EFFICIENT OPERATIONS When designing and building the District’s GWRS, the conservation of energy was established as a priority. Energy efficiency was built into the original GWRS plant design. The District participated in Southern California Edison’s “Efficiency by Design” grant funding program. Selection of energy efficient elements enabled OCWD to take advantage of grant funds to purchase capital equipment and realize the long-term benefits of reducing the energy load for day-to-day plant operations. The reverse osmosis facility was designed and built with energy recovery devices that capture energy normally lost when water is released through a throttling valve from a high pressure system. It is expected that the high-tech energy recovery system will save 14 million kW hours and $ 1.3 million dollars every year for the life of the system. Another benefit of this device is its corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 14 million pounds per year. The use of new technology energy recovery units (ERDs) in the expanded reverse osmosis system was designed to produce a significant and long-term savings in pumping costs. The ultraviolet (UV) Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-7 advanced oxidation system was also selected, in part, because of its optimal energy performance characteristics. In addition to these devices, the GWRS uses variable frequency drives on virtually all of its pumps and other rotating equipment. These computer controlled devices vary the rotational speed of the motors allowing for flow control and improved energy efficiency. Reduction in energy use for lighting is achieved by the widespread uses of skylights and open-air designs as well as new low-power designs. The District participates in the demand response program. OCWD agrees to curtain plant operations during times of grid emergency or insufficient generation, which provides the equivalent of 11 megawatts of increased peak generation for the regional electrical system. In addition, pumping operations are shifted, when possible, to off-peak times (usually at night) to relax demand on the system during peak loads. 6.4 PLANT OPTIMIZATION AND EXPANSION During FY 2012-2013, GWRS achieved the highest production since start-up in January 2008 with 72,691 acre-feet of FAT water produced. In contrast, during the first year of operation, the plant produced 43,500 acre-feet of recycled water. Increased production was made possible by a number of operational improvements and construction of additional facilities, as described below. Steve Anderson Lift Station OCSD constructed Steve Anderson Lift Station in 2009 to provide additional flow to the GWRS. The lift station diverts up to 50 mgd of raw wastewater from OCSD Plant 2 to OCSD Plant 1, boosting the amount of secondary effluent that could be conveyed to the GWRS for treatment. Microfiltration Backwash Storage The AWPF was designed to treat a relatively constant flow rate, but flows to the wastewater treatment plant experience low nighttime flows. To help with the diurnal flow deficit, OCWD and OCSD completed a project in 2012 to store MF backwash waste generated by the GWRS in existing OCSD’s primary clarifies that are otherwise unused. MF backwash waste is stored during the day in the primary basins and pumped back into the secondary process during the low diurnal flow period at night using 10 sump pumps. These pumps are scheduled to come on at various intervals at the start of the flow deficit and are secured when OCSD’s flows begin to recover in the morning. The project has helped make up about 2.4 mgd during the diurnal feed water flow deficit and has enabled the AWPF to produce closer to the design capacity. Addition of Microfiltration Cells The capacity of the MF process was increased in 2011 with the buildout of the existing 26 MF cells that contained 608 MF membranes with an additional 76 membranes for a total of 684 MF membranes per MF cell. This provides additional flexibility and capacity to maintain production Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-8 when MF cells are down for cleaning or repairs, increasing available MF production capacity from 86 to 102.4 mgd at 89% recovery. Optimization of the RO Process Throughout 2012, research was conducted to optimize operations of the RO process through management of both biological and mineral membrane fouling. A variety of experimental laboratory cleanings were conducted to assess the effectiveness of removing mineral foulant from membranes. Experimental cleaning was performed on membrane samples and the effectiveness of cleaners in removing foulant from the membrane surface and restoring permeability was evaluated. Plant Expansion Construction of the initial expansion of GWRS was completed in 2015. This provides an additional 30 mgd of capacity and includes construction of flow equalization facilities to compensate for diurnal fluctuation in secondary treated source water from Plant No.1. The initial expansion increases total plant capacity to 100 mgd. Plans are being drawn up to construct the final expansion of GWRS, which would increase total capacity to 130 mgd. GWRS Flow Equalization Tanks Two 7.5 million gallon storage tanks (Figure 6-5) were constructed by OCWD on land owned by OCSD in Fountain Valley to provide storage of secondary-treated wastewater on a temporary basis during daily peak flow periods prior to conveyance to OCWD for advanced treatment at GWRS. Due to diurnal flow patterns of wastewater at the OCSD plant, daytime flow to the GWRS plant exceeds plant capacity while nighttime low flows result in the plant operating at below capacity. Excess flows bypass the GWRS and are discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the OCSD ocean outfall pipeline. The Flow Equalization Tanks will store wastewater when flows exceed the GWRS plant capacity and will be conveyed to the plant at night when flows drop to levels below plant capacity. Figure 6-5: Flow Equalization Tanks Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-9 6.5 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING OCWD’s extensive network of monitoring wells within the groundwater basin includes concentrated monitoring along the seawater barrier and near the recharge basins. GWRS- related monitoring wells in the vicinity of Kraemer, Miller, and Miraloma basins are used to measure water levels and to collect water quality samples. In addition to ensuring the protection of water quality, these wells are used to determine travel times from recharge basins to production wells. Monitoring programs related to operation of GWRS are described in detail in Section 4. Because of the long history of using advanced purified water at the Talbert Barrier, OCWD is permitted to use 100% GWRS water for injection into the barrier without blending with imported water or other sources as required for other seawater barrier projects in Southern California. However, blending is still required at the recharge basins with GWRS water making up no more than 75% of the blend with the balance coming from Santa Ana River storm flows and imported water. Permits regulating operation of GWRS require adherence to rigorous product water quality specifications, extensive groundwater monitoring, buffer zones near recharge operations, reporting requirements, and a detailed treatment plant operation, maintenance and monitoring program. 6.5.1 The Independent Advisory Panel Performance of the GWRS plant is monitored by OCWD’s research department and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory. Annual GWRS reports are prepared by a diplomate of the American Academy of Environmental Engineering and an Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) to document ongoing scientific peer review. The IAP analyzes data in OCWD’s Annual GWRS Report of plant operations as well as water quality data collected throughout the groundwater basin. The IAP is appointed and administered by the National Water Research Institute to provide credible, objective review of all aspects of GWRS by scientific and engineering experts. In addition to formal written reports, the IAP also offers suggestions for enhancing monitoring of water quality, improving the efficiency of current GWRS technologies and evaluating future projects associated with the GWRS. 6.5.2 GWRS Annual Report A GWRS Annual Report is prepared in fulfillment of the requirements specified in the permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2008.1 The order specifies 1 Producer/User Water Recycling Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting program for the Orange County Water District Interim Water Factory 21 and Groundwater Replenishment System Groundwater Recharge and Reuse at Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Kraemer/Miller Basins adopted as Order No. R8-2004-0002, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 12, 2004 and the subsequent amendment Order No. R8-2008-0058 adopted on July 18, 2008. Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-10 permit requirements for the GWRS for purified recycled water for industrial uses and at the Talbert Barrier and recharge basins. The annual report contains a detailed evaluation of the operation of the entire GWRS and creates a historical record of operations of the water reclamation as well as groundwater recharge and reuse facilities. 6.6 PUBLIC OUTREACH Since the GWRS came on-line in January 2008, more than 24,000 visitors have toured the facility. During FY 2013-14, OCWD conducted 198 public tours of the GWRS plant and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory with a total of 3,432 participants. Tour groups included 10 local high schools and 20 colleges and universities. In addition to many groups from throughout the United States, OCWD hosted tours from China, Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Australia, Switzerland, and Russia. Figure 6-6: Group Touring the Groundwater Replenishment System SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones is a major component of sustainable basin management. Background • Coastal gaps most susceptible to seawater intrusion • Construction of barriers began in 1960s Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier • 36 well sites used to inject fresh water into 4 aquifer zones • GWRS recycled water used for barrier operation Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier • Joint operation since 1964 with Los Angeles County Flood Control District • 43 injection well and 177 active monitoring sites • Expansion of barrier under investigation Sunset Gap Investigation • Elevated chloride levels indicate seawater intruding through gap • Investigation underway to evaluate alternative remedies Routine Maintenance of Talbert Injection Wells Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-1 SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER SECTION 7 MANAGEMENT 7.1 BACKGROUND In the coastal area of Orange County, the primary source of saline groundwater is seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin through permeable sediments underlying topographic lowlands or gaps between the erosional remnants or mesas of the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. The susceptible locations are the Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos Gaps as shown in Figure 7-1. Seawater intrusion became a critical problem in the 1950s. Overdraft of the basin caused water levels to drop as much as 40 feet below sea level; seawater intruded over three miles inland. Prior to the construction of the seawater intrusion barriers, OCWD slowed seawater intrusion by filling the basin with imported Colorado River water. In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of injection wells at two key geologic gaps were constructed to form subsurface freshwater hydraulic barriers. These barriers have been expanded and improved periodically and have allowed the basin to be operated more flexibly as a storage reservoir with an operating range of 500,000 acre-feet with a sustainable yield of over 300,000 afy. Figure 7-1: Coastal Gaps in Orange County Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-2 In July 2014, the District’s Board of Directors adopted a policy regarding control of seawater intrusion that contained the following principles: • Prevent degradation of the quality of the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion. • Effectively operate and evaluate the performance of the District’s seawater barrier facilities. • Adequately identify and track trends in seawater intrusion in susceptible coastal areas and evaluate and act upon this information, as needed, to protect the groundwater basin. In addition to the seawater barrier injection facilities, the District operates and maintains a network of coastal area monitoring wells that provide water level and water quality data that allow staff to evaluate the performance of the barriers and to identify potential areas of intrusion. OCWD measures chloride concentrations in groundwater to monitor seawater intrusion. Chloride concentrations are monitored twice a year at the coastal area monitoring wells and chloride contour maps are prepared at least every two years to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion and determine areas where it is migrating inland or being pushed seaward. The monitoring well network has been expanded and improved over time leading to new information and a greater understanding of the coastal hydrogeology and intrusion pathways. A more detailed discussion of the coastal water quality monitoring program can be found in Section 4. The Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers control seawater intrusion through the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps by injecting fresh water into susceptible aquifers through a series of wells. The pressure mound resulting from this injection minimizes seawater intrusion through these gaps into the basin. The District plans to expand the Alamitos Barrier with additional monitoring and injection wells and is currently expanding the monitoring well network in Sunset Gap to better delineate the nature and extent of seawater intrusion in that area as the first step towards investigating feasible remedies for Sunset Gap. In Bolsa Gap, chloride concentration trends suggest that the Newport-Inglewood Fault System sufficiently restricts inland migration of seawater intrusion into the potable aquifers. 7.2 TALBERT SEAWATER INTRUSION BARRIER Seawater intrusion through the Talbert Gap, a 2.5-mile-wide geological feature between the Newport and Huntington Beach mesas, was documented as far back as 1925. A more detailed study of the gap was conducted by the Department of Water Resources in 1966 (DWR, 1966). Largely based on this study, OCWD constructed the initial Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier in 1975 with 23 injection well sites. Over time the barrier was expanded to keep pace with increasing groundwater production in the coastal area. Chloride concentrations at OCWD monitoring wells in the 1990s showed advancing seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap and beneath the adjacent mesas despite barrier injection operations. Today, the Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of 36 well sites that are used to inject water into multiple aquifer zones for seawater intrusion control as well as basin replenishment. The injection raises groundwater levels along the barrier alignment and Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-3 thus forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. A list of the injection wells, injection depths, and associated aquifers can be found in Appendix E. Injection well sites are shown in Figure 7-2. From 1975 until 2008, a blend of deep well water, imported water and recycled water from the former Water Factory 21 was injected into the barrier. In 2008, GWRS recycled water became the primary supply used for the injection wells, with a small and intermittent portion of the supply from potable imported water delivered via the City of Huntington Beach at the OC-44 turnout and potable water delivered by the City of Fountain Valley (a blend of groundwater and imported water). A permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2004 limited the percentage of recycled water at the Talbert Barrier to 75% with a minimum travel time of six months to the nearest production wells. The permitted maximum allowable recycled water contribution at the Talbert Barrier was subsequently increased to 100% in December 2009. (CA RWQCB, 2004, 2008) The chloride concentration contours for the Talbert Gap and surrounding area shown in Figure 7-3 illustrate historical inland progression and seaward reversals of groundwater salinity due to injection operations and basin management practices. In addition to contour maps, OCWD staff prepares and reviews chloride concentration trend graphs at individual wells to identify and evaluate intrusion in specific aquifer zones over time. In general terms, chloride concentrations are inversely related to groundwater elevations. When groundwater elevations decline below mean sea level in the area of the intrusion front, chloride concentrations generally increase and seawater intrusion worsens (see Figure 7-4). Figure 7-2: Talbert Barrier Injection Wells Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-4 Figure 7-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours for Selected Years Conversely, when groundwater elevations rise and are sustained above mean sea level, chloride concentrations decrease and intrusion is pushed back seaward. This is especially evident in Figure 7-5 which shows how chloride concentrations were significantly reduced when new injection wells were turned on to raise groundwater levels. Monitoring well OCWD-M26 is strategically located seaward of the barrier in the Talbert-Lambda mergence zone in the middle of the Talbert Gap and is screened in both the Talbert and Lambda aquifers. Therefore, OCWD-M26 is a key monitoring well for evaluating barrier injection requirements versus seawater intrusion potential. OCWD-M26 is located approximately 1,000 feet north of Adams Avenue, which approximately represents the farthest seaward line at which the goal is to achieve protective groundwater elevations of approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (ft msl). This protective elevation is based on the Ghyben-Herzberg relation (Ghyben, 1888; Herzberg, 1901; Freeze and Cherry, 1979), which takes into account the depth of the Talbert aquifer at that location along with the density difference between saline and fresh groundwater. If this protective elevation is achieved along Adams Avenue for at least the majority of each year, then brackish water in the Talbert aquifer would be maintained slightly seaward of the mergence zone and thus prevented from migrating down into the Lambda aquifer that is tapped by inland production wells. Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-5 OCWD operates the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier to (1) maintain protective groundwater elevation at well OCWD-M26 and (2) prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on the 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour. For more detailed information on the operation of the Talbert Seawater Barrier see GWRS 2013 Annual Report prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, June 16, 2014. Figure 7-4: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at OCWD-M27 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at HBM-2/MP1 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Ch l o r i d e C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) -20 -10 0 10 20 Gr o u n d w a t e r E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) 199019952000200520102015 Chloride Concentrations Groundwater Elevations Screen Depth: 60-110 ft bgs (Talbert Aquifer) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Ch l o r i d e C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) -20 -10 0 10 20 Gr o u n d w a t e r E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) 199019952000200520102015 Chloride Concentrations Groundwater Elevations Port Depth: 112 ft bgs (Talbert Aquifer) Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-6 7.3 ALAMITOS SEAWATER INTRUSION BARRIER The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. Since the barrier alignment lies in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the barrier facilities are jointly owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and OCWD and include 43 injection wells and 177 active monitoring well sites. Under the terms of a 1964 joint agreement, LACFCD operates and maintains the barrier, while the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and OCWD purchase and provide the injection water supply, which currently consists of nearly 100% recycled water. WRD is under permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB) for injection of recycled water at the Alamitos Barrier. LARWQCB permit requirements include groundwater monitoring and numerical modeling to track the recycled injection water migrating towards nearby municipal production wells in Orange County. A list of the injection wells, injection depths and associated aquifers for wells on the Orange County side of the barrier can be found in Appendix E. All injection well sites are shown in Figure 7-6. Although OCWD owns many of the Alamitos Barrier monitoring and injection wells, all of the wells are operated, maintained and sampled by LACFCD as part of the Alamitos Barrier joint agreement described above. OCWD funds operation of the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier with the Los Angeles County agencies to prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on the 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour. Over the last several years, pockets of elevated chloride concentrations have been observed inland of the barrier, especially near the southeast portion of the barrier within Orange County. Elevated chloride concentration is the parameter that the District uses to determine if the barrier is sufficiently protecting seawater intrusion from occurring. In this case, OCWD began a study to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion both through and around the Alamitos Barrier as summarized below. • In 2008, OCWD identified critical data gaps where seawater intrusion was suspected but unconfirmed. • Four monitoring wells were installed in 2009 at three sites near the Orange County portion of the barrier. As shown in Figure 7-6, salinity data from existing and the newly- installed wells were used to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion in this area, especially pertaining to potential migration towards nearby production wells owned and operated by the City of Seal Beach and Golden State Water Company. • A pipeline hydraulic model of the Alamitos Barrier injection system was completed in 2009 to determine injection supply pipeline capacities under existing conditions and for potential barrier expansion alternatives. Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-7 • Groundwater level and salinity data from the new and existing monitoring wells were evaluated, in conjunction with the development and calibration of a detailed numerical groundwater flow and transport model of the Alamitos Gap area (Intera, 2010). The three agencies (OCWD, LACFCD and WRD) collaborated to develop the Alamitos Barrier Flow Model (ABFM) and Alamitos Barrier Transport Model (ABTM). The models, completed in 2013, simulate the fate and residence time of recycled water used for injection and the relative differences in chloride transport and barrier performance for the existing Alamitos Barrier and three selected barrier expansion configurations. As explained earlier, the models were used to assess and plan for necessary expansion of barrier facilities, as well as prioritize and optimize operation of the existing facilities to combat against seawater intrusion. A future southern extension of the barrier is being investigated to halt the eastern migration of saline water into the Sunset Gap. Figure 7-6: Alamitos Gap Injection and Monitoring Wells with Chloride Concentration Contours Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-8 7.4 SUNSET GAP INVESTIGATION Basin monitoring for potential seawater intrusion in the vicinity of the Sunset Gap began in the 1950s. While the Newport-Inglewood Fault acts as the primary coastal barrier to seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin, investigations between 1959 and 1983 indicated the potential for saline water leakage across the fault, particularly in shallow aquifers and when inland groundwater levels are significantly below sea level due to pumping and decreases in groundwater storage. The dredging of Huntington Harbor in the early 1960s was the subject of several studies regarding the potential for worsening saline intrusion in this area and the influence of tides on seawater intrusion. Conclusions of the studies as to Huntington Harbor’s effect on saline intrusion were inconsistent. Studies done by DWR (1968) and USGS (1966) found that seawater intrusion into the semi-perched aquifer (generally the uppermost 50 feet) associated with the harbor development was occurring, but this was considered to be of little to no significance due to the lack of beneficial use of this near-surface water bearing zone. In 2007, the City of Huntington Beach Well No. 12 was permanently removed from service due to high salinity levels. In response, the District commissioned an electric geophysical survey in 2010 to delineate the extent and magnitude of seawater intrusion in the Sunset Gap. In 2012, two multi-depth monitoring wells, OCWD-BS10 (BS10) and OCWD-BS11 (BS11) were installed as shown in Figure 7-7 to better delineate the extent and source of the seawater intrusion. Elevated chloride concentrations were found at both wells at a depth of approximately 230 feet, confirming seawater intrusion. Suspected pathways are from the Alamitos Gap to the west, Huntington Harbor to the south and possible leakage across the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the southwest. Construction of six multi-depth nested monitoring well sites (a total of 29 individual well casings to depths up to 1,000 feet) is underway to further delineate the extent and sources of the seawater intrusion in Sunset Gap, and to support a future feasibility study of alternatives to control the seawater intrusion. By early 2015, four of the six new monitoring well sites were constructed on the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach as shown in Figure 7-7 (BS14, BS17, BS21, and BS22). Strategies to control intrusion under consideration include a potential southerly extension of the Alamitos Seawater Barrier along Seal Beach Boulevard and a brackish groundwater extraction and desalination system. Such a system may be necessary and appropriate to prevent a large “plume” of elevated salinity to continue to migrate toward production wells and impact larger portions of the groundwater basin. Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-9 Figure 7-7: Sunset Gap Monitoring and Production Wells with Chloride Concentration Contour 7.5 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conducted a study in collaboration with SAWPA of the potential impacts to water resources due to climate change in the Santa Ana River Watershed. (USBR, 2013) The purpose of the study was to refine the watershed’s water projections and identify potential adaptation strategies in light of projected effects of climate change. The study included the development of hydrology models and analysis of impacts focused on key areas. Likely impacts of changing climatic conditions in the Santa Ana River Watershed include a decrease of surface water supplies, increase in temperatures, more severe flood events, and increase dependency on groundwater supplies. Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-10 Results of the study indicate that increasing temperatures will melt ice sheets and glaciers and cause thermal expansion of ocean water, increasing the volume of water in the oceans and raising sea levels. Regional mean sea level along the Southern California coast is projected to rise by 1.5 to 12 inches by 2030, 5 to 24 inches by 2050, and 16 to 66 inches by 2100. Regional sea level rise may be higher or lower than global mean sea level rise due to regional changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns. Sea level rise is likely to increase the coastal area vulnerable to flooding during storm events. OCWD conducted a study to evaluate the potential effects of projected sea level rise on coastal Orange County groundwater conditions. Two locations were selected for analysis near the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion injection barriers. The study model used data from well logs, aquifer pump tests, groundwater elevation measurements, hand-drawn contour maps, geologic cross sections, water budget spreadsheets and other data stored in OCWD’s Water Resources Management System database. The Talbert Barrier would be effective at preventing seawater intrusion though the Talbert Gap under the condition of a 3-foot rise in sea level. In the case of the Alamitos Barrier, seawater intrusion throughout the gap would likely be prevented once current plans to construct additional injection wells are implemented. At both barriers, however, shallow groundwater concerns could limit injection rates and thus reduce the effectiveness of the barriers in preventing seawater intrusion under rising sea levels. The groundwater screening tool was used to estimate changes in basin-average groundwater levels over time as a function of seven natural and anthropogenic factors that govern groundwater recharge and discharge: precipitation, local stream flow, trans-basin water imports, municipal and industrial water demands, agricultural water demand, evaporative demand from native and landscaped vegetation, and an optional exogenous input that represents groundwater management objectives that affect basin-scale groundwater levels. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OCWD conducts a wide range of water quality programs in Orange County and throughout the watershed. Groundwater Quality Protection • Board-adopted policy in 1987; updated in 2014 • Well development, management and closure policies Programs • Salinity: measurements in groundwater, watershed-wide programs to manage salinity in surface waters • Nitrates: measurements in groundwater; operation of Prado Wetlands to remove nitrates in Santa Ana River water • Amber-colored groundwater: 3 facilities treat water for potable use • Contaminants: programs to monitor MTBE, VOCs, NDMA, 1,4 Dioxane, and Perchlorate Water Quality Improvement Projects • North Basin Groundwater Protection Program • South Basin Groundwater Protection Program • Irvine and Tustin Desalters OCWD’s Fountain Valley Laboratory Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-1 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND SECTION 8 MANAGEMENT 8.1 OCWD GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION POLICY OCWD adopted the first Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in 1987 under statutory authority granted under Section 2 of the District Act. A revised policy was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2014. The policy guides the actions of OCWD to: • Maintain groundwater quality suitable for all existing and potential beneficial uses; • Prevent degradation of groundwater quality and protect groundwater from contamination; • Assist regulatory agencies in identifying sources of contamination to assure cleanup by the responsible parties; • Support regulatory enforcement of investigation and cleanup requirements on responsible parties in accordance with law; • Undertake investigation and cleanup projects as necessary to protect groundwater from contamination; • Maintain consistency with the National Contingency Plan when seeking recovery of investigation and response costs; • Negotiate with and engage in mediation with parties responsible for contamination when possible to resolve issues related to cleanup and abatement of contamination; • Establish a Groundwater Contamination Cleanup Fund to hold proceeds received from settlement of lawsuits for each groundwater contamination case for which the District received moneys; • Maintain surface water and groundwater quality monitoring programs and monitoring well network; • Maintain the database system, geographic information system, and computer models to support water quality programs; • Maintain an Emergency Response Fund to ensure adequate funds are available to contain and clean up catastrophic releases of chemicals or other substances that may contaminate surface or groundwater water; • Coordinate with groundwater producer(s) impacted or threatened by any groundwater contamination and work to develop appropriate monitoring and remediation if necessary; and • Encourage the beneficial use and appropriate treatment of poor-quality groundwater where the use of such groundwater will reduce the risk of impact to additional production wells, increase the operational yield of the basin and/or provide additional water quality improvements to the basin. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-2 8.2 WELL DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND CLOSURE To comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements regarding the protection of drinking water sources, the California Department of Public Health (now the Division of Drinking Water) created the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program. Water suppliers must submit a DWSAP report as part of the drinking water well permitting process and have it approved before providing a new source of water from a new well. OCWD provides technical support to Producers in the preparation of these reports. This program requires all well owners to prepare a drinking water source assessment and establish a source water protection program for all new wells. The source water program must include: (1) a delineation of the land area to be protected, (2) the identification of all potential sources of contamination to the well, and (3) a description of management strategies aimed at preventing groundwater contamination. Developing management strategies to prevent, reduce, or eliminate risks of groundwater contamination is one component of the multiple barrier protection of source water. Contingency planning is an essential component of a complete DWSAP and includes developing alternate water supplies for unexpected loss of each drinking water source, by man-made or catastrophic events. Wells constructed by the District are built to prevent the migration of surface contamination into the subsurface. This is achieved through the placement of annular well seals and surface seals during construction. Also, seals are placed within the borehole annulus between aquifers to minimize the potential for flow between aquifers. Well construction ordinances adopted and implemented by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and municipalities follow state well construction standards established to protect water quality under California Water Code Section 231. Cities within OCWD district boundaries that have local well construction ordinances and manage well construction within their local jurisdictions include the cities of Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Buena Park, and Orange. To provide guidance and policy recommendations on these ordinances, the County of Orange established the Well Standards Advisory Board in the early 1970s. The five-member appointed Board includes the District’s Chief Hydrogeologist. Recommendations of the Board are used by the OCHCA and municipalities to enforce well construction ordinances within their jurisdictions. A well is considered abandoned when the owner has permanently discontinued its use or it is in such a condition that it can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This often occurs when wells have been forgotten by the owner, were not disclosed to a new property owner, or when the owner is unknown. A properly destroyed and sealed well has been filled so that it cannot produce water or act as a vertical conduit for the movement of groundwater. In cases where a well is paved over or under a structure and can no longer be accessed it is considered destroyed but not properly sealed. Many of these wells may not be able to be properly closed due to overlying structures, landscaping or pavement. Some of them may pose a threat to water quality because they can be conduits for contaminant movement as well as physical hazards to humans and/or animals. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-3 Information on the status of wells is kept within the District’s WRMS data base. Records in this data base show 606 wells that have been destroyed and properly sealed, 217 destroyed wells with inadequate information to determine if properly sealed and 948 abandoned wells. OCWD supports and encourages efforts to properly destroy abandoned wells. As part of routine monitoring of the groundwater basin, OCWD will investigate on a case-by-case basis any location where data suggests that an abandoned well may be present and may be threatening water quality. When an abandoned well is found to be a significant threat to the quality of groundwater, OCWD will work with OCHCA and the well owner, when appropriate, to properly destroy the well. The City of Anaheim has a well destruction policy and has an annual budget to destroy one or two wells per year. The funds are used when an abandoned well is determined to be a public nuisance or needs to be destroyed to allow development of the site. The city’s well permit program requires all well owners to destroy their wells when they are no longer needed. When grant funding becomes available, the city uses the funds to destroy wells where a responsible party has not been determined and where the well was previously owned by a defunct water consortium. 8.3 MANAGING SALINITY IN WATER SUPPLIES Increasing salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and Southern California, including Orange County. Elevated salinity levels can contaminate groundwater supplies, constrain implementation of water recycling projects and cause other negative economic impacts such as the need for increased water treatment by residential, industrial, commercial users, and water utilities. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water that includes both Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and nitrates. Due to differences in sources of contamination, control methods and human health effects, nitrate management will be discussed separately in Section 8.4. High salinity and hardness limit the beneficial uses of water for domestic, industrial and agricultural applications. Hard water causes scale formation in boilers, pipes and heat- exchange equipment as well as soap scum and an increase in detergent use. This can result in the need to replace plumbing and appliances and require increased water treatment. Some industrial processes, such as computer microchip manufacturers, must have low TDS in the process water and often must treat the municipal supply prior to use. High salinity water may reduce plant growth and crop yield, and clog drip irrigation lines. 8.3.1 Regulation of Salinity in the Watershed The U.S. EPA and the California Division of Drinking Water regulate TDS as a constituent that affects the aesthetic quality of water – notably, taste. The recommended secondary MCLs for key constituents comprising TDS are listed in Table 8-1. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-4 Table 8-1: Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Selected Constituents Constituent Recommended Secondary MCL Total Dissolved Solids (salts) 500 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L At the state level, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have authority to manage TDS in water supplies. The salinity management program for the Santa Ana River Watershed was adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) in 2004. The salinity program is implemented by the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force, a group comprised of water districts, wastewater treatment agencies and the Regional Water Board. The task force delineated boundaries for 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed including two in Orange County as shown in Figure 8-1. Historical ambient or baseline conditions were calculated for levels of TDS and nitrates in each management zone. These levels were adopted as water quality objectives and incorporated into the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan specifies that current ambient concentrations of TDS and nitrate must be recalculated every three years for each of the management zones. Figure 8-1: Groundwater Management Zones in Orange County Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-5 When a newly determined ambient level is equal to or greater than the established objective, that management zone does not have an “assimilative capacity.” This means that the quality of the groundwater in that zone is determined to be incapable of successfully assimilating increased loads of TDS or nitrates without degrading the water quality. Conversely, when an ambient level is lower than the established objective, that management zone has an assimilative capacity and is determined to be capable of receiving modest inputs of TDS without exceeding the water quality objective. The water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for the two Orange County management zones are shown in Table 8-2. Comparing the ambient water quality to the TDS objectives indicates that these zones have no available assimilative capacity for TDS. Table 8-2: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Management Zone Water Quality Objective 2012 Ambient Quality Orange County 580 mg/L 610 mg/L Irvine 910 mg/L 940 mg/L (Wildermuth, 2014) 8.3.2 Managing Salinity in the Orange County Groundwater Basin As explained in Section 4, OCWD monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the groundwater basin. Figure 8-2 shows the average TDS at production wells in the basin for the period of 2010 to 2014. In general, the portions of the basin with the highest TDS levels are located in Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and Fullerton. In addition, there is a broad area in the middle portion of the basin where the TDS generally ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Localized areas near the coast, where water production does not occur, contain relatively higher TDS concentrations. OCWD also monitors salinity levels in water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin, which include Santa Ana River baseflow and stormflow, GWRS water, and imported water. Table 8-3 presents the estimated salt inflows for the basin using average recharge volumes. TDS concentrations for the inflows were based on flow and water quality data collected by the District and the USGS. The calculation of TDS in the Talbert Barrier supply was based on TDS concentration in GWRS water while the calculation for the Alamitos Barrier assumed that injection water was a 50:50 blend of recycled water and imported water. The flow-weighted TDS of local incidental recharge of 1,100 mg/L was calculated using estimates of the TDS concentration of each component listed in Section 3, Table 3-2. For subsurface inflow and recharge from the foothills, the TDS concentration was estimated using data from the closest nearby wells. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-6 Figure 8-2: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells As shown in Table 8-3, the District estimates that the flow-weighted average inflow TDS concentration for all water recharging the basin is 501 mg/L. It is important to note that the TDS concentration of GWRS water is approximately 50 mg/L, which is expected to decrease the overall TDS concentration in the basin over time. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-7 Table 8-3: Salt Inflows for Orange County and Irvine Management Zones WATER SOURCE Inflow (afy) TDS (mg/L) Salt (tons/yr) Recharged SAR Base Flow 65,000 700 62,000 Recharged SAR Storm Flow 40,000 200 11,000 GWRS Water Recharge in Anaheim 73,000 50 5,000 Unmeasured Recharge (Incidental) 66,000 1,100 99,000 Injection Barriers Talbert 30,000 50 2,000 Alamitos 2,000 350 1,000 Imported Water Recharged 65,000 600 53,000 TOTAL 341,000 501* 233,000 * Flow-weighted average Figure 8-3 shows the total flow-weighted average of TDS levels of the water supply used for the Talbert Barrier. Prior to 2004, injection water was a blend of imported water, WF 21 purified water and Deep Aquifer water. Between 2004 and 2007 when WF 21 was decommissioned and the GWRS was in construction, a blend of imported water, potable water, and Deep Aquifer water was injected into the barrier. In 2007 the barrier was supplied entirely with imported water. Beginning in 2008, GWRS recycled water was used as a barrier water supply resulting in TDS concentrations in injection water quality of below 50 mg/L. 8.3.3 Septic Systems in Orange County Another source of salinity in the basin originates from onsite wastewater treatment systems, commonly known as septic systems. There are an estimated 2,500 septic systems in operation within the boundary of OCWD. Septic systems operate by collecting wastewater in a holding tank and then allowing the liquid fraction to leach out into the underlying sediments where it becomes filtered and eventually becomes part of the groundwater supply. A properly maintained system can be effective at removing many contaminants from the wastewater but salts remain in the leachate. Septic systems are typically in older communities that were developed prior to the construction of sewer systems or located in an area some distance from existing sewers. The State and Regional Water Boards regulate the siting of new septic systems to reduce the possibility of groundwater contamination. Within Orange County, water districts and local officials work to expand sewer systems to neighborhoods without access to them in order to reduce the use of septic systems to the extent feasible and economical. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-8 Figure 8-3: Total Flow Weighted Average TDS of All Source Waters Used for Injection at the Talbert Barrier 8.3.4. Salinity Management Projects This section describes salinity management projects operating in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Inland Empire Brineline and Non-Reclaimable Waste Line Several water treatment plants that are designed to remove salts from groundwater, commonly referred to as desalters, have been built in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. These plants are effectively reducing the amount of salt buildup in the watershed. The Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL), formerly called the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI), built by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), has operated since 1975 to remove salt Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-9 from the watershed by transporting industrial wastewater and brine produced by desalter operations directly to OCSD for treatment. The other brine line in the upper watershed, the Non-Reclaimable Waste Line in the Chino Basin operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), segregates high TDS industrial wastewater and conveys this flow to Los Angeles County for treatment and disposal. Groundwater Replenishment System Within Orange County, the GWRS, several local and regional groundwater desalters, and seawater intrusion barriers are operating to reduce salt levels. The GWRS, described in Section 6, purifies wastewater that is used for groundwater recharge and for injection into the Talbert Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. To illustrate the benefits of replacing imported water with GWRS water for groundwater recharge, assume an equal volume of 100,000 afy of these two supplies is used for recharge. Figure 8-4 shows the tons of salt in GWRS water as compared to an equal amount of imported water using a TDS of 50 mg/L for GWRS water and TDS of 600 mg/L for imported water. Tons of Salt (x1000) Figure 8-4: Tons of Salt in GWRS vs. Imported Water Coastal Pumping Transfer Program Another management tool available to OCWD to manage salinity levels in the groundwater basin is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program (CPTP). The purpose of the CPTP is to encourage inland producers to pump more groundwater and coastal producers to pump less to raise coastal groundwater levels, which lessens the potential for seawater intrusion. Inland pumpers are encouraged to pump above the BPP without having to pay the BEA for the amount pumped above the BPP. The funds collected from the increased inland pumping are used to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 GWRS Imported Water Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-10 offset the increased cost of water paid by coastal producers who must purchase imported water. This program is cost-neutral to the producers. Groundwater Desalters Other salinity management projects include groundwater desalters, located in the cities of Tustin and Irvine that are pumping and treating high salinity groundwater (see Section 8.9). Seawater Intrusion Barriers The two seawater intrusion barriers operating within Orange County manage salinity along the coast. The Alamitos seawater intrusion barrier spans the Los Angeles/Orange County line in the Seal Beach-Long Beach area. Injection wells are supplied from a blend of recycled water from Water Replenishment District and potable supplies from MWD. OCWD’s Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier spans the 2.5-mile-wide Talbert Gap. From 1975 until 2004, a blend of purified water from OCWD’s WF 21, Deep Aquifer water, and imported potable water was injected into the barrier. Beginning in 2008, the GWRS began providing recycled water for the barrier. 8.4 MANAGEMENT OF NITRATES IN GROUNDWATER Nitrate is one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies. Elevated levels of nitrate in soil and water supplies originate from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. Plants and bacteria break down nitrate but excess amounts can leach into groundwater; once in the groundwater, nitrate can remain relatively stable for years. Nitrogen is an element essential for plant growth. In the environment, it naturally converts to nitrate, a nitrogen-oxygen ion (NO3‾) that is very soluble and mobile in water. The primary concern for human health is its conversion to nitrite (NO2¯) in the body. Nitrite oxidizes iron in the hemoglobin of red blood cells to form methemoglobin, depriving the blood of oxygen. This is hazardous to infants as they do not yet have enzymes in their blood to counteract this process. They can suffer oxygen deficiency called methemoglobinemia, commonly known as “blue baby syndrome” named for its most noticeable symptom of bluish skin coloring. Both federal and state agencies regulate nitrate levels in water. The EPA and CDPH set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate (as nitrogen) in drinking water at 10 mg/L. Management of nitrates is a component of the salinity management program in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Along with TDS objectives, water quality objectives for nitrates are established for each of the 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed. Water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for Orange County’s management zones are shown in Table 8-4. As indicated, the main Orange County basin has a minor amount of assimilative capacity for nitrate but the Irvine Subbasin has no assimilative capacity. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-11 Table 8-4: Nitrate-nitrogen Water Quality Objective for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Management Zone Water Quality Objective Ambient Quality Orange County 3.4 mg/L 2.9 mg/L Irvine 5.9 mg/L 6.7 mg/L Source: Wildermuth Environmental (2014) OCWD conducts an extensive program to protect the groundwater basin from nitrate contamination. The District regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with Producers to treat individual wells when nitrate concentrations exceed safe levels. One of the District’s programs to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater is managing the nitrate concentration of water recharged by the District’s facilities. This includes managing the quality of surface water flowing to Orange County through Prado Dam. To reduce nitrate concentrations in Santa Ana River water, OCWD operates an extensive system of wetlands in the Prado Basin as explained in Section 8.5. The District tests all production wells annually for nitrate; wells with concentrations equal to or greater than 50 percent of the MCL are monitored on a quarterly basis. Areas where nitrate concentrations exceed the MCL are shown in Figure 8-5. OCWD works with the Producers to address areas of high nitrate levels. The Tustin Main Street Treatment Plant is an example of such an effort. Within Orange County, nitrate levels in groundwater generally range from 4 to 7 mg/L in the Forebay area and from 1 to 4 mg/L in the Pressure area. Ninety-eight percent of the drinking water wells meet drinking water standards for nitrate. The two percent above MCL are treated to reduce nitrate levels prior to being served to customers. Figure 8-5: Areas with Elevated Nitrate Levels Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-12 8.5 OCWD PRADO WETLANDS OCWD owns approximately 2,400 acres of land in the Prado Basin. As shown in Figures 8-6 and 8-7, this acreage includes the approximate 465-acre constructed Prado Wetlands, a system comprised of 50 shallow ponds. Originally, the site was used for farming barley. In the mid- 1970s the fields were turned into ponds to be used for duck hunting. In 1996, OCWD modified the duck ponds and converted them to a natural water treatment system. The Prado Wetlands are designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted from the river in Orange County to be percolated into OCWD’s surface water recharge system. OCWD diverts approximately half of the base flow of the Santa Ana River through the wetland ponds, which remove an estimated 15 to 40 tons of nitrates a month depending on the time of year. The wetlands are more effective from May through October when the water temperatures are warmer and daylight hours are longer. During summer months the wetlands reduce nitrate from nearly 10 mg/L to 1 to 2 mg/L. Figure 8-6: Location of Prado Wetlands Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-13 Figure 8-7: Aerial View of Prado Wetlands Treating the water in the Prado Wetlands is an important first step in protecting the basin’s groundwater quality before it reaches downstream recharge facilities in Anaheim. The majority of the baseflow (non-stormwater flow) in the Santa Ana River is comprised of treated wastewater. On an annual basis, about 50% of the SAR flow entering the Prado Basin is treated wastewater, but during summer months, treated wastewater can comprise more than 90% of the baseflow. Wastewater contains nitrogenous compounds, other nutrients such as phosphate and complex organic compounds. In the 1990s, research demonstrated a significant change in the organic composition of water after flowing through wetland ponds. These studies suggest that wetlands play an important role in not only removing nitrate but also changing the overall organic signature of the wastewater. The diverse array of wetland processes appears to modify organic compounds from anthropogenic sources producing a matrix dominated by characteristics of natural organic material. As a result, the wetlands were found to consistently improve the quality of the river water. Aquatic plants play a significant role in the transformation and transport of nitrogen in a wetlands system. Two important plants for nitrate removal in the Prado Wetlands are bulrush Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-14 (Schoenoplectus californicus) and cattail (Typha latifolia). These two plants take up nitrate as an essential nutrient while also providing an environment for bacterial growth. Most of the nitrate is removed at the soil/root interface through an anaerobic bacterial process called denitrification. This process transforms nitrate to nitrogen gas with no solid residue which must be disposed as is the case with treatment plant nitrate removal. Surface water flows from the Santa Ana River are conveyed through a series of wetland ponds, shown in Figure 8-8, where the water is naturally treated by micro-organisms and wetland plants to remove nitrates and other pollutants. Once the water is treated, it is conveyed back to the Santa Ana River where it is blended with other sources of surface water in the Prado Basin, including Chino Creek, Mill Creek and Temescal Wash. The blended flows pass through Prado Dam where they are captured by OCWD facilities and recharged into the groundwater basin. Treatment ponds are dominated by zones of emergent and submerged aquatic plants and open water of varying depth. A network of levees, concrete weirs and conveyance piping control water flow through the ponds where it undergoes sedimentation, assimilation, adsorption, and denitrification treatment processes, all of which are specifically designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from river water. Figure 8-8: Wetlands Pond Schematic Mitigation requirements for potential environmental impacts due to temporary storage of water behind Prado Dam include planting 10,000 mule fat plants per year, restoring riparian habitat, controlling non-native plants, managing vireo and surveying nesting sites, conducting cowbird trapping programs, and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker fish, as discussed in more detail in Section 9. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-15 8.6 AMBER-COLORED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT Amber-colored water is found in the Deep Aquifer (600-2,000 feet below ground surface), as shown in Section 3, Figure 3-2 and Figure 8-9. Buried natural organic material from ancient buried plant and woody material gives the water an amber tint and a sulfur odor. Although this water is of very high quality, its color and odor produce negative aesthetic qualities that require treatment before use as drinking water. The total volume of amber-colored groundwater is conservatively estimated to be over one million acre feet. Economic constraints pose challenges to developing this source of water due to cost of treatment to remove the color and odor. Treatment costs depend on the water quality (color and other parameters) and the type and extent of required treatment. Another limitation to development of amber colored groundwater is the potential negative impact in other aquifer zones. Monitoring wells reveal a correlation of clear/colored zone water level fluctuations, indicating a fairly strong hydrologic connection between the two zones in some areas of the basin. Pumping amber colored water has the potential to mobilize movement of the colored water into the Principal Aquifer. Two facilities currently treat colored groundwater in Orange County. In 2001, Mesa Water District opened its Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) capable of treating 5.8 mgd. This facility was replaced in 2012 by the 8.6-mgd Mesa Water Reliability Facility that uses nano-filtration membranes to remove color. The second facility is the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS), a treatment facility operated by the Irvine Ranch Water District since 2002 that uses nano-filtration membranes. This facility purifies 7.4 mgd of amber- colored water. Figure 8-9: Extent of Amber-Colored Water Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-16 8.7 REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINANTS A variety of federal, state, county and local agencies have jurisdiction over the regulation and management of hazardous substances and the remediation of contaminated groundwater supplies. For example, the County of Orange Health Care Agency (OCHCA) regulates leaking underground fuel tanks except in cases where an individual city or the Regional Water Board is the lead agency. OCWD does not have regulatory authority to require responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, the District has pursued legal action against entities that have contaminated the groundwater basin to recover the District’s remediation costs. The District also coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination. OCWD efforts to assess the potential threat to public health and the environment from contamination in the Santa Ana River Watershed and within the County of Orange include: • Reviewing ongoing groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports; • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities; and • Conducting third-party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup and/or providing confirmation data of the areal extent of contamination. Ninety-five percent of groundwater used for drinking water supplies is pumped from the Principal Aquifer. Water from this aquifer continues to be of high quality. This section describes areas of the basin that are experiencing contamination threats, most of which occur in the Shallow Aquifer. 8.7.1 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) During the 1980s, gasoline hydrocarbons of greatest risk to drinking water were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, collectively known as BTEX chemicals. Although leaking underground fuel tanks were identified throughout the basin, these chemicals typically were degraded by naturally-occurring aquifer microbes that allowed clean up by natural attenuation or passive bioremediation. Unfortunately, an additive to gasoline aimed at reducing air pollution became a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is a synthetic, organic chemical that was added to gasoline to increase octane ratings during the phase-out of leaded gasoline. In the mid-1990s, the percentage of MTBE added to gasoline increased significantly to reduce air emissions. MTBE is a serious threat to groundwater quality as it sorbs weakly to soil and does not readily biodegrade. The greatest source of MTBE contamination comes from underground fuel tank releases. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-17 The State of California banned the use of the additive in 2004 in response to its widespread detection in groundwater throughout the state. The Division of Drinking Water set the primary MCL for MTBE in drinking water at 13 µg/L. The secondary MCL for MTBE is 5 µg/L. Drinking water wells in the basin are tested annually for VOC analytes including MTBE. The District continues to work with local water agencies to monitor for MTBE and other fuel-related contaminants to identify areas that may have potential underground storage tank problems and releases resulting in groundwater contamination. 8.7.2 Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater come from a number of sources. From the late 1950s through early 1980s, VOCs were used for industrial degreasing in metals and electronics manufacturing. Other common sources include paint thinners and dry cleaning solvents. VOC contamination is found in several locations in the basin. In 1985, contamination was discovered beneath the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. Monitoring wells at the site installed by the U.S. Navy and OCWD delineated a one-mile wide by three-mile long plume, comprised primarily of trichloroethylene (TCE). Beneath the site, VOC contamination was primarily found in the shallow groundwater up to 150 feet below the ground surface. Off-base, to the west, the VOC plume migrated to deeper aquifers from 200 to 600 feet deep. Another area of VOC contamination was found in the Shallow Aquifer and portions of the Principal Aquifer in the northern portion of Orange County in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. The District’s groundwater monitoring data indicate that the VOCs are migrating into the Principal Aquifer, which is used for drinking water supplies. Two of Fullerton’s and one of Anaheim’s production wells were removed from service and destroyed due to VOC contamination in the area. The North Basin Groundwater Protection Program, described in Section 8.9, was initiated in 2005 to minimize the spread of the contamination and clean up the groundwater in this portion of the basin. Figure 8-10: Groundwater Cleanup Projects Elevated concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE), TCE, and perchlorate were detected in Irvine Ranch Water District’s Well No. 3, located in Santa Ana. OCWD is currently working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to require aggressive cleanup actions at nearby sites that are potential sources of the Former El Toro MCAS Former Tustin MCAS Tustin Irvine Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-18 contamination. OCWD has initiated the South Basin Groundwater Protection Program described in Section 8.9 to address this area of contamination. 8.7.3 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a low molecular weight compound that can occur in wastewater after disinfection of water or wastewater via chlorination and/or chloramination. It is also found in food products such as cured meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and the Response Level is 300 ng/L. OCWD routinely monitors for NDMA in the groundwater and in water supplies used for recharge. In 2000, OCWD discovered NDMA in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier. One production well was found to have concentrations in excess of the Notification Level. OCWD installed and operated an ultraviolet light treatment system on this well to remove the NDMA beginning in 2001 until the NDMA levels at the well were consistently below the 2 ng/L analytical detection limit in 2010. An OCSD investigation traced the contaminant to industrial wastewater dischargers that affected the water produced by WF 21 injected into the Talbert Barrier. NDMA concentrations are maintained below the Notification Level at the GWRS plant through a combination of source control measures and photolysis using ultraviolet light. As of 2012, NDMA was no longer detectable in any of the GWRS compliance monitoring wells near the Talbert Seawater Barrier. Santa Ana River water, tested at Imperial Highway, consistency has NDMA concentrations less than 2 ng/L. Figure 8-11: Sample Analysis at OCWD Laboratory 8.7.4 1,4-Dioxane A suspected human carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane, is used as a solvent in various industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes and may be present in consumer products such as detergents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food products. In 2002, OCWD detected 1,4-dioxane in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier. A total of nine production wells were found to exceed the then California Notification Level of 3 micrograms per Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-19 liter (µg/L). These wells were temporarily shut down with a loss of 34 mgd of water supply. Further investigation traced the contaminant to one industrial discharger that was discharging 1,4-dioxane into the OCSD sewer system and subsequently treated by WF 21. The discharger voluntarily ceased discharging 1,4-dioxane to the sewer, which resulted in a decline in 1,4- dioxance concentrations. Later monitoring data showed reduced 1,4-dioxane concentrations. The CDPH determined that the water was not a significant risk to health, and the wells were returned to service under the Notification Level requirements. 1,4-dioxane concentrations are maintained at the GWRS plant below the updated Notification Level of 1 µg/L through a combination of source control measures, improved reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide addition. 8.7.5 Perchlorate Sources of perchlorate in groundwater include: • Application of fertilizer containing perchlorate; • Water imported from the Colorado River and used for recharge or irrigation; • Industrial or military sites that used, disposed of, or stored perchlorate that was used as an ingredient in rocket propellant, explosives, fireworks, and road flares; and • Naturally occurring perchlorate. The occurrence of perchlorate in Chilean fertilizer applied for agricultural purposes has been documented in various studies, for example, the discussion in the December 1, 2006 publication of the journal Analytical Chemistry (Foubister, 2006) and Urbansky et al (2001). The occurrence of perchlorate in historic supplies of Colorado River water has been documented in published studies, including a 2005 National Research Council report titled “Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” (National Research Council, 2006), and Urbansky et al (2001). Due to remediation efforts near Henderson, Nevada, a key source of perchlorate in Lake Mead, the concentration of perchlorate in Colorado River water has decreased in recent years (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2009). Perchlorate has been detected in groundwater at various sites in California in association with industrial or military sites (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005). Perchlorate also has been detected in rainfall (see for example, the report published by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005 and Dasgupta et al (2005)). Perchlorate has been detected at wells distributed over a large area of the groundwater basin. Based on data from 219 active production wells between 2010 and 2014 and a detection limit of 2.5 micrograms per liter, perchlorate was not detected in 84 percent of the wells. Sixteen percent of the wells had detectable concentrations of perchlorate. For those wells with detectable amounts of perchlorate, 89 percent of the wells have detected perchlorate concentrations at or below the California primary drinking water standard of 6 micrograms per liter. Four of the 219 active production wells had perchlorate concentrations greater than 6 micrograms per liter. It is important to note that water delivered for municipal purposes meets the primary drinking water standard. Groundwater from production wells that have perchlorate Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-20 concentrations over the primary drinking water standard is treated to reduce the concentration below the primary drinking water standard prior to delivery for municipal usage. The District’s ongoing monitoring program is continuing to assess the distribution of perchlorate in the groundwater basin and how concentrations change through time. The District regularly reviews this information and will continue to work with the stakeholders to address this issue. 8.7.6 Selenium Selenium is a naturally-occurring micronutrient found in soils and groundwater in the Newport Bay watershed. Selenium is essential for reproductive health and immune system function in humans, fish and wildlife. However, selenium bio-accumulates in the food chain and can result in deformities, stunted growth, reduced hatching success, and suppression of immune systems in fish and wildlife. Prior to urban development, the Irvine Subbasin was an area of shallow groundwater that contained an area known as the Swamp of the Frogs (Cienega de Las Ranas). Runoff from local foothills over several thousands of years accumulated selenium-rich deposits in the swamp. To make this region suitable for farming, drains and channels were constructed. This mobilized selenium from sediments into the shallow groundwater drained by the channels that eventually discharge to Newport Bay. The Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program was formed to develop and implement a work plan to address selenium and nitrate in the watershed. This stakeholder working group that includes the County of Orange, affected cities, environmental organizations, Irvine Ranch Water District, the Irvine Company and the Santa Ana Regional Water Board developed a long- term work plan to identify comprehensive point and non-point source management plans for selenium and nitrogen, identify and pilot test potential treatment technologies, and recommend an implementation plan. Management of selenium is difficult as there is no off-the-shelf treatment technology available. 8.8 CONSTITUENTS OF EMERGING CONCERN Constituents of emerging concern (CECs) are synthetic or naturally occurring substances that are not formally regulated in water supplies or wastewater discharges but can now be detected using very sensitive analytical techniques. The newest group of constituents of emerging concern includes pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine disruptors. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) include thousands of chemicals contained in consumer and health-related products such as toothpaste, drugs (prescription and over-the-counter), food supplements, fragrances, sun-screen agents, deodorants, flavoring agents, insect repellants, and inert ingredients. Important classes of high-use prescription drugs include antibiotics, hormones, beta-blockers (blood pressure medicine), analgesics (pain- killers), steroids, antiepileptic, sedatives, and lipid regulators. Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) are compounds that can disrupt the endocrine system. They can occur in a wide variety of products such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-21 Research investigations have documented that EDCs can interfere with the normal function of hormones that affect growth and reproduction in animals and humans. Findings of secondary sex changes, poor hatching, decreased fertility, and altered behavior have been observed in fish following exposure to EDCs. In general, these substances have been identified as potential contaminants or were previously detected in the environment. As new laboratory methods are developed, substances can be detected at much lower concentrations. When such detection occurs before regulatory limits are established and potential environmental/aquatic and human health effects are still unknown, water suppliers and health officials face new challenges. In some cases, public awareness and concern is high because the compounds are detected but scientific-based information on potential health impacts of such low concentrations is not available. Water quality concerns arise from the widespread use of PPCPs and EDCs. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the impacts on human health from exposure to low concentrations of these substances are well known due to studies completed during their development and regulatory approval. The effects of personal care products, EDCs, and mixtures of CEC’s are less well understood. European studies in the 1990s confirmed the presence of some of these chemicals in the less than one microgram per liter range (ppb) in surface waters and groundwater and at low concentrations in wastewater treatment plant effluents. A USGS report found detectable concentrations of hormones and PPCPs in many vulnerable waterways throughout the United States (Kolpin 2002). Due to the potential impact of EDCs on water reclamation projects, the District prioritizes monitoring of these chemicals. OCWD’s state-certified laboratory is one of a few in the state that has a program to continuously develop capabilities to analyze for new compounds. Recognizing that the state Division of Drinking Water has limited resources to focus on methods development, OCWD works on developing low detection levels for chemicals likely to be targeted for future regulation or monitoring. OCWD advocates the following general principles as water suppliers and regulators develop programs to protect public health and the environmental from adverse effects of CECs: • Monitoring should focus on constituents that pose the greatest risk. • Constituents that are prevalent, persistent in the environment, and may occur in unsafe concentrations should be prioritized. • Analytical methods to detect these constituents should be approved by the state or federal government. • Studies to evaluate the potential risk to human health and the environment should be funded by the state or federal government. • The state and federal government should encourage programs to educate the public on waste minimization and proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. OCWD is committed to (1) track new compounds of concern; (2) research chemical occurrence and treatment; (3) communicate closely with the Division of Drinking Water on prioritizing Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-22 investigation and guidance; (4) coordinate with OCSD, upper watershed wastewater dischargers and regulatory agencies to identify sources and reduce contaminant releases; and (5) inform the Producers on emerging issues. The District’s program for monitoring CECs is explained in Section 4. 8.9 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This section describes specific projects that improve groundwater quality by removing TDS, nitrate, VOCs and other constituents. The location of these projects is shown in Figure 8-12. Figure 8-12: Water Quality Improvement Projects Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-23 8.9.1 North Basin Groundwater Protection Program (NBGPP) The purpose of the North Basin Groundwater Protection Program (NBGPP) is to develop a remedial strategy to prevent VOC-contaminated groundwater in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim from further spreading in the Shallow Aquifer and migrating vertically into the Principal Aquifer. Groundwater contamination, shown in Figure 8-13, is primarily found in the shallow-most aquifer, which is generally less than 200 feet deep; however, VOC-impacted groundwater has migrated downward into the Principal Aquifer tapped by production wells. The contamination continues to migrate both laterally and vertically threatening downgradient production wells operated by the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim and other agencies. The District is working with regulatory agencies and stakeholders to evaluate and develop effective remedies to address the contamination under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) process. Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.2 South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) The purpose of the South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) is to remediate contaminated groundwater in the southern part of the Orange County groundwater basin, shown in Figure 8-14, before it impacts additional drinking water wells and groundwater supplies. The extent of groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate has been investigated, contamination plumes have been delineated, and the remedial program Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-24 is being developed in cooperation with regulatory agencies and stakeholders following the NCP process. Figure 8-14: South Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.3 MTBE Remediation In 2003, OCWD filed suit against numerous oil and petroleum-related companies that produce, refine, distribute, market, and sell MTBE and other oxygenates. The suit seeks funding from these responsible parties to pay for the investigation, monitoring and removal of oxygenates from the basin. Treatment technologies used to remove MTBE from groundwater include granular activated carbon or advanced oxidation. Depending upon site-specific requirements, a treatment train of two or more technologies in series may be appropriate (i.e., use one technology to remove the bulk of MTBE and a follow-up technology to polish the effluent water stream). If other Santa Ana Irvine Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-25 contaminants (e.g., excessive nitrates or TDS) are also found in groundwater with MTBE, additional treatment processes (ion exchange membranes) would also need to be included in the process train. 8.9.4 Irvine Desalter The Irvine Desalter was built in response to the discovery in 1985 of VOCs beneath the former El Toro Marine Air Corps Station and the central area of Irvine. The plume of improperly disposed cleaning solvents migrated off base and threatened the groundwater basin. Irvine Ranch Water District and OCWD cooperated in building production wells, pipelines and two treatment plants, both of which are now owned and managed by Irvine Ranch Water District. One plant removes VOCs by air-stripping and vapor-phase carbon adsorption with the treated water used for irrigation and recycled water purposes. A second plant treats groundwater outside the plume to remove excess nitrate and TDS concentrations using RO membranes for drinking water purposes. Combined production of the Irvine Desalter wells is approximately 8,000 afy. 8.9.5 Tustin Desalters Tustin’s Main Street Treatment Plant has operated since 1989 to reduce nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Tustin’s Main Street Wells Nos. 3 and 4. The groundwater undergoes either reverse osmosis or ion exchange treatment. The reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange units operate in a parallel treatment train. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the treatment plant product water to produce up to 2 mgd or 2,000 afy. The Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter began operation in 1996 to reduce high nitrate and TDS concentrations from the groundwater pumped by Tustin’s Seventeenth Street Wells Nos. 2 and 4 and Tustin’s Newport Well. The desalter utilizes two RO membrane trains to treat the groundwater. The treatment capacity of each RO train is 1 mgd. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the RO product water to produce up to 3 mgd or 3,000 afy. 8.9.6 River View Golf Course VOC contamination, originating from an up-gradient source, was discovered in a well owned by River View Golf Course, located in the City of Santa Ana. The well was used for drinking water but was converted to supply irrigation for the golf course due to the contamination. Continued operation of the well helps to remove VOC contamination from the basin. 8.9.7 Irvine Ranch Water District Wells 21 and 22 Water produced by Irvine Ranch Water District Wells 21 and 22 contain nitrate (measured as Nitrogen) at levels exceeding the primary MCL of 10 mg/L. TDS concentrations range from 650-740 mg/L, which is above the secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. Because of the elevated nitrate, TDS, and hardness concentrations, IRWD constructed a reverse osmosis treatment facility to reduce concentrations in the water before conveying to the potable supply distribution system. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-26 Operation of the treatment facility provides 6,300 afy of drinking water and will benefit the groundwater basin by reducing the spread of impaired groundwater to other portions of the basin. 8.10 BEA EXEMPTION FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS In some cases, the District encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) Exemption. The benefits to the basin include promoting beneficial uses of poor-quality groundwater and reducing or preventing the spread of poor-quality groundwater into non-degraded aquifer zones. As explained in detail in Section 11, OCWD uses financial incentives to manage the level of pumping from the groundwater basin. Producers pay a Replenishment Assessment (RA) for water pumped from the basin. Each year the District sets an allowable amount of pumping and assesses an additional charge, called the BEA, on all water pumped above that limit. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor-quality groundwater. These costs typically include capital, interest and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the treatment facilities. Using this approach, the District has exempted all or a portion of the BEA for pumping and treating groundwater for removal of nitrates, TDS, VOCs, and other contaminants. Water quality improvement projects that currently are receiving BEA exemptions are listed in Table 8-5. Table 8-5: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects Project Name Project Description BEA Exemption Approved Production above BPP (afy) OCWD BEA Subsidy Irvine Desalter Remove nitrates, TDS, and VOCs 2001 10,000 Exemption Tustin Desalter Remove nitrates and TDS 1998 3,500 Exemption Tustin Nitrate Removal Remove nitrates 1998 1,000 Exemption River View Golf Course Remove VOCs 1998 350 $50/af BEA reduction Mesa WD Colored Water Removal Remove Color 2000 8,700 Exemption IRWD Wells 21 and 22 Remove nitrates 2012 7,000 Exemption NATURAL RESOURCE AND COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS Natural Resources and Collaborative Programs are conducted in Orange County, Prado Basin and in the watershed upstream of Prado Dam. Watershed Programs • Mitigation for OCW D’s water management in Prado Basin: invasive plant removal, planting of native vegetation, managing habitat for threatened and endangered birds and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker Orange County Programs • Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan • Nest Boxes Collaborative Watershed Program • Partnering with Santa Ana Watershed Association • Participating in task forces with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority • Working with Municipal Water District of Orange County • Partnering with OC Flood Control District and OC Sanitation District Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-1 PRADO BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES The riparian woodland provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species, particularly birds. The avifauna is a diverse assemblage of resident and migratory species. The raptor concentration in the Prado Basin is among the largest in Southern California. The Prado Basin also provides habitat for the federally and state listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusillas) and the state listed endangered yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). However, the cuckoo has not been reported in several years. Additionally, several species designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as “Birds of Special Concern” occupy habitat in the basin. These include the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). NATURAL RESOURCE AND SECTION 9 COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS 9.1 OCWD NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS – OVERVIEW OCWD participates in cooperative efforts within the Santa Ana River Watershed. OCWD’s natural resource programs remove invasive plants, plant native species, and manage habitat and wildlife including endangered and threatened species. These programs protect the water quality in the Santa Ana River and fulfill mitigation requirements for impacts to natural resources from District operations in the Prado Basin. OCWD’s natural resource programs exceed that which is required by regulations with the belief that excellence in water management and stewardship of natural resources go hand in hand. The Prado Dam was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) in 1941. In the 1960s the Corps began working with OCWD to conserve water behind the dam in order to support OCWD’s recharge operations as described in Section 5. OCWD’s natural resource programs began in response to concerns that increased water storage behind the dam could negatively impact the Prado Basin ecosystem. The Prado Basin, shown in Figure 9-1, contains the single largest stand of forested riparian habitat remaining in coastal Southern California, which supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife including many federal and state listed and sensitive species. OCWD owns approximately 2,150 acres of land in the Prado Basin, which includes approximately 465-acres of managed wetlands. The wetlands are operated to improve the quality of Santa Ana River water that is used downstream to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In addition to programs in the Prado Basin, the District is a partner in watershed-wide efforts to eradicate the invasive plant Arundo donax, manages habitat for rare and endangered birds and conducts programs to protect the Santa Ana Sucker, an endangered fish. Wildlife protection programs within Orange County include the construction of a bird island on Burris Basin. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-2 Figure 9-1: View of Prado Basin Looking East with Prado Dam in Foreground 9.2 NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS IN THE WATERSHED OCWD began actively managing habitat and natural resources in the Prado Basin in the 1980s when the District began working with the Corps to increase storage of storm water behind Prado Dam. Enhanced water conservation required planning to avoid, minimize and offset potential environmental damage. The availability of water in the Prado Basin supported wetland habitat but inundation for long periods could negatively impact habitat value. Mitigation requirements for environmental impacts due to OCWD’s ongoing operation of the Prado Wetlands and temporary storage behind Prado Dam for water conservation include planting 10,000 native plants per year, restoring riparian habitat, controlling non-native plants, managing least Bell’s vireo and survey nesting sites, conducting cowbird trapping programs, and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker. A total of 19 mitigation sites are included in the Prado Mitigation Monitoring Program (Figure 9- 2). To comply with mitigation requirements, OCWD prepares annual monitoring reports to document the progress of habitat restoration activities and management efforts. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-3 Figure 9-2: Prado Mitigation Areas DO Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-4 9.2.1 Least Bell’s Vireo OCWD is committed to manage habitat and monitor the populations of an endangered bird, the least Bell’s vireo, shown in Figure 9-3. In 1983, there were 12 vireo territories in the Prado Basin and extirpation was imminent. OCWD signed agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Nature Conservancy in 1989 and 1990 to initiate and fund a vireo management program. This program was expanded with additional agreements with the Corps in 1991, 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2004. In exchange for expansion of water storage behind the dam, OCWD contributed $1.07 million to the Nature Conservancy and $1 million to the Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) and made commitments to restore wildlife habitat, remove invasive plants and participate in other natural resource protection programs in the watershed. Agreements expanded to include establishing a trust fund to remove Arundo and increasing vireo monitoring and habitat protection outside of Prado Basin throughout the watershed. OCWD has created more than 800 acres of habitat for the federally and state listed endangered least Bells’ vireo, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and many other species in the Prado Basin. In the watershed outside of the basin, OCWD has partnered in the removal of over 5,000 acres of Arundo resulting in thousands of acres of restored habitat for many wildlife species. During the last few years, vireo populations have increased to over 400 breeding pairs out of a total of up to 600 male territories in the Prado Basin (Pike, et al. 2010). A comparison between 1983 vireo territories and 2012 territories can be seen in Figures 9-4 and 9-5. OCWD continues to plant 10,000 native riparian plants in the ground annually. Placing the plantings above potential future water conservation elevations and adjacent to occupied vireo habitat is expected to result in expansion of populations and pave the way for additional water conservation. LEAST BELL’S VIREO Since the initiation of efforts by OCWD in 1983, populations of the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo pusillus bellii) has grown from 12 territories in the Prado Basin to 1,432 in the Santa Ana Watershed including 569 in Prado Basin. The vireo population in the watershed is the single largest in existence. The success of vireo recovery in the Santa Ana River Watershed and range-wide in Southern California prompted the Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend that the vireo be down-listed to threatened status. Without OCWD’s success with Arundo control and vireo management, increased water conservation and reduced outflows from Prado Dam would not have been allowed. Figure 9-3: Least Bell’s Vireo Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-5 Figure 9-4: Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Data 1983 Figure 9-5: Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Data 2014 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-6 9.2.2 Arundo Removal Arundo donax, shown in Figure 9-6, is a grass species native to Europe that was purposely introduced to California in the 1820s for planting along ditches and channels to control erosion. This invasive plant spreads quickly, crowds out native vegetation and has become the dominant species along the Santa Ana River. The plant obstructs flood flows, causes expensive beach cleanups, degrades native habitat, impacts water quality, and consumes at least three times more water than native plants. OCWD began involvement in watershed-wide Arundo control with the signing of a landmark agreement in 1995 between the Corps and U.S. Department of Interior, which allows OCWD to engage in mitigation actions in the upper watershed miles from OCWD property and the site of impact. These mitigation activities are accomplished in partnership with SAWA, a non- profit corporation run by a five member board with one representative each from the OCWD and four Resource Conservation Districts. Other partners involved in these efforts include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Corps, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the counties, several cities, and many other individuals and organizations. Figure 9-6: Arundo Over 5,000 acres of Arundo have been cleared in the upper watershed and additional acres are planned to be cleared within the next five to 10 years. Removing Arundo and keeping it out has yielded a minimum of 15,000 acre-feet of water each year. The 5,000 acres of river bottom lands formerly infested by Arundo and other weeds are now under management. The entire upper watershed of the Santa Ana River and all of the major tributaries have been cleared and are under a regime of re-treatment as needed down to the vicinity of Prado Basin. The goal of control effort is to eventually eradicate Arundo and other pernicious weeds from the watershed. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-7 Invasive Plants in the Watershed A significant amount of the Santa Ana River Watershed, including the Prado Basin is infested with exotic vegetation. The exotic vegetation includes Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Tree-of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima), White Bladder Flower (Araujia sericifera), Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), and Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). The most prolific and abundant exotic species within the Prado Basin is Arundo. The Arundo grows rapidly and unless it is regularly treated it will grow back very quickly. Large strands of Arundo can wash downstream and re-sprout in areas where it has been removed. Until the time the Arundo is removed and managed within the upper watershed down to the Prado Basin, the basin will continue to be infested by Arundo. Arundo has caused major damage to bridges during floods, it renders water ways impenetrable, carries fire storms, destroys wildlife habitat, reduces water quality, interferes with flood control and endangered species recovery, and litters the beaches. 9.2.3 Santa Ana Sucker The Santa Ana Sucker, shown in Figure 9-7, was common in streams of the Santa Ana Watershed and other rivers of Southern California, but has all but disappeared from areas where it was once common. Because of the marked decline in the numbers of these fish, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the Santa Ana Sucker as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2004. OCWD agreed to provide leadership in conservation efforts for the threatened Santa Ana Sucker as part of an agreement in 2006 with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for dismissal of their protest for OCWD’s petition for water rights before the State Water Resources Control Board. Figure 9-7: Santa Ana Sucker Suckers require cool, clear streams with rocky substrate, riffles and pools. The riffles and pools provide refuge from high velocity flows, sites for spawning fish and habitat for benthic invertebrates and plants. Presently, the majority of the Santa Ana River immediately upstream of the Prado Dam is composed of sandy substrate. The sand bottom provides minimal food resources, poor refuge from exotic predators, and no spawning opportunity. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-8 In 2010, OCWD installed seven rock-filled gabions in the Santa Ana River above Prado Dam in Riverside County between River Road and Hamner Avenue, as shown in Figure 9-8. The gabions are designed to deflect the current, creating localized scour that expose gravel, cobbles and rocks that were buried by sand. This pilot project demonstrated the potential to create habitat for the sucker and showed that design of future, long-term habitat will require rock replenishment or anchoring to be ultimately successful. Partnering with SAWA and other agencies, OCWD designed and implemented the only currently successful sucker habitat restoration project in the watershed. Sunnyslope Creek, a small tributary to the Santa Ana River located near Mt. Rubidoux in Riverside, was one of few known spawning sites for the threatened sucker. High flows caused a blockage in 2005 that cut off flows to the river and threatening the suckers. OCWD biologists conducted studies and began managing the creek in 2010 to restore the hydrologic connection to the river and reduce the threat from non-native predatory aquatic species. This on-going project was deemed a success beginning in 2011 when suckers in spawning condition were again detected in the creek. The Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Team, comprised of staff from concerned public agencies from throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed have been meeting since 1998 to assess the reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker and to devise strategies for recovering the species. Scientific studies and other cooperative efforts for Sucker conservation are being conducted by the Sucker Conservation Program. The funding partners include OCWD, Orange County Sanitation District, the County of Orange, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County Transportation Department, City of Riverside, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and San Bernardino Flood Control District. Other active participants include the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Corps, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Reports and other information are available online at www.sawpa.org. Figure 9-8: Gabion in Santa Ana River Installed to Create Habitat for Santa Ana Sucker Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-9 9.2.4 Natural Resource Programs in Orange County Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan Reconstruction of one of the District’s recharge basins, Burris Basin, necessitated the removal of existing vegetation and a small island. A comprehensive habitat management plan was developed to mitigate for habitat impacts which included construction of a floating island to provide bird habitat as shown in Figure 9-9. Non-native trees and vegetation were removed and replaced with 650 native trees, 2,900 shrubs and 1,000 mulefat plants. A small freshwater marsh habitat was created on the basin’s edge with plantings of cattails, bulrush, primrose, and salt grass. A sandbar island was constructed to create habitat for the California Least Tern, a state and federal endangered species, as well as other native birds. As a result of implementation of the Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan there is a productive 1.5 mile long riparian strip along the entire edge of the basin that in 2014 supported over 150 breeding bird territories in 2014 of 51 different species including Song Sparrows, hummingbirds, swallows, California Towhees, House Finches, Lesser Goldfinches, Mourning Doves, Northern Mockingbirds, Bushtits, Scrub Jay, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Ash-throated Flycatcher, and Black Phoebe. On the nesting bird island there were 18 nesting attempts by California Least Terns, most of them successful along with Forester’s Terns (210 nests, 457 eggs laid), Black Skimmers (91 nests, 228 eggs), American Avocets (58 nests, 184 eggs), Black-necked Stilt (28 nests), Killdeer (22 nests), Spotted Sandpiper (3 nests), Mallard and Gadwall (17 nests, 179 eggs), and Canada Goose (5 nests, 24 eggs), among others. Figure 9-9: Bird Habitat Island Constructed in Burris Basin Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-10 Nest Boxes In the 2000s, OCWD began a program to reduce use of chemical pesticides in the vicinity of the Prado Wetlands. Nest boxes were installed for birds, particularly Tree Swallows (Figure 9-10), whose food supply includes flying insect pests. Birds occupied 100% of the nest boxes resulting in nearly 5,000 Tree Swallow fledglings produced, consuming millions of midges and mosquitoes each year. This successful program was expanded to sites along the Santa Ana River in Orange County for the same purpose of reducing the use of chemical pesticides in the river. Bird nest boxes were mounted atop fences, in trees, and on metal poles. Figure 9-10: Tree Swallows Nesting, Lower Santa Ana River, 2014 In 2014, 437 boxes were available at 14 distinct locations ranging from water storage basins, the Santa Ana River and the Orange County public bike trail adjacent to the river, one of which is shown in Figure 9-11. Of these, 215 boxes (49%) were occupied by either Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) or Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana). There were 182 successful Tree Swallow broods and a total of 648 fledglings produced. Bluebirds occupied 38 boxes and produced 24 successful broods and 90 confirmed fledglings. Figure 9-11: Tree Swallow Nest Box 9.3 COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS OCWD participates in several collaborative programs with stakeholders and agencies within Orange County and the Santa Ana River Watershed. These efforts are described below. Santa Ana Watershed Association The Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) was formed in 1997 to develop, coordinate and implement natural resource programs that support sustainable ecosystems in the upper Santa Ana River Watershed. Major areas of SAWA’s focus are removal of invasive species, native habitat enhancement and the protection of endangered and threatened species. The Board of Directors of SAWA includes: Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-11 • Orange County Water District • Inland Empire Resource Conservation District • Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District • San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District • Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District To conserve water behind Prado Dam, the District needs to address potential environmental impacts to habitat for endangered species. The District implements a portion of its environmental mitigation for Prado water conservation through SAWA. Conserving stormwater behind Prado Dam is very important to the District and has increased the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Since 1997, SAWA has removed more than 5,000 acres of Arundo from the Santa Ana River Watershed. Past studies have indicated that this provides a net savings in water consumption by these plants of 3.75 acre-feet/year or 18,750 acre-feet of additional water in the river annually. More recent studies estimate the water savings to be much higher at 20 acre- feet/acre of Arundo removed. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) was first formed in 1968 as a planning agency and reformed in 1972 with a mission is to develop and maintain regional plans, programs, and projects that will protect the Santa Ana River Basin water resources. The current configuration as a joint powers authority went into effect in 1975. SAWPA’s member agencies include San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and OCWD. The District participates on a number of work groups that meet on a regular basis to discuss, plan, and make joint decisions on management of water resources in the Santa Ana Watershed. OCWD actively participates in the following SAWPA task forces and work groups: SAWPA Commission The commission, composed of Board members from SAWPA’s five member agencies including OCWD, meets on a monthly basis to set policy and oversee the management of SAWPA. Storm Water Quality Standards Task Force The Storm Water Quality Standards Task Force was formed in 2002 to evaluate water quality standards for body contact recreation related to urban runoff and stormwater. Water and wastewater agencies, stormwater management agencies, environmental groups, and the Regional Water Board joined together to develop recommendations for updating recreational water quality standards for freshwater bodies in the watershed. This effort was initiated by the counties and cities concerned about the future cost of compliance with stormwater discharge permits. One major challenge in the region is that beneficial uses for water in flood-control channels include direct body contact recreation. Stringent bacterial standards to protect Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-12 recreational use of these waters must be met even though many of the channels are concrete- lined, are fenced off, and would be unsafe for swimming during storms. This task force collected data, evaluated water bodies for their actual and potential recreational value and prepared reports that were used to identify and document where body-contact recreation was occurring and could potentially occur. Regulatory changes were drafted and adopted that will focus water quality improvement efforts in areas of greatest recreational value. Basin Monitoring Program Task Force In 1995, a task force of over 20 water and wastewater resource agencies and local governments, including OCWD, initiated a study to evaluate the impacts to groundwater quality of elevated levels of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the watershed. Formation of the Task Force was in response to concerns by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) that water quality objectives for nitrogen and TDS were being exceeded in some groundwater basins in the watershed. The Task Force completed the study and developed amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) that were adopted in 2004. This nearly 10-year effort involved collecting and analyzing data in 25 newly defined groundwater management zones in the watershed to recalculate nitrogen and TDS levels and to establish new water quality objectives. One major challenge of this effort was developing the tools and collecting data to assess and monitor surface water and groundwater interactions. Although typically regulated and managed separately, stakeholders recognized that surface water and groundwater in the watershed are interconnected and as such protection of these resources would require a comprehensive program. Models were developed and data collected to enable an evaluation of the potential short-term and long-term impacts on water resources due to changes in land use, the quantity and quality of runoff, and point source discharges. The Basin Plan charges the Task Force with implementing a watershed-wide TDS/Nitrogen management program. Task Force members agreed to fund and participate in a process to recalculate ambient water quality every three years in each of the 25 groundwater management zones and to compare water quality to the water quality objectives in order to measure compliance with the Basin Plan. The latest recalculation, the third since adoption of the amendment, was completed in 2014 (Wildermuth, 2014). Salinity Management and Imported Water Recharge Workgroup The Salinity Management and Imported Water Recharge Workgroup, in cooperation with the Regional Water Board, implements a Cooperative Agreement signed in 2008 by water agencies that use imported water for groundwater recharge. The objective of this effort was to evaluate and monitor the long-term impacts of recharging groundwater basins with imported water. The concern was using imported water supplies with relatively high salt concentrations for groundwater recharge in basins with lower salinity. In these cases, using imported water as a source to recharge had the potential to degrade groundwater quality in those basins. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-13 The workgroup analyzes water quality data and estimates future conditions to evaluate the potential impact of recharging imported water. TDS and nitrate data are collected and analyzed to determine whether the intentional recharge of imported water may have adverse impacts on compliance with salinity objectives in the region. Emerging Constituents Workgroup “Emerging Constituents” (ECs) refers to a group of chemicals that are ingredients in consumer and industrial products (pharmaceuticals, personal care products, food additives, pesticides, and other common household products) that may occur at trace levels in wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff and various surface water bodies and are currently unregulated. In 2008, a workgroup was formed with stakeholders in the watershed to develop a monitoring program to evaluate the potential impacts of emerging constituents on surface and groundwater quality from the recharge of imported water and the discharge of treated wastewater in the Santa Ana River. The group began collecting and analyzing water samples in 2010 and continued for the next three years. Future monitoring will continue when the State Water Resources Control Board finalizes plans for a state-wide EC monitoring program. Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Team Meeting monthly since 1998, a group of concerned public agencies from throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed has been working to determine the reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and to devise strategies for recovering the species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife are part of this effort. One Water One Watershed Initiative A large and diverse group of interested citizens and organizations participated in the development of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Watershed. The title of the plan “One Water One Watershed” reflects the objective to engage in watershed-wide planning that recognizes the need for and importance of water as a shared resource for a diverse group of stakeholders and that protecting and managing this resource on the scale of the watershed is of value to all. Municipal Water District of Orange County The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and provides imported water to 28 retail water agencies and cities in Orange County. MWDOC also supplies untreated imported water to OCWD for use as a supplemental source of water to recharge the groundwater basin. OCWD and MWDOC meet on a monthly basis to discuss various topics, including: • Coordinating mutual water resources planning, supply availability, and water-use efficiency (conservation) programs. • Conducting and developing an Orange County Water Reliability Program to improve the overall water and emergency supply to Orange County. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-14 • Evaluating ocean water desalination, water recycling and other means to increase the supply and system reliability. • Evaluating water transfers and exchanges that would make surplus supplies from other areas available to the District. Water Advisory Committee of Orange County The Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) is a group of elected officials and water managers who meet on a monthly basis to provide advice to OCWD and MWDOC on water supply issues (Figure 9-12). Figure 9-12: WACO Meeting in Fountain Valley Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee The Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee is a joint committee of the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. Directors of the two districts meet on a monthly basis to coordinate joint operations. Orange County Flood Control District Three of the recharge basins used by OCWD for groundwater recharge are owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD also owns a six-mile section of the Santa Ana River that is used for conveyance of floodwater. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss joint operations and planning. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-15 9.4 MANAGEMENT OF AREAS WITHIN BASIN 8-1 OUTSIDE OCWD BOUNDARIES As explained in Section 3.1.3, the OCWD Groundwater Basin boundary does not encompass the entire area of Basin 8-1, as defined by DWR. The areas outside OCWD can generally be categorized as the La Habra Subbasin, the Santa Ana Canyon area, and the area within the Irvine Subbasin. In addition to considering possible DWR boundary modifications, OCWD is currently collaborating with other agencies regarding the management of these three areas are described below. La Habra SubBasin Groundwater in this subbasin flows in a westerly direction into Los Angeles County and in a southerly direction into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This portion of the groundwater basin is relatively shallow and production is limited due to water quality issues. The cities of La Habra and Brea are discussing the option of preparing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the La Habra SubBasin and are collaborating with OCWD as appropriate. Santa Ana Canyon The areas in the Santa Ana Canyon outside of OCWD are located in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Groundwater in this area of the basin is shallow. Active production wells as shown in Figure 9-13 are owned by the County of Orange and used to irrigate the Green River Golf Course. Discussions between the three counties and OCWD regarding management of this area are ongoing. Irvine SubBasin Groundwater resources in the Irvine Subbasin outside District boundaries are generally of poor quality and limited in supply. There are no active production wells in this portion of the basin. Irvine Ranch Water District has some inactive wells located in the City of Lake Forest that produce poor quality water in limited quantities. Figure 9-13: Areas Outside OCWD Boundaries Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-16 9.5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER RESOURCES-RELATED PLANS North Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan This plan was prepared by the County of Orange with the participants of a diverse group of stakeholders. The North Orange County planning area encompasses the Santa Ana River Watershed, the Lower San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek Watershed, and the Anaheim Bay- Huntington Harbour Watershed. The North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan was prepared in 2011 to maximize use of local water resources, to increase collaboration and to apply multiple water management strategies by implementing multi-purpose projects in the region. The plan was designed to help agencies, governments and community groups manage their water, wastewater and ecological resources and to identify potential projects to improve water quality, engage in long range water planning and obtain funding. OCWD participated in the preparation of this plan and submitted proposed projects to be considered as regional projects to augment local water supplies, protect groundwater quality and increase water supply reliability. Central Orange County Integrated Regional and Coastal Watershed Management Plan The Central Orange County plan was prepared in 2011 by the County of Orange and local stakeholders, including OCWD, to serve as a planning tool to effectively manage the region’s water resources. The central area encompasses the entire Newport Bay Watershed and the northern portion of the adjacent Newport Coast Watershed that lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan sets goals and objectives, identifies water resource projects, and discusses ways to integrate a proposed project with other projects. One Water One Watershed (OWOW) 2.0 The Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan for the Santa Ana Watershed is referred to as the OWOW 2.0 plan. Drafted by watershed stakeholders, including OCWD, under the direction of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), this updated plan was adopted by the SAWPA Commission in 2014. The plan details the water resource related opportunities and constraints with the aim of developing proposed projects that provide a regional benefit, are integrated, and are proposed by more than one agency. Municipal Water District of Orange County Urban Water Management Plan The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is a water wholesaler and regional planning agency serving 26 cities and water districts throughout Orange County, which includes OCWD’s service area. MWDOC prepared its 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan to provide a comprehensive assessment of the region’s water services, sources and supplies, including imported water, groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and wastewater. Findings and projections in the plan are used by OCWD and water retailers. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-17 Water Reliability Report Completed in 2015, this report assesses future demands, the reliability of the import system and need for future projects. Orange County Municipal Stormwater Program Municipal stormwater discharges are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and in California by the State Water Resources Control Board under the California Water Code. In Orange County, this permit is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the County of Orange, as the principal permittee, and the Orange County Flood Control District and municipalities as the co- permittees. As the principal permittee, the county guides development and implements the stormwater program to ensure compliance and prevent ocean pollution. To assist municipalities in reviewing and approving stormwater discharge permits, the county prepared a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The document contains guidance for the preparation of individual project WQMP needed for the approval of development projects. The permit requires that new development and significant development projects manage stormwater on-site to the extent feasible using low-impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) with a requirement for maximizing infiltration of stormwater on the project site. To assist municipalities in implementing the stormwater program, the county prepared detailed maps showing areas where infiltration potentially is feasible and areas where infiltration is likely to be infeasible due to soil conditions, high groundwater, potential landslide areas, and areas with groundwater contamination. These maps are included as Figure XVI.2 in Appendix XVI of the Technical Guidance Document that can be found at the following link: http://cms.ocgov.com/gov/pw/watersheds/documents/wqmp/default.asp A permit condition requires that municipalities consult with the applicable groundwater management agency in reviewing on-site project plans that propose the utilization of infiltration LID BMPs. As such, OCWD reviews these plans within District boundaries to evaluate any potential impacts to groundwater quality due to infiltration of stormwater on particular sites. Urban Water Management Plans California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan. UWMPs describe current and future water supplies and demands and must be updated every five years. OCWD utilizes the water demand forecasts from the UWMPs within District boundaries for long-range planning purposes. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-18 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan establishes surface and groundwater quality objectives for the Santa Ana River Basin. The water quality objectives are established to protect and enhance beneficial uses of water in the region. The basin plan identifies beneficial uses of ocean waters, bays, estuaries, tidal prisms, inland surface streams, lakes and reservoirs, wetlands, and groundwater basins, including water bodies within District boundaries. 9.6 COLLABORATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES This section summarizes the federal and state agencies that have regulatory authority over District operations and collaborate with OCWD. 9.6.1 Federal Agencies The United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is responsible for providing flood control on the Santa Ana River and tributaries and owns and operates the Prado Dam. The Corps and OCWD have been working together for many years on water conservation programs to temporarily impound water behind Prado Dam. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding the Corps agrees to temporarily store water behind the dam and release the water at rates that allow OCWD to divert the supply into recharge facilities downstream of the dam as long as consistent with the primary purpose of the dam for flood risk management. The Corps also administers permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for activities conducted within “waters of the United States.” OCWD obtains 404 permits from the Corps when District activities and project construction will impact waters of the United States. During the flood season, OCWD and staff in the Corps Reservoir Regulation section, collaborate, sometimes on a daily basis, to coordinate releases from the dam to the District’s downstream facilities. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates stream gage stations in the watershed. All of these stations measure flows but some also measure water quality, such as TDS. OCWD meets annually with USGS staff to discuss the scope of the monitoring program and provides funds to maintain several of the stream gage stations on the Santa Ana River. Figure 9-14: OCWD Recharge Operations Staff Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-19 The United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issues permits for OCWD projects that impact aquatic habitat and provides assistance with District programs to manage habitat for Santa Ana Suckers, least Bell’s vireo, and other species. The USFWS also issues Biological Opinions that are incorporated into the MOU with the Corps on water conservation activities at Prado Dam. If any deviations from the approved plans are made, OCWD and the Corps first consults with the USFWS before any actions are taken. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) implements and enforces Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs and provides support for cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) is taking the lead to clean up groundwater contamination at El Toro and Tustin Marine Corps Air Stations and Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. OCWD was heavily involved in all phases of these projects, including investigations, remedial design, alternative analysis, and monitoring. 9.6.2 State Agencies The California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages programs to protect fish in surface waters and issues permits for OCWD projects that impact waters of the state and wetlands of the state. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees cleanup of contaminated groundwater sites in Orange County including remediation of the Stringfellow Acid Pits Superfund site clean-up in Riverside County that has potential to impact the Santa Ana River. OCWD regularly corresponds and collaborates with DTSC staff regarding sites that have or have the potential to impact groundwater quality. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates the State Water Project and develops the California Water Plan that serves as a guide to development and management of the State’s water resources. DWR manages Integrated Regional Water Management grants and other grant programs from which OCWD has received grants for some projects. The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program created by the California Legislature in 2009 requires the monitoring and reporting of groundwater elevation data. OCWD is the CASGEM monitoring agency for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was established through the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969 and is the primary state agency responsible for water quality management in the state and as such sets statewide policy regarding water quality including regulation of recycled water projects. The SWRCB’s policies are implemented by nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates and manages water quality programs that include northern and central Orange County. As with DTSC, OCWD regularly engages RWQCB staff regarding sites under investigation or in remediation, the GWRS permit and other permits issued to OCWD as well as permits issued to other agencies that may impact the groundwater basin. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-20 9.6.3 County Agencies The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is a division of Orange County Public Works Department with responsibility to maintain the Santa Ana River levees and concrete channels in Orange County. OCFCD has agreements with OCWD to use basins owned by OCFCD for groundwater recharge and is a partner with the District in re-developing Fletcher Basin, owned by OCFCD, for use as groundwater recharge basin. OC Environmental Services is a division of the Orange County Public Works Department responsible for coordination of watershed plans for the North, Central, and South Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plans as well as compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for the county. Orange County Local Area Formation Commission (OC LAFCO) is responsible for coordinating changes in local government boundaries including annexations, conducting special studies and updating sphere of influences for each city and special district within the County. LAFCO conducts municipal service reviews for all cities and special districts to look at future growth and how local agencies are planning for that growth within the municipal services and infrastructure systems. 9.6.4 Regional The Santa Ana River Watermaster is a five-member committee appointed by the court to administer the provisions of the 1969 judgment (see Section 1.2). The SAR Watermaster is comprised of representatives from each of the parties to the judgment. The SAR Watermaster maintains a continuous accounting of stormflows and baseflows, entitlement credits and debits, and water quality data. This information is reported to the court annually for each water year. River flows recorded in the annual Watermaster Report are determined from river gages managed by the USGS. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD ) is a consortium of 26 cities and water districts that provides drinking water to nearly 19 million people in Southern California. OCWD purchases imported water from MWD through the Municipal Water District of Orange County for recharge. OCWD and MWD have a storage agreement that allows MWD to store up to 66,000 acre-feet of water in the basin. OCWD also engages MWD regarding policies related to groundwater replenishment, local resource programs and basin storage agreements. The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) purchases imported water from MWD on behalf of OCWD and groundwater producers, and conducts water-use efficiency programs and provides other services to member agencies. The Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW ) operates the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier under a joint agreement with OCWD. OCWD, along with LADPW, jointly manage the Alamitos Barrier and have regularly scheduled meetings to review operations and establish budget and cost-sharing. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-21 The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) provides water to supply the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier. The WRD, along with OCWD and LADPW, participates in meetings on the operation and management of the Alamitos Barrier. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) manages and enforces water quality control programs in the Santa Ana River Watershed. OCWD works closely with the Regional Water Board on a wide variety of issues. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and OCWD jointly operate the Groundwater Replenishment System. Monthly GWRS steering committee meetings are held with OCSD. 9.7 LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS Protecting groundwater from contamination protects public health and prevents loss of valuable groundwater resources. Monitoring potential impacts from proposed new land uses and planning for future development are key management activities essential for protecting, preventing and reducing contaminant risks to drinking water supplies. OCW D monitors, reviews and comments on local land use plans and environmental documents such as Environmental Impact Reports, Notices of Preparation, amendments to local General Plans and Specific Plans, proposed zoning changes, draft Water Quality Management Plans, and other land development plans. District staff also review draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and waste discharge permits issued by the Regional Water Board. The proposed projects and programs may have elements that could cause short- or long-term water quality impacts to source water used for groundwater replenishment or have the potential to degrade groundwater resources. Monitoring and reviewing waste discharge permits provides the District with insight on activities in the watershed that could affect water quality. The majority of the basin’s land area is located in a highly urbanized setting and requires tailored water supply protection strategies. Reviewing and commenting on stormwater permits and waste discharge permits adopted by the Regional Water Board for the portions of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties that are within the Santa Ana River watershed are conducted by OCWD on a routine basis. These permits can affect the quality of water in the Santa Ana River and other water bodies, thereby impacting groundwater quality in the basin. OCWD works with local agencies having oversight responsibilities on the handling, use and storage of hazardous materials; underground tank permitting; well abandonment programs; septic tank upgrades; and drainage issues. Participating in basin planning activities of the Figure 9-15: Aerial View of Orange County Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-22 Regional Water Board and serving on technical advisory committees and task forces related to water quality are also valuable activities to protect water quality. The Regional Board Fourth Term municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permit (Order R-8-2009-0030) was adopted with specific requirements for new development and significant redevelopment to manage stormwater on-site. Low impact development (LID) is a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of existing site features integrated with distributed stormwater controls. The strategy is designed to mimic natural hydrologic patterns of undeveloped sites as opposed to traditional stormwater management controls. LID includes both site design and structural measures used to manage stormwater on a particular development site. The MS4 permit requires that any new development or significant re-development project consider groundwater conditions as part of the preparation of a Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The County of Orange prepared a Model WQMP to explain the requirements and types of analyses that are required in preparing a Conceptual/Preliminary or Project WQMP in compliance with the permit. A Technical Guidance Document (TGD) was prepared as a technical resource companion to the Model WQMP. Permit conditions require that any proposed infiltration activities be coordinated with the applicable groundwater management agency, such as the OCWD, to ensure groundwater quality is protected. Consequently, OCWD regularly reviews local development projects to evaluate any potential impacts to groundwater quality due to infiltration of stormwater on development sites within Orange County. The TGD contains specific criteria to protect groundwater quality as part of local efforts to manage stormwater infiltration. The depth to seasonal high groundwater table beneath the project may preclude on-site infiltration of stormwater. In areas with known groundwater and soil pollution, infiltration may need to be avoided if it could contribute to the movement or dispersion of soil or groundwater contamination or adversely affect ongoing cleanup efforts. Potential for contamination due to infiltration is dependent on a number of factors including local hydrogeology and the chemical characteristics of the pollutants of concern. If infiltration is under consideration in areas where soil or groundwater pollutant mobilization is a concern, a site-specific analysis must be conducted to determine where infiltration-based BMPs can be used without adverse impacts. Criteria for infiltration related to protection of groundwater quality include: • Minimum separation between the ground surface and groundwater including guidance for calculating mounding potential • Categorization of infiltration BMPs by relative risk of groundwater contamination • Pollutant sources in the tributary watershed and pretreatment requirements • Setbacks from known plumes and contaminated sites • Guidelines for review by applicable groundwater management agencies SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT WATER YEAR Maintaining balance between recharge and production over the long-term assures sustainable basin management Sustainable Basin Management involves: • Maintaining groundwater levels within the set basin operating range • Balancing production and recharge • Managing basin pumping by annually setting the Basin Production Percentage • Maximizing recharge by increasing the efficiency of and expanding recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water • Managing water demands in cooperation with Groundwater Producers and through programs conducted by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 Acre-feet (x1000) Groundwater Production Basin Recharge Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-1 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT SECTION 10 10.1 BACKGROUND The Orange County Water District was created in 1933 in order to protect the water supplies vital for recharging the Orange County Groundwater Basis over the long-term. Water demands were growing, not only in Orange County, but also in the rest of the watershed. Groundwater production was increasing at the same time as flows in the Santa Ana River were declining. Between the District’s creation in 1933 and the 1950s, increased pumping from the basin outpaced the rate of recharge. Groundwater levels dropped and seawater intrusion into coastal areas threatened the basin’s water quality. It became apparent that natural recharge and increased capture of storm flows were insufficient. Purchasing imported water for groundwater recharge was deemed necessary. However, the District’s reliance on ad valorem taxes would not provide the resources needed to purchase of the large quantities of imported water needed to replenish the basin. Groundwater producers agreed to a strategy of managing the basin as a common pool of water rather than allocating individual basin water rights. OCWD adopted a management plan allowing all producers to pump as much as they wanted provided they pay for the costs of replenishing the basin with imported water. In 1954, the District Act was amended to establish a charge to pump groundwater. Each producer was required to register wells with OCWD, maintain records of amount withdrawn during the year and pay a Replenishment Assessment in proportion to the amount of extracted groundwater. The Act now included a requirement that OCWD prepare an annual Engineer’s Report documenting the amount of production and replenishment achieved in the prior year, a determination of how much water could be safely pumped from the basin in the coming year and an estimate of the amount of imported water needed to maintain groundwater supplies and refill the basin. Shortly after the Replenishment Assessment was instituted, OCWD embarked on an aggressive effort to refill the basin. From 1954 to 1964, OCWD imported and recharged a total of 1.3 million acre-feet of water. Over time, OCWD’s knowledge of the hydrogeology of the basin improved with data collected from the ever-growing number of production and monitoring wells as well as experience with operating recharge facilities and seawater intrusion barriers. One of the primary objectives continued to be managing the basin within a safe operating range. The current policy of maintaining a groundwater storage level of between 100,000 to 500,000 acre-feet below full was established based on completion of a comprehensive hydrogeological study of the basin in 2007 (OCWD, 2007). Today, OCWD is able to support increased demands Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-2 from the basin by maximizing the amount of water recharged, developing new sources of recharge water, and increasing the effectiveness of the District’s recharge facilities. 10.2 BASIN OPERATING RANGE Within the Orange County Groundwater Basin, there is an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water in storage (OCWD, 2007). In spite of the large amount of stored water, there is a narrow operating range within which the Basin can safely operate. The safe operating range is largely dictated by water quality issues, particularly seawater intrusion and the need to prevent land subsidence. The factors that are considered in determining the optimum level of basin storage are shown in Table 10-1. Each year the District determines the optimum level of storage for the following year. Issues that are evaluated when considering the management of the basin at the lower end of the safe operating range are the risk of land subsidence, inflow of amber-colored water or poor quality groundwater into the Principal Aquifer from underlying or overlying aquifers, and the number of shallow production wells that would become inoperable due to lower groundwater levels. When operating the basin at a high storage level, the amount of energy required to pump groundwater is less but groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County is greater. As explained above, OCWD does not limit pumping from the groundwater basin. Instead, basin storage and total pumping is managed using financial incentives to encourage Producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable over the long-term. The process that determines a sustainable level of pumping considers the basin’s safe operating range, basin storage conditions, water demands, and the amount of recharge water available to the District. The basin is managed to avoid groundwater elevations dropping to levels that result in negative or adverse impacts. Negative or adverse impacts that are considered when establishing the safe operating range include chronic groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the long-term, increased seawater intrusion, significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses, and increased pumping costs, as illustrated in Figure 10-1. The basin’s storage level is quantified based on a benchmark defined as the full basin condition. Although the groundwater basin rarely reaches the full basin condition, basin storage has fluctuated within the safe operating range for many decades. The degree to which the storage is below the full basin condition is defined in the District Act as the “accumulated overdraft.” The District’s annual Engineer’s Report includes a determination of the “annual overdraft” and the “accumulated overdraft as of the last day of the preceding water year,” the total groundwater production, and a recommendation of the quantity of water to be purchased for replenishment. The accumulated overdraft is a calculation of the difference between groundwater production and recharge over the long-term. Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-3 Table 10-1: Benefits and Constraints of Changing Storage Levels Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition in acre-feet) Benefits Constraints Less than 200,000 • Improve control of seawater intrusion • Lower cost to pump groundwater • Maintain stable BPP; potential to increase BPP • Increase supply of water for pumping in dry years • Decrease potential for vertical migration of poor quality water • Increase groundwater flow to Los Angeles County • Possible impacts of high groundwater levels in local areas • Decrease opportunity to recharge basin when low-cost recharge water available 200,000 - 350,000 • Minimal to no impacts from high groundwater levels • Increase available storage capacity when recharge water available • Decrease groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County • Reduced amount of water in storage for pumping during drought • Increase risk of seawater intrusion 350,000 to 500,000 • Minimal to no problems with high groundwater levels • Increased available storage capacity if large amount of recharge water becomes available • Further decrease in groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County • Reduce supply of water in storage available for dry years • Increase pumping costs • Increase risk of seawater intrusion • Some production wells inoperable when groundwater levels below 400,000 acre-feet • Potential risk of increased land subsidence • Potential increased risk of vertical migration of poor quality water • Need to increase purchase of imported water • Difficult to maintain stable BPP The available storage space is the amount of available storage space below the full basin condition. The operating range of the basin is from zero to 500,000 acre-feet below the full basin condition. Maintaining the basin storage condition on a long-term basis within this operating range prevents the basin from becoming adversely over-drafted. Short-term excursions from the operating range due to extreme drought or other factors are not expected to cause adverse impacts but would need to be monitoring closely and be of limited duration. In the California Water Plan Update 2013 this manner of groundwater basin management is described as follows: “Change in groundwater storage is the difference in stored groundwater volume between two time periods…However, declining storage over a period characterized by average hydrologic conditions does not necessarily mean Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-4 that the basin is being managed unsustainably or is subject to conditions of overdraft. Utilization of groundwater in storage during years of diminishing surface water supply, followed by active recharge of the aquifer when surface water or other alternative supplies become available, is a recognized and acceptable approach to conjunctive water management.” (CWP, p. SC-77)2 Because OCWD has the means to manage basin storage within a safe operating range, and has operated the basin within this range for decades, overdraft in the traditional sense does not exist in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. For this reason, it makes more sense to refer to the storage condition of the basin, similar to the manner of describing storage in a surface water reservoir. With approximately 66,000,000 acre-feet of water in storage at the full condition, when storage levels are decreased by 200,000 acre-feet, the basin is approximately 99.7 percent full. When storage levels decrease from 200,000 to 400,000 acre-feet, the basin is 99.4 percent full. From a classical surface water reservoir perspective, the basin is almost always nearly “full.” 2 This is in contrast to the traditional condition of “overdraft” as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR): ”.. the condition of a groundwater basin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping over the long term exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin. Overdraft is characterized by groundwater levels that decline over a period of years and never fully recover, even in wet years. Overdraft can lead to increased extraction costs, land subsidence, water quality degradation, and environmental impacts.” (DWR, 2003) DWR Bulletin 118, Chapter 1 – California’s Hidden Resource, p.29 Figure 10-1: Schematic Illustration of Impacts of Changing the Amount of Groundwater in Storage Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-5 10.3 BALANCING PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Over the long-term, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In one particular year, water withdrawals may exceed water recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years since production and water recharged exceeds withdrawals. Levels of total basin production and total water recharged since water year 1999-00 are shown in Figure 10-2 and Table 10-2. Notes: (1) “Imported Water” includes water purchased by OCWD for recharge and water recharged under both the MWD Conjunctive Use Program (CUP) and the in-lieu program. (2) “Production” includes water produced from the basin by groundwater producers and under the MWD CUP program. Figure 10-2: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY 1999-00 to 2013-14 Table 10-2: Groundwater Production and Recharge Sources (afy) Water Year Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater Production 1999-00 150,000 39,000 6,000 78,000 82,000 341,000 2000-01 153,000 29,000 2,000 96,000 50,000 334,000 2001-02 150,000 12,000 4,000 67,000 38,000 337,000 2002-03 154,000 64,000 4,000 109,000 58,000 291,000 2003-04 146,000 37,000 2,000 88,000 59,000 285,000 2004-05 149,000 96,000 4,000 95,000 159,000 244,000 2005-06 153,000 82,000 4,000 109,000 39,000 228,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater ProductionAcre-feet (x1000) Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-6 Water Year Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater Production 2006-07 133,000 39,000 400 111,000 14,000 299,000 2007-08 122,000 61,000 18,000 15,000 46,000 366,000 2008-09 106,000 52,000 55,000 33,000 68,000 346,000 2009-10 103,000 59,000 67,000 22,000 83,000 309,000 2010-11 104,000 78,000 67,000 36,000 95,000 260,000 2011-12 95,000 32,000 72,000 90,000 27,000 241,000 2012-13 85,000 18,000 73,000 41,000 20,000 309,000 2013-14 65,000 25,000 66,000 53,000 31,000 339,000 10.4 MANAGING BASIN PUMPING Approximately 200 large-capacity municipal supply wells account for 97 percent of basin production. Agricultural production accounts for a small amount of basin pumping. In 2014, privately owned irrigation wells produced a total of 1,298 acre-feet of water from the basin. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The ability to assess the BPP and the BEA were provided to the District through an amendment to the District Act in 1969. Section 31.5 of the District Act empowers the Board to annually establish the BPP, defined as: “the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies with the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the District from supplemental sources as well as from groundwater within the District. “ In other words, the BPP is a percentage of each Producer’s water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). Any production above the BPP is charged the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA). The BEA is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production above the BPP is equivalent to the cost of purchasing imported potable supplies. This approach serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP. The BEA can be increased as needed to discourage production above the BPP. In simplified terms, the BPP is calculated by dividing groundwater production by total water demands. The BPP is set after evaluating groundwater storage conditions, availability of recharge water supplies and basin management objectives. OCWD’s goal is to set the BPP as high as possible to allow Producers to maximize pumping and reduce their overall water supply cost. Figure 10-3 shows the history of the assigned BPP along with the actual BPP that was achieved by the Producers. Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-7 Figure 10-3: Assigned and Actual Basin Production Percentage To change the BPP, the Board of Directors must hold a public hearing. Raising or lowering the BPP allows the District to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. The BPP is lowered when basin conditions necessitate a decrease in pumping. A lower BPP results in the need for Producers to purchase additional, more expensive imported water. One example of a condition that could require a lowering of the BPP is to protect the basin from seawater intrusion. In this case, reduced pumping would allow groundwater levels to recover and seawater intrusion to be reduced. 10.4.1 Methodology for Setting the Basin Production Percentage The formula used to estimate the BPP is shown in Figure 10-4. The formula is used as a guideline and the District’s Board of Directors sets the BPP after considering the relevant information and input from the Producers and the public. To determine the BPP for a given year, the amount of water available for basin recharge must be estimated. The supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: • Santa Ana River stormflow • Natural incidental recharge • Santa Ana River baseflow • GWRS supplies • Other supplies such as imported water and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1992-93 1997-98 2002-03 2007-08 2012-13 Water Year OCWD Assigned Basin Production Percentage Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-8 Figure 10-4: BPP Calculation 10.4.2 BPP Policy The Board of Directors has several policy considerations that may be considered as the BPP is determined annually. For example, the Groundwater Producers generally prefer that the BPP be changed gradually, rather than abruptly changing the BPP from year-to-year. In some situations however, the Board may need to consider lowering the BPP such as in response to relatively low groundwater storage levels. In 2013, the Board of Directors adopted a policy to establish a stable Basin Production Percentage (BPP) with the intention to work toward achieving and maintaining a 75% BPP by fiscal year 2015-16. Principles of this policy include: • The District sets a goal for achieving a stable 75% BPP, while maintaining the same process of setting the BPP on an annual basin, with the BPP set in April of each year after holding a public hearing and based upon the public hearing testimony, presented data and reports provided at that time. • The District would endeavor to transition to the 75% BPP between 2013 and 2015 as construction of the GWRS Initial Expansion project is completed. This project will provide an additional 31,000 acre-feet per year of water to recharge the groundwater basin. • The District must sustainably manage the groundwater basin for future generations. If future conditions warrant, the BPP will be reduced. • Projects and programs to achieve the 75% BPP goal will be individually reviewed and assessed for their economic viability. Economical projects and programs that could support a BPP above 75% also would be considered. Santa Ana River Stormflows Natural Incidental Recharge Santa Ana River Baseflows Expected MWD Imported Water Expected GWR System Supplies Other expected supplies such as Alamitos Barrier Expected WQ pumping above BPP Planned Basin Refill BPP = + + - - Total Water Demands Expected Reclaimed & Local Supplies - + + + Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-9 The groundwater basin’s storage levels would be managed to support the 75% BPP policy. As long as the storage levels remained between 100,000 and 300,000 acre-feet from full, there would be a presumption that the BPP would not be decreased. Table 10-3 shows the management actions to be used to guide the District in setting the BPP. As the BPP is annually set in April for the following fiscal year, the change in basin storage would be estimated for the end of that current fiscal year (as of June 30th). Table 10-3: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition) Basin Management Actions to Consider Less than 100,000 acre-feet Raise BPP 100,000 to 300,000 acre-feet Maintain and/or raise BPP towards 75% Goal 300,000 to 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin and/or lower the BPP Greater than 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin & lower the BPP An alternative approach to managing the BPP would be to keep the groundwater basin relatively full and allow the BPP to vary more significantly, with the goal of baseloading off the MWD system during wet and near-normal years. This approach would maximize purchases of treated MWD water in wet and near-normal years and maintain groundwater in storage for future drought periods. By keeping the basin relatively full during wet years and for as long as possible in years with near-normal recharge, the maximum amount of groundwater could be maintained in storage for future drought conditions. This approach would be most successful if MWD had a program to provide recharge water at a discounted rate in wet periods, such that the basin could be operated conjunctively with supplies from MWD. Availability of discounted recharge water from MWD would incentivize projects to maximize recharge capacity during wet years. If MWD does not develop a program to offer discounted recharge water, this alternative would need to be restructured. Another approach to managing the BPP would be to keep the groundwater basin relatively full and allow the BPP to vary more significantly depending upon local hydrologic conditions, in the absence of discounted recharge water from MWD. During dry hydrologic years, less water would be recharged into the groundwater basin. The BPP would need to be lowered to maintain groundwater storage levels. Thus, the Groundwater Producers would need to purchase increased amounts of full service, treated MWD water. During locally wet hydrologic years, more local water supply water would be recharged into the groundwater basin, the BPP could be increased and the Groundwater Producers would purchase less MWD water. The BPP could annually change by over 10% under this type of operation. However the District could always ensure that the groundwater basin remained relatively full for emergency events and/or those years when imported water was being allocated. Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-10 At the beginning of 2015, the District committed to MWDOC to purchase 650,000 acre-feet of imported water to recharge the basin over a ten-year time period. This amount of imported water for recharge into the basin will help maintain the BPP and assist the District with managing the basin storage level within the safe operating range. The District works to maintain a Water Reserve Fund to purchase imported water from MWD. Each year, a specific amount of money is budgeted to purchase imported water and, if water is not available from MWD, the funds are carried over to the next year in the Water Reserve Fund. 10.4.3 Basin Production Limitation Another management tool that enables OCWD to sustainably manage the basin is the Basin Production Limitation. Section 31.5(g) (7) of the District Act authorizes limitations on production and the setting of surcharges when those limits are exceeded. This provision can be used when it is necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. An example of this is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifts pumping from the coastal area to inland to minimize seawater intrusion, when necessary. 10.5 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES One of OCWD’s basin management objectives is to maximize groundwater recharge. This is achieved through increasing the efficiency of and expanding the District’s recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water, as described in detail in Section 5. Construction and operation of the GWRS provides a substantial increase in supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional District supply management programs include encouraging and using recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, and working with MWD and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. Use of Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation OCWD’s Green Acres Project is a non-potable recycled water supply project that utilizes a dedicated set of pipelines to deliver irrigation and industrial water to users. Most of the recycled water is used on golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries. The Green Acres Project, in operation since 1991, reduces demands on the basin by providing non-potable water for non- potable uses. Secondary wastewater effluent from the OCSD is filtered and disinfected with chlorine to produce approximately seven mgd of irrigation and industrial water. A portion of Green Acres Project water is also supplied by Irvine Ranch Water District. The average amount of water supplied through the Green Acres Project system is 7,300 afy. Areas supplied by the recycled water are shown in Figure 10-5. Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-11 Conjunctive Use and Water Transfers MWD purchased the right to use up to 66,000 acre-feet of storage space in the groundwater basin. The money provided by MWD was used to improve basin management facilities. The improvements contributed by MWD included the construction of eight new extraction wells and new injection wells for the Talbert Barrier. Any stored water can be extracted at a minimum of 22,000 afy. The District reviews opportunities for additional conjunctive use projects that would store water in the basin and could potentially store water in other groundwater basins. Additionally, the District reviews opportunities for water transfers that could provide additional sources of recharge water. Such projects are evaluated carefully with respect to their impact on available storage and their reliability and cost effectiveness. 10.6 REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS TO CONJUNCTIVE USE Conjunctive use is the coordinated management of surface and groundwater supplies to increase the yield of both supplies and enhance water reliability in an economic and environmentally responsible manner. Impediments to conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies in Orange County are outlined in Table 10-4. Table 10-4: Conjunctive Use Impediments and Opportunities IMPEDIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENT Declining Santa Ana River base flow reduces supply of water available to recharge groundwater basin. (flows declined from WY 1998-99 high of 158,600 acre-feet to WY 2013-14 low of 64,900 acre-feet Operation of GWRS provides new source of recharge to replace decline in river flows. OCWD maintains water purchase reserve account for flexibility to purchase imported water in large quantities when available Presence of Quagga Mussels in Colorado River water limits ability to recharge only in basins that can be desiccated on a regular basis to control their spread and to protect water supply infrastructure. Recharge operations planned to use Colorado River water in basins that can readily be dewatered to control the spread of Quagga Mussels Investigate potential to treat Colorado River water for Quagga, thereby increasing locations where this water can be recharged Figure 10-5: Areas Supplied by GAP Water Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-12 IMPEDIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENT Limited imported water supply increases demands on groundwater supplies & supply to recharge groundwater basin Operation of GWRS provides new source of water to replace imported water when imported supplies are unavailable Managing the groundwater basin within operating safe yield allows for water storage in basin in wet years for use during dry years when imported water deliveries are reduced Fine-grained sediment in Santa Ana River water causes clogging of recharge basins requiring frequent basin cleanings; basins are unavailable for infiltration when being cleaned Cleanings scheduled to minimize chance of losing stormflows to the ocean OCWD research programs are testing methods to reduce the amount of sediment that accumulates in recharge basins, thereby increasing system recharge capacity Flashy storms produce river flows that overwhelm recharge system; OCWD is unable to capture all stormflows, resulting in loss of potential water supply. OCWD is working with the Corps to change operation of Prado Dam to allow increased temporary storage of stormflows behind dam to allow for greater capture in recharge basins and minimize losses to the ocean. The MWD does not allow local groundwater to be pumped into its system. Work with MWD to determine its requirements to pump groundwater into its system. 10.7 WATER DEMANDS Water demands within the District’s boundaries for water year (WY) 2013-14 totaled approximately 449,000 acre-feet. Total demand includes the use of groundwater, surface water from Santiago Creek and Irvine Lake, recycled water, and imported water. As shown in Figure 10-7, water demands between WY1989-90 to WY2013-14 have fluctuated between approximately 413,000 afy to 515,000 afy. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1993-94 1997-98 2001-02 2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 Water Year Water Demand (in 1,000 acre-feet) Figure 10-6: Historic Total District Water Demands Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-13 10.7.1 Projected Water Demands Numerous factors impact water demands, such as population growth, economic conditions, conservation programs, and hydrologic conditions. Estimates of future demands are, therefore, subject to some uncertainty and need updating on a periodic basis. Demand projections within the District’s service area are based on Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP), which each Producer prepares to support their long-term resources planning to ensure that adequate supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Estimated future water demands within OCWD boundaries are shown in Table 10-5 with a breakdown by individual Producer’s shown in Table 10-6.The California Department of Water Resources requires that the UWMP’s be updated every five years. One of the key factors influencing water demand is population growth. Population within OCWD’s service area is expected to increase from approximately the current 2.38 million to 2.54 million by 2035 as shown in Table 10-7. Table 10-5: Estimated Future Water Demands in OCWD Service Area (afy)* 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 442,048 462,805 483,563 504,321 525,079 *Projections based on annual MWDOC survey completed by each Producer Table 10-6: Projected Total Water Demands (afy) Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Anaheim 67,795 70,271 72,747 75,224 77,700 Buena Park 15,633 16,700 17,766 18,833 19,900 East Orange County Water District 1,045 1,059 1,073 1,086 1,100 Fountain Valley 11,438 11,120 10,801 10,483 10,165 Fullerton 29,093 30,018 30,942 31,867 32,792 Garden Grove 26,316 27,463 28,611 29,759 30,907 Golden State Water Company 28,003 29,196 30,389 31,581 32,774 Huntington Beach 30,394 31,460 32,526 33,591 34,657 Irvine Ranch Water District 63,447 69,587 75,728 81,868 88,008 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-14 Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 La Palma 2,246 2,370 2,494 2,618 2,742 Mesa Water District 20,848 20,561 20,274 19,987 19,700 Newport Beach 16,509 17,001 17,492 17,983 18,474 Orange 31,723 32,471 33,218 33,966 34,713 Santa Ana 40,480 42,960 45,440 47,920 50,400 Seal Beach 3,807 4,075 4,344 4,612 4,880 Serrano Water District 3,165 3,087 3,008 2,930 2,852 Tustin 12,561 13,219 13,878 14,536 15,194 Westminster 12,477 12,442 12,407 12,372 12,337 Yorba Linda Water District 17,193 19,841 22,489 25,136 27,784 Non-Producers* 7,875 7,906 7,937 7,969 8,000 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 442,048 462,805 483,563 504,321 525,079 *Includes pumping by small system, private, domestic, irrigation, mutual water companies, and groundwater remediation systems. Table 10-7: Projected Population within OCWD Boundaries 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2,376,929 2,442,790 2,487,780 2,535,627 2,539,154 Source: MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2014) 10.7.2 Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Programs Water conservation plays an important role in meeting future water demands. By implementing conservation programs, future water demand can be reduced, and less imported water will be necessary to meet the area’s water requirements. The District cooperated with MWDOC, OCSD, and other agencies in a Low-Flush Toilet Program that subsidized the replacement of old high-volume toilets with modern low-flow toilets. The District also supported MWDOC and MWD in a Hotel/Motel Water Conservation Program to save water through minimizing water use at hotels. This program offered free laminated towel Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-15 rack hangers or bed cards that encourage guests to consider using their towels and bed linens more than once during their stay. OCWD supported MWDOC and other local agencies in a similar program aimed at restaurant water conservation. Free laminated cards were provided for restaurants to place on their tables. The cards inform patrons that water will be served only upon request. This encourages environmental awareness and water and energy conservation. OCWD is a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) and prepares an annual report of the District’s Best Management Practices related to water conservation and water-use efficiency. OCWD’s Green Acres Project (GAP) provides recycled water for landscape irrigation for customers in the vicinity of the District administrative offices in Fountain Valley. The Arundo removal program is a unique water conservation program, as described in Section 9.2. Arundo is an invasive plant that spreads quickly and crowds out native vegetation. Because this plant uses significantly more water than native species, its removal along the Santa Ana River in the watershed has resulted in an additional yield of supply available for groundwater recharge. The over 4,500 acres of Arundo that have been cleared is estimated to increase yield in the river of a minimum of 15,000 acre-feet of water each year. 10.8 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT Drought is an extended period of below-average precipitation. There is no single, official definition of the time period associated with a drought. The magnitude of a drought depends on the extent of the deviation from average precipitation, the areal extent of the below-average precipitation and other factors. During a drought, flexibility to manage pumping from the basin becomes increasingly important. The District typically experiences a decline in the supply of recharge water (local supply of Santa Ana River water and net incidental recharge) of up to 55,000 afy or more during drought. To the extent that the basin has water in storage that can be pumped out, the basin provides a valuable water supply asset during drought conditions. Ensuring that the basin can provide a buffer against drought conditions requires: • Maintaining sufficient water in storage that can be pumped out in time of need; • Having a reserve account with sufficient funds to purchase imported water to recharge the basin when needed; • Operating the basin at the lower storage levels in a safe manner; and • Possessing a plan to refill the basin. A sufficient supply of stored groundwater provides a safe and reliable buffer to manage for drought periods. If the basin, for example, has an available storage level of 150,000 acre-feet and can be drawn down to 500,000 acre-feet without irreparable seawater intrusion, a supply of 350,000 acre-feet is available for increased production. In a hypothetical five-year drought, an Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-16 additional 70,000 acre-feet may be produced from the basin for five years without jeopardizing the long-term health of the basin. In addition to reducing pumping when the basin is at lower storage levels, planning for refilling the basin is important. Approaches for refilling the Basin are described in Table 10-8. Table 10-8: Approaches to Refilling the Basin APPROACH DISCUSSION Decrease Total Water Demands • Increase water conservation and water-use efficiency measures Decrease BPP • Allows groundwater levels to recover rapidly • Decreases revenue to the District • Increases water cost for producers • Does not require additional recharge facilities • Dependent upon other sources of water (e.g., imported water) being available to substitute for reduced groundwater pumping Increase Recharge • Dependent on increased supply of recharge water • Water transfers and exchanges could be utilized to provide the increased supply of recharge water • Dependent on building and maintaining excess recharge capacity (which may be under-utilized in non-drought years) Combination of the Above • A combination of the approaches provides flexibility and a range of options for refilling the basin 10.9 RECORD KEEPING District staff prepare detailed reports on a monthly basis that account for basin inflows (imported water recharged, infiltration in recharge basins, estimates of incidental recharge and evaporation, and river flow loss to the ocean) and outflows (groundwater production and storage program withdrawals); change in groundwater storage; total water demands; precipitation; GWRS production; and water levels in the area of the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier. An example of a monthly report can be found in Appendix F. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT • District managed to maintain high credit ratings • Reserves maintained to purchase imported water • Revenues from Replenishment Assessments, Basin Equity Assessments, Property Taxes and Grants District Headquarters in Fountain Valley Section 11 Financial Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SECTION 11 11.1 BACKGROUND The District manages its finances to provide long-term fiscal stability. To achieve this objective OCWD: • Manages finances to maintain high credit ratings; • Manages District operations efficiently and effectively; • Maintains reserves for purchase of imported water supplies when available. • Recovers contamination cleanup costs from responsible parties when possible; • Sets the Basin Production Percentage; and • Sets the RA and BEA at levels that fund District activities and encourage adherence to the BPP. The District’s fiscal year (FY) begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The annual operating budget and expected revenues for 2013-14 were approximately $134.4 million. 11.2 OPERATING EXPENSES The District’s budgeted operating expenses for FY 2014-15 are summarized in Table 11.1 and described below. Table 11-1: FY 2014-15 Budget Operating Expenses Expenses Amount (in millions) General Fund $55.5 Total Debt Service 32.8 Water Purchases 26.3 New Equipment/ Small Projects 0.7 Retiree Health Trust 1.3 Refurbishment and Replacement Transfer 12.8 Total $134.4 11.2.1 General Fund The District’s general fund account primarily allows the District to operate the recharge facilities in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, GWRS, the Talbert and Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barriers, the Green Acres Project, and the Prado Wetlands. In addition, the District’s Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, groundwater monitoring programs, watershed management, planning, and other miscellaneous activities are funded by this account. Section 11 Financial Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-2 11.2.2 Debt Service The debt service budget provides for repayment of the District’s debt from issues of previous bonds. OCWD has a comprehensive long-range debt program, which provides for the funding of projects necessary to increase basin production and protect water quality, while providing predictable impacts to the RA. The District holds very high credit ratings of AAA from Standard & Poor’s, AAA from Fitch, along with an Aa1 rating from Moody’s. Because of these excellent credit ratings, OCWD is able to borrow money at a substantially reduced cost. 11.2.3 Water Purchases The District Act authorizes OCWD to purchase imported water for groundwater recharge to sustain groundwater pumping levels and refill the basin. As described in Section 5, imported water is purchased from MWD for recharge in the surface water recharge system. This fund provides the flexibility to purchase water when such supplies are available. The Board of Directors can allocate funds to the Water Reserve Fund so that funds may accumulate in reserve in preparation for water purchases in future years. 11.2.4 New Capital Equipment This category includes equipment items such as laboratory equipment, vehicles, fax machines, tools, computers, and software. These items are expensed and funded using current revenues. 11.2.5 Refurbishment and Replacement Fund OCWD has over $908 million in existing plant and fixed assets. These facilities were constructed to provide a safe and reliable water supply. The Replacement and Refurbishment Fund was established to ensure that sufficient funds are available to repair and replace existing District infrastructure, such as pumps, heavy equipment wells and water recycling facilities. 11.3 OPERATING REVENUES Expected operating revenues for FY 2014-15 are shown in Table 12-2 and described below. Table 11-2: FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues Revenues Amount (in millions) Replenishment Assessments $95.7 Basin Equity Assessment 1.8 Property Taxes 21.5 LRP for GAP & GWRS 8.8 Other Miscellaneous Revenue 6.6 Total $134.4 Section 11 Financial Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-3 11.3.1 Replenishment Assessments The RA is paid for all water pumped out of the basin. The District invoices Producers for their production in July and January. The amount of revenue generated by the RA is directly related to the amount of groundwater production. The BEA is assessed annually for all groundwater production above the BPP. 11.3.2 Property Taxes The District receives a small percentage of property taxes, also referred to as ad valorem taxes, collected in the service area. The County of Orange assesses and collects these taxes and transmits them to the District at various times during the year. This revenue source has been dedicated to the District’s annual debt service expense. 11.3.3 Other Miscellaneous Revenue Cash reserves generate interest revenues. The majority of cash reserves are invested in short- term securities. Miscellaneous revenues are primarily comprised of water sales from the Green Acres Project and loan repayments. The loan repayments originate from the Conjunctive Use Well Program in which the District loaned Producers money at low interest rates for construction of new production wells and related facilities. In addition, numerous small items such as rents, subsidies and minor fees are grouped in this account. 11.4 RESERVES The District maintains cash reserves to ensure its financial integrity so that the basin can be successfully managed and protected. Cash reserves ensure that: • OCWD has sufficient funds for cash flow purposes; • Funds are available for unexpected events such as contamination issues; • Funds are available to make necessary replacements and repairs to infrastructure; • OCWD has access to debt programs with low interest cost; • A financial hedge is available to manage variable rate debt; and • Funds are available to purchase MWD water when available. 11.4.1 Reserve Policies The District has reserve policies, which establish reserves in the following categories: • Operating reserves • The Replacement and Refurbishment Program • The Toxic Cleanup Reserve • Contingencies required by the District Act • Bond reserve covenants Section 11 Financial Management OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-4 11.4.2 Operating Reserves This reserve category helps the District maintain sufficient funds for cash flow purposes and helps sustain the District’s excellent credit rating. Maintaining this reserve, which is set at 15 percent of the operating budget, is particularly important because the principal source of revenue, the RA, is only collected twice a year. Payments for significant activities, such as replenishment water purchases, are typically required on a monthly basis. The reserve provides the financial “bridge” to meet the District’s financial obligations on a monthly basis. 11.4.3 Replacement and Refurbishment Program The District maintains a Replacement and Refurbishment Fund to provide the financial resources for replacement and/or repair of the District capital assets. These assets include treatment facilities, monitoring and injection wells, and treatment facilities. The fund balance at the end of FY 2014 was approximately $ 73 million. 11.4.4 Toxic Cleanup Reserve Funds are reserved in this account to be used in the event that a portion of the basin becomes threatened by contamination. Over two million residents in the District rely on the basin as their primary source of water. Approximately $4 million was available in this reserve fund at the end of FY 2013-14 to allow the District to respond, immediately, to contamination threats in the basin. 11.4.5 General Contingencies Section 17.1 of the District Act requires the allocation of funds to cover annual expenditures that have not been provided for or that have been insufficiently provided for and for unappropriated requirements. 11.4.6 Debt Service Account Restricted funds in this account have been set aside by the bonding institutions as a requirement to ensure financial solvency and to help guarantee repayment of any debt issuances. These funds cannot be used for any other purpose. The requirement varies from year to year depending on the District’s debt issuance and outstanding state loans. 11.4.7 Capital Improvement Projects Capital Improvement Projects The District prepares a Capital Improvements Project budget to support basin production by increasing recharge capacity and operational flexibility, protecting the coastal portion of the basin, and providing water quality improvement. REFERENCES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Section 12 References OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-1 REFERENCES SECTION 12 Alley, William M., 1984, Another Water Budget Myth: The Significance of Recoverable Ground Water in Storage, Ground Water, National Ground Water Association, 2006. Banks, Harvey O., Consulting Engineer, Groundwater Management, Irvine Area, Orange County, California, prepared for the Orange County Water District. Bawden, Gerald W., Wayne Thatcher, Ross S. Stein, Ken W. Hudnut, and Gilles Peltzer Tectonic Contraction Across Los Angeles After Removal of Groundwater Pumping Effects, Nature, Vol. 412, pp. 812-815, 2001. Bawden, G.W. 2003. Separating ground-water and hydrocarbon-induced surface deformation from geodetic tectonic contraction measurements across metropolitan Los Angeles, California. In K.R. Prince and Galloway, D.L., eds., U.S. Geological Survey subsidence interest group conference, proceedings of the technical meeting, Galveston, Texas, November 27-29, 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-308. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr03-308/. Blomquist, William, 1992, Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Southern California, Center for Self-Governance, San Francisco. Boyle Engineering Corporation and Orange County Water District, 1997, Coastal Groundwater Management Investigation. California Department of Public Health (CDPH), 2013. Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Draft Regulation, March 28, 2013. California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, 1934, South Coastal Basin Investigation, Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill, Bulletin No. 45. California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Ground Water Basin Protection Project: Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, Bulletin No. 147-1. ***** 1966. Bulletin No. 147-1, Ground Water Basin Protection Projects, Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, 178 p. ***** 1967, Progress Report on the Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. ***** 1968, Sea-Water Intrusion: Bolsa-Sunset Area, Orange County, Bulletin No. 63-2, pp. 186. ***** 1989, Southern District, Analysis of Aquifer-System Compaction in the Orange County Ground Water Basin, prepared for Orange County Water District. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB). 2004. Order No.R8-2004-0002 , Producer/User Water Recycling Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Orange County Water District Interim Water Factory 21 and Section 12 References OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-2 Groundwater Replenishment System Groundwater Recharge and Reuse at Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Kraemer/Miller Basins. March 12, 2004. _____, 2008, Order No. R8-2008-0058 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., 2000, Groundwater Replenishment System, Project Development Phase – Development Information Memorandum No. 9A, Barrier System Modeling/Design Criteria, 100% Submittal, prepared for Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. ***** 2003, Talbert Gap Model Refinement Report, prepared for Orange County Water District. CH2MHill, 2006, Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance the Lower Chino Creek Watershed, prepared for Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Clark, J. F., Hudson G.B, Davisson, M.L., Woodside, G., and Roy Herndon, 2004, Geochemical Imaging of Flow Near an Artificial Recharge Facility, Orange County, California. Ground Water. Vol 42, 2, 167-174. Clark, Jordan F. 2009. The 2008 Kraemer Basin Tracer Experiment Final Report, Jordan F.Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara. August 7, 2009. Dasgupta. P.K., et al. 2005. The origin of naturally occurring perchlorate: The role of atmospheric processes. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 1569-1575. DDBE, Inc. 2009. Demonstration Mid-Basin Injection Project Plan, December, 2009. Fairchild, F.B. and Wiebe, K.H. 1976. Subsidence of organic soils and salinity barrier design in coastal Orange County, California. In A.I. Johnson, ed., Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Anaheim, California, December 13– 17,1976, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 121, 334-346. Foubister, Vida. 2006. Analytical Chemistry, December 1, 2006, pages 7914-7915. Golder Associates Inc., 2009, Santa Ana River Bed Sediment Gradation Characterization Study: Phase III, prepared for the Orange County Water District. Happel, A. M., Beckenback, E. H., and Halden, R. U., 1998, An evaluation of MTBE impacts to California groundwater resources (UCRL-AR-130897), Livermore, CA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, M.G., 1996. User’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-485, 56 p. Hardt, William F. and E. H. Cordes, 1971, Analysis of Ground-Water System in Orange County, California by Use of an Electrical Analog Model, USGS Open-File Report. Section 12 References OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-3 Harley, et al, 1999, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. ***** 2001, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. 2005. Perchlorate: Overview of Issues, Status, and Remedial Options. Perchlorate-1. Washington D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Perchlorate Team. Available on the internet at http://www.itrcweb.org Irvine Ranch Water District, May 1994, Organic Removal Testing Pilot Program. Kolpin, et al, 2002, Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance, Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 1202-1211. Leake, S.A. and Prudic, D.E., 1991. Documentation of a computer program to simulate aquifer- system compaction using the modular finite-difference ground-water flow model, U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 6, Chapter A2 Appendix C: Time-Variant Specified-Head Package. McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 6, A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model. McGillicuddy, Kevin B., 1989, Ground Water Underflow Beneath Los Angeles-Orange County Line, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salinity Management Study, 1999. ***** Raw Water Discharge Plan Mills, William R. and Associates, Hydrogeology of the Yorba Linda Subarea and Impacts from Proposed Class III Landfills, prepared for the Orange County Water District, 1987. Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1974, Bolsa Chica Mesa Water Quality Study, prepared for Orange County Water District. ***** 1977, La Habra Basin Ground Water Study, prepared for City of La Habra, California. National Research Council. Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion. 2005. National Water Research Institute, 2000, Treatment Technologies for Removal of MTBE from Drinking Water: Air Stripping, Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, Synthetic Resin Sorbents, Second Edition. ***** 2013, Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel, OCWD’s Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study. ***** 2014, Final Report of the November 12, 2013 Meeting of the Independent Advisory Panel on Reviewing the Orange County Water District’s Santa Ana River Monitoring Program, prepared for the Orange County Water District, April 10, 2014. Section 12 References OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-4 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2009. http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/perchlorate05.htm. Accessed on July 7, 2009. Orange County Water District, 1994, Hydrogeology and Groundwater Production Potential in the Vicinity of Brea Creek at Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, California. ***** September 1996, Evaluation of the Orange County Colored Water Groundwater Resource: Hydrology, Water Quality and Treatment. ***** June 1997, Issues Paper – Development of the Colored Water Zone. **** 1999, 2020 Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District. ***** 1970 to 2015, Engineer’s Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization. ***** 2003, Orange County Water District Recharge Study. December 2003. ***** 2005. Board of Directors Resolution No. 05-4-40: Establishing a GWR System Buffer Area around the GWR System injection operation at the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier, April 20, 2005, Fountain Valley, California ***** 2006, OCWD Application to Appropriate Santa Ana River Water. March 2006 ***** 2007, Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy. February 2007 ***** 2014, Orange County Water District Long-Term Facilities Plan. ---------, 2014, Groundwater Replenishment System 2013 Annual Report, prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2004-0002, as amended by Order No. R8-2008-0058, June 16, 2014. Freeze, R. Allan and John A. Cherry. 1979. “Groundwater”. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 pp. Ghyben, W.B. 1888. Nota in verband met de voorgenomen putboring nabij Amsterdam. Tijdschrift van Let Koninklijk Inst. Van Ing. Herzberg, A. 1901. Die Wasserversorgung einiger Nordseebader. J. Gasbeleucht. Wasserversorg., 44, pp. 815-819. Pollack, D.W., 1994. User’s Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3: A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U. S. Geological Survey finite- difference ground-water flow model, USGS Open File Report 94-464. Poland, J. F. et al., 1956, Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California, USGS Water Supply Paper 1109. Ramsey, Robert H., 1980, Hydrogeology of La Habra Ground Water Basin, California, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Section 12 References OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-5 Santa Ana River Watermaster, 2014, Forty-Third Annual Report, Orange County Water District vs. City of Chino et al, Case No. 117628 – County of Orange. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 2002, Integrated Watershed Plan. ***** 2004, Santa Ana River Projected Flow Impacts Report, March 2004. Singer, John A., 1973, Geohydrology and Artificial-Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area, Orange County, California, USGS Open-File Report 73-264. Tan, Lo and R. G. Sudak, January 1992, Removing Color From a Groundwater Source, AWWA Journal. Urbansky, E.T., et al. 2001. Environmental Pollution: 112, pages 299-302. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1994, Water Control Manual for the Prado Dam and Reservoir, Santa Ana River. ***** 2004, Prado Basin Water Conservation Feasibility Study, Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Draft F5 Document, July 2004. U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2013, Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed, Santa Ana Watershed Basin Study, California Lower Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Environmental Resources Division (86-68200) Water Resources Planning and Operations Support Group (86-68210) Technical Services Center, Denver Colorado Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210-2013-02 U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Land Subsidence in the United States, Circular 1182. Wildermuth Environmental, August 2008, Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in the Santa Ana Watershed for the Period 1987-2006, Final Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the Basin Monitoring Task Force. **** Recent Changes in Santa Ana River Discharge, White Paper, February 16, 2010 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABFM Alamitos Barrier Flow Model ABTM Alamitos Barrier Transport Model af acre-feet afy acre-feet per year AOP advanced oxidation processes AWT advanced water treatment basin Orange County groundwater basin Basin Model OCWD groundwater model BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CDPH California Department of Public Health cfs cubic feet per second DATS Deep Aquifer Treatment System District Orange County Water District DOC dissolved organic compound DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Compounds EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY fiscal year GAC granular activated carbon GIS geographic information system GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System IAP IEUA Independent Advisory Panel Inland Empire Utilities Agency IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District LACDWP Los Angeles County Department of Power & Water maf million acre feet MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCL maximum contaminant level MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County MF microfiltration MODFLOW Computer program developed by USGS mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MTBE methyl tertiary-butylether MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA n-Nitrosodimethylamine NF nanofiltration ng/L nanograms per liter ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program NO2 nitrite NO3- Nitrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWRI National Water Research Institute O&M operations and maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OC Survey Orange County Survey OCWD Orange County Water District PCE perchloroethylene ppb less than one microgram per liter PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products Producers Orange County groundwater producers RA replenishment assessment RO reverse osmosis Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor SARMON SARWQH Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Santa Ana Regional Water Quality and Health SAWA Santa Ana Watershed Association SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBGPP South Basin Groundwater Protection Project SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOCs synthetic organic chemicals SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TCE trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids TIN total inorganic nitrogen µg/L micrograms per liter USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UV ultraviolet light VOCs volatile organic compounds WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County WEI Wildermuth Environmental Inc. WF-21 Water Factory 21 WLAM Waste Load Allocation Model WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRMS Water Resources Management System APPENDICES Appendix A Public Notices Appendix B Groundwater Management Act Mandatory and Recommended Components Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long-Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater Appendix D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy Appendix E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs Appendix F Monthly Water Resources Report APPENDIX A Public Notices Board of Directors/Water Issues Committee Agenda, February 11, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2015 Hydrospectives Newsletter, February 2015 Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Draft Plan, Affidavit of Publication OCWD Website screen shots of Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Draft Plan, April 13, 2015 Board of Director’s Water Issues Committee Agenda, April 15, 2015 Board of Director’s Minutes, April 15, 2015 Hydrospectives Newsletter, April 2015 Producers Meeting, May, 13, 2015 Board of Director’s Meeting Minutes, May 20, 2015 Comment Letter from East Orange County Water District Comment from Irvine Ranch Water District at May 20 Public Hearing OCWD Response to Comments Notice of Exemption Certification of Board Action Approving Groundwater Management Act 2015 Update AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: February 11, 2015 Budgeted: N/A Budgeted Amount: N/A To: Water Issues Committee Cost Estimate: N/A Board of Directors Funding Source: N/A Program/Line Item No.: N/A From: Mike Markus General Counsel Approval: N/A Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A Staff Contact: G. Woodside/M. Westropp CEQA Compliance: Exemption to be filed upon Board receipt of final plan Subject: OCWD GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY The District’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was last updated in 2009. Staff proposes to prepare and adopt an update to the GWMP in 2015. Updated information concerning how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin will be incorporated into the GWMP. Attachment(s): Presentation RECOMMENDATION Informational BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The District adopted its first GWMP in 1989 pursuant to authority under the District Act to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Plan updates were prepared approximately every five years with the latest update adopted in 2009. Passage of Assembly Bill 3030 in 1992 (codified in the CA Water Code Section 10750 et. seq.) directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to oversee the preparation and adoption of groundwater management plans, listed components that must be included in those plans, and required the completion of plans for agencies to be eligible to receive grants for construction of certain groundwater projects. Although the District is not regulated by Section 10750 requirements, the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan generally includes the listed elements and maintaining this consistency has allowed the District to compete for and obtain state grants. District staff initially planned to prepare an updated plan in 2014. This schedule was delayed in anticipation of passage of new state legislation regulating groundwater basins and the uncertainty of how this may affect required plan elements and adoption procedures. On September 16, 2014, the Governor signed into law the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).1 This new law provides specific authority for the establishment of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs). Included in the law is a provision designating OCWD as the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within the District’s statutory boundaries (CA Water Code Section 10723 (c) (1)). The District, therefore, does not need to become a GSA under this new authority. The SGMA also sets forth procedures and requirements to prepare and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Many of the required elements specified in the SGMA are the same as or are similar to those required for Groundwater Management Plans prepared pursuant to AB3030 such as a description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system, measurable objectives, components related to management of the basin, summary of monitoring programs, and monitoring protocols. The new law specifies additional elements such as demonstration of the achievement of sustainable groundwater management and a description of how other water resource-related plans within the basin affect basin management. The Department of Water Resources is directed to adopt emergency regulations for evaluating and implementing GSPs as well as criteria for approving alternative plans by June 2016 (CA Water Code Section 10733.2). Another provision in the newly-passed SGMA provides that instead of a GSP, an ‘alternative plan’ may be prepared and submitted.2 CA Water Code Section 10733.6 provides for approval of alternative plans where there is a demonstration that such a plan meets the requirements of “sustainable groundwater management.” District staff recommends preparing the OCWD’s GWMP including new substantive elements required for GSPs highlighting how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin. Proceeding in this manner will enable OCWD to update the GWMP in a timely manner, documenting the sustainable management of the basin, and laying the foundation for submittal of this plan as an “alternative plan.” It is hoped that preparation of OCWD’s plan at this time will inform the process of developing GSPs in other regions of the state and may assist DWR in developing regulations specifying elements required to be included in GSPs in order to achieve sustainable groundwater management. The proposed schedule for preparing and adopting the 2015 Update is shown on the following page. 1 The state legislature passed three bills SB1168, AB1739, and SB1319 that combined are commonly referred to as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 2 The statutory deadline for submittal of alternative plans is January 1, 2017. Alternative plans must be updated every five years. Task Schedule Staff provides public notice of the intention to prepare an update to the District’s GWMP February 2015 Draft plan available for review by Board, Producers, and the public March 2015 Deadline for receiving comments on draft plan April 2015 Final draft plan released May 2015 Board adopts final plan June 2015 PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) 7/15/09 M9-80: Adoption of Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WITH WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT February 11, 2015 @ 8 a.m. Water Issues Committee Chair Director Sarmiento called the meeting to order in the Boardroom of the District office located in Fountain Valley, CA. The Assistant District Secretary reported quorum of the Committee. Committee Vincent Sarmiento Denis Bilodeau (not present) Dina Nguyen (arrived 8:14 a.m.) Shawn Dewane Philip Anthony Alternates Steve Sheldon (not present) Jan Flory Harry Sidhu (not present) Roger Yoh (not present) Cathy Green OCWD Staff Mike Markus - General Manager Joel Kuperberg - General Counsel Judy-Rae Karlsen - Assistant District Secretary Darla Cirillo, Jason Dadakis, Alicia Dunkin, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Adam Hutchinson, John Kennedy, Anny Lau, Lily Sanchez, Ben Smith, Dave Mark, Chris Olsen, Alex Vue, Marsha Westropp, Greg Woodside, Lee Yoo Others Marc Marcantonio, Steve Conklin – Yorba Linda WD Phil Lauri, Paul Shoenberger– Mesa Water District Betsy Eglash, Howard Johnson – Brady Associates David Holland, Jim Mott – Agilent Technologies Don Calkins – City of Anaheim Peer Swan – Irvine Ranch Water District Scott Maloni – Poseidon Resources Brian Ragland – City of Huntington Beach Keith Lyon – Municipal Water District of Orange County Ken Vecchiarelli - Golden State Water District John Earl – Surf City Voice CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar was approved upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Flory and carried [5-0] as follows. [Yes -Sarmiento, Dewane, Anthony, Flory, Green/No – 0] 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minutes of the Water Issues Committee meeting held January 14, 2015 are approved as presented. 2. Amendment to Agreement 538 with CH2M Hill to Update Computer Model of Recharge System and Contract Extension Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 538 with CH2M HILL, for an amount not to exceed $24,472 for updates to the recharge facilities computer model and extending the contract to December 31, 2015. 2/11/15 2 3. Contract No. TAL-2014-1: Talbert Barrier West End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System - Publish Notice Inviting Bids Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize publication of Notice Inviting Bids for Contract No. TAL-2014-1: Talbert Barrier West End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System project. 4. Contract No. SC-2014-1, Santiago Pipeline Access Project: Ratify Change Orders and File Notice of Completion (GCI Construction, Inc.) Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: 1) Ratify issuance of Change Order No. 1 ($637) and Change Order No. 2 ($18,656) to GCI Construction, Inc.; and 2) Accept completion of work and authorize filing a Notice of Completion for Contract SC-2014-1, Santiago Pipeline Access Project. 5. Laboratory Renewal of Service Support Agreement to Cover Gas Chromatographs (GC) and Gas Chromatographs/ Mass Spectrometers (GC/MS) Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Purchase Order to Agilent Technologies in the amount of $100,483 for a full Support Service Agreement, with prepayment option commencing March 21, 2015; to cover specified analytical systems used within the laboratory. 6. Agreements to Habitat West and Tropical Plaza Nursery for Maintenance Services on OCWD Restoration Sites in Orange County Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Agreements to Habitat West, Inc. and Tropical Plaza Nursery Inc. for a total amount not to exceed $75,000 per year, for a three year period to provide maintenance services on habitat restoration sites in Orange County. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 7. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan Update Senior Watershed Planner Marsha Westropp reported the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was last updated in 2009 and staff was beginning the 2014 update, however the update was delayed in anticipation of the passage of the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). She advised that as a result of that legislation passing the OCWD GWMP will include elements that are also required for Groundwater Sustainability Plans and will highlight how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin. Director Nguyen arrived at 8:14 a.m. during the following discussion. 8. Prado Basin Sediment Management Demonstration Project Executive Director Greg Woodside reviewed the approach that staff has developed to bring additional information to the Board regarding the Prado Basin Sediment Management Demonstration Project and the strategy employed to reduce the project budget and secure additional grant funding and outside funding. He noted that staff will be presenting information on alternate cost saving methods for excavation/hauling, sand mining and the re-entrainment of sediment activities. Mr. Woodside advised that the project will be competitive in future rounds of grant funding decisions (Proposition 84 Round 3 and Proposition 1), therefore it would be advantageous to complete the permitting process, that OCWD Board of Directors President Cathy Green First Vice President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. Second Vice President Philip L. Anthony Shawn Dewane Jan M. Flory, ESQ. Dina L. Nguyen, ESQ. Roman Reyna Stephen R. Sheldon Harry S. Sidhu, P.E. Roger C. Yoh, P.E. General Manager Michael R. Markus P.E., D.WRE. In This Issue: President's Message – Let's Clean it Up! Welcome New Board Member Roman Reyna OC Water Summit Registration is Open Bill Dunivin...In His Own Words Water Treatment Using Engineered Wetlands Public Participation Sought for Groundwater Management Plan 2014 Tree Swallow Nesting Successful OCWD Environmental Restoration Projects 1 Million Hits on YouTube Singapore International Water Week 2014 Blue Paper Last Call for CWEF Sponsors, Presenters and Volunteers Out in the Community OCWD in the News January 2015 OCWD Employees January Tours President's Message – Let's Clean it Up! Orange County's economy thrives, in part, because of a reliable source of local water. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is charged with managing and protecting the county's groundwater basin to ensure long-term production of clean water from our local sources at the lowest possible costs. The groundwater basin is being threatened. In the North Basin, near the cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Placentia, industrial contamination has seeped into the groundwater basin and has necessitated shutting down four wells. The contamination is from improper disposal of chemical solvents and other compounds from as far back as the 1950s and 1960s. The dumping has stopped but once the pollution is in the ground, it can and usually does spread. Read More... Welcome New Board Member Roman Reyna Santa Ana City Councilman Roman Reyna has been appointed to the Orange County Water District Board of Directors to represent Division 8—Santa Ana, effective Feb. 18, 2015. He replaces Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Vincent Sarmiento, Esq., who recently served a two-year term on OCWD's Board. Read More... OC Water Summit Registration is Open Registration is now open for the 8th annual OC Water Summit, which will take place on Friday, May 15, 2015 at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort. The event draws more than 400 prominent national and state policy makers, elected officials, scientists, financial experts and business leaders. The OC Water Summit is hosted by the Orange County Water District, Disneyland Resort and Page 1of 6Orange County Water District Newsletter 6/2/2015http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-02.aspx the Municipal Water District of Orange County. To register as a participant or sponsor, visit the Orange Counter Water Summit. Bill Dunivin...In His Own Words William (Bill) R. Dunivin is a pioneer in the field of water reclamation and has dedicated his professional career, spanning 40 years, to advancing the field of water reuse and serving the public as an employee of the Orange County Water District. During his four decades of service—the longest of any OCWD employee, Bill has had direct involvement and oversight in the planning, operation and maintenance of the District's world-renowned recycling facilities. We were curious about Bill, the changes that have taken place at OCWD over the years and Bill's observations. Read More... Water Treatment Using Engineered Wetlands In partnership with academic researchers from multiple university institutions, the District began a field-scale study of alternative methods for water treatment using engineered wetlands in 2013 to reduce the levels of nitrate in the Santa Ana River. At the time, nitrate from a variety of sources, including agricultural and dairy runoff as well as treated effluent from upstream water treatment plants, contributed to high levels. Working together as the Engineering Research Center (ERC) for Re-Inventing the Nation's Urban Water Infrastructure (ReNUWIt), the National Science Foundation-supported group represents Stanford University, UC-Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University. OCWD is a member of ReNUWIt's Industrial/Practitioner Advisory Board. The project is in its second of a three-year study. Read More... Public Participation Sought for Groundwater Management Plan OCWD plans to update the District's Groundwater Management Plan in 2015. This document sets forth a framework for managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin for long-term sustainability. It also allows the District to compete for and obtain state grants. This effort will update the existing plan that was adopted by the OCWD Board of Directors in 2009. The Groundwater Management Plan sets goals and basin management objectives and describes basin hydrology, groundwater and surface water monitoring programs, operation of seawater intrusion barriers, natural resource protection programs, the Groundwater Replenishment System, and recharge operations and provides an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin is operating within its sustainable yield. Public participation in the development of the plan is welcomed and encouraged. For more information, contact Marsha Westropp at mwestropp@ocwd.com or 714-378-8248. 2014 Tree Swallow Nesting Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) are voracious consumers of flying insects within wetland and riverine systems. They typically produce large clutch sizes ranging from five to seven eggs which cause a high demand for food. Together, the adults and chicks can consume hundreds of thousands of insects during a single breeding season. This creates the potential for Tree Swallows to make a significant dent in the insect pest population. Read More... Successful OCWD Environmental Restoration Projects OCWD is a leader in water and natural resource management, carrying out award-winning environmental programs that also provide water supply benefits. OCWD has a reputation of providing clean, fresh water to more than 2.4 million ratepayers in north and central Orange County. The story of its responsible environmental stewardship is only beginning to be told. Read More... 1 Million Hits on YouTube Page 2of 6Orange County Water District Newsletter 6/2/2015http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-02.aspx AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss. County of Orange ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years , and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of The Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation , published in the city of Santa Ana, County of Orange , and which newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of November 19, 1905, Case No . A- 21 046 , that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: April13, 21, 2015 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of peijury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct": Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County, California, on Date April 21, 2015. Signature The Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 796-2209 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Publ~: Orwlge County R.giater Aprll13 , 21 , 2015 10036126 ·------~------------- Notice of Public Hearing For the Purpose of Updating the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Notice is hereby given that the Orange County Water District (“District”) will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 20 at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Boardroom at the office of said District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708. The hearing is for the purpose of notifying the public of the intention of the District to update the District’s Groundwater Management Plan and for soliciting public comments on the draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update prior to adoption of the plan. The draft plan may be viewed on the District’s website, www.ocwd.com. Copies may be obtained by submitting a written request to Orange County Water District, P.O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 Attn: Marsha Westropp. Copies will be available at the public hearing. The public is invited to attend the public hearing and comment on the draft plan. Written comments must be submitted by May 22, 2015. Comments can be submitted to the above post office box address, Attn: Marsha Westropp or via email at mwestropp@ocwd.com . For additional information call 714-378-8248. The Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District’s Board of Directors at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors to be held on June 17, 2015 at 5:30 pm. Any change to the schedule for the Board of Directors to adopt the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update will be posted on the District’s website, www.ocwd.com. Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update File Ed1t V1~ Favontes Tools Help ~ OrangeCountyWaterDiSL a..!GoogteMaps BJ Google ) \;,:;,) Orange County Water Distr1ct EMPLOYMENT SITE MAP CONTACT SEARCH Keyworo{l) GO BOARD& AGENDAS CON SERVATK>H & EDUCATlON ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS & PROJECTS Reliable. Low Cost. High Quality Water. We ar e commi tted to: 1.!,; WATER SUPPLY a REUA&UTY ';I WAffR OUALITY Groundwater Manacement Plan Update l!,. ENVIRONMENTAl STEWARDSHIP .. SOUND ~INANCIAL MANAGfM(NT t.!) .. DOSTRY LEA()t:RSHIP a IN NOVA TtON Tweets -F~IOW U ::t~e County S9m ,.... @OCWOWaterNews NBC is he(e filming an upcoming story on how pro,tectslike the -<M'RS are combatting the fdrought ow.ly!i/a lqfS \1 Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update file Edit View favorites Toots Help W ~ Orange Co unty W:at~ Dis.t-t..! Googte Map$ ~~ Googte ) OCWD 2008 2009 Cnglnetf'• Report: OCWQ 2008 2009 [nainHR Repon OCWO 2007.2008 Englnee(s Report! O('WO 1007 .200$ Englr~Mn R~n OCWD 200G 2007 Cngineet'1 Repon; OCWD 2006 2007 CnqinetR Reoort OCWU 2'00)..2006 tngfneef't l~epon:. QC,:WO 4!00, ~ tl'lgiMeft Htpon OCWD Recharge Reports rY t1.12A"n~ Rtd'l&rge Repon I-Y1D.ll Anmyl Ht:cl!!!n•' Hroort ~Anmaal&:dmni!RNw•U I-YO{ .(Jtf ,AIWI\Iillf f.tl"t;.IWtp~! Hrpt)l \ EYQG. 07 J\tyHyl Rtc;Jwge Report OCWD Groundwater Management Plan Update The Or.nge County Woter Oisufct Gf~ter Management Plin 2009 Update w .. adopted by II~ OCWU Huord o l Oi1~.:tors on July 1!1, 200'9. OCWO Long-Term Facilities Plan l lllliJ·h·nn 1-"':ifitio-..; Vl.,.n ~1 •tls•L-,fll OCWOBudget O!ldott 8tpoa FY 2014 15 lil•f!p!l NcjlOIII-Y OIQ13.U Qudfi"RtponfY201213 Ku•l!pot Hep.11II-Y 1011.17 ~ , : ~··' a ~· ' Water Ynu Can Counl On P .. !i"1Jo.ia m'lil I ~ 0 11:11 AM ' -1.\M J"' • tJ ; ~·' ~tntJOIS Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Edit View Favorites Toots Help W ~ Orange Co unty W:at~ Dis.t-t..! Googte Map$ ~~ Googte ) P .. i:Mf'l0Yllo'ltlfl • $tit MAl' CONIA<:f )oo AUQU1 IHANt;I'Ak UfC'f UO.MCO a AG(NOA$ <;()N$LI(VA TION a t..OUCAIION LNVIMOMMLifl I'RO(HtAW$ & I'HQ.IlC I$ NLWS Press Releases Fo. ,_,., .. ~«w• Mk:.tllvrl•iu hm•m~tr •whkll l .. ywt~edwllltd -fl•\'e~led M pu~ir•lot A.d~A-.rtAI'IIIt PDf ~ .. ,, .. 1ryou l.lo nd •"'udy llo1Ye 1110 f REe Adi!IM A-Hitlet pil!.1~ dQ IN\ r(lbMO IIUHOI'IIeOI)IIIIe lllleJI ~IQn or Ad~ ReiiM.t froe<IANJ~IId6fl) )'Oil IUf~IIO ll0Wfl16110 ltlf. II""" lbfJed ntltJI!r Press Releases 2015 04 13 1!J Nnll~ ul !IUbfie Ht~;,e mg It~ LbMmet 1111 S){;Wl<iulllllllw:lll!t MilfWI9 1lln:nt Plan ?V1) 03.05.15 OC'\W P!yt T rlbule To r ormto~ Of.fectOf Henry S!QeJSuom 02.23 15 Soma AneAPPQintt Counc#l Membef Rtyi'IG to OCWO Bo&rd 020010 OC.WOR.!OI•rvf.!!'•AAA't:ildllbeliug 012015 QC'M)InquauCnt'liXCff!dtgntodloc,MWttuRofjoiJiltt:f 01 091S OCWOBoeldAffinn~Comrnturn.ntToWo~rJ«.Iieb!Oty 2014 12 2J 1•t OCWOW«ks ~ U.S. Amw Corpt t0 Maxtmlu Rf.l:eont RIIIR end Combot Drought t21!.t t4 OCWOfk\otdofOI~QflE~Offlffitfof-2015 12 1814 OCWOWck:tlltlll!l Ml•'o'dy fk'do.•d Oiued~ Oi111t N!JII'f'!ll 12 4 1<1 0CWQ Pictetor O..a Rtt!rt• 10 H 1<1 OCY«> ReedvH CALArco Award 9 3.14 o.r;. Wo•~• 5vPJ,If~ H~"JK'"~., Jo Vtond Jury ~~l OCWU''t <;.eo•td Jvoy f{t:"J'~>~''IK! 6 16 14 DrooQht ProoC Wtt9r Supply Prol!ct Get(! up to Prod~ 100 MGO 6 3 1•1 OCWf) ltpooctd 4( lnttmMjonal Conft(!oct focyyd on Drought and Sstt!ambft So!utjona <I loi1<1 {.-wtJ.-10UPuostAI•._.,.:._,., ... .,It 4914 11.S. W.1ffil; !JJitt•?P14Y.i.Jb3l Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ...... _,_, __ • ... a...~-o.. t!~-a ~ ~Or.,. C®"'i W.t•r Ot,U1ct \.;/ --···--.... -- OCWD Public Nolie~• ------~~~ CU.U.lOI S NoKedf".dc~~~~:"J_f'COC'o'lt)~IMo,.~ 114! !f'lr.~\5 04.0UOI S F(IIm$'10-~~l~!~ MINUTES OF MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT April 15, 2015, 5:30 p.m. President Green called to order the April 15, 2015 regular meeting of the Orange County Water District Board of Directors at 5:30 p.m. in the Boardroom at the District office. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Secretary called the roll and reported a quorum as follows. Directors Philip Anthony Denis Bilodeau Shawn Dewane Jan Flory Cathy Green Dina Nguyen Roman Reyna Stephen Sheldon Harry Sidhu Roger Yoh (arrived 5:50 p.m.) Staff Michael Markus, General Manager Joel Kuperberg, General Counsel Janice Durant, District Secretary Gina Ayala, Pedro Barrera, Adrienne Campbell, Stephanie Dosier, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Bill Hunt, Judy-Rae Karlsen, John Kennedy, Diane Pinnick, Eleanor Torres, Michael Wehner, Greg Woodside, Nira Yamachika Others: Nabil Sabu – City of Santa Ana Melody McDonald – San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District/ACWA/JPIA Andy Sells – Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority Richard and Linda Armendariz – Huntington Beach residents Jim Atkinson, Paul Shoenberger, Ethan Temianka – Mesa Water District Steve Conklin, Bob Kiley – Yorba Linda Water District Jose Diaz – City of Or ange Tom and Joyce Post Ken Vecchiarelli – Golden State Water Company Jim Dellalonga – City of Garden Grove Brian Ragalnd – City of Huntington Beach Bobbi Ashurst - Ratepayer Keith Lyon – Municipal Water District of Orange County Betsy Eglash - Brady Peer Swan, Paul Weghorst – Irvine Ranch Water District Vern Nelson – OJ Blog Nick Dibs – OC Science and Engineering Fair ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES/JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (ACWA/JPIA) PRESENTATION: RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT STABILIZATION REFUND ACWA/JPIA Chief Executive Officer Andy Sells and ACWA/JPIA Executive Committee member Melanie McDonald presented the District with a check in the amount of $62,638 representing a retrospective premium adjustment stabilization refund. EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD The Board presented Maintenance Technician I Pedro Barrera with the Employee of the Quarter award. 4/15/15 20 Director Sidhu returned to the meeting during discussion of the following items. 24. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Water Resources Report There was no discussion of this item. B. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Activities Director Anthony gave a brief update on SAWPA activates. C. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan Update Executive Director Greg Woodside advised that the draft Groundwater Management Plan would be available for public comment until May 22, and that a public hearing has been scheduled for May 20. D. Groundwater Producer Meeting Minutes – April 8, 2015 It was noted the minutes of this meeting were contained in tonight’s packet. E. COMMITTEE/CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS ► Reports on Conferences/Meetings Attended at District Expense (at which a quorum of the Board was present) The Board reported on attendance at the following Committee meetings and noted the Minutes/Action Agendas were included in tonight’s Board packet. April 02 - Communication/Legislative Liaison Committee April 08 - Water Issues Committee April 09 - Administration/Finance Issues Committee April 13 - GWRS Steering Committee VERBAL REPORTS Directors Bilodeau and Reyna reported on a press conference they attended today at the Hotel Fullerton where it was unveiled that they replaced 80,000 sq. ft. of grass with artificial grass for which the City of Fullerton rebated the hotel approximately $41,000. Director Green stated the Citizens’ Advisory Committee has requested the addition of another meeting. She recommended the Board extend its decision to the end of May to allow the Committee to have another meeting and submit its recommendation. Staff was directed to cancel the previously scheduled April 30 special Board meeting and reschedule it for May 14, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. to review the Poseidon Term Sheet. Director Green also advised that Public Affairs employee Becky Mudd was raising money for pediatric cancer by running a 268 mile run from Huntington Beach to the California/Arizona border. She urged the Board to contribute to her charity. Finally, Director Green stated she has a meeting with staff tomorrow with the City of Fullerton and Assemblymember Wagner. OCWD Board of Directors President Cathy Green First Vice President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. Second Vice President Philip L. Anthony Shawn Dewane Jan M. Flory, ESQ. Dina L. Nguyen, ESQ. Roman Reyna Stephen R. Sheldon Harry S. Sidhu, P.E. Roger C. Yoh, P.E. General Manager Michael R. Markus P.E., D.WRE. In This Issue: President's Message – State Water Bond Can Help O.C. Drought Crisis Register for the 2015 OC Water Summit OCWD Receives ASCE OC Flood Management Project of the Year Award 19th Annual Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! Groundwater Management Act 2015 Draft Ready for Public Review Celebrate 45th Annual Earth Day on April 22 OCWD Desal Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings Underway DesalTech Program and Registration Now Available Out in the Community OCWD Employees March Tours President's Message – State Water Bond Can Help O.C. Drought Crisis We are currently experiencing the worst California drought ever recorded in 165 years, with no end in sight. According to one NASA scientist, if we don't take measures to conserve water now, it may run out for the 38 million people, businesses and agriculture in this state. Recently, the Governor has called for mandatory—no longer voluntary—water-use efficiency. We need to save 25 percent. What else can be done? Luckily, the good people of the state approved the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Act of 2014 (Water Bond; Proposition 1) in last year's election. Read More... Register for the 2015 OC Water Summit Rain today, gone tomorrow? Droughts in California are expected to occur three out of every 10 years. Without proper planning and investment in water infrastructure and policy, California's $1.9 trillion economy can come to a standstill, having devastating ripple effects on U.S. and global markets. Join us for the 8th Annual Orange County Water Summit on May 15 from 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. to set imagination, innovation and investment into motion to keep water flowing. The annual OC Water Summit will take place at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort. To register as a participant or sponsor, visit the Orange County Water Summit website. Read More... OCWD Receives ASCE OC Flood Management Project of the Year Award The American Society of Civil Engineers Orange County, California Branch (ASCE OC) honored the Orange County Water District's (OCWD; the District) Burris Pump Station Project, Phase 1 with the Flood Management Project of the Year award. More than 200 people were in attendance at its annual Page 1of 4Orange County Water District Newsletter 6/2/2015http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-04.aspx (left to right) Penny Lew, PE, OCPW and past president ASCE OC; OCWD Assistant Director of Engineering Chris Olsen, PE; and Tapas Dutta, PE, ENV SP, QSD, Harris & Associates and past president ASCE OC. awards banquet as ASCE OC honored outstanding individuals and projects for 2014. A total of 35 awards were given out, including 21 project awards and 14 individual awards. Read More... 19th Annual Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! The 19th annual Children's Water Education Festival was a success! More than 7,000 third, fourth and fifth grade Orange County students attended the free field trip to learn about water and the environment; curriculum corresponded to California Science Standards. The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Guardian Team, which includes OCWD, Disneyland Resort and the National Water Research Institute (NWRI), hosted the event on March 25 and 26, 2015 at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Read More... Groundwater Management Act 2015 Draft Ready for Public Review The OCWD Draft Groundwater Management Act 2015 Update is available for public review and comment. The draft plan may be viewed on the District's website, www.ocwd.com. Copies may be obtained by submitting a written request to Orange County Water District, P.O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300, Attn: Marsha Westropp. Written comments submitted to either the District's post office box or via email at mwestropp@ocwd.com will be accepted until May 22, 2015. Read More... Celebrate 45th Annual Earth Day on April 22 Bringing the poverty, development, climate and sustainability communities together to build a broader and more inclusive global movement is the theme of this year's Earth Day on Wednesday, April 22. Earth Day has grown from a single-day event to a year-round movement to promote sustainability. It is celebrating its 45th year in 2015. Read More... OCWD Desal Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings Underway The OCWD Ocean Desalination Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which was recently appointed by the Orange County Water District Board, gathered for two meetings and is expected to meet again on April 23 and 30. Members were shown presentations about Page 2of 4Orange County Water District Newsletter 6/2/2015http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-04.aspx Agenda GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MEETING Sponsored by the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (714) 378-3200 Wednesday, May 13,2015,9:30 a.m. Meeting to be held at the 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley CA 1. Mila Kleinbergs Head of Special Purpose Discharge Permit program for OCSD Discuss concept of putting Producer distribution system flushing water into OCSD Sewer System -Ken Vecchiarelli of GSWC to discuss water system operational issues. 2. Poseidon Update a. Term Sheet b. Citizens Advisory Committee c. May 14, 2015 OCWD Board meeting 3. Review of Draft OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 4. Annual Santa Ana River Watermaster Report 5. Groundwater Remediation Projects Update a. North Basin -Discuss alternatives b. South Basin 6. Other The Producers' meetings are scheduled the second Wednesday of each month. The next regular monthly meeting is Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:30a.m. MINUTES OF MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT May 20, 2015, 5:30 p.m. President Green called to order the May 20, 2015 regular meeting of the Orange County Water District Board of Directors at 5:30 p.m. in the Boardroom at the District office. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Secretary called the roll and reported a quorum as follows. Directors Philip Anthony Denis Bilodeau Shawn Dewane Jan Flory Cathy Green Dina Nguyen (not present) Roman Reyna Stephen Sheldon (not present) Harry Sidhu Roger Yoh Staff Michael Markus, General Manager Jeremy Jungreis, Assistant General Counsel Janice Durant, District Secretary Gina Ayala, Bruce Dosier, Stephanie Dosier, Alicia Dunkin, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Bill Hunt, Judy-Rae Karlsen, John Kennedy, Pat Lewis, Becky Mudd, Chris Olsen, Eleanor Torres, Karen Warren, Rose Wilke, Greg Woodside, Nira Yamachika Others: Jason and Karen Ayres – Dan Copp Crushing Dan Copp – Dan Copp Crushing Bob Kiley, Marc Marcantonio – Yorba Linda Water District Ed Connor – Connor Fletcher Dan Chase Paul Schoenberger – Mesa Water District Keith Lyon – Municipal Water District of Orange County Betsy Eglash - Brady 1. Recognition of Service for Director Stephen Sheldon This item was deferred to a later date. 2. Commemorating Becky Mudd’s Run for Children’s Cancer Awareness The Board took the following action commending Public Affairs staff member Beck Mudd for her run across California to raise money for children’s cancer. President Green also commended Executive Assistant Karen Warren’s son, Fire Captain Mike Warren, for his recent earthquake rescue mission in Nepal. Upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Dewane, the following resolution was unanimously carried [8-0]. Ayes: Anthony, Bilodeau, Dewane, Green, Flory, Reyna, Sidhu, Yoh Absent: Nguyen, Sheldon 5/20/15 3 2. Public Hearing to Consider Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update President Green opened the Public Hearing to update the District’s Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) and solicit public comments on the Plan prior to its adoption on June 17, 2015. Executive Director Greg Woodside recalled that the draft updated Plan was made available for public review on April 13, noting that the Plan has been updated periodically with the latest update adopted in 2009. He advised that the 2015 update sets forth basin management goals and objectives, describes accomplishments, presents basin management strategies, and provides information about projects completed since publication of the last update. Further, he stated the Plan also incorporates additional Plan elements required by the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that became law in 2014. Mr. Woodside advised that the 2015 Plan discusses the District’s overall goals of managing the basin as: to protect and enhance groundwater quality, to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. He stated the comment period for the draft plan is open until May 22, 2015 and, after the public comment period is closed, staff will respond to comments and will prepare a revised version that addresses comments received to present to the Board for approval at its June 17 Board meeting. President Green then opened the hearing for public comment. Irvine Ranch Water District Director Peer Swan stated that he saw no chronology in the Plan where OCWD purchased the SAVI Ranch land along the Santa Ana River which he believes to be a milestone. Secondly, he stated the basin is currently down between 300,000 – 400,000 acre-feet and he does not see where in the conjunctive use plan OCWD has been collecting the money to buy imported water when it becomes available again in order to refill the basin. He stated that the under the conjunctive use management plan, either OCWD has water in the ground or the money to buy water to fill the basin so the basin is not so overdrafted. Mr. Swan stressed that up until this year, MWD water was freely available in quantities that OCWD could have purchased enough to have a full basin at the beginning of this year. There being no other persons wishing to present testimony, President Green declared the hearing closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Director Flory requested the removal of Item No. 19, Amendment to Agreement with Parsons, from the Consent Calendar. The balance of the Consent Calendar was then approved by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Flory and carried [8-0] as follows. Ayes: Anthony, Bilodeau, Dewane, Green, Flory, Reyna, Sidhu, Yoh Absent: Nguyen, Sheldon EAST ORANGE COUNTY . , - .OJ STRICT DIRECTORS Richard B . Be ll Douglass S. Davert John Dulebohn Seymour B. Everett III William Vand erWerff Li saOhlund General Ma nager . I 185 N Me Pherson Roa d Oran ge, CA 9 28 69-3720 www.eoc wd .com Ph: (7 14) 538-5 8 15 Fax: (7 14) 538-0334 I May 20, 2015 Greg Woodside, PG CHg Director of Planning and Natural Resources Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RE: Ground Water Management Program-2015 Update East Orange County Water District Comments Dear Greg, East Orange County Water District commends the Orange County Water District on the development of a thorough document and continued efforts to effectively manage the groundwater basin as the primary source of water for north Orange County. Our comments are presented below. The Santiago Basins , which contain half of the total storage in the OCWD recharge system, have historically provided recharge to wells in our Retail Zone, and other pumpers in the area. EOCWD requests that the GWMP more strongly emphasize this condition. We also request that the Groundwater Level Changes exhibit (Fig. 3-10) be revised to reflect the reduction in water levels in our East well. During 2014, the levels dropped 20 feet and were within 25 feet of the upper perforations of the well, before Santiago basin levels and the well levels increased. EOCWD requests that OCWD's recharge operations result in maximizing water levels in the Santiago basins , to maintain water levels in the EOCWD wells and those of other pumpers in the area. EOCWD supports the goal of a long term 75% BPP as stated in the GWMP. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GWMP 2015 Update. eral Manager East Orange County Water District Cc: Art Valenzuela, City of Tustin Ken Vecchiarelli, Golden State Water Company Jose Dia z, City of Orange Paul Cook, Irvine Ranch Water District Jerry Vilander, Serrano Water District Public Hearing held at Meeting of OCWD Board of Directors May 20, 2015 Oral Comments of Peer Swan, Director, Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Director Peer Swan stated that he saw no chronology in the Plan where OCWD purchased the SAVI Ranch, land along the Santa Ana River, which he believes to be a milestone. Secondly, he stated the basin is currently down between 300,000 – 400,000 acre-feet and he does not see where in the conjunctive use plan OCWD has been collecting the money to buy imported water when it becomes available again in order to refill the basin. He stated that part of the conjunctive use management plan is that either you have the water in the ground or the money to buy water to fill the basin so the basin is not so overdrafted. Mr. Swan stressed that up until this year MWD water was freely available in quantities that OCWD could have purchased in order to have a full basin at the beginning of this year. Response to Comments East Orange County Water District, Lisa Ohlund (May 20, 2015 letter) No. Comment Response to Comment 1 Add text to emphasize the condition that Santiago Basins, which contain half of the total storage in the OCWD recharge system, have historically provided recharge to wells in EOCWD’s Retail Zone and other pumpers in the area. Section 5.2.2 beginning on page 5-9 has been updated to incorporate requested changes. 2 Revise the Groundwater Level Changes figure (Fig. 3-10) to reflect the reduction in water levels in the area of EOCWD East well. Figure 3-10 has been revised to provide greater detail of water level changes in the groundwater basin. 3 EOCWD requests that OCWD’s recharge operations result in maximizing water levels in the Santiago Basins. Section 5.2.2 beginning on page 5-9 has been updated to discuss maximizing recharge in the vicinity of Santiago Basins. Irvine Ranch Water District, Peer Swan (comments at May 20, 2015 board meeting) No. Comment Response to Comment 1 Provide additional discussion concerning conjunctive use of the groundwater basin related to use of imported water to maintain groundwater elevations. Additional language has been added to Section 10.4.2 (page 10-8), Section 10.8 (page 10-15), and Section 11.2.3 (page 11-2). 2 Add to history section the OCWD purchase of land behind Prado Dam in the 1960s. The land purchase has been added to the history section (Section 1.2). Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 378-3200 INC "'33 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) TO: COUNTY CLERK/County of Orange P.O . Bo x 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Orange County Water District Planning & Waters hed Management 18700 W ard Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PROJECT TITLE: Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update APPROVAL DATE: June 17, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: Orange County Groundwater Basin CITY: Various COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The OCWD Groundwater Management Plan discusses the groundwater basin's physical features , OCWD facilities and monitoring and operating programs. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708 NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: Orange Cou nty Water District EXEMPT STATUS: 0 Ministerial (Sec. 15268) 0 Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269 (a) ) 0 Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(a)&(b)) 0 General Rule (Sec. 15061 (b)(3)) X Statutory Exemption: Section 15262 X Categorical Exemption: Class 6 Section 15306, Class 7 Section 15307 Class 8 Section 15308 REASON{S) WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Groundwater Management Plan is an information document that discusses the Orange County Groundwater Basin and OCWD facilities and programs. The Groundwater Management Plan does not bind , commit or predispose OCWD to further consideration, approval or implementation of any potential project. Approval of the Groundwater Management Plan would not cause either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. CONTACT PE TELEPHONE No: 714 378-8248 DATE: June 18, 2015 TITLE: Senior Planner CERTIFICATION OF SECRETARY I do hereby certify that at its meeting held June 17, 2015, the Orange County Water District Board of Directors approved the following item: FINAL DRAFT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 UPDATE Adopt the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update; and authorize the filing of a Notice of Exemption . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have ex ecuted this Certificate on June 18, 2015 Judy-Rae Karlsen, Assistant District Secretary APPENDIX B Groundwater Management Act Mandatory and Recommended Components Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code Section Required Plan Elements OCWD Plan Section 10727.2(a) Description of physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system underlying the basin that includes the following: 10727.2(a)(1) Historical data 3.1; 3.4-3.7; 5.1- 5.3; 7.1-7.3; 10.1- 10.3 10727.2(a)(2) Groundwater levels………………………………………. Groundwater quality……………………………………… Subsidence……………………………………………….. Groundwater-surface water interaction………………… 3.4-3.5 8.1-8.8 3.6 4.7 10727.2(a)(3) General discussion of historical and projected water demands and supplies 10.1-10.7 10727.2(a)(4) A map that details the area of the basin and the boundaries of the groundwater sustainability agencies that overlie the basin that have or are developing groundwater sustainability plans Figure 3-4; 9.4; Figure 9-13 10727.2(a)(5) A map identifying existing and potential recharge areas for the basin including identification of existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the basin 3.1; 9.5; Figure 3- 3; Figure 5-9; Figure 5-11 10727.2(b)(1) Measurable objectives to achieve the sustainability goal in the basin with 20 years of implementation of the plan 2.3; Tables 2-1-2- 3; Table 2-7 10727.2(b)(2) Description of how the plan helps meet each objective and how each objective is intended to achieve sustainability for long-term beneficial uses of groundwater. Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2- 3 10727.2(c) A planning and implementation horizon 2.6; 5.5 10727.2(d) Components related to: 10727.2(d)(1) Monitoring and management of groundwater levels 3.4-3.7; 4.2.2; 10.2 10727.2(d)(2) Monitoring and management of groundwater quality….. Groundwater quality degradation……………………… Inelastic land surface subsidence………………………. Changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater extraction……………………… 4.2.3-4.2.5; Table 4-1; 6.4; 7.1-7.4; 8-1; 8.3-8.6; 4.2.4; 8.3-8.10 3.6 4.4; 5.2 Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code Section Required Plan Elements OCWD Plan Section 10727.2(d)(3) Mitigation of overdraft 10.1-10.8 10727.2(d)(4) How recharge areas contribute to replenishment of the basin 5.3 10727.2(d)(5) Description of surface water supply used for available for use for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use 5.1-5.6 10727.2(e) Summary of type of monitoring sites, type of measurements, frequency of monitoring for each location including well depth, screened intervals, aquifer zones monitored, summary of type of well including public, irrigation, domestic, industrial, monitoring for: Groundwater levels………………………………………. Groundwater quality……………………………………… Subsidence……………………………………………….. Stream flow……………………………………………….. Precipitation………………………………………………. Evaporation……………………………………………….. Tidal influence…………………………………………….. 4.2.2 4.2.3; 4.2.4 3.6 4.3; 5.2.1; 5.2.2 5.2; 5-10, Fig. 5-7 3.3 4.2.5; 7.1-7.4 10727.2(f) Monitoring protocols designed to detect changes in: Groundwater levels………………………………………. Groundwater quality………………………………………. Inelastic surface subsidence (when applicable)……….. Flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or caused by groundwater extraction…………………………………… 3.4-3.7; 4.2.2; 10.2 4.2.4; 4.2.6; 4.3.7; 6.4; 7.1-7.4; 8.1; 8.3- 8.6 3-7 4.4; 4.7; 8.5 10727.2(g) Description of the consideration given to the applicable county and city general plans and a description of the various adopted water resources-related plans and programs within the basin and an assessment of how the plan may affect those plans 9.3; 9.5; 9.7 Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code Section Additional Plan Elements OCWD Plan Section 10272.4(a) The control of saline water intrusion 4.2.6; 7.1- 7.4 10272.4(b) Wellhead protection areas and recharge areas 8.2 10272.4(c) Migration of contaminated groundwater 4.2.4; 8.7; 8.9 10272.4(d) A well abandonment and well destruction program 8.2 10272.4(e) Replenishment of groundwater extractions 5.2-5.6; 6.1-6.3; 10.1 10272.4(f) Activities implementing, opportunities for, and removing impediments to conjunctive use or underground storage 10.6-10.8 10272.4(g) Well construction policies 8.2 10272.4(h) Measures addressing: Groundwater contamination clean-up………………….. Recharge…………………………………………………… Diversions to storage……………………………………… Conservation……………………………………………….. Water recycling…………………………………………….. Conveyance………………………………………………… Extraction projects (note: except for contamination clean up OCWD does not have extraction projects)…………… 8.7-8.10 5.1-5.5; 6.1; 10.3 5.1-5.3 10.7.2 5.2.4; 6.1-6.6 5.1-5.3; 6.1 8.9 10272.4(i) Efficient water management practices for the delivery of water and water conservation methods to improve the efficiency of water use NA- section applies to agricultural water use 10272.4(j) Efforts to develop relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies 9.6 10272.4(k) Processes to review land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity 9.5; 9.7 10272.4(l) Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems 4.7 Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Management Plan Water Code Section Mandatory Components of a GWMP OCWD Plan Section 10753.7(a)(1) Basin management objectives for the groundwater basin that is subject to the plan 2.3 10753.7(a)(1) Monitoring and management of groundwater levels within the groundwater basin 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3, 10.2-10.4 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect changes in groundwater levels 3.4, 3.5 10753.7(a)(1) Groundwater quality degradation 8.3, 8.4, 8.7-8.9 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect groundwater quality 4.2, 4.6 10753.7(a)(1) Inelastic land surface subsidence 3.6 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect inelastic land surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a potential problem 3.6 10753.7(a)(1) Changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin 4.4, 4.7, 5.2, 5.3.3 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to detect flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping at the basin 4.4, 4.6 10753.7(a)(2) A plan to involve other agencies that enables the local agency to work cooperatively with other public entities whose service area or boundary overlies the groundwater basin 1.4, 1.5, 6.1, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.7, 8.9, 9.1-9.4, 9.6, 9.7 10753.7(a)(3) A map that details the area of the groundwater basin, as defined in the department's Bulletin No. 118, and the area of the local agency, that will be subject to the plan, as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin in which the agency is developing a groundwater management plan Figures 3-1, 3-4, 3.1, 3.2 Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Management Plan Water Code Section Optional Components of a GWMP OCWD Plan Section 10753.8(a) The control of saline water intrusion 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 7.1-7.4 10753.8(b) Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas 3.1.1,Figure 3-3, 8.2, 9.5, 9.7 10753.8(c) Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater 8.7, 8.9, 8.10 10753.8(d) The administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program 8.2 10753.8(e) Mitigation of conditions of overdraft 10.1-10.4 10753.8(f) Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers 5.1-5.6 10753.8(g) Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage 3.4, 3.5 10753.8(h) Facilitating conjunctive use operations 5.1-5.6, 10.1- 10.6 10753.8(i) Identification of well construction policies 4.6, 8.2 10753.8(j) The construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling and extraction projects 5.1-5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 8.7-8.9 10753.8(k) The development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies 4.4.2. 4.2.3, 5.2.1, 9.1-9.3 10753.8(l) The review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities which create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination 9.7 APPENDIX C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long-Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 1 Ta b l e 2 - 1 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d E n h a n c e G r ou n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - Te r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference Gr o u n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Co l l e c t & a n a l y z e w a t e r q u a l i t y s a m p l e s f r o m 40 0 o r m o r e D i s t r i c t m o n i t o r i n g w e l l s a s de t e r m i n e d b y p r o g r a m p r o t o c o l s ( a t l e a s t an n u a l l y ) Di s c o v e r i n g p o t e n t i a l w a t e r q u a l i t y p r o b l e m s a t a n e a r l y s t a g e p r o v i d e s pr o t e c t i o n f o r g r o u n d w a t e r u s e d f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . A l s o pr o v i d e s d a t a t o d e v e l o p p r o g r a m s to p r e v e n t s p r e a d o f g r o u n d w a t e r co n t a m i n a t i o n . 4.2 Co l l e c t & a n a l y z e w a t e r q u a l i t y s a m p l e s f r o m 20 0 d r i n k i n g w a t e r w e l l s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y Ti t l e 2 2 p r o t o c o l s ( a t l e a s t a n n u a l l y ) Co m p r e h e n s i v e m o n i t o r i n g o f w a t e r s u p p l i e s a s s u r e s q u a l i t y o f d r i n k i n g w a t e r pr o v i d e d b y r e t a i l a g e n c i e s a n d c o n t i n u e d a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s s u p p l y o f w a t e r ov e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . D i s c o v e r i n g p o t e n t i a l w a t e r q u a l i t y p r o b l e m s a t a n e a r l y st a g e p r o v i d e s p r o t e c t i o n f o r g r o u n d w a t e r u s e d f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e lo n g - t e r m . 4.2 Re c h a r g e W a t e r S u p p l i e s Co l l e c t & a n a l y z e w a t e r q u a l i t y s a m p l e s o f re c h a r g e s u p p l i e s ( s u r f a c e , r e c y c l e d , im p o r t e d , & g r o u n d w a t e r ) a c c o r d i n g t o pr o g r a m p r o t o c o l s ( a t l e a s t q u a r t e r l y ) As s u r i n g t h e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f r e c h a r g e s o u r c e s p r o t e c t s t h e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f t h e OC G r o u n d w a t e r B a s i n r e s u l t i n g i n t h e l o n g - t e r m a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s l o c a l gr o u n d w a t e r s u p p l y f o r u s e a s d r i n k i n g w a t e r . 4.2.5 4.3 Su r f a c e W a t e r S u p p l i e s Sa m p l e & a n a l y z e 2 s i t e s o n S a n t a A n a R i v e r in O r a n g e C o u n t y a s d i r e c t e d b y N W R I S a n t a An a R i v e r M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m E x p e r t P a n e l (q u a r t e r l y ) As s u r i n g t h e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f S a n t a A n a r i v e r w a t e r u s e d f o r r e c h a r g e p r o t e c t s th e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f t h e O C G r o u n d w a t e r B a s i n r e s u l t i n g i n t h e l o n g - t e r m av a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s l o c a l g r o u n d w a t e r s u p p l y f o r u s e a s d r i n k i n g w a t e r . 4.3 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 2 Ta b l e 2 - 1 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d E n h a n c e G r ou n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - Te r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference Sa m p l e & a n a l y z e 1 2 s i t e s i n u p p e r wa t e r s h e d f o r c o n s t i t u e n t s a s d i r e c t e d b y NW R I S a n t a A n a R i v e r M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Ex p e r t P a n e l ( a n n u a l l y ) As s u r i n g t h e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f S a n t a A n a r i v e r w a t e r u s e d f o r r e c h a r g e p r o t e c t s th e w a t e r q u a l i t y o f t h e O C G r o u n d w a t e r B a s i n r e s u l t i n g i n t h e l o n g - t e r m av a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s l o c a l g r o u n d w a t e r s u p p l y f o r u s e a s d r i n k i n g w a t e r . 4.3 Co n t a m i n a t i o n P r e v e n t i o n a n d R e m e d i a t i o n Im p l e m e n t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s G r o u n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Pr o t e c t i o n P o l i c y Di s c o v e r y a n d r e m e d i a t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n s i t e s p r o v i d e s pr o t e c t i o n f o r t h e b a s i n a s s u r i n g u s e o f g r o u n d w a t e r a s a s o u r c e o f d r i n k i n g wa t e r . 8.1 Ev a l u a t e & i m p l e m e n t p r o j e c t s t o a d d r e s s gr o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n i n N o r t h B a s i n & So u t h B a s i n a r e a s Re m e d i a t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n s i t e s p r o v i d e s p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e ba s i n a s s u r i n g u s e o f g r o u n d w a t e r a s a s o u r c e o f d r i n k i n g w a t e r . 8.9 Se a w a t e r I n t r u s i o n Co l l e c t s a m p l e s & a n a l y z e w a t e r q u a l i t y f r o m 86 w e l l s t o a s s e s s c o n t r o l o f s e a w a t e r in t r u s i o n a t T a l b e r t , B o l s a , S u n s e t , a n d Al a m i t o s G a p s ( a n n u a l l y ) Mo n i t o r i n g s e a w a t e r i n t r u s i o n a n d c h a n g i n g b a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s a s n e c e s s a r y pr o t e c t s t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n f r o m m i g r a t i o n o f s a l i n e w a t e r a s s u r i n g u s e o f th e b a s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . 4.2, 7 Pr e p a r e T a l b e r t G a p a r e a c h l o r i d e co n c e n t r a t i o n c o n t o u r m a p s ( e v e r y t w o y e a r s ) Pr e p a r i n g c o n t o u r m a p s a l l o w s f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f b a r r i e r op e r a t i o n s t o a s s u r e p r o t e c t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r f r o m i m p a i r m e n t a n d u s e o f t h e ba s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . 7 Op e r a t e T a l b e r t S e a w a t e r B a r r i e r t o ( 1 ) ma i n t a i n p r o t e c t i v e g r o u n d w a t e r e l e v a t i o n a t we l l O C W D - M 2 6 a n d ( 2 ) p r e v e n t l a n d w a r d Op e r a t i o n o f t h e s e a w a t e r b a r r i e r p r e v e n t s l a n d w a r d m o v e m e n t o f s e a w a t e r in t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n p r o t e c t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r f r o m i m p a i r m e n t a s s u r i n g 7.2 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 3 Ta b l e 2 - 1 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d E n h a n c e G r ou n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - Te r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference se a w a t e r m i g r a t i o n i n t o g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n ba s e d o n 2 5 0 m g / L c h l o r i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n co n t o u r & o t h e r m e a s u r e m e n t s us e o f t h e b a s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . Pa r t i c i p a t e i n A l a m i t o s B a r r i e r O p e r a t i o n s Co m m i t t e e t o r e v i e w b a r r i e r p e r f o r m a n c e ( a t le a s t a n n u a l l y ) Op e r a t i o n o f t h e s e a w a t e r b a r r i e r p r e v e n t s l a n d w a r d m o v e m e n t o f s e a w a t e r in t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n p r o t e c t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r f r o m i m p a i r m e n t a s s u r i n g us e o f t h e b a s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . 7.3 Op e r a t e A l a m i t o s B a r r i e r w i t h L o s A n g e l e s Co u n t y a g e n c i e s t o p r e v e n t l a n d w a r d se a w a t e r m i g r a t i o n i n t o g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n ba s e d o n 2 5 0 m g / L c h l o r i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n co n t o u r Op e r a t i o n o f t h e s e a w a t e r b a r r i e r p r e v e n t s l a n d w a r d m o v e m e n t o f s e a w a t e r in t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n p r o t e c t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r f r o m i m p a i r m e n t a s s u r i n g us e o f t h e b a s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . In c r e a s e i n j e c t i o n o r i m p l e m e n t o t h e r me a s u r e s t o p r e v e n t b a s i n d e g r a d a t i o n i f si g n i f i c a n t s e a w a t e r i n t r u s i o n o c c u r s In v e s t i g a t i n g , c h a n g i n g , a n d m o d i f y i n g i n t r u s i o n b a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s w h e n ne c e s s a r y p r o v i d e s f o r p r o t e c t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r q u a l i t y a s s u r i n g u s e o f t h e ba s i n f o r d r i n k i n g w a t e r o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . 7 We t l a n d s & N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s Su p p o r t n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e p r o g r a m s i n wa t e r s h e d t o i m p r o v e w a t e r q u a l i t y Pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e p r o g r a m s , s u c h a s t h e l e a s t B e l l s v i r e o mo n i t o r i n g a n d m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m a n d t h e S a n t a A n a s u c k e r f i s h ma n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m , h e l p s m a i n t a i n t h e s e n a t i v e s p e c i e s a n d f a c i l i t a t e s pe r m i t t i n g o f O C W D p r o j e c t s f o r s t o r m w a t e r c a p t u r e a n d r e c h a r g e . 9 Pa r t i c i p a t e i n c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s w i t h re g u l a t o r s a n d s t a k e h o l d e r s w i t h i n W a t e r s h e d Th e p u r p o s e o f t h e c o o p e r a t i v e w a t e r s h e d p r o g r a m s i s t o m a i n t a i n t h e q u a l i t y of s u r f a c e w a t e r s u p p l i e s t h a t a r e u s e d f o r g r o u n d w a t e r r e c h a r g e . T h i s pr o v i d e s p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e q u a l i t y o f S a n t a A n a R i v e r w a t e r r e c h a r g e d i n t o t h e 4.3.3, 9 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 4 Ta b l e 2 - 1 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d E n h a n c e G r ou n d w a t e r Q u a l i t y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - Te r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference gr o u n d w a t e r b a s i n a n d p r o t e c t s d r i n k i n g w a t e r f o r t h e l o n g - t e r m . Di v e r t 5 0 % o f S a n t a A n a R i v e r f l o w t h r o u g h Pr a d o W e t l a n d s t o i m p r o v e r i v e r w a t e r q u a l i t y ; me a s u r e f l o w & n i t r o g e n r e m o v a l l o a d s (m o n t h l y ) Op e r a t i o n o f P r a d o W e t l a n d s r e s u l t s i n r e m o v a l o f n i t r a t e s a n d o t h e r co n t a m i n a n t s b e f o r e t h e w a t e r i s r e c h a r g e d i n t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n , re s u l t i n g i n i m p r o v e d w a t e r q u a l i t y o f d r i n k i n g w a t e r . 8.5 Ta b l e 2 - 2 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d I n c r e a s e B a s i n S u s t a i n a b l e Yi e l d i n C o s t - E f f e c t i v e M a n n e r Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference Co l l e c t a n d a n a l y z e a t l e a s t 1 , 0 0 0 me a s u r e m e n t s o f g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l s a t l e a s t si x t i m e s p e r y e a r Co l l e c t i n g a n d a n a l y z i n g g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l d a t a e n a b l e s t h e D i s t r i c t t o ca l c u l a t e t h e a m o u n t o f g r o u n d w a t e r i n s t o r a g e e v e r y y e a r i n o r d e r t o de t e r m i n a t e t h e o p t i m a l g r o u n d w a t e r p r o d u c t i o n t o m a i n t a i n b a s i n l e v e l s wi t h i n s a f e o p e r a t i n g r a n g e t o a s s u r e s u s t a i n a b l e b a s i n m a n a g e m e n t . 4.2.2 Ca l c u l a t e c h a n g e i n b a s i n s t o r a g e ( a n n u a l l y ) Co l l e c t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l d a t a e n a b l e s t h e D i s t r i c t t o c a l c u l a t e t h e a m o u n t of g r o u n d w a t e r i n s t o r a g e e v e r y y e a r a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e o p t i m a l g r o u n d w a t e r pr o d u c t i o n t o m a i n t a i n b a s i n l e v e l s w i t h i n s a f e o p e r a t i n g r a n g e . T h i s in f o r m a t i o n g u i d e s d e c i s i o n s a b o u t f u t u r e r e c h a r g e n e e d s a n d h o w m u c h pu m p i n g c a n o c c u r w h i l e r e m a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e b a s i n s t o r a g e s a f e o p e r a t i n g ra n g e . 4.2.2 Co l l e c t p r o d u c t i o n r a t e d a t a f r o m 1 9 l a r g e pr o d u c e r s ( m o n t h l y ) & s m a l l p r o d u c e r s ( e v e r y Co l l e c t i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g a c c u r a t e r e c o r d s o f a m o u n t o f g r o u n d w a t e r pr o d u c e d a l l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t t o m o n i t o r b a s i n c o n d i t i o n s o n a m o n t h l y b a s i s s o th a t b a s i n m a n a g e m e n t c a n b e r e - a s s e s s e d a n d m o d i f i e d i f n e c e s s a r y t o 4.2.1 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 5 Ta b l e 2 - 2 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d I n c r e a s e B a s i n S u s t a i n a b l e Yi e l d i n C o s t - E f f e c t i v e M a n n e r Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference si x m o n t h s ) pr o t e c t t h e l o n g - t e r m s u s t a i n a b i l i t y o f t h e b a s i n . T h e s e d a t a a r e a l s o c r i t i c a l t o ca l c u l a t i n g t h e a n n u a l w a t e r b u d g e t . Pa r t i c i p a t e i n s t a t e C A S G E M p r o g r a m b y re p o r t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r e l e v a t i o n me a s u r e m e n t s f r o m 3 8 w e l l s ( a n n u a l l y ) Pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e C A S G E M p r o g r a m b y r e p o r t i n g d a t a f o r O C G r o u n d w a t e r Ba s i n p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n o n g r o u n d w a t e r e l e v a t i o n s . 4.2.4 Ma i n t a i n g r o u n d w a t e r s t o r a g e w i t h i n s a f e op e r a t i n g r a n g e ( l e s s t h a n 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 a c r e - f e e t be l o w f u l l c o n d i t i o n ) Ma i n t a i n i n g g r o u n d w a t e r s t o r a g e w i t h i n t h e s a f e o p e r a t i n g r a n g e r e d u c e s t h e ri s k o f s e a w a t e r i n t r u s i o n a n d i r r e v e r s i b l e l a n d s u b s i d e n c e a n d e n a b l e s OC W D t o s u s t a i n a b l y m a n a g e t h e b a s i n o v e r t h e l o n g - t e r m . 10 Se t t a r g e t l e v e l f o r t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n , e s t i m a t e to t a l w a t e r d e m a n d s , & e s t a b l i s h B a s i n Pr o d u c t i o n P e r c e n t a g e ( B P P ) ( a n n u a l l y ) Ma n a g i n g a n n u a l g r o u n d w a t e r p r o d u c t i o n b y s e t t i n g t h e B P P allows for gr o u n d w a t e r s t o r a g e l e v e l s t o b e m a i n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e s a f e o p e r a t i n g r a n g e an d l e a d s t o l o n g - t e r m s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e b a s i n . 3.4, 10.2 Ca l c u l a t e t o t a l v o l u m e o f w a t e r r e c h a r g e d (a n n u a l l y ) Ca l c u l a t i n g r e c h a r g e t o t a l s p r o v i d e s d a t a t o c a l c u l a t e t h e a n n u a l w a t e r b u d g e t an d a l l o w s f o r a c c u r a t e a s s e s s m e n t o f b a s i n c o n d i t i o n s ; t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s im p o r t a n t t o s e t t i n g t h e B P P a n d t h e r e b y m a i n t a i n i n g g r o u n d w a t e r s t o r a g e wi t h i n t h e s a f e o p e r a t i n g r a n g e . 5 Re p o r t & p u b l i s h o n w e b s i t e t o t a l w a t e r re c h a r g e d i n Wa t e r R e s o u r c e s S u m m a r y (m o n t h l y ) Co m p i l i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g d a t a o n a m o n t h l y b a s i s p r o v i d e s r e a d y a c c e s s t o in f o r m a t i o n a n d a l l o w s s t a k e h o l d e r s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n b a s i n m a n a g e m e n t a n d al l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t t o r e - a s s e s s a n d m o d i f y m a n a g e m e n t d e c i s i o n s b a s e d o n th e m o s t u p - t o - d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . 5 Co n v e n e O C W D R e c h a r g e E n h a n c e m e n t Wo r k i n g G r o u p ( a n n u a l l y ) Th e W o r k i n g G r o u p a n a l y z e s r e c h a r g e o p e r a t i o n s a n d e v a l u a t e s p o t e n t i a l ne w p r o j e c t s t o i n c r e a s e t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f r e c h a r g e f a c i l i t i e s , t h e r e b y e n a b l i n g 5.5.1 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 6 Ta b l e 2 - 2 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d I n c r e a s e B a s i n S u s t a i n a b l e Yi e l d i n C o s t - E f f e c t i v e M a n n e r Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference th e D i s t r i c t t o m a x i m i z e r e c h a r g e i n t o t h e b a s i n a n d t h e u s e o f t h e b a s i n f o r wa t e r s u p p l y . Ev a l u a t e p o t e n t i a l n e w r e c h a r g e p r o j e c t s us i n g D i s t r i c t ’ s R e c h a r g e F a c i l i t i e s M o d e l Th e m o d e l a l l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t t o e s t i m a t e t h e c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p o t e n t i a l ch a n g e s t o r e c h a r g e o p e r a t i o n s a n d p o t e n t i a l n e w r e c h a r g e f a c i l i t i e s a n d th e r e b y p u r s u e t h e m o s t c o s t - e f f e c t i v e p r o j e c t s t o i n c r e a s e r e c h a r g e i n t o t h e ba s i n . 5.5.2 Pr o m o t e l o c a l i n f i l t r a t i o n o f s t o r m w a t e r Lo c a l i n f i l t r a t i o n o f s t o r m w a t e r p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l b a s i n r e c h a r g e , w h i c h he l p s i n c r e a s e t h e a m o u n t o f p u m p i n g t h a t c a n b e s u s t a i n e d i n t h e b a s i n . 3.3.2 Pa r t i c i p a t e i n c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s w i t h re g u l a t o r s & s t a k e h o l d e r s i n w a t e r s h e d Co o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s a r e a i m e d a t i m p r o v e m e n t o f w a t e r q u a l i t y i n t h e S a n t a An a R i v e r , s u c c e s s f u l m a n a g e m e n t o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d o t h e r b e n e f i t s th a t a l l o w O C W D t o m o n i t o r a n d m a n a g e t h e q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y o f s u r f a c e wa t e r s u p p l i e s u s e d t o r e c h a r g e t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n . 9.2, 9.3 Co l l e c t & r e v i e w g r o u n d s u r f a c e el e v a t i o n m e a s u r e m e n t d a t a f r o m Or a n g e C o u n t y S u r v e y o r ( a n n u a l l y ) Mo n i t o r i n g p o t e n t i a l l a n d s u b s i d e n c e p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n s o t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s ba s i n m a n a g e m e n t m e a s u r e s c a n b e m o d i f i e d , i f n e c e s s a r y , t o a v o i d un a c c e p t a b l e p h y s i c a l c h a n g e s i n t h e l a n d s u r f a c e . 3.6 If s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s o f s u b s i d e n c e o c c u r , co n d u c t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n & m i t i g a t i o n s t u d y In t h e e v e n t t h a t u n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s o f l a n d s u b s i d e n c e i s f o u n d t o b e oc c u r r i n g d u e t o c h a n g e s i n g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l s , a s t u d y t o c h a r a c t e r i z e s u c h ch a n g e s a n d d e t e r m i n e a p p r o p r i a t e m i t i g a t i o n w i l l a l l o w f o r c o n t i n u e d pr o d u c t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r a t s u s t a i n a b l e l e v e l s . 3.6 Pr o d u c e 9 0 , 0 0 0 a f y o f G W R S re c y c l e d w a t e r Pr o d u c i n g r e c y c l e d w a t e r f o r g r o u n d w a t e r r e c h a r g e a n d s e a w a t e r b a r r i e r op e r a t i o n s e n a b l e s O C W D t o i n c r e a s e t h e a m o u n t o f p u m p i n g t h a t c a n b e 6 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 7 Ta b l e 2 - 2 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t Ob j e c t i v e : Pr o t e c t a n d I n c r e a s e B a s i n S u s t a i n a b l e Yi e l d i n C o s t - E f f e c t i v e M a n n e r Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n ab i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l Us e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference su s t a i n e d f r o m t h e b a s i n . W i t h o u t t h e r e c y c l e d w a t e r , g r o u n d w a t e r p u m p i n g wo u l d n e e d t o b e r e d u c e d . Pu b l i s h t h e En g i n e e r ’ s R e p o r t , t h a t in c l u d e s t o t a l p u m p i n g , g r o u n d w a t e r el e v a t i o n s , c h a n g e i n s t o r a g e , & re l a t e d w a t e r d a t a ( a n n u a l l y ) Co m p i l i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g d a t a o n a n a n n u a l b a s i s a l l o w s a l l s t a k e h o l d e r s t o pa r t i c i p a t e i n b a s i n m a n a g e m e n t a n d a l l o w t h e D i s t r i c t t o r e - a s s e s s a n d mo d i f y m a n a g e m e n t d e c i s i o n s b a s e d o n t h e m o s t u p - t o - d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . 10.2 Ta b l e 2 - 3 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e : In c r e a s e O p e r a t i o n a l E f f i c i e n c y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m Be n e f i c i a l U s e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference Ma i n t a i n W a t e r R e s o u r c e s M a n a g e m e n t S y s t e m da t a b a s e a s c e n t r a l r e p o s i t o r y f o r w a t e r q u a l i t y , pu m p i n g , r e c h a r g e , & r e l a t e d w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t in f o r m a t i o n Ma n a g i n g l a r g e a m o u n t s o f h i s t o r i c a l a n d c u r r e n t d a t a a l l o w t h e Di s t r i c t t o h a v e q u i c k a c c e s s t o t h e d a t a a n d m a k e a v a r i e t y o f ma n a g e m e n t d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d w a t e r s u p p l y ba s e d o n a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . 4.4 Ma n a g e D i s t r i c t ’ s f i n a n c e s f o r l o n g - t e r m f i s c a l st a b i l i t y Ma i n t a i n i n g f i s c a l s t a b i l i t y a l l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t t o c o n s t r u c t a n d op e r a t e n e c e s s a r y f a c i l i t i e s a n d i m pl e m e n t p r o g r a m s t o p r o t e c t th e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n a n d c o n t i n u e s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t . 11 Op e r a t e D i s t r i c t p r o g r a m s i n c o s t - e f f e c t i v e & ef f i c i e n t m a n n e r . Ef f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n s a l l o w t h e D i s t r i c t t o c o n s t r u c t a n d o p e r a t e ne c e s s a r y f a c i l i t i e s a n d i m p l e m e n t p r o g r a m s t o p r o t e c t t h e gr o u n d w a t e r b a s i n a n d c o n t i n u e s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t . 11 Ma n a g e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e p r o g r a m s i n S a n t a A n a R i v e r Ma n a g i n g n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e p r o g r a m s , s u c h a s t h e l e a s t B e l l s v i r e o 9.2 Ba s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s : A c hi e v e m e n t o f S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r Lo n g - T e r m B e n e f i c i a l U s es o f G r o u n d w a t e r 8 Ta b l e 2 - 3 : B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e : In c r e a s e O p e r a t i o n a l E f f i c i e n c y Ho w O b j e c t i v e A c h i e v e s S u s t a i n a b i l i t y f o r L o n g - T e r m Be n e f i c i a l U s e s o f G r o u n d w a t e r Section Reference wa t e r s h e d i n e f f i c i e n t m a n n e r mo n i t o r i n g a n d m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m a n d t h e S a n t a A n a s u c k e r fi s h m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m , h e l p s m a i n t a i n t h e s e n a t i v e s p e c i e s an d f a c i l i t a t e s p e r m i t t i n g o f O C W D p r o j e c t s f o r s t o r m w a t e r c a p t u r e an d r e c h a r g e . Im p l e m e n t e f f i c i e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t pr o g r a m s t o r e d u c e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s & u s e al t e r n a t i v e e n e r g y w h e r e f e a s i b l e In c o r p o r a t i n g e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y p r o g r a m s i n D i s t r i c t o p e r a t i o n s al l o w s f o r g r e a t e r o p e r a t i o n a l e ff i c i e n c y i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y fr i e n d l y m a n n e r . 6.3 Us e R e c h a r g e F a c i l i t i e s M o d e l t o e v a l u a t e c o s t - ef f e c t i v e n e s s o f p o t e n t i a l n e w r e c h a r g e b a s i n s & im p r o v e m e n t s t o e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s Th e m o d e l a l l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t t o e s t i m a t e t h e c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f po t e n t i a l c h a n g e s t o r e c h a r g e o p e r a t i o n s a n d p o t e n t i a l n e w re c h a r g e f a c i l i t i e s a n d t h e r e b y p u r s u e t h e m o s t c o s t - e f f e c t i v e pr o j e c t s t o i n c r e a s e r e c h a r g e i n t o t h e b a s i n . 5.5 Ma k e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o r e c h a r g e f a c i l i t i e s t o i n c r e a s e ef f i c i e n c y Ef f i c i e n t r e c h a r g e o p e r a t i o n s h e l p s t h e D i s t r i c t m a x i m i z e t h e am o u n t o f w a t e r r e c h a r g e d i n t o t h e g r o u n d w a t e r b a s i n , w h i c h in c r e a s e s t h e a m o u n t o f p u m p i n g t h a t c a n b e s u s t a i n e d . 5.6 APPENDIX D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT REPORT ON EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY U!ll---'--r Coastal Area Pressure Area : Forebay +--I---+ Active Produc4>on ~~ IMctiv• ProductiOO'Noll l~cliooW.Il Moo~oringWel Prepared By: I I Timothy J. Sovich, PE-Principal Engineer Roy L. Herndon, PG, CHg-Chief Hydrogeologist FEBRUARY, 2007 Anaheim TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................4 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN .....................................................................8 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY ...........................................8 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept .........................................................................................8 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers.......................................................................9 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method ............................................10 Water Level Change Method ...................................................................................10 Water Budget Method ...............................................................................................11 Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method .......................................11 3.4 New Three-Layer Storage Change Approach ...................................................13 Methodology ...............................................................................................................13 GIS Application for Three-Layer Storage Change Calculation ..........................17 Testing the Three-Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method .............................18 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK ...................................................................................21 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology ...............................................................................22 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map........................................................23 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map ......................................................29 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map .............................................................32 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION..............................34 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 .........................................................34 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 .........................................................35 5.3 Historical vs. New Overdraft Estimates .................................................................36 5.4 Implementation of New Three-Layer Storage Change Method ........................37 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY ...........................................................38 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target .........................................................39 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy ..............................................................41 7. FINDINGS ..............................................................................................................................43 8. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................45 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................45 2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross-Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three-Layer Storage Change Results Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 Figure 4-3. Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 Figure 4-7. Principal Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 5-1. Three-Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target Figure 6-2. BPP Formula Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: “Randall” Specific Yield Values from Traditional Storage Change Method APPENDIX 2: Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values for Three-Layer Storage Change Method APPENDIX 3: Water Level Change Maps for June 2006 to the New Full Condition APPENDIX 4: GIS Application for Three-Layer Storage Change Calculation Acknowledgment Much assistance was provided by District GIS staff Dan Lee and Linda Koki, specifically with implementation and automation of the new three-layer storage change algorithm, GIS programming, mapping, and graphical support. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The need for this study was largely driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which an unprecedented storage increase of 170,000 af was estimated by OCWD staff. This led to a preliminary reassessment of the traditional storage calculation which, due to cumulative uncertainty over tens of years, could not be sufficiently rectified back to the traditional full-basin benchmark of 1969. A new methodology has been developed, tested, and documented herein for calculating accumulated overdraft and storage change based on a three aquifer layer approach, as opposed to the previous single-layer method. Also, for calculating accumulated overdraft, a new full-basin benchmark was developed for each of the three aquifer layers, thereby replacing the traditional single-layer full benchmark of 1969. Also in this report, a basin management operational strategy is proposed that sets guidelines for planned refill or storage decrease amounts based on the level of accumulated overdraft. The new three-layer storage change approach utilizes aquifer storage parameters supported by calibration of the District’s basin-wide groundwater model (“basin model”) along with actual measured water level data for each of the three aquifer systems that correspond to the three aquifer layers in the basin model: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep (colored water) aquifer systems. Traditionally, the storage change calculation was based solely on groundwater levels for the Principal aquifer, from which approximately 90 percent of basin pumping occurs. The findings of this study are enumerated below. 1. The new three-layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single-layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three-layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unconfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumulated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water level measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively sparse in outlying Forebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full-basin benchmark. A new full-basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins 2 The new full-basin water levels in the Forebay area are essentially at or very near the bottom of the District’s deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 have shown that this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water levels slightly higher than this new full condition may be physically achievable in the Forebay area but not recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three-layer storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 af was calculated representing June 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three-layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 af was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 af for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year’s water level conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin’s operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 af assumes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In-Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to drought conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin management target of 100,000 af of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 9. The proposed operational strategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District’s Board of Directors. 3 Based on the above findings, recommendations stemming from this study are as follows: 1. Adopt the new three-layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full-basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three-layer storage change calculation. 4 1. INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the basin storage and overdraft evaluation completed by District staff between May 2006 and January 2007. Prior to this study, an unusually large annual increase in basin storage of 170,000 af was estimated for WY 2004-05, which was a record-setting wet year. During that year, water levels throughout the basin rose approximately 30 feet overall, and as much as 60 feet in the Santiago recharge area which receives significant storm runoff from Villa Park Dam releases during extremely wet years. The estimated storage increase for WY 2004-05 was so large that it caused staff to re- examine the storage calculation. Also, the large water level rise during that year raised concern that the basin could be approaching a near-full condition, leading staff to compare 2005 water levels throughout the basin to 1969 in which the basin was historically considered full. This analysis showed that the basin may have had only 40,000 af less groundwater in storage in November 2005 as compared to the 1969 benchmark. However, the traditional method of cumulatively adding the annual storage change each year to the previous year’s accumulated overdraft led to an accumulated overdraft of approximately 190,000 af for November 2005. The discrepancy of 150,000 af in the two different 2005 overdraft calculations indicated that the current condition could not be properly rectified back to the 1969 benchmark. This dilemma provided the main impetus for the study documented herein and brought to light two important discoveries: • The traditional storage change calculation contains considerable uncertainty that, when cumulatively added over tens of years, led to a large discrepancy in the accumulated overdraft relative to 1969. • 1969 water level conditions no longer represent a full basin, primarily because of the different pumping and recharge conditions that exist today. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of groundwater production for WY 1968-69 (upper map) and WY 2004-05 (lower map). Each circle or “dot” represents an active production well for that year, with the size of each dot being proportional to each well’s annual production. Total basin production for WY 2004-05 was only 179,000 af, whereas by WY 2004-05 it had increased to 244,000 af and would have been 70,000 af greater if not for supplemental imported water taken in-lieu of groundwater. By comparing the two production dot maps, heavy increases in pumping are evident in the coastal area since 1969, primarily due to MCWD and IRWD’s Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF). 5 Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 WY 1968-69 GW Production: 179,000 af (af) WY 2004-05 GW Production: 244,000 af (af) 6 In addition to changes in the amount and distribution of pumping since 1969, OCWD managed recharge operations have increased substantially such that much more water is recharged today as compared to 1969. In addition to increased Santa Ana River flows and new recharge basins being put into service in the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, new and improved cleaning methods have been implemented to enhance percolation rates, thus increasing the annual volume of water that is recharged annually. Table 1-1 below summarizes the major pumping and recharge differences between WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05. Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 WY 1968-69 WY 2004-05 Pumping Total Pumping: 179,000 af Total Pumping: 244,000 af Agricultural Pumping: 34,000 af Agricultural Pumping: 3,400 af No DRWF In-Lieu: 70,000 af No MCWD municipal wells Increased coastal pumping No Newport Beach wells Less Irvine pumping Recharge No Talbert Barrier Enhanced Talbert Barrier No Santiago Pits or Creek Enhanced percolation rates No Kraemer or Miller Basins Basin Cleaning Vehicle No Burris Pit or Five Coves Riverview Basin Since 1969, the largest pumping increases have been in the coastal area while the largest recharge increases have been in the inland Forebay area. Therefore, this redistribution along with increased utilization of the groundwater basin has led to a steeper groundwater gradient or “tilt” from the inland Forebay down to the coast. Because of this increased basin tilt under present conditions, water levels higher than 1969 can be maintained in the Forebay area without exceeding 1969 water levels in the coastal area. Because higher Forebay water levels translate into more basin storage, 1969 no longer represents a full basin condition by today’s standards. In other words, a modern-day full condition could likely accommodate higher water levels than 1969 in the Forebay area, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1-2. A review of historical water level data indicates that many wells in the Anaheim area experienced higher water levels in 1994 than in 1969. Figure 1-3 shows historical water levels for City of Anaheim Well A-27, indicating that in 1994 water levels at that location (adjacent to the south side of Anaheim Lake) were 5-10 feet higher than in 1969. 7 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 0 50 100 -50 -100 250 200 150 ELEV (Feet)Coastal Area Anaheim Forebay SW NE 2 0 0 5 1 9 6 9 M o d e r n F ull 19301940195019601970 19801990200020100 50 100 150 200 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( fee t m s l ) Well A-27 Ground Surface Elev: 231 ft msl Screened Interval: 212 –287 ft bgs 5 ft 8 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN Objectives of this study were three-fold: 1. Reassess and recommend modifications as necessary to staff’s traditional method for calculating the annual storage change and the accumulated overdraft. 2. Develop a technically-sound full basin water level condition that takes into account current basin management practices. This new full condition would replace 1969 and become the new full benchmark used to calculate the accumulated overdraft or available storage in current and upcoming years. 3. Determine an appropriate basin storage operating range and management goal for long-term basin management purposes. The District Board of Directors approved staff’s work plan in April 2006, and work commenced shortly thereafter. All work was completed by the District’s Hydrogeology Department, with oversight, direction, and review provided by District management. At the request of the Board, monthly project updates were given at the Water Issues Committee meetings as well as the monthly groundwater producers meetings to facilitate the producers’ involvement in the process. The scope of work laid out in the work plan was generally followed. Initially, it was considered that conducting basin model simulations may be beneficial in validating project results. However, after making significant progress in developing a new storage change methodology and new full basin benchmark, it became evident that it was more appropriate to use aquifer parameters and specific knowledge gained from development of the basin model rather than running new model simulations per se. As such, findings enumerated in this report were based on actual water levels observed in the field coupled with a methodology based on aquifer structure and hydraulic parameters defined during development of the basin model. 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In this section, the District’s traditional storage change calculation is described along with its inherent limitations, followed by a discussion of the development of a new storage change calculation approach and comparison with the traditional method. But first, a conceptual explanation of aquifer storage is explained below. 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept Aquifers not only transmit groundwater but also provide storage volume, sometimes being referred to as “underground reservoirs.” However, unlike surface water reservoirs, approximately 70 to 80 percent of the aquifer’s volume is occupied by the porous medium, typically consisting of various gradations of sand and gravel as well as 9 silts and clays. This leaves only 20 to 30 percent of the aquifer’s total volume remaining as void space that groundwater can occupy. This percentage of void or pore space is referred to as porosity. Over large areas and depths, the void space within aquifers can occupy huge amounts of water. Within the Orange County groundwater basin, which spans over 300 square miles and is over 2,000 feet deep in some areas, District staff have estimated that approximately 66 million acre-feet of water lies in storage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this water cannot be feasibly drained from the basin without incurring detrimental impacts. Excessive long-term pumping of basin aquifers without continual replenishment would lead to a lowering of water levels and a reduction in pore pressure, which would lead to seawater intrusion and irreversible compaction of the aquifer, resulting in subsidence of the land surface. The recommended “drainable” storage volume of the basin (without requiring concurrent replenishment) is 500,000 af acre-feet as discussed in Section 6. The parameter used to define the storage capacity of an aquifer is known as the storage coefficient (S). Unlike the porosity which is a measure of the entire void space regardless of whether or not it contains water, the storage coefficient is a measure of how much water can effectively be drained or squeezed out of the saturated pore space. The storage coefficient is defined as the volume of water yielded per unit horizontal area and per unit drop of water table (unconfined aquifers) or piezometric surface (confined aquifers). 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers A confined aquifer is an aquifer that is confined between two aquitards, which are typically clay or silt layers with low permeability. The water in a confined aquifer cannot freely rise above the overlying clay layer and is under confining pressure. When a well is drilled through the overlying clay layer down into the aquifer, the pressure in the confined aquifer causes the water to rise inside the well (see Figure 3-1) to a level higher than the overlying aquitard. Therefore, water levels measured in wells within confined aquifers – referred to as piezometric levels – may rise and fall but the confined aquifer remains saturated. In a confined aquifer, water is added to or removed from storage primarily through the rearrangement of the unconsolidated sediments via compression or decompression; the compressibility of water contributes significantly less to the storage process. A relatively large piezometric level change in a confined aquifer represents very little change in storage within that aquifer. Storage coefficients for a confined aquifer typically range from 0.01 to as low as 0.00005. An unconfined aquifer is an aquifer in which the water table forms the upper boundary and there is no confining layer above it (see Figure 3-1). That is, the water table can freely rise or fall. Pore space is either filled or drained when the water table rises or falls. Therefore, a unit rise or decline in the water table in an unconfined aquifer represents a relatively large storage volume. For an equivalent water level rise, an 10 unconfined aquifer would exhibit at least 100 times greater storage increase than a confined aquifer. Storage coefficients for unconfined aquifers typically range from 0.01 to 0.3, also referred to as specific yield. In the Orange County groundwater basin, the Shallow aquifer is confined in the coastal and mid-basin areas, commonly referred to as the Pressure Area. The overlying aquitard in the Pressure area thins further inland until it is generally gone. This inland area is referred to as the Forebay area. Since few continuous aquitards exist between the water table and ground surface, it is the “intake” area of the basin where surface water can percolate down to the water table and recharge the aquifers (see Figure 3-1). Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method Water Level Change Method Traditionally, the storage change calculation was based solely on the water level changes occurring in the Principal aquifer, which is the main production zone in the basin from which approximately 90 percent of basin pumping occurs. Dating back to the 1940s, District staff have prepared a November groundwater contour map of Principal aquifer water levels. By comparing the November contour map to that of the previous year, the annual water level change was then determined. The water level change was then multiplied by a set of storage coefficient values and by the area of the basin to obtain the resulting groundwater storage change for that year. Then, the annual storage change was added to the accumulated overdraft from the previous year to obtain the current accumulated overdraft. 0 50 100 -50 -100 250 200 150 ELEV (Feet)Coastal Area Anaheim SW NE Pressure Area (Confined) Forebay (Unconfined) Vadose Zone Monitoring Well Aq u i t a r d Water Table Aquifer 11 Over the years, the overall approach has remained relatively the same, but several refinements were made along the way. In the 1970s, a FORTRAN computer program was developed, referred to as the “Randall Model,” which partially automated the storage change calculation by subdividing the basin into quarter-mile grid cells. The Randall Model computed the storage change calculation grid cell by grid cell. Although this process was somewhat automated, the water level maps had to be manually interpolated to obtain the average water level change for each quarter-mile grid cell. The storage coefficient values for each quarter-mile grid cell were referred to as “Randall” coefficients and are shown in Appendix 1. No documentation exists as to how these storage coefficient values were developed, but they were likely based on review of old well logs throughout the basin. In the early 1990s, with improvements in computer hardware and software, District staff were able to further automate the traditional storage change calculation by using geographical information system (GIS) software to subdivide the basin into smaller, more refined grid cells. By digitizing the hand-drawn water level contour maps into the computer, the water level change at each refined grid cell could be computed without any manual interpolation. However, the overall approach remained the same and still used the same Randall storage coefficient values. Over the last two years, an additional refinement included preparing an end-of-June water level contour map in addition to the annual November contour map. Although the November maps provide a good midpoint between the summer-high and winter-low water level conditions, the June maps coincided better with the District’s water year and fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for the annual storage change calculation. Water Budget Method For the past 10 to 15 years, the annual storage change calculated using the traditional water level method has been checked using a water budget method (inflows minus outflows equal the change in storage). Therefore, the water budget method uses measured groundwater production and recharge data along with a rainfall-based estimate of incidental recharge (unmeasured recharge less underflow to LA County). The water budget method provides a good check of the storage change estimate from the water level method but is based on an assumed (unmeasured) amount of incidental recharge. In most years, the two methods agree rather closely, and the storage change value from the water level method is generally used. The incidental recharge is then adjusted in the water budget method to exactly match the chosen storage change. Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method Although the traditional water level and water budget methods yield similar storage change results in most years, there are some anomalous years in which the two estimates are significantly different. In such years, typically very wet or very dry years, 12 professional judgment must be exercised in determining the official change in storage. This can introduce significant uncertainty into the annual storage change estimate for those years, causing a cumulative effect after several years, which is why the current accumulated overdraft cannot be rectified back to 1969 as discussed in Section 1. The biggest limitation of the traditional method is that it only uses the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Although most groundwater production is from the Principal aquifer, most of the storage change occurs in the Shallow aquifer where it is unconfined in the Forebay area of the basin. Where the Shallow aquifer is unconfined, large storage changes can occur due to the rising or falling of the water table which respectively fills or drains empty pore space, as was discussed in Section 3.2. The Randall storage coefficients used in the traditional method are consistent with those of an unconfined aquifer in the Forebay area and thus are considered as being representative of the Shallow aquifer. Therefore, the traditional method uses Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer, assuming that these two aquifers behave identically in the Forebay area. This is largely true in the Anaheim Lake area near the District’s facilities, but in other portions of the Forebay, the Shallow and Principal aquifers often behave differently from one another, as shown in Figure 3- 2. This indicates that these two aquifers are partially hydraulically separated by aquitards in portions of the Forebay and behave differently rather than as a single unconfined aquifer as the traditional method had assumed. It should be pointed out that in earlier years, depth-specific water level data such as that presented in Figure 3-2 was simply not available to discern hydraulic differences between various aquifer zones, and in some areas of the Forebay, there are no noticeable vertical hydraulic differences. It has only been in the last few years through the use of the District’s monitoring well network and development of the basin model that a better understanding of the basin has been gained. Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 2004 2005 2006 20070 50 100 150 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( fee t m s l ) MP1: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) MP6: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) Well SAR-2 (near Burris Pit) 13 3.4 New Three-Layer Storage Change Approach The new three-layer storage change approach uses all three aquifer systems of the basin: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifer systems (see Figure 3-3). The Shallow aquifer generally ranges no deeper than approximately 250 feet below ground surface and overlies the Principal aquifer, which is generally over 1,000 feet thick throughout much of the basin and supports over 90 percent of basin pumping. The Deep aquifer contains colored water in the coastal area and is more than 2,000 feet deep throughout much of the basin. These three aquifer systems, from shallow to deep, are also referred to as aquifer layers 1, 2, and 3. Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross-Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Methodology The new three-layer storage change approach is based largely on the aquifer configuration, structure, and storage coefficient parameter values defined during development of the basin model. Unlike the traditional method, all three of the basin’s aquifer systems are included in this new methodology. Furthermore, the storage coefficient values used in this new method are specific to each aquifer layer and were refined during dynamic or transient calibration of the basin model until the resulting model-generated water levels achieved a close match with observed water level data throughout the basin. The basic formula used to calculate the change in storage is very similar to the traditional method, but now must be carried out for each of the three aquifer layers. The storage change equation is defined as Storage Change = (Water Level Change) x (storage coefficient) x (horizontal area) NON-WATERBEARING FORMATION 0 miles 1,000 2,000 3,000 Seal Beach Yorba LindaForebayPressure Area 5101520 0 Ground Surface PRINCIPAL AQUIFER (Layer 2) DEEP AQUIFER (Layer 3) SHALLOW AQUIFER (Layer 1) Depth (feet) 14 The storage change for each of the three aquifer layers is thereby calculated and the results of all three summed to get the total storage change in the basin. Figure 3-4 shows a schematic cross-section illustrating the three aquifer layers of the basin and how they differ in terms of their respective storage coefficient (S) values. Whereas the traditional method had presumed that the Forebay area behaved entirely as one large unconfined aquifer without any intervening clay layers, our current understanding of the basin is that only the Shallow aquifer in the Forebay area is truly unconfined. As was discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs specifically in the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area where the rising or falling unconfined water table respectively fills or drains empty pore space. Shallow aquifer storage coefficient values in the Forebay area are approximately 0.1, but in some specific Forebay locations can be as high as 0.25, which is approximately equivalent to the porosity of the sediments at the water table/vadose zone interface. Figure 3-4 illustrates how the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area of the basin. By definition, the Pressure area ends where the water level drops below the elevation of the overlying aquitard and/or where the aquitard no longer exists. In the Pressure area, the Shallow aquifer storage coefficient values are approximately 0.004, or approximately 25 times smaller than in the unconfined Forebay area. This means that for a given water level change in the Pressure area, the resulting change in storage would be 25 times less than for that same water level change observed in the unconfined Forebay area. As shown in Figure 3-4, the Principal aquifer is largely separated from the overlying Shallow aquifer by an extensive aquitard in the coastal and mid-basin areas. In the inland Forebay area, this intervening aquitard becomes intermittent but does not vanish completely, causing some hydraulic separation from the Shallow aquifer while still allowing large amounts of water to migrate downward into the Principal aquifer. As schematically shown in Figure 3-4, Principal aquifer water levels frequently differ from those in the Shallow aquifer due to the hydraulic separation, as was also shown in Figure 3-2 for multi-depth monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin, where observed water levels in the Principal aquifer are noticeably lower than in the Shallow aquifer. The Principal aquifer is thus considered to be semi-confined in the Forebay area, with storage coefficient values of approximately 0.01, which is at least 10 times less than in the unconfined Shallow aquifer. The Deep aquifer is generally confined throughout the entire basin and is separated from the overlying Principal aquifer by an extensive aquitard that thins somewhat in the Forebay area but remains laterally extensive. Therefore, since water level changes in the Deep aquifer represent pressure responses and thus do not involve filling or draining of pore space, storage coefficient values are typically small at approximately 0.001 throughout the entire basin. 15 The storage coefficient values shown in Figure 3-4 and discussed above are typical values for each of the three aquifer layers. The actual storage coefficients used in the storage change calculation not only vary for each aquifer layer but also vary spatially across the basin in both the Pressure and Forebay areas. From the basin model calibration, the different storage coefficient values within each aquifer layer are subdivided into detailed zones. For reference, these zonal storage coefficient maps are included in Appendix 2. These storage coefficient values in the Forebay area of the Shallow aquifer are generally consistent with the Randall coefficients traditionally used. Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values The other component of the storage change formula not yet discussed is the water level change. To obtain the water level change involves constructing water level contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers, both for the previous and current year. Preparation of the water level contour maps for each aquifer layer requires a considerable level of interpretation of the actual data points as well as interpolation between data points. The reported water level data is not always 100 percent accurate and must be reviewed on a well-by-well basis as the contour map is being constructed. Reasons for disqualifying or adjusting observed water level data during the contouring process may include: • A static water level from a production well may have been measured only minutes after shutting off the well pump; • Erroneous water level field measurement (e.g., bad equipment); 0 1,000 200 Depth (Feet)Pressure AreaForebay 1,500 AnaheimCoastal Area Shallow Aquifer Principal Aquifer Deep Aquifer Unconfined Semi-Confined Confined Confined Confined ConfinedS~0.004 S~0.002 S~0.001 S~0.1 S~0.01 S~0.001 S~0.004 S~0.002 S~0.001 S~0.1 S~0.01 S~0.001 16 • Water level measurement taken too early or too late (for the June and November contour maps, attempt to measure all water levels within a two-week window); • Wells are screened at different depths and some wells are screened across multiple aquifers such that water level data not entirely representative of any one aquifer layer being contoured. In addition to the above reasons for screening the observed water level data points, extreme care and consistency must be exercised from one year to the next when contouring and interpolating between data points, especially in sparse areas lacking sufficient data to definitively define the shape of the contours. Barring any new wells or data, water levels should be similarly interpreted in these areas from year to year so that false storage changes are not artificially created. Knowledge of the aquifer’s characteristics, presence of geologic faults, regional flow regime, and vertical relationship with the other aquifers have proven useful in determining the contour patterns in a given area. Of the three aquifer layers, the Principal aquifer has the best water level data coverage thanks to more than 200 large system production wells monitored by each respective groundwater producer, as well as District monitoring wells throughout the basin. Historically, this predominance of available water level data for the Principal aquifer and lack thereof for the Shallow and Deep aquifers is a likely reason that the traditional storage change method only considered the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Much more water level data exists today for the Shallow aquifer than in the past, primarily due to the District’s network of monitoring wells, many of which monitor multiple aquifer zones at one well site, helping to decipher the vertical relationship between the Shallow and deeper aquifers and their degree of hydraulic connection. Since the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs in the unconfined portion of the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area, the constructed water level contours are of utmost importance in those inland areas. Unfortunately, data is sparse in a few of these outlying areas of the basin. Therefore, to increase the accuracy of the Shallow aquifer contour maps and thus the accuracy of the storage calculation, approximately six new shallow monitoring wells are recommended to fill data gaps in the areas of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Orange, Irvine, and Yorba Linda. Figure 3-5 shows the approximate desired locations for these six proposed wells. Figure 3-5 also shows the water level contours for the Shallow aquifer for June 2006. Just as for the other two aquifer layers, these contours where hand drawn based on observed water level data from wells screened in the Shallow aquifer (shown in light gray in Figure 3-5). The hand-drawn contours were then digitized into the computer for calculation purposes. Note that the contours were drawn out to the boundary of the basin model layer 1 which extends into LA County, but during the storage calculation process the LA County portion is excluded. 17 Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells GIS Application for Three-Layer Storage Change Calculation A new GIS application was developed and programmed to automate the new three- layer storage change calculation utilizing the digitized water level contour maps for each aquifer layer as well as the storage coefficient values from the basin model. The new GIS application consists of a series of steps governed by programs written in the AML scripting language within the Arc/Info environment. A detailed description of these steps, along with all the AML codes written for this application, is included in Appendix 4. The digitized water level contours are converted into GIS compatible files (grids) at the same refined resolution as the basin model input parameters, essentially subdividing the entire basin into 500-foot square grid cells. The GIS application then carries out the storage change formula one grid cell at a time for each aquifer layer, calculating the water level change between the two years in question and multiplying by the storage Proposed Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well Proposed Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well 18 coefficient and horizontal area of the grid cell. Then, the storage change of all grid cells is summed for each layer. The total change in storage is then the corresponding sum of all three aquifer layers. When calculating the storage change at each grid cell, the GIS application must check to determine if the conditions are confined or unconfined. Generally, the Principal and Deep aquifers are typically confined, but the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area and unconfined in the Forebay area, with the dividing line between these two areas being dependent upon the actual water level elevations at that time. If the water level is above the top of the aquifer layer (per the basin model layer elevations), then a confined storage coefficient is used for that grid cell; otherwise, if the water level is below the top of that aquifer layer, then a larger unconfined storage coefficient is used. To further complicate matters, the water level change in question from Year 1 to Year 2 may cause a given grid cell in the Shallow aquifer to switch from confined under Year 1 conditions to unconfined under the Year 2 conditions, or vice versa. The GIS application handles this type of condition by subdividing the water level change into two components: a confined portion and an unconfined portion. This is illustrated in the sketch and “pseudo-code” algorithm that was written for this application prior to formal programming of the GIS application (Appendix 4). The new GIS application for the three-layer storage change calculation was thoroughly tested and necessary refinements were made to the AML codes. Water level change and storage change calculations were hand checked and verified at individual grid cells having both confined and unconfined conditions. Also, the storage change results for each aquifer layer were verified to be identical in magnitude but opposite in sign if switching the order of what is predefined as Year 1 or Year 2. For example, if the storage change from Year 1 to Year 2 was calculated to be 10,000 af, then the storage change from Year 2 to Year 1 calculates to be exactly -10,000 af. Testing the Three-Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method Test Case 1 compared the new three-layer storage change calculation to the traditional method using the annual period November 2004 to November 2005. This first test case represented an extremely wet year with record-setting rainfall and a huge storage change of +187,000 af using the traditional method with the existing November contour maps of the Principal aquifer. Using the new three-layer approach led to a storage change of +147,000 af for the same period. The rather large discrepancy of 40,000 af in Test Case 1 is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the traditional method presumption that Principal aquifer water levels behave identically to Shallow aquifer water levels in the Forebay area. As was shown in previous sections, this is not always the case and was especially not the case during 2004-05 when the Principal aquifer rose much more than the Shallow aquifer in most Forebay locations. 19 Figure 3-6 shows water levels for multi-depth monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin in the Anaheim Forebay area. Notice that the water level change from November 2004 to November 2005 in the Principal aquifer zone was more than double that for the Shallow aquifer zone at that location. Since this was the case throughout much of the Forebay area, the traditional method overestimated the storage change by using Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer. Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 Test Case 2 compared the new three-layer method to the traditional method for the most recent water year, June 2005 through June 2006. This water year was chosen because it not only represented the most recent conditions but it was also an approximately average rainfall year in contrast to the extremely wet year in Test Case 1. As was mentioned in previous sections, care was exercised to maintain consistency of how the water level data was interpreted and hand contoured for both of these years to prevent any false or “manufactured” water level changes between the two conditions. For Test Case 2, the traditional method yielded a storage change of +52,000 af, whereas the new three-layer method yielded a slightly higher storage change of +66,000 af. The two methods yielded much closer results for this average hydrology year, indicating that the traditional method is at least “in the ballpark” during more typical years when water levels are not as drastically rising or falling. In these closer-to- average years, the traditional method presumption that Principal aquifer water levels behave similarly to the Shallow aquifer is not grossly inaccurate. However, since the new three-layer approach is more comprehensive and utilizes all three aquifer layers, it 2004 2005 2006 20070 20 40 60 80 100 120 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t m s l ) OCWD MonitoringWellSAR-2(near BurrisPit) 44 ft 18 ft MP1: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) MP6: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) (near Burris Basin) 20 represents a technical improvement upon the traditional method and is the preferred approach. Figure 3-7 summarizes the results from both test cases 1 and 2 and schematically shows the storage change per aquifer layer for the three-layer method. As expected and as was discussed in earlier sections, the majority of the storage change occurred in the Shallow aquifer. The majority of basin pumping (over 200,000 afy) occurs from the Principal aquifer, which is continuously being fed by the Shallow aquifer, which in turn is being fed by the District’s recharge activities (typically over 200,000 afy). If basin pumping exceeds total recharge over a given year, then the Principal aquifer draws more water out of the Shallow aquifer than what is coming in from recharge, resulting in an annual storage decrease in the Shallow aquifer. Conversely, if recharge exceeds basin pumping over the course of a year (especially in a wet year), then more recharge is entering the Shallow aquifer than what is flowing down into the Principal aquifer, causing Shallow aquifer water levels to rise and a resulting storage increase. Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three-Layer Storage Change Results Shallow Aquifer Principal Aquifer Deep Aquifer Traditional Method Three-Layer Method (Nov-04 to Nov-05)(Jun-05 to Jun-06) +187,000 af +147,000 af +52,000 af +66,000 af Test Case 1Test Case 2 57,000 5,000 4,000 115,000 21,000 11,000 21 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK Since a new three-layer method was developed and tested for calculating the change in storage, a new full basin benchmark must be defined for all three aquifer layers so that the accumulated overdraft can ultimately be calculated. In Section 1, it was shown that 1969 water levels no longer represented a full basin given the significantly different pumping and recharge conditions that exist today. In fact comparing the November 1969 water level contour map to the recent June 2006 Principal aquifer contour map shows that in much of the Forebay area, Principal aquifer water levels are already higher in June 2006 than they were in November 1969 when the basin had historically been considered full (see Figure 4-1). The Irvine Forebay area was over 80 feet higher in June 2006 than 1969 due to reduced agricultural pumping over the years. As was discussed in Section 1, because of increased utilization of the groundwater basin, i.e., increased pumping and recharge, higher Forebay water levels can be achieved while coastal water levels remain lower, resulting in a steeper basin gradient. Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 Nov 69 to Jun 06 1969 data not available in this area 22 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology A water level contour map representing a reasonable full condition was developed for the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifers. The resulting full water levels represent a “snapshot” of a peak high water level condition throughout the basin that could possibly be exceeded but with potentially detrimental impacts. Defining how high basin water levels can rise before being considered full was largely based on a comprehensive review of relatively recent historical high basin conditions that occurred approximately in 1994 and 2006. The high basin conditions that occurred in 1969 and 1983 were briefly reviewed but were deemed of less direct value since basin pumping and recharge patterns were significantly different then. Much of the groundwater basin achieved historical highs during 1994, with the coastal area peaking in the winter and the Forebay area in late spring or early summer. A similar lag in the seasonal timing of the coastal and Forebay area water level peak was observed during the recent high condition of 2006. Typically after a very wet winter, surplus storm runoff impounded behind Prado Dam is still being released for OCWD recharge operations well into the summer months, thus increasing Forebay recharge amounts, which in turn raise Forebay water levels at a time when coastal water levels are already beginning to decline in response to summer pumping. However, also during wet years, MWD has surplus water; thus, taking additional imported water in-lieu of groundwater pumping can extend into the summer months, which would prevent or delay coastal water levels from declining. Therefore, for the purposes here of defining a basin-wide full condition, it is assumed that water levels can concurrently peak to a full condition throughout the basin. The full condition that was developed for all three aquifer layers represents the highest achievable water levels throughout the basin under realistic present-day operating conditions without incurring any regional-scale detrimental impacts. In general, coastal water levels were assumed to be at or very near the 1994 and 2006 winter highs, whereas the Forebay area was assumed to be at or slightly above the 1994 and June 2006 highs. In so doing, the full basin coastal water levels were high enough to be protective against seawater intrusion but not unnecessarily high to where shallow groundwater seepage could become an issue. In the Forebay area, full basin water levels were generally well below ground surface and at or near the bottom of deep recharge basins (as occurred in June 1994). Therefore, in the Forebay area, water levels any higher than this full condition may be physically possible but would likely impact recharge operations and lead to considerable mounding problems. Other assumptions that define the new full basin condition are enumerated below. 1. Full basin flow patterns (shape of the water level contours) are representative of present-day pumping and recharge conditions (except where specifically noted) and thus are largely based on and consistent with actual water level contour maps constructed for the recent high conditions of January 2006 and June 2006. 23 2. Water levels in the Irvine Sub-basin were at historical highs during 2006 because of the extremely wet year 2004-05 and reduced Irvine Company agricultural pumping. The new full condition in the Irvine Sub-basin is thus based on this recent high condition, which inherently then excludes the Irvine Desalter Project (IDP). The IDP will significantly lower Irvine area water levels for many years to come, but the regional drawdown and resulting water levels in that area are uncertain and may take several years to stabilize. Previous basin model scenarios including IDP pumping estimated that approximately 50,000 af of storage decline in the Irvine Sub- basin could occur after 20 years of full-scale IDP pumping. With this in mind, the new full condition will not likely be achievable in the Irvine Sub-basin after the IDP goes on-line. 3. Based on the earlier assumption that this new full condition is protective against seawater intrusion, full basin water levels in the MCWD area were based on the historical high of 1994 rather than the somewhat lower water levels during the 2006 high condition. The 1994 water levels in the MCWD area were higher than in 2006 because the MCWD colored water project was not yet active in 1994. Therefore, the new full basin water levels in that immediate area inherently assume no MCWD colored water project (i.e., no pumping from Well MCWD-6) in order to define a condition sufficiently protective against seawater intrusion. 4. Full basin water levels in the immediate area of the Talbert Barrier were adjusted slightly higher than recent high conditions to account for the GWR Phase 1 barrier expansion soon to be on-line. Some of these new injection wells, including the four wells along the Santa Ana River just north of Adams Avenue, are already on-line and thus the observed water level rise due to these wells was used in the full basin condition. 5. Full basin water levels were raised slightly higher than either of the historical highs of 1994 or 2006 in areas where other near-term recharge projects are already planned, including La Jolla Basin and Santiago Creek recharge enhancements. However, especially in the case of Santiago Creek, full basin water levels were kept sufficiently below ground surface and known landfill elevations. 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map Full basin water levels for the Shallow aquifer were based largely on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. Only wells with a screened interval generally in the range from 100 to 250 feet below ground surface (depending on the specific area) were used to ensure that these wells were representative of the Shallow aquifer. This depth restriction excludes most large system production wells. Therefore, the majority of wells used to construct the Shallow aquifer full basin water level map were District monitoring wells, along with some small system and domestic wells having sufficient water level histories. Fortunately, the majority of the District’s monitoring wells were constructed early enough so as to catch the 1994 high-basin condition. 24 Prior to this study, Shallow aquifer water levels were not regularly contoured, but Shallow aquifer contour maps (basin model layer 1) had been constructed during basin model development and much was learned about the hydraulic characteristics and flow patterns of the Shallow aquifer. Subsequently for testing the new three-layer storage change method described in Section 3, water level contour maps were constructed for all three aquifer layers using observed data for both June 2005 and June 2006. Fortunately, June 2006 also represented a high-basin condition from which to use as a base for making adjustments up to the new full condition. In the coastal and mid-basin areas, high water levels that peaked in January 2006 were generally adhered to and used for the full condition in those areas. This represented a condition high enough to be protective of seawater intrusion, but anything appreciably higher could potentially result in shallow groundwater seepage problems in low-lying areas. In the immediate area surrounding portions of the Talbert Barrier, the observed January 2006 water levels were adjusted upward approximately 5 feet to account for increased injection from new GWRS Phase 1 injection wells. In the area surrounding the GWRS treatment plant site where considerable construction dewatering was occurring during January 2006, full water levels were based on earlier historical highs that were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in this immediate area. In the Forebay area, full basin water levels were generally set from 0 to 15 feet above the higher of the two historical peaks that occurred in June 1994 and June 2006. The magnitude of the upward adjustment between 0 and 15 feet depended on conditions at each well location and was most significantly influenced by the relative depth of the water table from ground surface. Since relatively little pumping occurs from the Shallow aquifer, the unconfined water table in the Forebay area is largely considered to be a subdued reflection of topography, with the exception of directly beneath recharge basins where the Shallow aquifer water table tends to rise in response to percolation. From analysis of the Forebay historical highs (June 1994 and/or June 2006), Shallow aquifer water levels generally peak at an elevation that corresponds to a depth of approximately 50 to 60 feet below ground surface. Therefore, when setting the full basin water level elevations at various well points and especially in areas where little or no data existed, the 50- to 60-foot depth to water rule of thumb was generally maintained. Since the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs in the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area, the full basin water level condition in this area is crucial. A discussion of the full basin Shallow aquifer water level adjustments for specific regions of the Forebay is described below. At Anaheim Lake and Kraemer Basin, full basin water levels were set at June 1994 observed levels with no upward adjustment since these levels were essentially at or even a couple feet above the deepest portion of Anaheim Lake, which is approximately 50 to 60 feet deep (see Figure 4-2), which is consistent with the depth to water rule of thumb mentioned above. Water levels any higher at this location, if even achievable, would likely impede percolation from these basins and thus would not be desirable. 25 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 At Santiago Pits, full basin water levels were set at the historical high of March 1993 (just slightly higher than June 1994) with no upward adjustment. This same identical high was reached but not exceeded more recently in June 2005 after the extremely wet winter of 2004-05. Having the observed water levels peak at the same exact same level in 1993 and 2005 may likely indicate that this repeatable historical high may represent the highest physically achievable water level for this area. In the Anaheim/Fullerton area west of the District’s spreading grounds, full basin water levels were set 10 to 15 feet higher than the new historical high of June 2006. Water levels in June 2006 exceeded the previous historical high of June 1994 and appear to still be on an upward trend. The upward adjustment of 10 to 15 feet from the June 2006 observed condition once again brought the water table up to approximately 50-60 feet from ground surface. Along the Santa Ana River downstream of Lincoln Avenue, full basin water levels were set 5 to 10 feet higher than the new historical high of June 2006, which exceeded the previous high of June 1994 in this area as well. The upward adjustment of 5 to 10 feet above the historical high once again brought the full condition up as shallow as 40-50 feet from ground surface, likely being influenced by the recharge from the Santa Ana River and Burris Basin. This full level also corresponds approximately to the bottom elevation of Burris Basin, analogous to the full level adjacent to Anaheim Lake. 193019401950196019701980199020002010 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t io n ( f e e t m s l ) Ground Surface “Full”Water Level = Jun-94 Anaheim Lake50-60 ft Well A-27 (adjacent to Anaheim Lake) Screened Interval: 212–287 ft bgs 26 In the Irvine Forebay area, full basin water levels were set within 5 feet of the historical high, which either occurred in 1994, 1999, or 2006 depending on the exact location within this general area. Recall from the previous section that this new full condition is prior to full-scale IDP pumping. Although the majority of IDP pumping will be from the Principal aquifer, Shallow aquifer water levels will likely also decline. Finally, in the mid-basin Pressure area, full condition water levels were modestly adjusted upward 5 to 10 feet from the new historical high of June 2006, which again significantly exceeded the previous high of June 1994. This slight upward adjustment maintains a reasonable gradient from the coast to the upwardly adjusted full water levels in the Anaheim Forebay area. After making all the full condition water level adjustments at monitoring well points in the various areas described, the resulting full water levels were plotted on a map and hand contoured similarly to the observed water levels of June 2006. In fact, the June 2006 contour map was used as a guide or backdrop on the light table while contouring the full condition to ensure consistency, especially in outlying areas lacking data. Figure 4-3 shows the resulting full water level contour map constructed for the Shallow aquifer. Also shown for reference is the June 2006 Shallow aquifer contour map directly below it. Note the similarity in the shape of the contours between the two maps. The various well points screened in the Shallow aquifer that were used for constructing these contour maps are shown in light gray. The red boundary represents the basin model layer 1 boundary which represents the extent of the Shallow aquifer along the mountain fronts where the aquifer terminates and on the western boundary represents an arbitrary cutoff 5 miles into LA County. Contouring the water levels slightly into LA County adds confidence to the shape of the contours in west Orange County and at least qualitatively indicates the direction of flow across the county line. Figure 4-4 shows the same two Shallow aquifer water level conditions (Full and June 2006), but in units of depth to water below ground surface rather than elevation. As was discussed above, notice that much of the Forebay area is within the 40 feet below ground surface or greater range since the Shallow aquifer water levels generally follow ground surface topography where the aquifer is unconfined (Forebay), except near recharge facilities where the depth to water is more shallow due to percolation raising the water table. The depth to water also becomes shallower in the Pressure area of the basin where the Shallow aquifer is confined. However, these “water levels” are actually pressure or piezometric levels since the water is confined or trapped below the overlying aquitard. Water can only rise to this elevation if a well is drilled through the aquitard down into this aquifer or if the aquitard is thin or discontinuous. Notice that there is a large area in Irvine where the piezometric level is actually above ground surface in both the observed June 2006 and Full condition. This area has historically experienced artesian conditions when basin levels are relatively high. 27 Figure 4-3. Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 28 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2006 Full Basin Shallow Aquifer June 2006 Shallow Aquifer 29 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map As with the Shallow aquifer, full basin water levels for the Principal aquifer were also based on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. Wells with a screened interval generally within a range between 300 to 1,000 feet below ground surface (depending on the specific area) were used to represent the Principal aquifer. This depth interval includes most large system production wells, which along with District monitoring wells, were used to construct the Principal aquifer full basin water level map. Prior to developing the full basin condition for the Principal aquifer, the high-basin water level condition of January 2006 was analyzed and contoured to determine the flow patterns and contour shapes for a most recent, near-full, actual condition. In subsequent months, observed water levels in the Forebay area increased further to a new historical high in June 2006, whereas in the coastal area January 2006 remained a historical high. In the coastal area, full basin water levels were generally set at or within 5 feet of the observed peak January 2006 water levels, as was also done for the Shallow aquifer. In fact, this was the case for the majority of the Pressure area, where January 2006 water levels were noticeably higher than the previous high of 1994 (see Figure 4-5). Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 1965197019751980198519901995200020052010 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Gr o u n d w a t e r E l e v a t i o n ( ft m s l ) Ground Surface “Full”Basin Water Level = Jan 06 Production Well SA-21 Screened Interval: 400–960 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 30 The exception to using January 2006 water levels for the full condition in the Pressure area was in the MCWD area where the high condition of April 1994 was used. At this location, January 2006 water levels were 15 to 20 feet lower than April 1994 because of current pumping from the MCWD colored water project that did not exist in 1994. As was mentioned in the Section 4.1 assumptions, since the full condition must be sufficiently high in the coastal area to be protective of seawater intrusion, the older but higher April 1994 water levels were used in this area for the full condition even though it is not representative of present-day pumping in this immediate area (see Figure 4-6). Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 Throughout most of the Irvine Sub-basin, January 2006 represented a historical high similar to the rest of the Pressure area. Thus, full basin water levels in Irvine were also set within 5 feet of observed January 2006 levels. However, in north Irvine near the Santa Ana mountain front, 1999 water levels were used since they were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in that immediate area. In the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, full basin water levels were generally set at or within 5 feet of the historical high that occurred during March through June of 1994 depending on the exact location. For the majority of the Forebay area, 1994 still represented a historical high for the Principal aquifer, higher than January or June 2006. Although the full water levels were based on different historical highs in different areas of the basin (coastal vs. inland), resulting gradients and flow patterns were reasonable and similar to those contoured for the observed data of June 2006 (see Figure 4.7). 1980198519901995200020052010 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 Grou n d w a t e r E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) Ground Surface “Full”Basin Water Level = April 94 Production Well MCWD-2 Screened Interval: 300–650 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 31 Figure 4-7. Principal Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Estimated Groundwater Elevations Vllithin The Principal Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) .Active Production Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well PRINCIPAL AQU IFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations Vllithi n The Principa l Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) '\. Active Production Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well Mu ltipart Monitoring Well 32 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map For the Deep aquifer, the main data source for developing the full basin condition was water level data from the District’s deep multi-port monitoring (Westbay) well network. Approximately two-thirds of these 56 wells were sufficiently deep and in appropriate locations overlying the Deep aquifer. Depending on the specific location, the monitoring ports of these wells that tap the Deep aquifer generally range from approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet below ground surface. In addition to the District’s deep monitoring wells, a few other scattered well points that tap the Deep aquifer were used, such as two deep monitoring wells owned by the Water Replenishment District in LA County (very close to the county line). The new full condition for the Deep aquifer was predominantly based on the historical high that occurred in 1994. Throughout the basin, the recent June 2006 Deep aquifer water levels were still well below the historical high of 1994, likely due to the IRWD Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS) Project which began pumping approximately 8,000 afy of colored water in December 2001 from this otherwise little-used zone. Also, there was no MCWD colored water project yet in 1994. Fortunately, most of the District’s deep monitoring wells are old enough to have captured the historical high condition of 1994. It is somewhat speculative as to how high the piezometric level of the Deep aquifer can rise. Therefore, full water levels were conservatively adjusted only 0 to 5 feet higher than the observed historical peak that occurred April to June of 1994. In so doing, the observed vertical piezometric head difference between the overlying Principal aquifer and the Deep aquifer was maintained. Throughout most of the basin, Deep aquifer piezometric levels typically ranged from 10 to 30 feet higher than the more heavily pumped Principal aquifer, except in the furthest inland locations near the mountain front and near recharge facilities where the Deep aquifer levels are actually lower than the Principal aquifer due to being more vertically removed from surficial recharge. While contouring the resulting Deep aquifer full basin piezometric levels (also referred to as water levels for simplicity), the Principal aquifer full condition contour map was used as a backdrop on the light table to ensure that the Deep aquifer full contours maintained the vertical head difference discussed above. Also, in areas lacking data, the contours were drawn with similar patterns as those predicted during basin model calibration. Figure 4-8 shows the resulting contour maps for both the new full condition and also June 2006 for comparison. The contour shapes are quite similar for both maps except in the area near the aforementioned DATS wells. The Full map assumes no DATS pumping since it was based on the historical high water levels of 1994, whereas the June 2006 map shows a relatively deep pumping depression in that immediate area. However, due to the confined nature of the Deep aquifer, the storage coefficients of this zone are very small (see Appendix 2) and thus even a relatively large water level difference leads to a small storage change. 33 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 DEEP AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Deep Aqui fer (Feet A bove Mean Sea Level) Inactive Production Will i Injection We ll Monitooi ng Well DEEP AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations \Mthin The Deep Aq uifer (Feet Above Mean Sea ., Aclive Production Well Inactive Production WI!! I Injection Well Monhooing Well 34 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION The accumulated overdraft is the amount of storage capacity below full, sometimes referred to as dewatered storage or available storage capacity. In various literature, overdraft often has a negative connotation implying that a basin is in a steady state of decline or has been drawn-down below some critical threshold to where negative impacts such as subsidence and seawater intrusion begin to occur. In this report, use of the term “accumulated overdraft,” which is defined in the District Act, is not intended to have any negative connotation and is strictly used as a measure of available basin storage below the new full benchmark or zero-overdraft condition established in Section 4. 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 The new three-layer storage change methodology was used to calculate the accumulated overdraft for June 2006. Three groundwater contour maps (one for each aquifer layer) representing June 30, 2006 had already been constructed for testing the new three-layer approach described in Section 3. For the storage change calculation, Year 1 was set to the new full water level condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2006 water level condition. The resulting change in storage from the new full condition to June 2006 was -135,000 af, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft as of June 30, 2006 was 135,000 af below the new full benchmark. The breakdown per aquifer layer is schematically shown below in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1. Three-Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 Full -135,000 AF 0 AF Shallow Aquifer: 110,000 AF Jun-06 Principal Aquifer: 20,000 AF Deep Aquifer: 5,000 AF 35 To put the Shallow aquifer storage change from the full condition (110,000 af) into perspective, Shallow aquifer water levels in most of the Forebay area were approximately 15 feet higher in the full condition as compared to June 2006 (Figure 5- 2). In the coastal area, full water levels were only about 5 feet higher than June 2006. And since much more storage change occurs in the Forebay than the Pressure area per foot of water level change, nearly all of the Shallow aquifer storage change from full to June 2006 occurred in the Forebay area. Therefore, in general, a 15-foot Shallow aquifer water level change throughout the Forebay caused approximately 100,000 af of storage change. Detailed water level change maps for June 2006 to the new full condition for all three aquifer layers are shown in Appendix 3. Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 Using the new three-layer storage change method, the accumulated overdraft was calculated for June 2005 by directly comparing to the new full benchmark once again. In the storage change calculation, Year 1 was set to the new full water level condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2005 water level condition. The resulting total change in storage from the new full to June 2005 was -201,000 af, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft was 201,000 af below the new full benchmark. Forebay Pressure Area +15 +5 or less +25 Shallow Aquifer Water Level Increase (ft) from Jun 2006 to Full Condition 36 The June 30, 2005 accumulated overdraft for each aquifer layer was as follows: Shallow aquifer: 166,000 af Principal aquifer: 25,000 af Deep aquifer: 10,000 af Total: 201,000 af The difference between the June 2005 and June 2006 accumulated overdraft was 66,000 af, which represents the annual increase in storage from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 (see figure 5-3). As a check, this storage change of 66,000 af was exactly the same as that calculated directly using the new three-layer method with Year 1 as June 2005 and Year 2 as June 2006 (see previous Figure 3-7). Therefore, this confirmed that the new three-layer approach yields exactly the same results summing the annual storage change over multiple years or calculating the storage change using the start and end of the multiple year period. In addition, the new method has been shown to yield the same identical storage change, but opposite in sign, when reversing the order of Year 1 vs. Year 2. Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 5.3 Historical vs. New Accumulated Overdraft Estimates The new accumulated overdraft estimate of 201,000 af for June 2005 is 29,000 af less than the traditional method estimate of 230,000 af published in the 2004-05 OCWD Engineer’s Report. This discrepancy is relatively minor when considering the major differences between the traditional single-layer and new three-layer storage change methods and also their two corresponding different full basin benchmarks. Since the historical accumulated overdraft levels are all relative to the 1969 condition as being the 0 AF New Full Benchmark0 AF New Full Benchmark -135,000 AF June 30, 2006 -201,000 AF June 30, 2005-201,000 AF June 30, 200566,000 AF 37 zero-overdraft benchmark, the two new accumulated overdraft estimates for June 2005 and June 2006 are plotted on the same familiar historical overdraft graph in Figure 5-4. However, this graph has been divided at the June 2005 line due to the two different zero-overdraft benchmarks of 1969 water levels and the new full condition. Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft 5.4 Implementation of New Three-Layer Storage Change Method To prevent or minimize any accumulation of potential discrepancy from year to year when implementing this new storage change method, it is important to follow the steps enumerated below. 1. Hand-contour water levels collected on or about June 30 for each of the three aquifer layers, maintaining consistency with how the water level data is interpreted from year to year, unless new well data in a specific area causes a different interpretation. 2. Use the GIS to calculate the water level change and corresponding storage change from the three-layer full benchmark to the current June condition. The resulting storage change below the full condition represents the accumulated overdraft for June of that year. Three-Layer New Full 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 J u n - 6 9 J u n - 7 4 J u n - 7 9 J u n - 8 4 J u n - 8 9 J u n - 9 4 J u n - 9 9 J u n - 0 4 J u n - 0 9 Ac c u m u l a t e d O v e r d r a f t ( A F ) New Jun-06 135,000 AF New Jun-05 201,000 AF Old Jun-05 230,000 AF Single-Layer Traditional Full (1969) Ju n - 0 5 38 3. Subtract the previous year’s accumulated overdraft from the current year to obtain the annual change in storage for that water year. 4. This step is a quality control check. Use the three-layer storage change method once again to calculate the water level change and storage change from the previous June (Year 1) to the current June (Year 2). This storage change should exactly equal the storage change calculated in Step 3. 5. Calculate incidental recharge for that water year by inputting the annual storage change estimate from Step 3 or 4 (if they are the same) into the water budget method described in Section 3.3. The resulting incidental recharge should be reasonable given the annual rainfall for the year in question; otherwise, additional error checking should be done for the water budget terms as well as the input data for the storage change calculation. It should be pointed out though that incidental recharge is not solely a function of rainfall because the flow across the LA County line – along with all other unknown inflows and outflows – is lumped into the incidental recharge term. That being said, incidental recharge for a somewhat typical year with average rainfall is thought to be approximately 60,000 afy but could vary by upwards of 20,000 af based on changes in outflow to LA County, which unfortunately is difficult to quantify. 6. The water budget method should not be used to determine or adjust the official storage change estimate calculated using the new three-layer method. It can be used to calculate preliminary monthly storage change estimates (using assumed incidental recharge) prior to performing the annual three-layer storage calculation. However, the annual storage change and accumulated overdraft official record for that year should be the exact value from the three-layer storage method steps above. This will prevent an accumulation of unknown discrepancy when rectifying back to previous years. 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY The level of accumulated overdraft in the basin, both for the current and upcoming year, affects important basin management decisions, including determining imported water needs and setting the Basin Pumping Percentage (BPP), both of which have major financial effects on the District and groundwater producers. Therefore, it is crucial to have an operational strategy to ensure that the basin is managed within acceptable overdraft limits to prevent detrimental impacts to the basin while also striving to maximize water reliability and financial efficiency. In the discussion that follows, all storage and overdraft conditions are defined for June 30 of a given year, which is the ending date of the water year (July 1 through June 30) and thus the date represented by the June annual contour maps used for the storage change calculation. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels and basin storage occur throughout the water year and are tracked monthly for reporting purposes, and are used, along with the end-of-year accumulated overdraft, in making management decisions. 39 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target The operating range of the basin is considered to be the maximum allowable storage range without incurring detrimental impacts. The upper limit of the operating range is defined by the new full basin condition, which represents the zero-overdraft benchmark. Although it may be physically possible to fill the basin higher than this full condition, it could lead to detrimental impacts such as percolation reductions in recharge facilities and increased risk of shallow groundwater seepage in low-lying coastal areas. The lower limit of the operating range is considered to be 500,000 af overdraft and represents the lowest acceptable level in the basin, not the lowest achievable. This level also assumes that all MWD water stored in the basin (e.g., Conjuctive Use Storage Project and Super In-Lieu) has already been withdrawn. Although it is considered to be generally acceptable to allow the basin to decline to 500,000 af overdraft for brief periods due to severe drought conditions and lack of supplemental imported water supplies, it is not considered to be an acceptable management practice to intentionally manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer Of course, detrimental impacts like those listed above do not suddenly happen when the overdraft gets down to exactly 500,000 af; rather, they occur incrementally, or the potential for their occurrence grows as the basin declines to lower levels. However, basin model computer simulations indicate that many of these detrimental impacts become evident at an overdraft of approximately 500,000 af. For example, at 500,000 af overdraft, model-simulated water levels in the Talbert Gap area were marginally low and not protective of seawater intrusion, even with the increased injection from GWRS Phase 1. Furthermore, worst case basin model runs at 700,000 af overdraft indicated seawater intrusion becoming even worse and considerably more production wells being impacted by low pumping levels. Thus, an accumulated overdraft level of 700,000 af did not appear to be acceptable, not even for short durations. At overdraft levels significantly below 500,000 af overdraft, the potential for land subsidence could also become an issue. Based on historical hydrology and recharge water availability, an accumulated overdraft of 100,000 af best represents an optimal basin management target. This optimal target level provides sufficient storage space to accommodate anticipated recharge from a single wet year while also providing water in storage for at least 2 or 3 consecutive years of drought. 40 Table 6-1 shows that basin storage could increase by as much as 100,000 af in a somewhat typical wet year based on predicted increased supplies. The Captured Santa Ana River Flows and Natural Incidental Recharge terms were both based on an average of four historical wet years: 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, and 2004-05. Based on historical rainfall records for the Orange County area, wet years typically do not occur back-to-back. Therefore, the optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af provides the storage capacity to capture the increased supplies from this one typically wet year. Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Table 6-2 shows that basin storage could decrease by approximately 90,000 af in a dry year based on reduced supplies. However, unlike wet years, historical rainfall records for this area show that dry years often occur for 2 or 3 consecutive years. Therefore, the 90,000 af of reduced supplies in a dry year could result in a 270,000 af decrease in basin storage after 3 consecutive years of drought. Assuming the basin to be at the optimal target of 100,000 af going into a three-year drought, the accumulated overdraft at the end of the drought would be 370,000 af, which is still within the acceptable operating range. Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years 20,000 Reduced Demand (Pumping) 100,000 Potential Storage Increase ** 30,000 Natural Incidental Recharge * 50,000 Captured Santa Ana River Flows * 1 Year (AF) Increased Supplies (Above Average Annual Amounts) * Average of four wet years: 92-93, 94-95, 97-98, 04-05 ** Assumes no mid-year BPP change -90,000 -20,000 -40,000 -30,000 1 Year (AF) -270,000 -60,000 -120,000 -90,000 3 Years (AF) Total Potential Storage Change* Natural Incidental Recharge Santa Ana River Flows MWD Replenishment Water Reduced Supplies (From Average Annual Amounts) * Assumes no mid-year BPP change 41 Figure 6-1 schematically illustrates the various overdraft levels discussed above in relation to one another; namely, the new full benchmark, the optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af, and the lower limit of the operating range at 500,000 af accumulated overdraft. Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy The primary “tool” for managing the basin is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). Each year in April, the District’s Board of Directors sets the BPP for the upcoming water year. In addition to purchasing replenishment water, adjusting the BPP allows the District to effectively increase or decrease basin storage. Figure 6-2 shows the formula used to calculate the BPP each year. Only the two terms highlighted in blue and red in the BPP formula are adjustable at the District’s discretion, namely the planned amount of recharge (including replenishment water purchases) and the planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year. The amount of recharge planned and budgeted for the coming year may be limited by factors outside the District’s control, such as the availability of imported water for either direct replenishment or In-Lieu. For example, following statewide wet years, MWD may -418,000 AF Provides at least 3 years of drought supply above MWD storage 82,000 afMWD storage * 66,000 AF CUP Storage 16,000 AF Super In-Lieu-500,000 AF 0 AF -100,000 AF Available storage for one wet year OCWD Operating Range OPTIMAL TARGET Lowest Acceptable Level New Full Condition * Current maximum approved volume 42 offer incentives (financial or otherwise) for local water agencies to take additional amounts of surplus imported water, whereas during a long-term statewide drought the surplus imported water may simply not be available. Figure 6-2. BPP Formula The planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year is within the District’s control but is also considered within the context of financial impacts to both the District and the groundwater producers. Therefore, unless the basin is near the bottom of the acceptable operating range or close to being full, a moderate amount of basin refill or decrease would typically be proposed that aims to move toward the optimal overdraft target. If the basin is already at or near the 100,000 af overdraft target, then a neutral stance can be taken that attempts to balance basin production and recharge with no planned storage change. Figure 6-3 schematically illustrates the generalized basin refill or storage decrease strategy based on the accumulated overdraft. When the basin is higher than the optimal overdraft target and nearly full, the amount of planned storage decrease of up to 50,000 af for the coming year may be recommended. This may be accomplished by a combination of raising the BPP and reducing replenishment purchases. The proposed operational strategy illustrated in Figure 6-3 provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District’s Board of Directors. Last Calendar Year’s Total Water Demand Water Recharged Basin Refill or Decrease Water Quality Improvement Projects (Pumping Above BPP) Reclaimed & Local Supplies BPP= 43 Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy 7. FINDINGS Findings of this study are enumerated below. 1. The new three-layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single-layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three-layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unconfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumulated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water level measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively sparse in outlying Forebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. -418,000 AF 82,000 afMWD storage -500,000 AF 0 AF -100,000 AF Reduce up to 50,000 AFY -150,000 AF “Neutral” More active management of basin in conjunction with availability of imported water and basin condition Use BPP Formula OPTIMAL TARGET 44 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full-basin benchmark. A new full-basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins The new full-basin water levels in the Forebay area are essentially at or very near the bottom of the District’s deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 have shown that this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water levels slightly higher than this new full condition may be physically achievable in the Forebay area but not recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three-layer storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 af was calculated representing June 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three-layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 af was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 af for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year’s water level conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin’s operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 af assumes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In-Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to drought conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin management target of 100,000 af of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 45 9. The proposed operational strategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District’s Board of Directors. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study are the following recommendations: 1. Adopt the new three-layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full-basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three-layer storage change calculation. 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill, New York, 569 pp. Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 480 pp. California State Department of Water Resources. 1934. “Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill.” Bulletin No. 45. California State Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. June, 1945. “Present Overdraft on and Safe Yield from The Groundwater of the Coastal Plain of Orange County.” Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604 pp. Phraner, R. W., B. Harley, E. G. Reichard, and B. Stollar. 2001. Letter from OCWD Basin Model Advisory Panel to OCWD: “Findings of Model Advisory Panel – Transient Calibration of Multi-layer Basin Flow Model,” 7pp. APPENDIX 1 ____________________________________________________ “Randall” Specific Yield Values From Traditional Storage Change Method ____________________________________________________ ~ Randall Specific Yield .............-Traditional Forebay Pressure Line (Eckis) 0.12 n12 n1 n 11 n1 n12 0.1 0.09 n1 n1 Q13 'Q14. -!!f~Q(IS 0.12 Q1 n14 /·,o:14 ~ 0.12 _ <,n12 0.12 0.12 , ' n14 · 0.1 n12 · n09 n12 .. , 0.14 n1 n1 n1 n1 o.o9 n 1 o.o9 no9' n09 o.o9 n09 APPENDIX 2 ____________________________________________________ Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values For Three-Layer Storage Change Method ____________________________________________________ Sh a l l o w A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Un c o n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 1 Th e s e v a l u e s o n l y ge t u s e d w h e r e t h e Sh a l l o w a q u i f e r i s un c o n f i n e d , p r i m a r i l y in t h e F o r e b a y a r e a . Sh a l l o w A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Co n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 1 Th e s e v a l u e s o n l y g e t us e d w h e r e t h e Sh a l l o w a q u i f e r i s co n f i n e d ( w i t h i n t h e Pr e s s u r e A r e a ) . Pr i n c i p a l A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Co n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 2 Th e s e v a l u e s g e t u s e d wh e r e v e r t h e P r i n c i p a l aq u i f e r i s c o n f i n e d , wh i c h i s t y p i c a l l y t h e en t i r e L a y e r 2 a r e a . Pr i n c i p a l A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Un c o n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 2 Th e s e v a l u e s o n l y g e t us e d w h e r e t h e Pr i n c i p a l a q u i f e r g o e s un c o n f i n e d , t y p i c a l l y on l y t h e S a n t i a g o a r e a un d e r l o w - b a s i n co n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 3 De e p A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Co n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Th e s e v a l u e s g e t u s e d wh e r e v e r t h e D e e p aq u i f e r i s c o n f i n e d , wh i c h i s t h e e n t i r e La y e r 3 a r e a . De e p A q u i f e r St o r a g e C o e f f i c i e n t s Un c o n f i n e d C o n d i t i o n s Ba s i n M o d e l La y e r 3 Th e s e v a l u e s o n l y g e t us e d i f t h e D e e p aq u i f e r g o e s un c o n f i n e d i n s o m e fr i n g e a r e a , w h i c h sh o u l d n e v e r h a p p e n . APPENDIX 3 ____________________________________________________ Water Level Change Maps For June 2006 to the New Full Condition ____________________________________________________ Sh a l l o w A q u i f e r Wa t e r L e v e l C h a n g e Fr o m J u n e 2 0 0 6 t o F u l l Pr i n c i p a l A q u i f e r Wa t e r L e v e l C h a n g e Fr o m J u n e 2 0 0 6 t o F u l l De e p A q u i f e r Wa t e r L e v e l C h a n g e Fr o m J u n e 2 0 0 6 t o F u l l APPENDIX E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 1 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  ABC‐KISCH ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  ABC‐MESCH ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  ABC‐TETZL ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  W‐5470 ABC SCHOOL DIST. 282 190 240 Inactive Production  2  ACP‐I03 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 460 370 450 Injection  4  ACP‐P01 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 200 90 140 Inactive Production  2,3  ACP‐P02 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 190 100 180 Other Active Production  2  AVCC‐P ALTA VISTA COUNTRY CLUB 438 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  AVCC‐P2 ALTA VISTA COUNTRY CLUB 803 210 770 Other Active Production  P 2,3  A‐14 ANAHEIM 450 309 425 Inactive Production  P 2,8  A‐36 ANAHEIM 818 651 796 Inactive Production  P 2,7  A‐39 ANAHEIM 1493 540 1280 Active Large Production P 2,7  A‐40 ANAHEIM 1308 505 1220 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐41 ANAHEIM 1532 437 1450 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐42 ANAHEIM 1260 430 1180 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐43 ANAHEIM 1400 530 1210 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐44 ANAHEIM 1155 450 1130 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐45 ANAHEIM 1430 455 1410 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐46 ANAHEIM 1565 599 1529 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐47 ANAHEIM 1500 482 1375 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  A‐48 ANAHEIM 1450 932 1344 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐49 ANAHEIM 1498 580 1450 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  A‐51 ANAHEIM 1310 525 965 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐52 ANAHEIM 1210 570 1066 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐53 ANAHEIM 1350 945 1270 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐54 ANAHEIM 0 680 1480 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐55 ANAHEIM 1340 370 1300 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐56 ANAHEIM 1600 725 1300 Active Large Production  P 2,7  A‐58 ANAHEIM 1218 400 930 Inactive Production  2,7  ADEV‐AM1 ANAHEIM 157 110 150 Monitoring  1  A‐DMGC ANAHEIM 500 430 482 Other Active Production  P 2,3  A‐YARD‐MW1 ANAHEIM 112 85 109 Monitoring  1  A‐YARD‐MW2 ANAHEIM 111 86 110 Monitoring  1  W‐15896 ANAHEIM MOTEL, LIMITED 200 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  ANGE‐O ANGELICA HEALTHCARE SERVICES 670 186 639 Other Active Production  2,3  AET‐RMW10 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 129 127 128 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW14 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 197 195 196 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW15 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 142 140 141 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW16 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 189 190 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW17 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 218 217 218 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW2 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 199 196 197 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW20 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 100 98 99 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW23 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 124 119 120 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW3 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 194 195 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW5 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 195 196 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW6 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 184 116 117 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW7 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 113 108 109 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW8 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 98 94 95 Monitoring  1  AET‐RMW9 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 112 107 108 Monitoring  1  ARMD‐LA3 ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER 965 333 363 Inactive Production  2  ARMD‐LARA ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  AR‐PUMP ARTESIA 217 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐14107 ARTESIA ICE CO. 51 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  ARCO‐FBH11 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 62 50 62 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐FBH12 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 55 75 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐FBH14 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 0 0 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐FBH17 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 140 124 139 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐FBH5 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 0 0 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐FBH6 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 80 48 80 Monitoring  1  ARCO‐T2209 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 150 82 143 Injection  4  BF‐BF1 BELLFLOWER 1200 574 1160 Active Large Production  2  PEER‐17 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 1030 610 1012 Active Small Production  2  PEER‐2 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 204 162 177 Active Large Production  2  PEER‐7 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 108 0 0 Active Small Production  2  PEER‐8 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 174 113 153 Other Active Production  2  FUJI‐FV BERUMEN FARMS 170 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  FUJI‐WM BERUMEN FARMS 150 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 2 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  BOE‐EW101 BOEING CO. 77 57 77 Other Active Production  S 2  BOE‐EW102 BOEING CO. 87 62 82 Other Active Production  S 2  BOE‐EW103 BOEING CO. 85 63 83 Other Active Production  S 2  BOE‐EW104 BOEING CO. 83 57 82 Other Active Production  S 2  BOE‐MW16 BOEING CO. 297 260 280 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW17 BOEING CO. 298 255 275 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW19A BOEING CO. 173 153 173 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW20S BOEING CO. 84 59 80 Monitoring  S 1  BOE‐MW21S BOEING CO. 81 59 79 Monitoring  S 1  BOE‐MW27A BOEING CO. 172 139 159 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW31S BOEING CO. 92 78 88 Monitoring  S 1  BOE‐MW34 BOEING CO. 278 252 267 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW37A BOEING CO. 172 135 165 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW38A BOEING CO. 170 135 165 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW41A BOEING CO. 177 149 169 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW42A BOEING CO. 173 140 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW57A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW58A BOEING CO. 175 150 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW59B BOEING CO. 268 240 250 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW60A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW61A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW72A BOEING CO. 132 112 127 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW73A BOEING CO. 137 113 133 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW75 BOEING CO. 227 202 222 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW95A BOEING CO. 172 135 165 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW96A BOEING CO. 175 150 170 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW97A BOEING CO. 215 170 175 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW98A BOEING CO. 215 169 174 Monitoring  1,6  BOE‐MW99A BOEING CO. 210 146 166 Monitoring  1,6  BOTT‐C BOTT TRACT MUTUAL WATER CO. 150 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  LB‐NLB10 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 378 357 374 Monitoring  1  BR‐1 BREA 500 78 115 Other Active Production  2,3  BROS‐WM BRORS OF ST.PATRICK 106 98 105 Other Active Production  2  BP‐BALL BUENA PARK 890 260 870 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐BOIS BUENA PARK 1505 475 1355 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐CABA BUENA PARK 1430 250 1010 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐FREE BUENA PARK 1000 260 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐HOLD BUENA PARK 1020 250 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐KNOT BUENA PARK 1020 260 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐LIND BUENA PARK 1410 470 1221 Active Large Production  P 2,7  BP‐SM BUENA PARK 1038 308 1038 Active Large Production  P 2,7  OCWD‐BGO10 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 110 80 100 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW1 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW10 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW11 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW12 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW13 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW14 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW15 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW16 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW2 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW3 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW4 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW5 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW6 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW7 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW8 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐MW9 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P10 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P11 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P13 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P14 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P15 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P16 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P17 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P18 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P19 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 5 20 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 3 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SLC‐P20 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 10 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P21 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P22 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P23 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P24 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P25 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P26 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P27 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P29 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 6 21 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P30 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 46 22 37 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P31 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P32 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 8 23 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P33 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P34 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P35 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 7 22 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P36 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P4 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P5 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P6 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring  1  SLC‐P9 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring  1  CIFM‐CH CA. INSTITUE FOR MEN ‐ CHINO 239 122 226 Other Active Production  2  CIFM‐CH1A CA. INSTITUE FOR MEN ‐ CHINO 529 0 0 Other Active Production  2  CSF‐1 CA. STATE UNIV., FULLERTON 842 130 726 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  FPRK‐YLE CANYON RV PARK 98 60 84 Active Small Production  S 2,7  FPRK‐YLW CANYON RV PARK 98 48 80 Active Small Production  S 2,7  CARD‐O CARDINAL MANAGEMENT 70 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  MKSSN‐A CCDA WATERS, LLC 800 635 755 Other Active Production  2,3  CE‐C1 CERRITOS 1035 295 976 Active Large Production  2  CE‐C2 CERRITOS 1050 280 980 Active Large Production  2  CE‐C4 CERRITOS 1030 305 955 Active Large Production  2  CHEV‐HBP4 CHEVRON U.S.A. ‐ LA HABRA 680 490 640 Inactive Production  2,3  CHEV‐NOR4 CHEVRON U.S.A. ‐ LA HABRA 1023 990 1005 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐18110 CHEVRON U.S.A.‐HUNTINGTON BCH. 116 85 115 Monitoring  1  PLMP‐YL CITY OIL CORP 77 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  CCOL‐C COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST. 395 365 395 Other Active Production  2,3  COMM‐LP COMMUNITY WATER ASSOC. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBEI1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 60 100 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBEI2 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 60 100 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBEI3 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 60 100 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBEI4A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 104 65 100 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 43 22 42 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES2 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 45 21 41 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES3A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 46 24 44 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES4B CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 47 23 43 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES5A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 20 40 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBES6 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 45 25 40 Inactive Production  2  CNXT‐NBI17 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 105 0 0 Injection  4  CNXT‐NBMW27 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 40 10 40 Monitoring  1  CNXT‐NBMW28 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 82 60 82 Monitoring  1  CNXT‐NBMW29 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 21 40 Monitoring  1  CNXT‐NBMW30 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 21 42 Monitoring  1  CNXT‐NBRI1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 105 77 102 Injection  4  CNXT‐NBRI2 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 115 75 110 Injection  4  CNXT‐NBRI3 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 122 75 115 Injection  4  CNXT‐NBRI4 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 97 0 0 Injection  4  CO‐16 CORONA 850 415 755 Active Large Production  2  CMW‐CO CORONITA MUTUAL WATER CO. 270 126 234 Other Active Production  2  MCWD‐GC COSTA MESA 225 195 215 Monitoring  1,6  W‐3799 COSTA MESA SCHOOL DIST. 297 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  CCC‐LA1 COTTONWOOD CHRISTIAN CENTER 340 140 310 Other Active Production  2  MRCF‐GG CROSBY WATER SYSTEM 240 0 0 Other Active Production  2  MBF‐FM2 CT STORAGE ‐ FULLERTON, LLC 135 110 134 Monitoring  1,8  MBF‐FM3 CT STORAGE ‐ FULLERTON, LLC 135 110 134 Monitoring  1,8  FJC‐LAK2 CYPRESS GC LLC/CYPRESS GOLF CL 620 300 570 Other Active Production  P 2,3  W‐18698 DEGUSSA FLAVOR & FRUIT SYSTEMS 90 70 90 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BS103 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 484 184 205 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS105 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 394 150 197 Monitoring  S 1,6  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 4 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  OCWD‐BS106 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 556 213 255 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS107 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 738 398 441 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS111 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 483 184 205 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BSO1A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 500 245 335 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BSO1B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 500 80 104 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BSO4 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 700 268 498 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BSO6A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 150 85 135 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BSO6B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 305 235 295 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BSO9A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 445 195 285 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BSO9B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 624 520 615 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐BSO9C DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 450 340 435 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐SA10 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 483 300 330 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐SA12 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 715 305 325 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐SA3 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 401 100 160 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐SA5 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 401 273 312 Monitoring  P 1,6  DICE‐SA2 DIAMONITORINGD ICE CORP 1003 330 990 Inactive Production  2,3  SSPG‐O DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC. 270 250 270 Inactive Production  2  EOCW‐E EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DIST. 504 324 450 Active Large Production  P 2,7  EOCW‐W EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DIST. 800 315 450 Active Large Production  P 2,7  LKVG‐YL EASTLAKE VILLAGE HOA 124 50 124 Other Active Production  2,3  ESWA‐4 EASTSIDE WATER ASSOC. 560 240 520 Active Small Production  2,7  EDGW‐SA EDINGER WATER ASSOC. 308 0 0 Inactive Production  2  EMA‐FVRI ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT AGENCY 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  ALEN‐GG EUCHARISTIC MISSIONARIES  252 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SAKH‐A F S NURSERY 383 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  FAIR‐SA FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK 427 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  FAIR‐SA3 FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK 520 250 500 Other Active Production  2,3  FAA‐LA1 FEDERAL AVAIATION ADMIN. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  FLWN‐CQ2 FOREST LAWN 590 160 560 Other Active Production  2,3  FV‐10 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1100 460 980 Active Large Production  P 2,7  FV‐11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1027 440 950 Active Large Production  P 2,7  FV‐12 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1230 340 1070 Active Large Production  P 2,7  FV‐6 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1150 370 1110 Active Large Production  P 2,7  FV‐8 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 920 312 844 Active Large Production  P 2,7  FV‐9 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1114 415 1070 Active Large Production  P 2,7  W‐3791 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  F‐10 FULLERTON 1350 460 1290 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐3A FULLERTON 1295 580 1280 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐4 FULLERTON 415 315 405 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐5 FULLERTON 440 350 400 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐6 FULLERTON 430 340 401 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐7 FULLERTON 434 300 410 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐8 FULLERTON 458 324 402 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐AIRP FULLERTON 1135 435 1080 Active Large Production  P 2,7  F‐CHRI2 FULLERTON 1350 520 1330 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐COYO2 FULLERTON 1517 309 919 Inactive Production  P 2  F‐KIM1A FULLERTON 1243 500 1225 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  F‐KIM2 FULLERTON 652 320 626 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  GG‐16 GARDEN GROVE 1000 304 864 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐19 GARDEN GROVE 942 818 892 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐20 GARDEN GROVE 960 360 912 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐21 GARDEN GROVE 1187 428 1080 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐22 GARDEN GROVE 1040 416 1020 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐23 GARDEN GROVE 860 474 835 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐25 GARDEN GROVE 987 442 850 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐26 GARDEN GROVE 1120 470 1060 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐27 GARDEN GROVE 1215 520 1160 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐28 GARDEN GROVE 328 130 240 Active Large Production  S 2,7  GG‐29 GARDEN GROVE 1140 465 1110 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐30 GARDEN GROVE 1205 390 1146 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GG‐31 GARDEN GROVE 1462 739 1373 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WWGC‐SAK3 GARDEN GROVE 206 149 170 Other Active Production  S 2,3  WWGC‐SAK4 GARDEN GROVE 272 150 249 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐15829 GARDEN GROVE UNIF. SCH. DIST. 209 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐4220 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 900 264 887 Inactive Production  2  W‐4224 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 602 378 438 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐4226 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 586 271 372 Inactive Production  2,3  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 5 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  W‐4856 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 804 247 427 Inactive Production  2  GSWC‐HGC6 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 1295 180 1170 Active Large Production  2  SCWC‐ARR1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 1026 919 965 Active Small Production  2  SCWC‐HGC3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 860 110 852 Inactive Production  2  SCWC‐HGC4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 861 110 856 Inactive Production  2  SCWC‐HGCAR GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 570 121 327 Inactive Production  2  SCWC‐HGJ4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 890 530 710 Active Large Production  2  SCWC‐LKHAW GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 822 200 796 Active Large Production  2  SCWC‐LKMA GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 885 215 830 Active Large Production  2  SCWC‐NWDAC1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 380 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SCWC‐NWIMP1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SCWC‐NWIMP2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 399 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SCWC‐NWIMP3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 890 0 890 Other Active Production  2  W‐17720 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ LA 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  GSWC‐POR1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 1129 350 895 Active Large Production  P 2,7  GSWC‐SCL5 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 1416 700 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  RHWC‐E GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 945 410 920 Active Large Production  P 2,7  RHWC‐W2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 954 474 753 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐CBAL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 990 200 770 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐CSC GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 600 526 556 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐CVV GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 670 524 645 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐CVV2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 1010 480 981 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐LABL2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 708 460 690 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐LAC3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 632 346 593 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐LAFL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 720 300 680 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐LAHO GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 520 386 486 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐LAYT GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 812 250 800 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  SCWC‐PBF3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 496 220 475 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  SCWC‐PBF4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 550 275 520 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  SCWC‐PLJ2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 505 402 492 Active Large Production  P 2,7,8  SCWC‐PRU GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 837 430 790 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SBCH GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 600 200 570 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SCL4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 530 294 488 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SDAL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 562 500 542 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SLON GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 778 0 0 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SORG GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 302 242 286 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SSHR GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 618 520 580 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐SSYC GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 568 500 546 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCWC‐YLCO2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO ‐ OC 504 100 480 Inactive Production  2  GWRC‐SFS8 GOLDEN WEST REFINING CO. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  GOOD‐HB GOOD SHEPHERD CEMETERY 244 180 218 Other Active Production  2,3,6  ETCH‐AL2 GOODWIN MUTUAL WATER CO. 200 85 185 Inactive Production  S 2,3  GRV‐RSIR GREEN RIVER VILLIAGE 85 50 82 Other Active Production  2,3  HALD‐BP HALDOR PLACE MUTUAL WATER 265 0 0 Inactive Production  2  HMEM‐COS HARBOR LAWN MEMORIAL PARK 280 190 200 Monitoring  1,6  HOLY‐A HOLY CROSS CEMETERY 365 334 364 Other Active Production  P 2,3  HOUS‐F HOUSTON AVE. WATER 156 0 0 Other Active Production  2  W‐14801 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. 155 135 155 Monitoring  1  W‐14803 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. 165 144 164 Monitoring  1  HB‐1 HUNTINGTON BEACH 306 258 297 Inactive Production  2,6  HB‐10 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000 232 942 Active Large Production  P 2,7  HB‐12 HUNTINGTON BEACH 807 265 740 Inactive Production  2,6  HB‐13 HUNTINGTON BEACH 860 280 810 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  HB‐3A HUNTINGTON BEACH 738 370 640 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  HB‐4 HUNTINGTON BEACH 826 252 804 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  HB‐5 HUNTINGTON BEACH 830 223 800 Active Large Production  P 2,7  HB‐6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 876 246 810 Active Large Production  P 2,7  HB‐7 HUNTINGTON BEACH 930 263 879 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  HB‐8 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1172 256 704 Inactive Production  P 2  HB‐9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1010 556 996 Active Large Production  P 2,7  HB‐MEA2 HUNTINGTON BEACH 537 480 510 Or Active Production  P 2,3  W‐15104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 130 90 125 Inactive Production  2  W‐15819 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 181 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐15821 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 155 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐15823 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 123 0 0 Inactive Production  2  HUNT‐P13 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 9 0 9 Monitoring  1  HUNT‐P14 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 10 0 10 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 6 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  HUNT‐P7 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 19 4 20 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐HH2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 150 130 140 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐HH3 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 150 133 143 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐HH4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 145 130 140 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐HH5 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 138 102 112 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐HH6A HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 55 40 50 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐HH6B HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 110 90 100 Monitoring  S 1,6,10  OCWD‐HH6C HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 202 170 180 Monitoring  1,6  HYNS‐S1 HYNES ESTATES, INC. 250 0 0 Active Small Production  2,7  HYNS‐S2 HYNES ESTATES, INC. 182 162 182 Active Small Production  S 2,7  IWMD‐LVM2 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 248 223 243 Monitoring  1  IWMD‐LVM3 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 253 223 253 Monitoring  1  IWMD‐LVM4 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 247 206 246 Monitoring  1  IWMD‐RPM3 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 101 76 101 Monitoring  1  IWMD‐RPM5 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 102 70 100 Monitoring  1  TIC‐108 IRVINE CO. 1045 200 960 Inactive Production  P 2,3  TIC‐194 IRVINE CO. 822 562 726 Monitoring  P/D 1,9  TIC‐25 IRVINE CO. 790 666 760 Monitoring  P/D 1,10  TIC‐50 IRVINE CO. 1488 475 1070 Monitoring  1  TIC‐61 IRVINE CO. 762 240 695 Inactive Production  P 2,3  TIC‐80 IRVINE CO. 1553 415 1300 Monitoring  1  TIC‐99 IRVINE CO. 692 346 650 Monitoring  P 1  W‐285 IRVINE CO. 93 37 84 Inactive Production  2,3  ET‐1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 520 220 490 Other Active Production  P 2,3  ET‐2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1120 280 1080 Other Active Production  P 2,3  IRWD‐1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2020 410 860 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐10 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1040 419 940 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐107R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1060 275 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐11 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1300 410 870 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐110 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1070 555 1015 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐115R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1136 290 1080 Active Large Production  2,7  IRWD‐12 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1424 580 1040 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐13 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1170 410 980 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐14 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1015 470 970 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐15 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1085 470 990 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐16 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1010 406 807 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐17 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1019 504 960 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐18 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1120 390 1080 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1450 385 855 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐21 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1223 290 970 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐22 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1220 300 970 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1309 484 1250 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1146 440 910 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1075 554 1028 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐52 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1400 635 1290 Inactive Production  2,7,9  IRWD‐6 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1175 499 1124 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  IRWD‐7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2731 359 660 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐72 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1192 254 1151 Other Active Production  P 2,3  IRWD‐76 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1055 450 900 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐77 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 330 980 Active Large Production  P 2,7  IRWD‐78R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1010 250 730 Other Active Production  P 2,3  IRWD‐98 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 355 115 343 Inactive Production  P 2,3  IRWD‐C8 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2065 1080 1982 Active Large Production  D 2,7  IRWD‐C9 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2106 1055 1930 Active Large Production  D 2,7  IRWD‐LA1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 800 200 790 Inactive Production  2  IRWD‐LA3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 800 0 0 Inactive Production  2  IRWD‐LA4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 810 350 790 Inactive Production  2  IRWD‐LA5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 820 350 780 Inactive Production  2  IRWD‐LA7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 430 980 Inactive Production  2  IRWD‐LF2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 808 280 640 Active Large Production  2  IRWD‐MICH10 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 30 50 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 30 50 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH6 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 Other Active Production  2  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 7 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  IRWD‐MICH8 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐MICH9 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Other Active Production  2  IRWD‐OPA1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 390 750 Inactive Production  2,7  TIC‐106 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 725 405 715 Other Active Production  P 2,3  TIC‐109 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1145 240 1120 Inactive Production  P 2,3  TIC‐112 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1141 240 1100 Inactive Production  P 2,3  TIC‐114 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 300 960 Inactive Production  P 2,3  TIC‐55 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 746 300 497 Inactive Production  2,3  TIC‐82 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1145 410 1002 Monitoring  P 1  W‐14556 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Inactive Production  2  ITO‐LA ITO‐OZAWA FARMS 860 70 710 Other Active Production  2,3  ITO‐LAG3 ITO‐OZAWA FARMS 800 170 780 Other Active Production  2,3  JLAW‐HB JANUARY & ELLIS LAW 135 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SAKI‐FV JKS‐SF, LLC 450 304 438 Inactive Production  2,3  SULY‐OA1 JMI PROPERTIES/SANTIAGO PRTNRS 120 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  SULY‐OA4 JMI PROPERTIES/SANTIAGO PRTNRS 130 0 0 Inactive Production  S 2,3  JWC‐NWLEF JUNIOR WATER CO. 480 416 426 Other Active Production  2  JWC‐NWTAD JUNIOR WATER CO. 614 361 587 Other Active Production  2  W‐15825 KAREN STREET WATER CO. 100 0 0 Inactive Production  2  GKAW‐FV2 KAWAGUCHI ENTERPRISES û LP 125 120 125 Other Active Production  2  MKAW‐FV KAWAGUCHI ENTERPRISES û LP 225 185 225 Other Active Production  S 2  KAYO‐GG KAYANO FARMS 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  GARD‐A KINDRED COMMUNITY CHURCH 35 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  KINGK‐CE2 KING KELLY MARMILADE CO. INC. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  W‐18116 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 250 238 248 Monitoring  1  W‐18118 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 187 176 186 Monitoring  1  W‐18120 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 255 243 253 Monitoring  1  KNOT‐BP KNOTT'S BERRY FARM 447 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  KNOT‐BPBS KNOTT'S BERRY FARM 730 430 630 Active Small Production  P 2,7  W‐14871 KOLL REAL ESTATE 600 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  LH‐2A LA HABRA 1000 460 950 Active Large Production  2  LH‐FS192 LA HABRA 1403 880 1210 Inactive Production  2,10  LH‐LBPW LA HABRA 1000 544 870 Active Large Production  2  LH‐PPW LA HABRA 1290 770 990 Inactive Production  2  LMP‐MW LA HABRA HEIGHTS WATER CO. 593 540 560 Monitoring  1  HALL‐O LA LINDA LLC 280 0 0 Inactive Production  2  LP‐CITY LA PALMA 1516 290 1415 Active Large Production  P 2,7  LP‐WALK LA PALMA 1020 489 919 Active Large Production  P 2,7  LMA‐I LAKES MASTER ASSOC. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  LW‐10 LAKEWOOD 1148 448 471 Active Large Production  2  LW‐13A LAKEWOOD 1120 620 940 Active Large Production  2  LW‐15A LAKEWOOD 1050 470 1030 Active Large Production  2  LW‐17 LAKEWOOD 1134 1064 1121 Active Large Production  2  LW‐18 LAKEWOOD 1108 1041 1069 Active Large Production  2  LW‐22 LAKEWOOD 1500 440 1060 Active Large Production  2  LW‐27 LAKEWOOD 990 490 950 Active Large Production  2  LW‐2A LAKEWOOD 656 612 637 Active Large Production  2  LW‐4 LAKEWOOD 716 367 388 Active Large Production  2  LW‐6 LAKEWOOD 602 224 306 Other Active Production  2,3  LW‐8 LAKEWOOD 405 352 380 Active Small Production  2  W‐17351 LAKEWOOD 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  LWPC‐LWP1 LAKEWOOD WATER & POWER CO. 870 488 835 Other Active Production  2  LIBM‐HB LIBERTY PARK WATER ASSOC. 160 0 0 Active Small Production  2,6,7  LMC‐EW1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 62 40 60 Other Active Production  2  LMC‐EW2 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 62 40 60 Other Active Production  2  LMC‐EW3 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 90 58 78 Other Active Production  2  LB‐1017 LONG BEACH 875 140 540 Other Active Production  2,3  LB‐1017B LONG BEACH 675 0 0 Monitoring  1  LB‐AL13 LONG BEACH 1030 559 902 Active Large Production  2  LB‐AL8 LONG BEACH 982 515 978 Active Large Production  2  LB‐AL9 LONG BEACH 1152 804 1130 Active Large Production  2  LB‐AN201 LONG BEACH 854 507 838 Active Large Production  2  LB‐AN204 LONG BEACH 1186 1124 1146 Other Active Production  2,3  LB‐AN206 LONG BEACH 1170 300 471 Inactive Production  2  LB‐AN26 LONG BEACH 610 364 590 Inactive Production  2  LB‐CIT10 LONG BEACH 1020 300 988 Active Large Production  2  LB‐CIT7A LONG BEACH 950 300 898 Active Large Production  2  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 8 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  LB‐CIT8 LONG BEACH 1516 310 1039 Active Small Production  2  LB‐CIT9 LONG BEACH 850 300 808 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM10 LONG BEACH 900 540 685 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM13 LONG BEACH 1634 310 1539 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM14 LONG BEACH 1110 302 1072 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM15 LONG BEACH 1120 303 1008 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM16 LONG BEACH 1023 300 988 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM17 LONG BEACH 1030 300 988 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM18 LONG BEACH 0 303 988 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM19 LONG BEACH 1700 605 1640 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM20 LONG BEACH 1500 602 1240 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM21 LONG BEACH 1691 640 1370 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM22 LONG BEACH 1512 490 1160 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM23 LONG BEACH 1513 480 1020 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM24 LONG BEACH 1500 540 1411 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM25 LONG BEACH 1508 540 900 Active Large Production  2  LB‐COM6A LONG BEACH 1012 412 980 Monitoring  1  LB‐DEV1 LONG BEACH 1017 959 1017 Active Large Production  2  LB‐DEV2 LONG BEACH 684 390 684 Inactive Production  2  LB‐DEV4 LONG BEACH 1004 400 972 Inactive Production  2  LB‐DEV5 LONG BEACH 1016 267 990 Active Large Production  2  LB‐DEV9 LONG BEACH 1030 260 1030 Active Large Production  2  LB‐NLB11 LONG BEACH 2000 412 1431 Active Large Production  2  LB‐NLB12 LONG BEACH 1058 300 1000 Active Large Production  2  LB‐NLB4 LONG BEACH 1160 972 1142 Active Large Production  2  LB‐NLB8 LONG BEACH 1180 1050 1100 Active Large Production  2  LB‐NLB9 LONG BEACH 800 445 720 Active Large Production  2  LB‐WIL1A LONG BEACH 1370 272 1351 Active Large Production  2  LB‐WS1A LONG BEACH 1100 272 1078 Active Large Production  2  W‐11412 LONG BEACH 639 458 630 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐11460 LONG BEACH 994 0 0 Inactive Production  2  LART‐CR2 LOS ALAMITOS RACE TRACT 0 0 0 Active Small Production  2,7  LAC‐32LP8X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 105 115 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32LP8Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 945 325 335 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32S9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 885 189 199 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32TP25 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 945 252 262 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32U15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 141 117 133 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32V22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 151 120 135 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32VP10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 145 180 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32X11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 196 135 165 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32YP43 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 55 42 52 Monitoring  1  LAC‐32ZP5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 155 93 133 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33D01 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 453 215 275 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33D24 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 750 315 325 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33DP22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 825 210 220 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33G LOS ANGELES COUNTY 119 43 103 Injection  4  LAC‐33G36 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 525 338 348 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33G9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 147 120 140 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33GJ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 140 52 115 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33HP13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 123 88 103 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33J LOS ANGELES COUNTY 134 66 126 Injection  4  LAC‐33JL LOS ANGELES COUNTY 147 52 137 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33KP42 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 86 63 73 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 144 56 136 Injection  4  LAC‐33L23 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 349 359 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33L30 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 73 50 65 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33N LOS ANGELES COUNTY 164 58 148 Injection  4  LAC‐33N21 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 497 460 485 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33NQ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 177 60 160 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Q LOS ANGELES COUNTY 174 69 164 Injection  4  LAC‐33Q1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 58 28 44 Injection  4  LAC‐33Q15V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 232 210 220 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Q15W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 296 273 283 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Q15X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 390 346 356 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Q9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 223 115 145 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S LOS ANGELES COUNTY 207 73 194 Injection  4  LAC‐33S1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 63 25 45 Injection  4  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 9 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  LAC‐33S18U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 101 73 83 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S18V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 295 231 241 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S18W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 300 273 283 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S18X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S20 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 514 476 486 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S40 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 527 477 507 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S43 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 615 341 362 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33S52 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 393 290 350 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33ST LOS ANGELES COUNTY 195 140 185 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T LOS ANGELES COUNTY 214 89 199 Injection  4  LAC‐33T125 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 487 426 466 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T13U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 87 63 73 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T13V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 237 210 220 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T13W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 294 273 283 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T13X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 336 346 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 341 351 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T29U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 63 73 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T29X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T29Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1926 664 705 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 141 45 90 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 330 281 306 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T9U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 50 25 40 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T9V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 190 133 158 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T9W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 200 179 189 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T9X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 885 273 283 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33T9Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 400 378 388 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33TP13U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 79 46 66 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33TP24U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 55 30 43 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33TP24Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 109 63 88 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 254 98 238 Injection  4  LAC‐33U11V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 194 204 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33U11W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 295 273 283 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33U11X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33U3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 143 70 125 Injection  4  LAC‐33UP05 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 63 73 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33UP34 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 61 53 60 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33UP3X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 94 105 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33UP3Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 169 151 161 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33UP3Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1720 378 399 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33UV LOS ANGELES COUNTY 308 213 262 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 294 119 269 Injection  4  LAC‐33VP14U1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 27 23 27 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP14U2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 84 79 83 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP14U3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 50 40 50 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP15P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 100 57 82 Other Active Production  2  LAC‐33VP22Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 150 127 137 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP22Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 780 255 265 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP46 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 80 61 71 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33VP8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 163 105 145 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 120 390 Injection  4  LAC‐33W11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 508 427 482 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33W54 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 40 70 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33WP14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 108 57 87 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33WP17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 78 45 65 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33WX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 448 379 423 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33WXU LOS ANGELES COUNTY 74 45 60 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 452 170 430 Injection  4  LAC‐33X10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 517 425 475 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33X20U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 110 85 95 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33X20W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 325 294 304 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33X20X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 415 377 387 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33X20Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 645 483 493 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33XY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 475 409 451 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 475 218 457 Injection  4  LAC‐33Y10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 125 75 115 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33Y42U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 105 89 95 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐33Y42X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 660 362 372 Monitoring  1,6  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 10 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  LAC‐33YP35 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 103 73 83 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33YZ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 467 408 451 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 484 206 461 Injection  4  LAC‐33Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 499 310 444 Injection  4  LAC‐33ZP1T LOS ANGELES COUNTY 146 116 135 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33ZP1U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 90 62 85 Monitoring  1  LAC‐33ZP1X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 360 336 346 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34D LOS ANGELES COUNTY 494 219 474 Injection  4  LAC‐34D01 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 73 83 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34DG LOS ANGELES COUNTY 477 405 450 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐34DP6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 477 415 445 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34EP13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 363 305 335 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34EP23 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 108 48 88 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34EP48 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 735 255 265 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34EV LOS ANGELES COUNTY 288 145 250 Injection  4  LAC‐34EY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 488 410 455 Injection  4  LAC‐34F LOS ANGELES COUNTY 487 410 450 Injection  4  LAC‐34F5T LOS ANGELES COUNTY 185 140 170 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐34F5V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 242 195 225 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34F5W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 288 235 275 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34F5X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 372 300 360 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34F5Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 482 415 455 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34FP13V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 95 105 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34FP13X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 315 193 203 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34FP40 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 68 45 55 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34FX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 489 410 450 Injection  4  LAC‐34G LOS ANGELES COUNTY 475 285 350 Injection  4  LAC‐34G2V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 280 140 250 Injection  4  LAC‐34G2Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 489 405 445 Injection  4  LAC‐34GH LOS ANGELES COUNTY 479 415 455 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐34H LOS ANGELES COUNTY 490 405 445 Injection  4  LAC‐34HJX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 368 315 345 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34HJY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 503 410 440 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐34HP17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 90 55 75 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34HP17P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 95 51 76 Other Active Production  2  LAC‐34HP18P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 206 145 175 Other Active Production  2  LAC‐34J LOS ANGELES COUNTY 456 270 315 Injection  4  LAC‐34JL LOS ANGELES COUNTY 440 385 420 Monitoring  1,6  LAC‐34JP12 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 109 43 93 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 146 400 Injection  4  LAC‐34LP1U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 88 67 77 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34LP1V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 166 176 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34LP1Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 900 609 619 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34NP16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 0 41 71 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34QP22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 91 55 80 Monitoring  1  LAC‐34SP22P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 95 52 77 Other Active Production  2  LAC‐34VP18 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 85 48 73 Monitoring  1  LAC‐35SP24U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 59 69 Monitoring  1  LAC‐35SP24Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 180 157 167 Monitoring  1  LAC‐35SP24Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 825 210 220 Monitoring  1  LAC‐35VP32Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 213 189 199 Monitoring  1  LAC‐35VP32Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 855 483 493 Monitoring  1  LAC‐36WP80 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 870 293 303 Monitoring  1  LAC‐PZ1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 16 10 16 Monitoring  1  LAC‐PZ2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 14 0 0 Monitoring  1  LAC‐PZ3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 16 0 0 Monitoring  1  LAC‐PZ4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 25 14 22 Monitoring  1  LAC‐PZ5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 64 33 49 Monitoring  1  LXMS‐A LYON CHRISTMAS TREE FARMS 240 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  MAGM‐GG MAGNOLIA MEMORIAL PARK 168 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  MNEE‐A MALLONEE 400 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  HMW‐01 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 75 55 75 Monitoring  S 1  HMW‐02 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 72 52 72 Monitoring  1  HMW‐03 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 50 30 50 Monitoring  1  HMW‐04 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 47 27 47 Monitoring  1  W‐3789 MARDEN SUSCO PIPE SUPPLY CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  USMC‐01MW101 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 159 118 148 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 11 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  USMC‐01MW102 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 142 95 135 Monitoring  1  USMC‐01MW201 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 77 27 57 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW01 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 115 135 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW07 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 103 143 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 81 45 65 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 256 209 249 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 107 60 100 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 40 105 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 70 25 65 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 70 25 65 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 105 75 95 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02NEW8A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 84 104 Monitoring  1  USMC‐02UGMW25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 84 55 75 Monitoring  1  USMC‐05NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 210 163 203 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MPE1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 146 191 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 183 155 180 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 199 165 195 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 160 180 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐16MW12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 180 160 180 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 181 160 180 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 199 185 195 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 160 180 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 201 190 200 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 185 153 178 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐16MW3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 185 158 183 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 196 155 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 196 155 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 145 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 189 165 183 Monitoring  1  USMC‐16MW9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 187 165 183 Monitoring  1  USMC‐17NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 186 226 Monitoring  1  USMC‐17NEW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 131 83 123 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 165 115 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 222 135 180 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX12A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 252 115 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX12B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 165 210 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX12C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 272 220 260 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX13A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 110 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX13B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 213 165 205 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX13C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 282 230 270 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 115 185 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 215 109 209 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐24EX20B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 210 107 205 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐24EX3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 186 0 0 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX30B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 158 105 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX30B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX30B3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 170 175 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 104 190 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐24EX40B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 106 106 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 104 154 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐24EX50B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX50B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 178 0 0 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX60B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 106 151 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX60B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 158 105 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX60B3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 218 223 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24EX9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 214 120 200 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24IN03 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 91 160 Injection  4  USMC‐24IN20B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 300 194 271 Injection  4  USMC‐24MW10AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 130 140 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW10CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 230 240 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW11AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW11CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 240 210 220 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW12AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 127 137 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW12CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 203 213 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW13AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 124 111 121 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW13CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 212 222 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 12 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  USMC‐24MW14AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 129 115 125 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW14CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 223 211 221 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW15AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 137 125 135 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW15CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 220 230 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 340 80 300 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 340 75 310 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 181 140 168 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 170 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 208 120 200 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 380 105 350 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐24MW9AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 151 140 150 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24MW9CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 243 230 240 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 260 225 245 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24NEW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 108 148 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐24NEW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 262 230 250 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24NEW6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 193 165 185 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24NEW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 174 118 158 Monitoring  1  USMC‐24NEW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 170 122 162 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐DW135 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 135 115 135 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐DW250 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 215 250 Monitoring  1  USMC‐DW350 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 353 310 350 Monitoring  1  USMC‐DW450 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 454 414 450 Monitoring  1  USMC‐DW540 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 541 490 540 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MP06 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 105 455 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐MP08 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 61 449 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐MP09 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 59 463 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐MP10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 1202 218 1011 Multiport Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW01A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 466 486 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW01B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 396 416 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW01C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 358 330 350 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW01D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 270 242 262 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW01E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 205 225 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW02A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 462 482 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW02C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 386 358 378 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW02D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 319 294 314 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW02E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 198 233 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW03A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 471 370 390 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW03B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 310 280 300 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW03C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 222 242 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW03E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 124 164 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐MW04A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 286 306 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW04B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 190 210 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW05A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 462 482 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW05B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 364 321 341 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW05C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 225 245 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW05D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 147 83 133 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW05E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 80 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW07 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 90 25 65 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW100 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 179 131 171 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW100A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 138 93 132 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW101 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW101A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 105 68 98 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW103 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 499 395 495 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW19A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 448 468 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW19B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 425 400 420 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW19C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 257 277 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW19D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 150 170 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐MW19E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 148 98 138 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 115 64 104 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐MW24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 80 51 71 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 84 55 75 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW29 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 120 95 135 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW29A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 115 75 100 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW31 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 153 105 145 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐MW37 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 137 89 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW39 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 276 230 270 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐01 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 198 228 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 13 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  USMC‐MW398‐02 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 199 229 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐03 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 208 238 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐04 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 232 201 231 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐05 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 197 227 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐06 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 196 226 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐08 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 200 230 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐09 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 190 240 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 260 200 250 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 267 200 250 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 7 190 240 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 193 243 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐13D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 301 251 301 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 192 242 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 249 199 249 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 247 194 244 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 241 189 239 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐18 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 267 194 244 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐19 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 252 202 252 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐20 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 201 251 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐21 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 193 243 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐22 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 162 120 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 120 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 162 120 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 201 251 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐26 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 202 252 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW398‐27 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 0 202 252 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW40 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 275 220 260 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW41 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 182 222 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW41A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 145 185 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW43 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 200 150 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW43B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 100 141 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW45 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 117 157 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW47 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 116 156 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW48 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 95 135 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW48A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 74 104 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW50 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 168 120 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW51 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 125 165 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW52 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 182 222 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW56 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 92 132 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW57 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 93 63 83 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW58 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 86 69 89 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW59 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 99 69 89 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW63 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 281 235 237 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW64 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 294 245 285 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW64A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 255 210 250 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW65X MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 279 230 270 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW65XA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 249 201 236 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW66 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 305 250 290 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW66A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 190 230 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW67 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 187 227 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW67A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 150 190 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW68 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 308 190 210 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW68A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 147 187 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW70 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 125 165 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW71 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 163 115 155 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW72 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 159 90 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW73 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW74 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW75 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 114 154 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW77 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 150 170 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐MW79 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 166 118 158 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW81 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 223 176 216 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW82 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 270 235 255 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW90 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 95 135 Monitoring  1  USMC‐MW91 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 110 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 102 122 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 135 103 133 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 14 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  USMC‐PS3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 102 122 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS3A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 70 105 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 98 118 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 124 106 126 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐PS6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 130 150 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 129 106 126 Monitoring  1  USMC‐PS8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 125 145 Monitoring  S 1  USMC‐RW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 504 430 470 Monitoring  1  USMC‐RW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 475 270 310 Monitoring  1  USMC‐RW3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 403 370 390 Monitoring  1  USMC‐RW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 86 65 85 Monitoring  1  USMC‐SGU1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 217 96 206 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 99 199 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 106 216 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 99 219 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 98 218 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 237 106 226 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 229 99 219 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 105 185 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 105 180 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU18 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 106 226 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU19 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 246 111 231 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 219 100 170 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU20 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 239 111 231 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU21 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 234 104 194 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU22 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 227 99 219 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 99 219 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 234 99 224 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 99 224 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU26 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 160 225 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU27 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 165 90 155 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU28 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 220 146 211 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU29 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 81 146 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 99 114 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU30 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 151 221 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU31 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 149 70 140 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU32 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 217 140 205 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU33 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 154 70 145 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU34 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 220 145 210 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU35 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 75 145 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU36 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 90 240 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU37 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 90 240 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU38 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 95 240 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU39 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 200 90 190 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 219 99 209 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 215 96 206 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 100 200 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 104 224 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 100 210 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐SGU9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 98 218 Other Active Production  2  USMC‐TF1MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 109 149 Monitoring  1  USMC‐TF2MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 164 120 160 Monitoring  1  USMC‐TF2MW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 161 120 160 Monitoring  1  MSG‐BP10L MCCOLL SITE GROUP 274 247 257 Monitoring  S 1,10  MKSSN‐SA MCKESSON WATER PRODUCTION. CO. 272 160 260 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐2048 MEL MACK CO. 358 112 150 Inactive Production  2  ABBY‐A MELROSE ABBEY FUNERAL CENTER 250 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  MVCC‐COSD1 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 200 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3,6  MVCC‐COSD2 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 462 200 450 Other Active Production  P 2,3,6  MVCC‐COSD3 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 460 200 450 Other Active Production  P 2,3,6  MCWD‐11 MESA WATER DIST. 1060 330 1000 Active Large Production  P 2,7  MCWD‐1B MESA WATER DIST. 612 305 580 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  MCWD‐2 MESA WATER DIST. 670 300 650 Monitoring  P 1  MCWD‐3B MESA WATER DIST. 610 242 572 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  MCWD‐3BM MESA WATER DIST. 1006 880 920 Monitoring  P 1,6  MCWD‐5 MESA WATER DIST. 980 400 940 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  MCWD‐6 MESA WATER DIST. 1093 310 1025 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 15 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  MCWD‐7 MESA WATER DIST. 830 363 753 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  MCWD‐8 MESA WATER DIST. 626 300 572 Inactive Production  P 2,6,7  MCWD‐8M MESA WATER DIST. 1000 870 880 Monitoring  P 1,6  MCWD‐9 MESA WATER DIST. 625 350 580 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  W‐12133 METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. 400 0 0 Cathodic Protection  9  MIDC‐2 MIDWAY CITY MUTUAL WATER CO. 420 228 420 Active Small Production  2,7  MISQ‐FV MILE SQUARE PARK 300 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐11192 MONITORINGTANA LAND CO. 981 870 916 Inactive Production  2  W‐14809 MUTUAL WATER CO. 225 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐14811 MUTUAL WATER CO. 265 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  NATR‐TW1 NATURE CONSERVANCY 150 20 150 Other Active Production  2,3  NVLR‐LAG1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 546 478 524 Other Active Production  2,3  NVLR‐LAH1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 836 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  NVLR‐LAN1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 634 580 620 Inactive Production  2,3  NVLW‐4010 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 45 55 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4012 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 45 55 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4013 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 58 45 55 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4014 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 30 40 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4016 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 58 42 52 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4018 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4020 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐4021 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 51 61 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7001 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 33 20 30 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7002 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7003 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7004 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 49 59 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7005 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7006 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7007 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7008 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 111 96 105 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7009 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 175 160 169 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7010 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 41 30 40 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7011 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7012 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 115 100 110 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7013 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 108 95 105 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7014 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 187 160 170 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7015 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 179 161 170 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7016 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 95 105 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7017 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 42 30 40 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7018 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7019 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 42 30 40 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7020 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 0 19 29 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7021 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 172 150 170 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7022 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7023 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 132 110 130 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7024 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 27 15 25 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7025 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7027 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 36 26 36 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7028 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7031 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7032 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 95 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7033 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 170 155 165 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7034 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 60 46 56 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7035 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 103 90 100 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7036 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 170 150 160 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7037 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 112 89 109 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7038 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7039 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 159 143 153 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7040 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 160 140 150 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐7041 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 146 133 143 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7042 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 151 136 146 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7043 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 150 136 146 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7044 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 158 123 143 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7045 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 157 135 155 Monitoring  S 1  NVLW‐7046 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 85 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐70POC02 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 0 190 201 Monitoring  1,6  NVLW‐70POC03 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 205 190 200 Monitoring  1,6  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 16 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  NVLW‐70POC04 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 210 195 206 Monitoring  1,6  NVLW‐EW7001 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 33 20 30 Inactive Production  2  NVLW‐EW7003 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 130 95 120 Inactive Production  2  NVLW‐RDO1 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 65 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO2 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 65 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO3A NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 31 20 30 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO3B NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 65 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO4 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 112 65 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO5 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 65 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO6A NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 109 95 105 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐RDO6B NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring  1  NVLW‐SB2 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 424 207 407 Inactive Production  2,3,6  NVLW‐SB6 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 802 548 655 Inactive Production  P 2  BYNT‐YLSE NEFF RANCH, LTD 90 34 70 Other Active Production  2,3  NB‐DOLD NEWPORT BEACH 824 399 729 Active Large Production  P 2,7  NB‐DOLS NEWPORT BEACH 385 201 356 Active Large Production  P 2,7  NB‐TAMD NEWPORT BEACH 758 395 690 Active Large Production  P 2,7  NB‐TAMS NEWPORT BEACH 390 170 360 Active Large Production  P 2,7  NBGC‐GA10 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 32 62 Monitoring  S 1,6  NBGC‐MW2 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 35 65 Monitoring  1  NBGC‐MW3 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 35 65 Monitoring  1  NBGC‐NB NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 498 192 218 Other Active Production  2,3,6  NDW‐1 NIAGARA DRINKING WATER 510 270 500 Inactive Production  2,9  COCA‐A NOR‐CAL BEVERAGE CO. INC. 654 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3,8  NCS‐NO2 NORCO COMMUNITY SERVICES 114 47 114 Other Active Production  2  GRGC‐CO1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 96 34 67 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐COR1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 92 34 61 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YL14 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YL15 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YL16 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YL4 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YL9 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  GRGC‐YLA1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐3763 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 610 144 385 Inactive Production  2  W‐629 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 267 81 256 Monitoring  1  W‐638 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 176 71 162 Monitoring  1  VECT‐GG O.C. VECTOR CNT. DIST. 224 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  BSOA‐I OC COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS/ANAHEIM 0 100 200 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐19059 OC WASTE MANAGEMENT 60 27 57 Monitoring  1  OVWC‐HB OCEAN VIEW MUTUAL WATER 180 0 0 Inactive Production  2,6  ABS‐1 OCWD 286 MP1 25 35 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  ABS‐1 OCWD 286 MP2 75 85 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  ABS‐1 OCWD 286 MP3 255 265 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  ABS‐2 OCWD 180 155 165 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐1 OCWD 140 97 115 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐10 OCWD 300 217 235 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐11 OCWD 278 218 240 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐12 OCWD 299 210 225 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐13 OCWD 279 252 270 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐14 OCWD 321 297 315 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐15 OCWD 320 300 317 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐15A OCWD 231 214 220 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐16 OCWD 320 300 315 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐16A OCWD 227 215 222 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐17 OCWD 320 290 308 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐18 OCWD 320 291 309 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐18A OCWD 232 208 215 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐19 OCWD 240 217 225 Monitoring  1  AM‐19A OCWD 127 115 123 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐2 OCWD 160 87 100 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐20 OCWD 397 361 379 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐20A OCWD 268 250 258 Monitoring  1  AM‐21 OCWD 269 250 258 Monitoring  1  AM‐21A OCWD 179 157 165 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐22 OCWD 356 339 353 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐22A OCWD 239 216 224 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐23 OCWD 351 330 347 Monitoring  P 1,8  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 17 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  AM‐24 OCWD 378 335 350 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐24A OCWD 305 279 294 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐25 OCWD 365 340 358 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐25A OCWD 217 188 195 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐26 OCWD 388 377 383 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐27 OCWD 337 287 305 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐28 OCWD 398 358 376 Monitoring  1  AM‐29 OCWD 365 340 358 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐29A OCWD 96 75 95 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐3 OCWD 115 91 107 Monitoring  S 1,10  AM‐30 OCWD 375 349 367 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐30A OCWD 398 152 159 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐31 OCWD 358 335 353 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐31A OCWD 360 162 170 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐32 OCWD 398 335 353 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐33 OCWD 378 354 372 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐33A OCWD 238 206 221 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐34 OCWD 354 317 335 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐34A OCWD 271 252 260 Monitoring  1  AM‐35 OCWD 400 332 350 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐36 OCWD 398 369 387 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐37 OCWD 378 349 367 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐38 OCWD 358 316 334 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐39 OCWD 192 168 188 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐39A OCWD 140 115 135 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐4 OCWD 300 187 205 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐40 OCWD 193 175 190 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐40A OCWD 168 145 165 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐41 OCWD 200 190 200 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐41A OCWD 167 156 166 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐42 OCWD 198 180 190 Monitoring  1,8  AM‐42A OCWD 135 115 130 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐43 OCWD 100 80 100 Monitoring  1  AM‐44 OCWD 162 140 160 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐44A OCWD 90 78 88 Monitoring  1  AM‐45 OCWD 133 102 132 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐46 OCWD 130 94 124 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐47 OCWD 290 227 242 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐47A OCWD 170 160 170 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐48 OCWD 312 270 300 Monitoring  P 1,8  AM‐48A OCWD 152 116 146 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐49 OCWD 160 120 150 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐5 OCWD 250 230 245 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐50 OCWD 170 140 150 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐51 OCWD 130 105 125 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐51A OCWD 80 50 70 Monitoring  1  AM‐5A OCWD 182 168 175 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐6 OCWD 300 232 250 Monitoring  P 1  AM‐7 OCWD 296 210 225 Monitoring  S 1  AM‐8 OCWD 300 268 285 Monitoring  S 1,8  AM‐9 OCWD 317 285 303 Monitoring  S 1,8  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP1 104 114 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP2 135 145 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP3 180 190 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP4 246 256 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP5 330 340 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP6 384 394 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP7 524 534 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP8 760 770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP8 1038 1048 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐1 OCWD 1511 MP10 1390 1400 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐10 OCWD 1510 934 954 Monitoring  P 1  AMD‐11 OCWD 1510 906 926 Monitoring  P 1  AMD‐12 OCWD 1020 940 960 Monitoring  P 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP1 156 166 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP2 260 270 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP3 384 394 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 18 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP4 510 520 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP5 658 668 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP6 820 830 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP7 1012 1022 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP8 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP9 1290 1300 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐2 OCWD 1508 MP10 1440 1450 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP1 66 76 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP2 134 144 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP3 210 220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP5 480 490 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP6 570 580 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP7 820 830 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP8 920 930 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP9 1170 1180 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐3 OCWD 1416 MP10 1282 1292 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,8,10  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP1 204 214 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP2 295 305 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP3 380 390 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP4 560 570 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP5 700 710 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP6 790 800 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP7 935 945 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP8 1055 1065 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP9 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP10 1265 1275 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐4 OCWD 1515 MP11 1405 1415 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP1 100 110 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP2 200 210 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP3 300 310 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP4 414 424 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP5 495 505 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP6 640 650 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP7 750 760 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP8 920 930 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP9 1025 1035 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP10 1210 1220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP11 1320 1330 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐5 OCWD 1495 MP12 1420 1430 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP1 110 120 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP2 150 160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP4 275 285 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP5 370 380 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP6 495 505 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP7 620 630 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP8 710 720 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP9 790 800 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP10 900 910 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP11 1090 1100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP12 1260 1270 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐6 OCWD 1528 MP13 1405 1415 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP1 120 130 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP2 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP3 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP4 310 320 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP5 370 380 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP6 470 480 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP7 578 588 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP8 690 700 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP9 805 815 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP10 930 940 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP11 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP12 1165 1175 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP13 1295 1305 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  AMD‐7 OCWD 1520 MP14 1420 1430 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 19 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP1 78 88 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 P2 178 188 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP3 314 324 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP4 524 534 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP5 660 670 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP6 760 770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP7 856 866 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP8 1000 1010 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP9 1160 1170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP10 1286 1296 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP11 1450 1460 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP12 1564 1574 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP13 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP14 1944 1954 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐8 OCWD 2080 MP15 2010 2020 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  AMD‐9 OCWD 1163 896 916 Monitoring  S/P 1  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP1 128 138 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP2 248 258 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP3 456 466 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP4 612 622 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP5 776 786 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP6 886 896 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP7 1036 1046 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP8 1264 1274 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP9 1388 1398 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP10 1498 1508 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP11 1684 1694 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP12 1800 1810 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP13 1930 1940 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP14 2105 2115 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP1 180 190 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP2 336 346 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP3 494 504 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP4 580 590 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP5 774 784 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP6 900 910 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP7 1024 1034 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP8 1240 1250 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP9 1364 1374 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP10 1490 1500 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP11 1610 1620 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP12 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP13 1928 1938 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP14 2070 2080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  BPM‐2 OCWD 2227 MP15 2170 2180 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP1 76 86 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP2 140 150 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP3 440 450 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP4 659 669 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP5 870 880 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP6 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP7 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP8 1329 1339 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  CB‐1 OCWD 1543 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP2 152 162 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP3 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP4 350 360 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP5 450 460 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP6 540 550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP7 620 630 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP8 720 730 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP9 850 860 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP10 980 990 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP11 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP12 1212 1222 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP13 1432 1442 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 20 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP14 1594 1604 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP15 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP1 58 68 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP2 113 123 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP3 198 208 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP4 307 317 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP5 406 416 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP6 540 550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP7 649 659 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP8 757 767 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP9 886 896 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  COSM‐2 OCWD 1142 MP10 1051 1061 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP1 180 190 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP2 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP3 529 539 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP4 819 829 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP5 1059 1069 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP6 1159 1169 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP7 1299 1309 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FFS‐1 OCWD 1490 MP7 1419 1429 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,8,10  FM‐1 OCWD 359 348 356 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐10 OCWD 250 215 235 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐10A OCWD 183 151 171 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐11 OCWD 280 236 256 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐11A OCWD 162 134 154 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐12 OCWD 241 206 226 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐12A OCWD 162 135 155 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐13 OCWD 243 210 230 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐13A OCWD 173 140 160 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐14 OCWD 277 234 254 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐14A OCWD 182 147 167 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐15 OCWD 261 218 238 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐15A OCWD 160 120 140 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐16 OCWD 282 248 268 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐16A OCWD 160 125 145 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐17 OCWD 280 250 270 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐18 OCWD 367 224 244 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐18A OCWD 160 121 151 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐19A OCWD 145 115 135 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐19B OCWD 270 230 260 Monitoring  1,8  FM‐19C OCWD 399 365 385 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐1A OCWD 197 164 172 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐2 OCWD 352 320 338 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐20 OCWD 290 221 241 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐20A OCWD 160 130 150 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐21 OCWD 286 260 270 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐21A OCWD 169 140 160 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐22 OCWD 290 242 262 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐22A OCWD 180 150 170 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐23 OCWD 290 234 249 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐23A OCWD 155 128 143 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐24 OCWD 302 271 291 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐24A OCWD 200 154 174 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐25 OCWD 160 132 152 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐26 OCWD 155 145 155 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐27 OCWD 125 105 125 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐2A OCWD 237 226 234 Monitoring  1,8  FM‐3 OCWD 298 257 263 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐4 OCWD 355 327 345 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐4A OCWD 170 142 160 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐5 OCWD 142 121 141 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐6 OCWD 405 150 310 Monitoring  S 1,10  FM‐7 OCWD 205 187 197 Monitoring  1,8  FM‐7A OCWD 172 160 170 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐8 OCWD 150 114 134 Monitoring  S 1,8  FM‐9 OCWD 260 220 240 Monitoring  P 1,8  FM‐9A OCWD 240 166 186 Monitoring  S 1,8  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 21 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP1 134 145 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP3 172 182 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP5 450 460 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP6 500 510 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP7 560 570 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP8 630 640 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP9 810 820 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP10 894 904 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP11 1000 1010 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP12 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP13 1175 1185 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP14 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP15 1320 1330 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP16 1492 1502 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP17 1582 1592 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  FVM‐1 OCWD 2000 MP18 1834 1844 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP1 150 160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP2 300 310 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP3 464 474 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP4 550 560 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP5 740 750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP6 825 835 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP7 950 960 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP9 1260 1270 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP10 1515 1525 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP11 1650 1660 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP12 1768 1778 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐1 OCWD 2086 MP13 2008 2018 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP1 212 222 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP2 294 304 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP3 460 470 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP4 715 725 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP5 950 960 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP6 1045 1055 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP7 1145 1155 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP8 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP 1485 1495 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP10 1625 1635 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP11 1740 1750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP12 1900 1910 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐2 OCWD 2057 MP13 1990 2000 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP1 195 205 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP2 310 320 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP3 545 555 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP4 640 650 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP5 837 847 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP6 1004 1014 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP7 1104 1114 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP8 1274 1284 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP9 1539 1549 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP10 1680 1690 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP11 1780 1790 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  GGM‐3 OCWD 2020 MP12 1950 1960 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP2 190 200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP3 320 330 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP4 482 492 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP5 560 570 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP6 700 710 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP7 920 930 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP8 1034 1044 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP9 1126 1136 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP10 1348 1358 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP11 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 22 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP12 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP13 1640 1650 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐1 OCWD 2013 MP14 1930 1940 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP1 110 120 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP2 160 170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP3 245 255 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP4 305 315 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP5 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP6 445 455 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP7 520 530 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP8 570 580 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP9 675 685 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP10 735 745 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP11 845 855 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐2 OCWD 1010 MP12 925 935 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP1 75 85 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP2 120 130 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP3 180 190 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP4 230 240 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP5 295 305 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP6 350 360 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP7 415 425 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP8 550 560 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐4 OCWD 830 MP9 690 700 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP3 70 90 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP1 70 90 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP2 70 90 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP4 125 135 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP5 170 180 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP6 215 225 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP7 245 255 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐5 OCWD 1019 MP8 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP1 52 62 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP2 84 94 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP3 108 118 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP4 214 224 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP5 263 273 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP6 294 304 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP7 506 516 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  HBM‐6 OCWD 800 MP8 576 586 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,6,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP1 85 95 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP2 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP3 335 345 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP4 435 445 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP5 630 640 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP6 700 710 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP7 760 770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP8 875 885 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP9 990 1000 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐1 OCWD 1123 MP10 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP1 126 136 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP2 234 244 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP3 284 294 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP4 352 362 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP5 492 502 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP6 612 622 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP7 710 720 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP8 886 896 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP9 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 MP10 1178 1188 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 M0‐11 1256 1266 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐2 OCWD 1487 M012 1400 1410 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,9,10  IDM‐3 OCWD 704 652 672 Monitoring  S/P 1  IDM‐4 OCWD 726 654 674 Monitoring  S/P 1  IDP‐1 OCWD 708 121 681 Injection  4  IDP‐2R OCWD 680 300 340 Monitoring  S/P 1  IDP‐3 OCWD 602 125 505 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 23 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  KBS‐1 OCWD 244 209 219 Monitoring  S/P 1  KBS‐2 OCWD 303 MP1 96 106 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  KBS‐2 OCWD 303 MP2 210 220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  KBS‐3 OCWD 92 80 90 Monitoring  1  KBS‐4 OCWD 160 138 158 Monitoring  S 1  KBS‐4A OCWD 92 80 90 Monitoring  1  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP1 70 80 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP2 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP3 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP4 470 480 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP5 570 580 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP6 830 840 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP7 992 1002 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP9 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP10 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP11 1494 1504 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  LAM‐1 OCWD 2211 MP12 1610 1620 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  MBI‐1 OCWD 1239 530 1190 Injection  4,5  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP1 60 70 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP2 150 160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP3 210 220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP4 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP5 330 340 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP6 450 460 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐1 OCWD 620 MP7 540 550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐10 OCWD 389 347 377 Monitoring  P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP1 40 50 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP2 130 140 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP3 200 210 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP4 370 380 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP5 420 430 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP6 490 500 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP7 550 560 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐2 OCWD 680 MP8 620 630 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP1 80 90 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP2 160 170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP4 340 350 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP5 420 430 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐3 OCWD 603 MP6 490 500 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐4 OCWD 317 181 238 Monitoring  S/P 1  MCAS‐5A OCWD 159 120 130 Monitoring  S 1  MCAS‐6 OCWD 455 167 222 Monitoring  S 1  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP2 190 200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP3 350 360 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP4 440 450 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP5 510 520 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP6 800 810 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP7 910 920 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐7 OCWD 1297 MP9 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  MCAS‐8 OCWD 437 392 410 Monitoring  P 1  MCAS‐9 OCWD 450 372 445 Monitoring  P 1  MSP‐10P OCWD 59 40 50 Monitoring  1  MSP‐10T OCWD 211 70 140 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐33Z11 OCWD 527 435 485 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34F10 OCWD 490 420 460 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34H25 OCWD 490 410 465 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐34H5 OCWD 480 405 455 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34L10 OCWD 478 405 450 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34LS OCWD 400 340 380 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34N21 OCWD 494 424 464 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34NP7 OCWD 312 225 300 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34S OCWD 380 312 347 Injection  4  OCWD‐34T01 OCWD 375 290 345 Monitoring  1,6  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 24 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  OCWD‐34U8 OCWD 424 359 384 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34V OCWD 320 260 300 Injection  4  OCWD‐34V20 OCWD 456 387 417 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34VZX OCWD 199 147 177 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34VZY OCWD 265 215 235 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34WP5 OCWD 212 165 180 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐34X40 OCWD 450 333 358 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐34Z OCWD 191 110 150 Injection  4  OCWD‐35DP5 OCWD 130 92 107 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35E01X OCWD 98 65 85 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35E01Y OCWD 343 105 125 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35F OCWD 168 80 115 Injection  4  OCWD‐35F20 OCWD 300 235 265 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35FP21 OCWD 85 36 71 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35G OCWD 182 80 145 Injection  4  OCWD‐35H11 OCWD 230 200 220 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐35H12 OCWD 300 137 147 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35H1X OCWD 257 131 171 Injection  4  OCWD‐35H1Y OCWD 271 215 237 Injection  4  OCWD‐35H2 OCWD 260 112 241 Injection  4  OCWD‐35J1 OCWD 271 190 240 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35J1Y OCWD 378 264 294 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35K1 OCWD 275 193 243 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35K1V OCWD 112 90 110 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35K1Y OCWD 395 366 386 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐35KP12 OCWD 87 47 67 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐35N01 OCWD 101 80 85 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐35T9 OCWD 1020 390 411 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐36FP14Z1 OCWD 150 115 125 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐36FP14Z2 OCWD 705 357 367 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐36FP1X OCWD 160 136 146 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐36FP1Z OCWD 1020 504 514 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐7 OCWD 48 28 48 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐AIR1 OCWD 1518 1375 1460 Monitoring  S/P 1,10  OCWD‐ALK OCWD 320 217 317 Other Active Production  2,3  OCWD‐AN1 OCWD 115 35 115 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐AN2 OCWD 119 35 115 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BESS OCWD 302 172 189 Other Active Production  S 2,3  OCWD‐BIO1 OCWD 124 25 115 Inactive Production  S 2  OCWD‐BP1 OCWD 40 20 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BP2 OCWD 70 50 70 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BP3 OCWD 205 185 205 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐BP4 OCWD 180 140 180 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐BP5 OCWD 240 147 167 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐BP6 OCWD 245 148 168 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐BP7 OCWD 270 148 168 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐BS10 OCWD 906 595 605 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐BS103A OCWD 16 10 15 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS105A OCWD 12 6 11 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS11 OCWD 741 580 590 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐BS15 OCWD 105 60 70 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS16 OCWD 95 60 80 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS16A OCWD 24 16 21 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS18 OCWD 95 72 82 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS18A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐BS19 OCWD 100 63 83 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS20A OCWD 27 6 11 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐BS20B OCWD 85 71 81 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐BS21 OCWD 0 0 0 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐CTG1 OCWD 1330 1060 1220 Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  OCWD‐CTG5 OCWD 1600 1040 1120 Monitoring  P/D 1  OCWD‐CTK1 OCWD 1444 1260 1315 Monitoring  P/D 1  OCWD‐D1 OCWD 926 780 880 Other Active Production  P 2,3  OCWD‐D3 OCWD 1050 560 1000 Other Active Production  P 2,3  OCWD‐D4 OCWD 1033 531 979 Other Active Production  P 2,3  OCWD‐D5 OCWD 1050 597 1005 Inactive Production  2,3  OCWD‐EW1 OCWD 324 160 295 Inactive Production  2,8  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 25 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  OCWD‐EW2 OCWD 230 130 196 Inactive Production  S 2,8  OCWD‐EW2A OCWD 207 122 188 Inactive Production  S 2,8  OCWD‐EW3 OCWD 270 150 249 Inactive Production  2,8  OCWD‐EW3A OCWD 0 0 0 Inactive Production  S 2,8  OCWD‐EW4 OCWD 275 130 255 Inactive Production  S 2,8  OCWD‐FBM1 OCWD 140 38 138 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐FBM2 OCWD 140 39 139 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐FBR1 OCWD 100 30 90 Injection  4  OCWD‐FC1 OCWD 185 165 185 Monitoring  P 1  OCWD‐FC2 OCWD 115 95 115 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐FH1 OCWD 140 120 140 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐GA1 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐GA2 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐GA3 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐GA4 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐GA5 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐GA6 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐GA7 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring  1,9  OCWD‐GA9 OCWD 30 19 29 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐HBM5A OCWD 22 16 21 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐HBM6A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐I1 OCWD 407 365 400 Injection  4  OCWD‐I10 OCWD 330 305 330 Injection  4  OCWD‐I11 OCWD 310 200 225 Injection  4  OCWD‐I12 OCWD 320 290 310 Injection  4  OCWD‐I13 OCWD 315 280 305 Injection  4  OCWD‐I14 OCWD 310 265 300 Injection  4  OCWD‐I15 OCWD 295 262 285 Injection  4  OCWD‐I16 OCWD 308 245 285 Injection  4  OCWD‐I17 OCWD 309 250 275 Injection  4  OCWD‐I18 OCWD 315 260 275 Injection  4  OCWD‐I19 OCWD 292 235 270 Injection  4  OCWD‐I2 OCWD 402 350 390 Injection  4  OCWD‐I20 OCWD 275 240 265 Injection  4  OCWD‐I21 OCWD 265 230 250 Injection  4  OCWD‐I22 OCWD 306 250 275 Injection  4  OCWD‐I23 OCWD 325 215 255 Injection  4  OCWD‐I24 OCWD 720 420 605 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I25 OCWD 662 120 320 Injection  4  OCWD‐I26A OCWD 220 60 195 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I26B OCWD 430 271 400 Injection  4  OCWD‐I26C OCWD 697 476 660 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I27A OCWD 171 78 148 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I27B OCWD 280 211 261 Injection  4  OCWD‐I27C OCWD 592 355 420 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I27M1 OCWD 23 17 22 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐I28A OCWD 163 80 140 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I28B OCWD 258 185 235 Injection  4  OCWD‐I28C OCWD 698 360 460 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I28M1 OCWD 24 19 24 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐I29A OCWD 156 90 120 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I29B OCWD 275 200 250 Injection  4  OCWD‐I29C OCWD 515 365 475 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I3 OCWD 380 340 380 Injection  4  OCWD‐I30A OCWD 187 95 160 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I30B OCWD 322 230 295 Injection  4  OCWD‐I30C OCWD 708 425 650 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I31A OCWD 192 90 165 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I31B OCWD 321 235 295 Injection  4  OCWD‐I31C OCWD 688 440 590 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I32A OCWD 181 90 155 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I32B OCWD 326 226 295 Injection  4  OCWD‐I32C OCWD 703 425 670 Injection  P 4  OCWD‐I33A OCWD 183 61 156 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I34A OCWD 160 60 135 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I35A OCWD 155 60 115 Injection  S 4  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 26 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  OCWD‐I36A OCWD 143 60 110 Injection  S 4  OCWD‐I4 OCWD 360 330 355 Injection  4  OCWD‐I5 OCWD 365 320 345 Injection  4  OCWD‐I6 OCWD 355 315 335 Injection  4  OCWD‐I7 OCWD 345 315 336 Injection  4  OCWD‐I8 OCWD 335 300 325 Injection  4  OCWD‐I9 OCWD 340 300 330 Injection  4  OCWD‐KB1 OCWD 200 180 200 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐LB1 OCWD 177 148 168 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐LB2 OCWD 65 15 30 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐LB3 OCWD 175 145 165 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐LB4 OCWD 130 78 88 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐LV1 OCWD 155 135 155 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M1 OCWD 123 75 110 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M10 OCWD 336 280 305 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M10A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M11 OCWD 310 260 290 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M12 OCWD 400 330 350 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M13 OCWD 400 360 395 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M13A OCWD 21 16 21 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M14A OCWD 360 200 300 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M14B OCWD 360 320 340 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M15A OCWD 340 195 290 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M15B OCWD 340 310 335 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M16 OCWD 337 295 315 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M17A OCWD 360 330 345 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M17B OCWD 360 210 305 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M18 OCWD 358 310 335 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M19 OCWD 285 215 265 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M2 OCWD 162 85 150 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M20 OCWD 278 255 270 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M21 OCWD 355 320 340 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M22 OCWD 348 230 270 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M23A OCWD 337 190 260 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M23B OCWD 337 295 320 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M24 OCWD 330 290 310 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐M25 OCWD 200 65 185 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M26 OCWD 151 70 135 Monitoring  S 1,6,10  OCWD‐M26A OCWD 16 11 16 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M27 OCWD 127 60 110 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M27A OCWD 22 11 16 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M28 OCWD 161 80 145 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M2A OCWD 25 17 22 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M30 OCWD 128 90 110 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M31 OCWD 180 82 162 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M36 OCWD 340 290 300 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M37 OCWD 368 338 348 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M38 OCWD 700 516 526 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M39 OCWD 622 250 270 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐M4 OCWD 352 295 330 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M40 OCWD 900 330 520 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M41 OCWD 450 370 390 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M42 OCWD 645 608 628 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M43 OCWD 695 520 540 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐M44 OCWD 502 295 305 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M44A OCWD 125 100 125 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M45 OCWD 1014 780 790 Monitoring  S/P 1  OCWD‐M46 OCWD 1035 890 910 Monitoring  P 1  OCWD‐M46A OCWD 391 350 370 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐M47 OCWD 1010 940 960 Monitoring  P 1  OCWD‐M48 OCWD 505 470 480 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐M49A OCWD 24 16 21 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M49B OCWD 85 56 81 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M5 OCWD 325 285 305 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M50 OCWD 25 16 21 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M51A OCWD 43 28 38 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M51B OCWD 130 75 105 Monitoring  1,6  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 27 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  OCWD‐M52A OCWD 61 46 56 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M52B OCWD 150 120 140 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M52C OCWD 237 210 230 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐M52D OCWD 460 330 350 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐M53A OCWD 38 22 32 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M53B OCWD 132 115 125 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M53C OCWD 229 208 218 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M54B OCWD 150 105 125 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M6A OCWD 305 260 285 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M6B OCWD 305 185 235 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M7A OCWD 293 190 220 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M7B OCWD 293 240 260 Monitoring  1,6  OCWD‐M8 OCWD 346 275 310 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐M9 OCWD 311 250 295 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐MRSH OCWD 540 199 219 Monitoring  P 1,6  OCWD‐P1 OCWD 197 64 179 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐P10 OCWD 150 90 130 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐P2 OCWD 186 56 174 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐P3 OCWD 181 66 166 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐P4 OCWD 163 70 150 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐P6 OCWD 178 85 150 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐P7 OCWD 149 80 135 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐PD3A OCWD 11 4 9 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PD3B OCWD 22 15 20 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PD6A OCWD 10 3 8 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PD6B OCWD 22 15 20 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PDE4 OCWD 0 30 213 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PDHQ OCWD 180 100 180 Other Active Production  2  OCWD‐PZ6 OCWD 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐PZ8 OCWD 32 10 30 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐RVW1 OCWD 80 67 77 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐RVW1A OCWD 50 39 49 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐SA22R OCWD 350 310 330 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐T2 OCWD 380 300 360 Monitoring  S/P 1,6  OCWD‐T3 OCWD 180 110 170 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐T4 OCWD 178 68 168 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐T5 OCWD 396 285 295 Monitoring  S 1,6  OCWD‐W1 OCWD 398 0 0 Monitoring  1  OCWD‐YLR1 OCWD 51 35 40 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐YLR2 OCWD 51 32 37 Monitoring  S 1  OCWD‐YLR3 OCWD 51 31 36 Monitoring  S 1  OM‐1 OCWD 245 217 235 Monitoring  1  OM‐2 OCWD 250 211 219 Monitoring  1  OM‐2A OCWD 135 118 125 Monitoring  S 1  OM‐4 OCWD 253 221 230 Monitoring  1  OM‐4A OCWD 122 112 117 Monitoring  S 1  OM‐6 OCWD 251 196 204 Monitoring  1  OM‐8 OCWD 320 285 293 Monitoring  1  OM‐8A OCWD 180 156 164 Monitoring  S 1  SAM‐1 OCWD 215 191 196 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAM‐2 OCWD 220 204 214 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAM‐3 OCWD 225 198 208 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAM‐4 OCWD 210 185 195 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAM‐5 OCWD 205 182 192 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAM‐6 OCWD 205 176 186 Monitoring  S 1,9  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP1 150 170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP2 290 300 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP3 320 330 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP5 510 530 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP6 580 590 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP7 820 840 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP8 890 900 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP9 910 920 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP10 1010 1020 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP11 1110 1120 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP12 1280 1290 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 28 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP13 1370 1380 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐1 OCWD 1530 MP14 1441 1451 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐10 OCWD 1150 1100 1115 Monitoring  P 1,5  SAR‐11 OCWD 1214 1100 1110 Monitoring  P 1,5  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP1 140 150 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP2 270 280 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP3 310 320 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP4 470 480 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP5 610 620 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP6 740 750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP7 880 890 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP9 1020 1030 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP10 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP11 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐2 OCWD 1520 MP12 1350 1360 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP1 160 170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP2 230 240 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP3 410 420 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP4 510 520 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP5 640 650 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP6 770 780 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP7 950 960 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP9 1195 1205 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP10 1265 1275 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐3 OCWD 1494 MP11 1390 1400 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP1 115 125 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP2 320 330 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP3 470 480 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP4 590 600 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP5 730 740 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP6 860 870 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP7 970 980 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP8 1060 1070 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP9 1160 1170 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐4 OCWD 1520 MP10 1395 1405 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP1 80 90 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP2 170 180 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP3 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP4 616 626 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP5 760 770 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP6 940 950 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP7 1080 1090 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP8 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP9 1290 1300 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP10 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP11 1730 1740 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐5 OCWD 1964 MP12 1820 1830 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP1 200 210 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP2 360 370 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP3 470 480 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP4 574 584 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP5 700 710 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP6 780 790 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP7 1080 1090 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP8 1180 1190 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP9 1270 1280 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐6 OCWD 1574 MP10 1500 1510 Multiport Monitoring  P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP1 110 120 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP2 170 180 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP3 310 320 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP4 440 450 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP5 604 614 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP6 740 750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP7 856 866 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP8 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 29 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SAR‐7 OCWD 1483 MP9 1350 1360 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SAR‐8 OCWD 267 MP1 34 44 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  SAR‐8 OCWD 267 MP2 84 94 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  SAR‐8 OCWD 267 MP3 150 160 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP1 148 160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP2 236 248 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP3 406 418 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP4 488 500 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP5 604 616 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP6 724 736 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP7 872 884 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP8 1068 1080 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP9 1258 1270 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP10 1473 1484 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP11 1567 1578 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP12 1719 1730 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP13 1815 1826 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SAR‐9 OCWD 2008 MP14 1889 1900 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP1 74 84 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP2 144 154 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP3 240 250 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP4 370 380 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP5 510 520 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP6 696 706 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP7 910 920 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SBM‐1 OCWD 2023 MP8 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6,10  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP1 44 54 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP3 150 160 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP4 194 204 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP5 294 304 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐1 OCWD 720 MP6 390 400 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP1 46 56 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP2 94 104 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP3 146 156 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP4 190 200 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP5 248 258 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐2 OCWD 879 MP6 300 310 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP1 224 234 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP2 410 420 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP3 576 586 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP4 710 720 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP5 1018 1028 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP6 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP7 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP8 1370 1380 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐3 OCWD 1500 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring  P/D 1  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP1 100 111 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP2 198 209 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP3 268 279 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP4 391 402 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP5 482 493 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP6 572 583 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP7 658 669 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP8 827 838 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐4 OCWD 1498 MP9 1078 1089 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP1 123 133 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP2 196 206 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP3 290 300 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP4 468 478 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP5 667 677 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP6 804 814 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP7 932 942 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP8 1020 1030 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP9 1234 1244 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐5 OCWD 1500 MP10 1426 1436 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1,10  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 30 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP2 200 210 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP3 300 310 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP4 540 550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP5 785 795 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP6 960 970 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP7 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP8 1325 1335 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP10 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP11 1680 1690 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP12 1890 1900 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP13 2025 2035 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SC‐6 OCWD 2213 MP14 2115 2125 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP1 24 34 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP3 142 152 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP4 178 188 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP5 220 230 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐1 OCWD 313 MP6 295 305 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1  SCS‐10 OCWD 230 206 216 Monitoring  1  SCS‐11 OCWD 405 384 394 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐12 OCWD 405 275 285 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐13 OCWD 200 180 190 Monitoring  1  SCS‐2 OCWD 401 MP1 134 145 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  SCS‐2 OCWD 401 MP2 174 185 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  SCS‐2 OCWD 401 MP3 212 223 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  SCS‐2 OCWD 401 MP4 260 270 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  SCS‐2 OCWD 401 MP5 325 335 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  SCS‐3 OCWD 52 31 42 Monitoring  1  SCS‐4 OCWD 50 21 32 Monitoring  1  SCS‐5 OCWD 51 22 43 Monitoring  1  SCS‐6 OCWD 154 147 153 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐7 OCWD 142 125 141 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐8 OCWD 130 108 129 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐9 OCWD 205 153 173 Monitoring  S 1  SCS‐B1 OCWD 43 18 43 Monitoring  1  SCS‐B2 OCWD 29 19 29 Monitoring  1  SCS‐B3 OCWD 26 16 26 Monitoring  1  TIC‐67 OCWD 902 245 900 Monitoring  P 1  W‐14659 OCWD 27 12 27 Monitoring  1  WBS‐2A OCWD 177 MP1 50 60 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  WBS‐2A OCWD 177 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  WBS‐2A OCWD 177 MP3 135 145 Multiport Monitoring  S 1  WBS‐3R OCWD 256 MP1 75 85 Monitoring  S 1  WBS‐3R OCWD 256 MP2 215 225 Monitoring  S 1  WBS‐4 OCWD 295 55 220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P 1,10  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP1 109 119 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP2 359 369 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP3 480 490 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP4 600 610 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP5 740 750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP6 810 820 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP7 889 899 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP9 1060 1070 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP10 1210 1220 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP11 1309 1319 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP12 1364 1374 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP13 1430 1440 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP14 1565 1575 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP15 1619 1629 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP16 1740 1750 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP17 1800 1810 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  WMM‐1 OCWD 2015 MP18 1940 1950 Multiport Monitoring  S/P/D 1  O‐1 ORANGE 500 236 416 Inactive Production  2  O‐15 ORANGE 506 200 492 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐18 ORANGE 714 372 574 Active Large Production  P 2,7  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 31 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  O‐19 ORANGE 1060 444 1014 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐20 ORANGE 1210 400 1130 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐21 ORANGE 1366 482 1252 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐22 ORANGE 1282 342 802 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐23 ORANGE 958 370 640 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐24 ORANGE 826 420 800 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐25 ORANGE 993 430 885 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐26 ORANGE 1210 460 1170 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐27 ORANGE 960 425 890 Inactive Production  2,7  O‐3 ORANGE 216 207 216 Active Large Production  2,7  O‐4 ORANGE 726 280 711 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐5 ORANGE 751 156 723 Active Large Production  2,7  O‐8 ORANGE 870 570 850 Active Large Production  P 2,7  O‐9 ORANGE 910 546 888 Active Large Production  P 2,7  OASI‐SA ORANGE COAST PLUMBING 326 226 288 Inactive Production  2  EMA‐AH5 ORANGE COUNTY 84 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  TIC‐73 ORANGE COUNTY 926 324 915 Inactive Production  2,3  CEM2‐A ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DIST. 401 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3,8  NVLW‐SB ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 430 200 420 Other Active Production  2,3  RUIZ‐5A1 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  RUIZ‐5A3 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 425 210 390 Other Active Production  2,3  RUIZ‐6F1 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 426 210 390 Other Active Production  2,3,6  OWOD‐GG ORANGEWOOD ACADEMY 180 159 179 Other Active Production  S 2,3  PSCI‐AM14 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 118 93 113 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM21 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 95 116 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM22 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 119 99 119 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM25 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 69 114 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM26 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 120 69 114 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM31 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 68 113 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM32R PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 70 115 Monitoring  1  PSCI‐AM33 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 7 114 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM34 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 102 112 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM35 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 7 112 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM36 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 9 114 Other Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM37 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 102 112 Or Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM38 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 69 113 Or Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM39 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 69 113 Or Active Production  2  PSCI‐AM40 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 127 109 124 Monitoring  1  PSCI‐AM41 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 109 114 Monitoring  1  PSCI‐AM6 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 103 113 Monitoring  1  PSCI‐AT1 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 146 129 144 Monitoring  1  PAGE‐F PAGE AVE. MUTUAL WATER CO. 378 186 364 Active Small Production  2,7,8  PLMW‐A PALM MUTUAL WATER CO. 280 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  PLMD‐HB PALMDALE‐CEDAR WATER ASSOC. 180 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PUSD‐LB PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. 155 126 139 Other Active Production  2  W‐3767 PARK STANTON PLACE 131 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  PWC‐29H PARK WATER CO. 462 388 409 Inactive Production  2  PWC‐6G PARK WATER CO. 854 421 807 Other Active Production  2  W‐15063 PARKVIEW MUTUAL WATER CO. 250 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PAUL‐COS PAULARINO WATER ASSOC. 450 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PINE‐O PINE WATER CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PIRT‐HB PIRATE WATER CO. 156 0 0 Other Active Production  2,6  W‐17527 POWERLINE OIL CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SNDR‐SA PRIVATE 1030 930 990 Other Active Production  D 2,3,9  SHAF‐WM PRIVATE 125 0 0 Other Active Production  2  ANDR‐A PRIVATE 82 0 0 Other Active Production  2  ANNA‐O PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  ARAK‐WM PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  BLSO‐SA PRIVATE 100 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  BOIS‐A PRIVATE 235 0 0 Other Active Production  2  BSBY‐GG PRIVATE 148 0 0 Other Active Production  2  BXBY‐SB PRIVATE 305 150 290 Other Active Production  2,3  CALL‐FV PRIVATE 214 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  CO‐8 PRIVATE 221 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  CO‐9 PRIVATE 250 144 234 Other Active Production  2,3  COOP‐SA PRIVATE 138 0 0 Inactive Production  2  COUR‐HBB2 PRIVATE 138 0 0 Inactive Production  2  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 32 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  COUR‐HBB3 PRIVATE 226 120 216 Inactive Production  2,3  CREST‐BR PRIVATE 530 187 523 Other Active Production  2,3  CULBK‐CE1 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  DAVI‐O PRIVATE 185 0 0 Other Active Production  2  DETT‐BP PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  DOSS‐BP PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  ECKH‐A PRIVATE 260 0 0 Or Active Production  2  ENCS‐GG PRIVATE 155 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  FAVI‐C PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production  2  GHAV‐GG PRIVATE 200 168 188 Other Active Production  S 2,3  GORD‐LW PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  GRNT‐CE PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  HNCK‐C PRIVATE 90 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  HOWD‐A PRIVATE 217 0 0 Inactive Production  2  HTCH‐WM PRIVATE 120 0 0 Inactive Production  2  HUNTZ‐SA PRIVATE 146 100 145 Other Active Production  2,3  ICHI‐HB PRIVATE 128 0 0 Other Active Production  2  JAME‐CO PRIVATE 376 192 250 Other Active Production  2  KNAS‐S PRIVATE 205 0 0 Other Active Production  2  KUBO‐FV PRIVATE 133 122 132 Other Active Production  2  LCRO‐FV PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  MCGA‐A PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  MCGN‐BP1 PRIVATE 260 50 255 Other Active Production  S 2  MKSN‐WM PRIVATE 137 127 137 Inactive Production  2  MONITORINGG‐O PRIVATE 480 80 480 Other Active Production  2,3  MONITORINGT‐A PRIVATE 110 0 0 Other Active Production  2  MSER‐A PRIVATE 100 0 0 Other Active Production  2  MSSM‐A PRIVATE 135 0 0 Inactive Production  2  NAKM‐A PRIVATE 120 0 0 Inactive Production  2  NAKT‐BP PRIVATE 110 0 0 Other Active Production  2  NESL‐GG PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  NORT‐A PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  NVLW‐SB3 PRIVATE 680 0 0 Other Active Production  P 2,3  PEAR‐GG PRIVATE 143 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PEIR‐A PRIVATE 137 0 0 Inactive Production  2  PTCK‐SA PRIVATE 300 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  PURS‐SB PRIVATE 252 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3,6  RMW‐SFS PRIVATE 540 0 0 Other Active Production  2  RWLM‐GG PRIVATE 132 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SAND‐BP PRIVATE 70 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SANZ‐C PRIVATE 84 76 83 Other Active Production  S 2  SCHN‐GG PRIVATE 144 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SINC‐C PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SWAN‐C PRIVATE 185 0 0 Inactive Production  2  TAOR‐A PRIVATE 254 0 0 Inactive Production  2  VGNA‐A PRIVATE 165 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐10699 PRIVATE 141 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐10894 PRIVATE 365 357 364 Inactive Production  2  W‐11104 PRIVATE 320 230 300 Inactive Production  2  W‐12745 PRIVATE 270 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐12753 PRIVATE 250 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐12791 PRIVATE 80 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐12819 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐1311 PRIVATE 345 0 345 Inactive Production  2  W‐13112 PRIVATE 935 701 933 Inactive Production  2  W‐13118 PRIVATE 600 343 575 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐13207 PRIVATE 260 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐13285 PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐14805 PRIVATE 170 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15791 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15793 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15803 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15817 PRIVATE 158 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐15857 PRIVATE 100 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐15880 PRIVATE 97 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15962 PRIVATE 450 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐16004 PRIVATE 165 0 0 Inactive Production  2  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 33 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  W‐18700 PRIVATE 300 200 300 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐19049 PRIVATE 340 60 260 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐19051 PRIVATE 430 180 400 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐19053 PRIVATE 440 360 440 Other Active Production  2  W‐19055 PRIVATE 360 140 360 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐20906 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐2268 PRIVATE 226 140 190 Inactive Production  S 2,3  W‐2447 PRIVATE 180 157 178 Inactive Production  S 2,3  W‐3063 PRIVATE 310 292 300 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐376 PRIVATE 370 290 370 Inactive Production  2  W‐3765 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐3795 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐428 PRIVATE 311 0 0 Inactive Production  2,10  W‐432 PRIVATE 300 117 137 Inactive Production  S 2,10  W‐5304 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐5306 PRIVATE 292 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐615 PRIVATE 374 188 364 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐6523 PRIVATE 175 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐702 PRIVATE 324 294 318 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐7040 PRIVATE 192 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐7046 PRIVATE 257 0 0 Inactive Production  S 2  W‐830 PRIVATE 200 191 200 Inactive Production  2  W‐856 PRIVATE 406 271 401 Inactive Production  2  W‐860 PRIVATE 348 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐9172 PRIVATE 98 50 97 Inactive Production  2  W‐9180 PRIVATE 200 0 0 Inactive Production  2  WALL‐A PRIVATE 45 16 45 Other Active Production  2  WARN‐WHNY PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  WLMS‐A PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  WMIL‐WM PRIVATE 300 260 300 Inactive Production  2  WMIL‐WM2 PRIVATE 650 150 640 Other Active Production  2  WRNE‐WTOM PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  NOBL‐O R.J. NOBLE CO. 476 290 474 Other Active Production  P 2  FURU‐HB RAINBOW DISPOSAL 150 0 0 Other Active Production  2,6  W‐4152 RAINBOW DISPOSAL 202 142 178 Inactive Production  2  RAY‐MW06 RAYON CO. 191 150 190 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW09 RAYON CO. 194 152 192 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW16 RAYON CO. 180 149 179 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW17 RAYON CO. 204 173 193 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW21 RAYON CO. 238 212 232 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW23 RAYON CO. 236 215 235 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW24 RAYON CO. 338 310 330 Monitoring  D 1  RAY‐MW25 RAYON CO. 805 449 480 Monitoring  D 1  RAY‐MW26 RAYON CO. 805 459 499 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW27 RAYON CO. 550 475 515 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW28 RAYON CO. 425 335 375 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW29 RAYON CO. 266 200 240 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW30 RAYON CO. 635 596 616 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW31 RAYON CO. 1100 946 996 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW32 RAYON CO. 1153 1070 1100 Monitoring  P/D 1  RAY‐MW33 RAYON CO. 1080 980 1020 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW34A RAYON CO. 290 220 280 Monitoring  1  RAY‐MW34B RAYON CO. 540 486 536 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW34C RAYON CO. 709 556 576 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW35 RAYON CO. 1104 990 1040 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW36 RAYON CO. 1030 934 994 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW37 RAYON CO. 916 770 820 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW39 RAYON CO. 1080 982 1012 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐MW40 RAYON CO. 1040 930 970 Monitoring  P 1  RAY‐P07 RAYON CO. 117 108 130 Monitoring  S 1  RAY‐P09 RAYON CO. 130 110 130 Monitoring  S 1  RIDG‐O RIDGELINE PERATIONS, INC. 63 55 60 Inactive Production  2  RVGC‐SA RIVER VIEW GOLF 300 156 216 Other Active Production  2,3  ROBSN‐YL1 ROBERTSON READY MIX 67 21 65 Inactive Production  2,3  RCA‐AR ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP‐LA 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  W‐8813 S FARGO BANK, INC. 13 3 13 Monitoring  1  SAKI‐SAJ3 SAKIOKA & SONS, ROY K. 463 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3,9  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 34 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SAKI‐SAJ1 SAKIOKA FARMS 187 0 0 Inactive Production  2,9  SA‐16 SANTA ANA 978 305 950 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐18 SANTA ANA 654 245 623 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐20 SANTA ANA 981 390 940 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐21 SANTA ANA 986 400 960 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐24 SANTA ANA 688 352 654 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐26 SANTA ANA 1186 330 1140 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  SA‐27 SANTA ANA 1152 396 1140 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐28 SANTA ANA 1200 250 980 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐29 SANTA ANA 1090 450 1050 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐30 SANTA ANA 989 440 900 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐31 SANTA ANA 1310 465 1240 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐32 SANTA ANA 1060 307 1030 Inactive Production  P 2,7  SA‐33 SANTA ANA 1080 425 935 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐34 SANTA ANA 1000 370 520 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐35 SANTA ANA 1520 429 1480 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐36 SANTA ANA 1510 570 1290 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐37 SANTA ANA 1560 348 1480 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐38 SANTA ANA 1510 400 1270 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐39 SANTA ANA 1350 590 1290 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐40 SANTA ANA 1335 550 1305 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐41 SANTA ANA 1010 525 978 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SA‐7 SANTA ANA 960 426 907 Inactive Production  2  W‐12903 SANTA ANA 423 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SACC‐SA SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB 536 205 406 Other Active Production  P 2,3,6  SAVI‐16 SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION CO 752 262 825 Inactive Production  2,3  SFE‐2 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 294 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SFE‐3 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 205 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SFE‐4 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 180 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SFS‐12 SANTA FE SPRINGS 1556 940 1430 Active Large Production  2  SFS‐2 SANTA FE SPRINGS 1250 336 1218 Other Active Production  2,3  SAVS‐ASC SAVANNA SCHOOL DIST. 1301 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  SB‐BC SEAL BEACH 1050 370 1020 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SB‐BEV SEAL BEACH 920 400 800 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  SB‐LAM SEAL BEACH 1200 360 1170 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SB‐LEI SEAL BEACH 840 420 840 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  SID‐3 SERRANO WATER DIST. 604 296 584 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SID‐4 SERRANO WATER DIST. 650 290 520 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SWD‐5 SERRANO WATER DIST. 750 310 720 Active Large Production  P 2,7  SCC‐D1 SERVICE CHEMICAL 124 113 123 Monitoring  1,9  W‐15094 SHELL OIL CO. 104 58 95 Inactive Production  2  W‐15098 SHELL OIL CO. 350 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐15100 SHELL OIL CO. 115 80 115 Inactive Production  2  W‐2507 SHELL OIL CO. 437 230 340 Inactive Production  2  W‐2523 SHELL OIL CO. 115 70 100 Inactive Production  2  W‐2505 SIGNAL OIL AND GAS 121 76 104 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐9170 SIGNAL OIL AND GAS 92 80 90 Inactive Production  2  RODE‐A SILICON SALVAGE 218 178 208 Other Active Production  S 2  SILV‐YL SILVERADO CONSTRUCTORS 78 40 66 Other Active Production  S 2,3,10  W‐3783 SO. CA EDISON 458 0 0 Inactive Production  2,9  SMWC‐BF4 SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 1070 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SMWC‐BFFWR SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 1076 0 0 Active Small Production  2  W‐13380 SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 875 0 0 Inactive Production  2  FOND‐A SOURCE REFRIGERATION 250 0 0 Inactive Production  2  MIYA‐BP SOURN CA EDISON 400 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SCE‐DASUB SOURN CA EDISON 0 0 0 Other Active Production  2  SCE‐LBDM SOURN CA EDISON 366 100 347 Inactive Production  2,3  SCE‐LBSG SOURN CA EDISON 340 190 340 Inactive Production  2,3  SCE‐YLCS SOURN CA EDISON 104 5 103 Inactive Production  S 2,3,10  TIC‐127 SOURN CA EDISON 134 0 0 Monitoring  S 1  TIC‐140 SOURN CA EDISON 787 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐13195 SOURN CA EDISON 527 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15807 SOURN CA EDISON 150 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐15874 SOURN CA EDISON 188 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SCGC‐I SOURN CA GAS CO. 300 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  SCGC‐O SOURN CA GAS CO. 405 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐11198 SOURN SERVICE CO., LTD. 952 716 948 Other Active Production  2,3  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 35 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  SCSH‐SA1 SOUTH COAST SHORE HOA 450 280 430 Other Active Production  2,3  SMID‐D4 SOUTH MIDWAY CITY WATER CO. 142 0 0 Inactive Production  2  SMID‐D5 SOUTH MIDWAY CITY WATER CO. 630 300 600 Active Small Production  2,7  SPRK‐SA SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 246 154 212 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐8292 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 105 80 98 Monitoring  1  W‐8294 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 101 80 100 Monitoring  1  W‐8296 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 99 70 90 Monitoring  1  W‐3801 STATE OF CA 725 254 407 Inactive Production  2,3  STEP‐A STEPAN CO. 275 210 275 Other Active Production  2,3,8  SWS‐26B7 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 820 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  SWS‐409W3 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 1460 540 1420 Active Large Production  2  SWS‐410W1 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 1312 617 1237 Other Active Production  2  ANGS‐HBM3 TERMO PETROLEUM 1510 146 1440 Multiport Monitoring  1  TEX‐W1 TEXACO, INC. 30 5 30 Monitoring  1  W‐8805 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring  1  W‐8807 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring  1  W‐8809 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring  1  W‐8811 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring  1  W‐8815 TEXACO, INC. 35 25 35 Monitoring  1  W‐18289 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 150 120 150 Monitoring  1  W‐18291 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 140 105 140 Monitoring  1  W‐18293 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 140 105 140 Monitoring  1  T868‐S1 TRACT 868 MUTUAL WATER CO. 200 0 0 Inactive Production  2  T868‐S2 TRACT 868 MUTUAL WATER CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  TREE‐SA TREESWEET PRODUCTIONUCT CO. 416 150 398 Inactive Production  2,3  TLLC‐F2 TRUE LOVE LURAN CHURCH 350 190 350 Other Active Production  2,3,8  T‐17S1 TUSTIN 375 200 311 Inactive Production  2  T‐17S2 TUSTIN 1003 310 490 Inactive Production  2  T‐17S4 TUSTIN 520 200 480 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐BENE TUSTIN 627 290 590 Inactive Production  P 2  T‐COLU TUSTIN 1470 560 1160 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐ED TUSTIN 1492 500 840 Inactive Production  2,7  T‐LIVI TUSTIN 617 300 617 Inactive Production  2  T‐MS3 TUSTIN 630 300 630 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐MS4 TUSTIN 1180 330 880 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐NEWP TUSTIN 375 234 267 Active Large Production  S 2,7  T‐PANK TUSTIN 614 323 614 Inactive Production  P 2,9  T‐PAS TUSTIN 1260 440 1225 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐PROS TUSTIN 630 270 630 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐TUST TUSTIN 827 306 776 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐VNBG TUSTIN 1129 480 900 Active Large Production  P 2,7  T‐WALN TUSTIN 1191 397 995 Active Large Production  P 2,7,9  T‐YORB TUSTIN 863 385 850 Inactive Production  P 2  USGS‐NAWQA1 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 24 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA10 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA11 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 49 39 44 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA12 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA13 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 34 24 29 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA14 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 74 69 74 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA15 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 39 29 34 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 44 34 39 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA17 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 14 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA18 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA19 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 14 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 21 10 15 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA20 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 0 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA21 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA22 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 144 134 139 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA23 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 34 24 29 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA24 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 49 34 39 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA25 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA26 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA27 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA28 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA29 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA3 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 21 12 17 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA30 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring  1  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 36 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  USGS‐NAWQA31 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA4 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA5 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA5 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring  9  USGS‐NAWQA6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA7 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA8 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 23 13 18 Monitoring  1  USGS‐NAWQA9 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring  1  UOC‐B8 UNION OIL CO. 79 60 75 Inactive Production  2,3  UOC‐B9 UNION OIL CO. 79 60 75 Inactive Production  2,3  COS‐PLAZ UNKNOWN 779 0 0 Monitoring  P 1  W‐14764 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2  W‐18102 UNKNOWN 130 110 130 Monitoring  1  W‐3629 UNKNOWN 162 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐8298 UNKNOWN 115 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐8300 UNKNOWN 85 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐8304 UNKNOWN 49 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐8306 UNKNOWN 85 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐8308 UNKNOWN 182 0 0 Monitoring  1  W‐18607 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 130 25 130 Other Active Production  2  W‐18609 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 0 25 120 Monitoring  1  W‐18611 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 25 120 Monitoring  1  W‐18613 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  W‐18615 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  W‐18617 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  W‐18637 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  W‐18639 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  W‐18641 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection  4  MTSN‐SA VERSAILLES ON  LAKE APT 914 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  CRES‐A VICTORY BAPTIST CHURCH 541 485 525 Active Small Production  2,7  A1‐HB VILLAGE NURSERIES 305 188 300 Other Active Production  2,3  W‐13235 VIRGINIA COUNTRY CLUB 1285 915 1010 Monitoring  1  CATH‐S W. CARINE ST. MUT. WTR. CO. 170 0 0 Other Active Production  2,3  DISN‐AE1 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 400 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  DISN‐AH1 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 0 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  FUJS‐A WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 642 446 628 Inactive Production  2,3  W‐846 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 325 0 0 Inactive Production  2  WRD‐CERRITOS‐1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1221 1155 1175 Monitoring  1  WRD‐CERRITOS‐2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1504 1350 1370 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LAKEWOOD‐1A WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1020 989 1009 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LAKEWOOD‐1B WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 172 140 160 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LAKEWOOD‐2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 2160 1960 2000 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LAMIRADA‐1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1257 1130 1150 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LONGBEACH‐1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1495 1430 1450 Monitoring  1,6  WRD‐LONGBEACH‐6 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1550 1490 1510 Monitoring  1  WRD‐LONGBEACH‐8 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1515 1435 1455 Monitoring  1  WRD‐NORWALK‐1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1432 1400 1420 Monitoring  1  WRD‐NORWALK‐2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1502 1460 1480 Monitoring  1  WRD‐SEALBEACH‐1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1505 1345 1365 Monitoring  S/P/D 1,6  WRD‐WHITTIER‐1A WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1298 1180 1200 Monitoring  1  WRD‐WHITTIER‐1B WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 640 600 620 Monitoring  1  WM‐107A WESTMINSTER 1040 350 980 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐11 WESTMINSTER 820 325 790 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐125 WESTMINSTER 930 374 860 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  WM‐3 WESTMINSTER 365 285 365 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐4 WESTMINSTER 1209 345 1125 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐6 WESTMINSTER 694 176 660 Active Large Production  2,7  WM‐75A WESTMINSTER 1041 410 996 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐RES1 WESTMINSTER 920 390 880 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WM‐RES2 WESTMINSTER 960 340 937 Active Large Production  P 2,6,7  WM‐SC4 WESTMINSTER 454 425 454 Active Large Production  P 2,7  WMEM‐WE WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 149 0 0 Inactive Production  2,3  WMEM‐WPAR WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 614 140 599 Inactive Production  2,3  WMEM‐WW WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 488 95 442 Other Active Production  2,3  WHS‐CHS40 WHITTIER UNION H.S. DIST. 836 0 0 Inactive Production  2  WHS‐SH550 WHITTIER UNION H.S. DIST. 804 228 780 Active Small Production  2  W‐14807 WILLIAM LYON CO 490 0 0 Inactive Production  2  List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid-Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program 37 Well Name Well Owner  Bore Depth  (ft. bgs)  Casing  Sequence   Screened Interval (ft.bgs)  Type of Well  Aquifer  Zone Program   Top Bottom  WOOD‐INLK WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN 910 370 890 Inactive Production  P 2,3  WOOD‐ISLK WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN 845 210 800 Inactive Production  P 2,3  YLCC‐35C2 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 425 388 404 Inactive Production  2,3  YLCC‐35C4 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 510 188 472 Other Active Production  2,3  YLCC‐35F3 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 460 130 450 Other Active Production  2,3  YLWD‐1 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 427 90 340 Active Large Production  2,7  YLWD‐10 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 465 90 406 Active Large Production  2,7  YLWD‐11 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 547 149 514 Active Large Production  2,7  YLWD‐12 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 544 80 498 Active Large Production  2,7  YLWD‐15 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 213 133 198 Active Large Production  S 2,7  YLWD‐18 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 1050 250 570 Active Large Production  P 2,7  YLWD‐19 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 611 280 581 Active Large Production  P 2,7  YLWD‐20 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 600 225 570 Active Large Production  P 2,7  YLWD‐5 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 395 90 340 Active Large Production  2,7  YLWD‐7 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 361 137 259 Active Large Production  2,7  APPENDIX F Monthly Water Resources Report Total for MonthThis YearLast Year BASIN SUPPLIES Water Purchases from MWD (excludes In Lieu)3,89050,70124,356 Water into MWD Storage Account (excludes In Lieu)0015,571 SAR & Santiago Creek Flows5,78890,335115,065 (accounts for storage to/from recharge facilities) GWRS Water to Forebay 61034,26345,422 GWRS Water to Talbert Barrier 60631,90027,205 OC-44 Water to Talbert Barrier 064 Alamitos Barrier Water 02,1401,722 Incidental Recharge (estimated)1,65019,80019,698 Evaporation from Recharge Basins (263)(2,407)(2,309) River Flow Lost to Ocean 0 (500)(440) Total Groundwater Recharge12,280226,238246,294 WATER PRODUCTION Groundwater Production30,759331,156309,295 MWD Storage Program Withdrawals 2,376 7,634 0 Total Groundwater Production33,136338,789309,295 BASIN BALANCE Change in Groundwater Storage(20,855)(112,552)(63,001) Change in Groundwater Storage excluding MWD Stored Water(18,479)(104,918)(78,572) Accumulated Overdraft ------ 354,552242,000 Accumulated Overdraft excluding MWD Storage ------ 394,189289,902 IN LIEU WATER OCWD In Lieu Purchases000 MWD In Lieu Storage0 0 0 Total In Lieu000 OTHER KEY INFORMATION 1.MWD Water Deliveries to Producers7,87497,059111,098 2.Basin Production Percentage75.0%76.0%73.6% 3.Total Water Demand42,549451,867436,275 4.Total GWRS Production1,21666,16372,627 5.Green Acres Project Water5175,0716,540 6.SAR Water Quality - Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of SAR below Prado Dam (ppm)724------ 710 - Total Nitrogen of SAR below Prado Dam (ppm)4.6------ 4.3 7.Month-End Water Storage Behind Prado Dam0------ 1 8.Month-End Water Storage in Recharge Facilities10,151------ 8,322 9.Water Storage Change in Recharge Facilities(2,028)1,829(10,168) 10.Total Artificial Recharge10,632206,438226,597 11.Monthly Mean Temperature at Santa Ana Fire Station (°F)71.4------ 70.1 12.Rainfall at FHQ (inches)0.005.095.85 7/10/2014 WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY June 2014 INFLOWS & OUTFLOWS Year to Date - (acre-feet) Page 2 of 9 (500) (400) (300) (200) (100) 0 19691974197919841989199419992004200920142019 Ac c u m u l a t e d O v e r d r a f t ( T A F ) Accumulated Overdraft Overdraft Overdraft w/o MWD Storage Water Basin Full 1969 Calendar Year -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 94 - 9 5 95 - 9 6 96 - 9 7 97 - 9 8 98 - 9 9 99 - 0 0 00 - 0 1 01 - 0 2 02 - 0 3 03 - 0 4 04 - 0 5 05 - 0 6 06 - 0 7 07 - 0 8 08 - 0 9 09 - 1 0 10 - 1 1 11 - 1 2 12 - 1 3 13 - 1 4 Ch a n g e i n S t o r a g e ( T A F ) Water Year YTD Change in Groundwater Storage in OCWD 2013-142012-13JUNE2013-142012-13 WATER Ground-In YTDYTD2014YTDYTD AGENCY water Lieu DemandDemandBPPBPPBPP Anaheim 4,15800 01,9636,12068,06466,59367.9%76.6%68.3% Buena Park 1,04300 04561,49815,27515,18969.6%78.1%65.4% East Orange County 10000 0 01001,0701,036100.0%77.3%58.4% Fountain Valley 97200180 01,15311,80011,319100.0%74.3%68.0% Fullerton 2,17100 07032,87430,05828,69775.5%70.8%67.9% Garden Grove 2,26600 04482,71426,23325,81983.5%80.1%73.3% Golden State 1,65200 01,0572,71027,31327,44861.0%69.8%67.8% West OC System 1,49200 0118 1,61016,28616,397 92.7%97.3%92.9% East OC System 40000 0700 1,10011,02711,050 36.4%34.5%30.5% Huntington Beach 1,56300 01,4112,97331,13729,90752.6%59.7%68.0% Irvine Ranch 4,750001,094635,90767,88261,18398.7%98.8%97.7% DRWF Clear 2,66800 0 -2,66827,81127,765 0.0%nana DRWF Color 69200 0 -6928,7078,858 0.0%nana La Palma 20600 0 02062,2102,190100.0%74.2%77.0% Mesa Water (MW)1,460001473541,96220,03720,81480.5%89.2%85.4% MW Clear 92600 0 -92611,15311,474 0.0%nana MW Color 53400 0 -5345,6225,357 0.0%nana Newport Beach 1,35900692421,66917,55816,29784.9%64.6%70.8% Orange 2,10300 08983,00132,61631,38570.1%70.9%67.3% OCWD (GAP)6100 1 0614431,097100.0%100.0%100.0% Santa Ana 2,69800489853,73140,22139,44373.3%70.1%68.2% Seal Beach 9700 02953933,9013,69724.8%59.6%69.3% Serrano 26900 0533233,3813,19483.5%68.1%60.8% Tustin 746 00 0600 1,346 12,59412,25455.4%63.6%74.9% Westminster 92000 02511,17212,62312,45178.6%65.8%68.0% Yorba Linda 1,234 0 0 0 462 1,697 16,956 16,102 72.8%69.0%68.0% SUBTOTAL: 29,829001,53910,24141,608441,372426,11480.8%76.0%73.6% Other Producers 930 na na 0 10 941 10,495 10,161 (Est 4% of Subtotal) TOTAL:30,759001,53910,25142,549451,867436,27580.8%76.0%73.6% OCWD (Talbert Barrier)0nana606 060631,90627,209 OCSD (GAP)nanana72 na 721,5093,478 Estimated Page 3 of 9 PRODUCERS WATER USAGE SUMMARY June 2014 (AF except BPP) Demand MWD CUP ReclaimedTotalTotal 7/10/2014 16:13 In Lieu WaterImport Page 4 of 9 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun Pr o d u c t i o n ( T A F ) Annual Groundwater Production 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 94 - 9 5 95 - 9 6 96 - 9 7 97 - 9 8 98 - 9 9 99 - 0 0 00 - 0 1 01 - 0 2 02 - 0 3 03 - 0 4 04 - 0 5 05 - 0 6 06 - 0 7 07 - 0 8 08 - 0 9 09 - 1 0 10 - 1 1 11 - 1 2 12 - 1 3 13 - 1 4 To t a l D e m a n d ( T A F ) Water Year YTD Total Demand in OCWD Groundwater MWD+OCWD In Lieu CUP Withdrawals Import Recycled Water Page 5 of 9 0 50 100 150 200 250 JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun Re c h a r g e ( T A F ) Annual Forebay Recharge 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 94 - 9 5 95 - 9 6 96 - 9 7 97 - 9 8 98 - 9 9 99 - 0 0 00 - 0 1 01 - 0 2 02 - 0 3 03 - 0 4 04 - 0 5 05 - 0 6 06 - 0 7 07 - 0 8 08 - 0 9 09 - 1 0 10 - 1 1 11 - 1 2 12 - 1 3 13 - 1 4 Re c h a r g e ( T A F ) Water Year YTD Artificial Recharge by OCWD SAR & Santiago Purchases CUP Direct GWRS RIVER SYSTEM About 1/3 of river used (all flow diverted for fishin) DESILTING SYSTEM OFF-RIVER SYSTEM Includes Off River, Olive (passive) and 5 Coves WARNER SYSTEM Includes Foster and Conrock basins OLIVE BASIN See off river ANAHEIM LAKE OC-28a water MINI-ANA LAKE OC-28a water MILLER BASIN GWR inflow and OC-28a KRAEMER BASIN OC-28a water MIRA LOMA GWR inflow LA JOLLA BASIN PLACENTIA BASIN RAYMOND BASIN FIVE COVES BASIN See off river BURRIS BASIN RIVER VIEW BASIN SANTIAGO BASINS SANTIAGO CREEK TOTALS 5-YR AVERAGE Imperial Headgates (estimated)3,760Est'd SAR flow past Chapman Ave.0 GWRS 610 OC-28 (MWD)0Est'd Santiago Cr. flow to SAR 0 OC-28a (MWD)3,890Est'd flows past Raymond Basin 0 CB-11 0 CB-18 0 Est'd local Forebay inflow below Imperial 0Calc'd evap (inches) Estimated 6.3 Est'd local Santiago inflow (estimated)0Est'd evaporative losses 263 Irvine lake releases (OC-13 MWD)0 Villa Park Dam releases (estimated)0 Precip at Warner Basin (inches)0 Precip direct to open water surfaces 0 TOTAL INFLOW 8,260 TOTAL LOSSES Facility Begin EndNet Deep basins 6,5215,431-1,091TOTAL INFLOW 8,260 Santiago Pits 5,6584,720-938TOTAL LOSSES 263 River 0STORAGE CHANGE -2,028 Off-river 0CALC'D PERCOLATION 10,026 Irvine Lake TOTAL 12,17910,151-2,028 STORAGE CHANGES (AF)SUMMARY (AF) FLOWS TO RECHARGE AREAS (AF)LOSSES FROM RECHARGE AREAS (AF) 263 17,409 1,179 471 1,318 0 634 na 468 0 925 4 10,026 1,221 RECHARGE AREAS REPORT June 2014 Percolation (AF)Remarks 947 60 788 1,790 0 218 3 Page 6 of 9 FacilityStorageStorageMaximumTotalMaxAvgAvg W.S. StartEndStoragePercPercPercElev Desilting Ponds23013623030nanana Fos-Huckleberry5225306300nanana Conrock Basin5595686600nanana Warner Basins2,4042,5382,8101,790nanana Olive Pit001830nanana Anaheim Lake546472,300218547174 Mini-Anaheim Lk04213nanana Miller Basin39763401,2216841206 Kraemer Basin5104261,0501,1798039194 Mira Loma330624717413213 La Jolla Basin08361,3185344201 Placentia Basin1200350nanana na Raymond Basin100140370634nanana Five Coves Basins14888350nananana Burris Pit1,3108702,6704681916156 River View Basin00120nanana Santiago (Bond)4,0323,4668,6909254131228 Santiago (Blu Dia)1,6251,2545,240000228 Totals12,17910,15126,0048,257 Prado Dam3025,000 DEEP BASINS MONTHLY STATUS June 2014 (values in acre-feet) Page 7 of 9 Page 8 of 9 0 5 10 15 20 JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun Ra i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) Cumulative Forebay Rainfall 25-Yr Avg. Rain 2012-13 2013-14 55 60 65 70 75 80 JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun Te m p e r a t u r e ( F °) Temperature at Santa Ana Fire Station 15-yr. Avg.2012-13 2013-14 40 30 :::J (/) 20 ~ -Q) Q) !:!:. 10 c: .Q ~ 0 Q) iii ~ -10 .3 -30 -40 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ___ Ta lbert/Larnbda Aqui fer Merge<le& Zone Pelforalad l nte<Val: 71 -135ft. bgs Talbert Barrier Injection ---Protective Level to Preven t Seawater Intrusion 2010 0 c: 0 3 ,000 g 6.000 "0 2 a. ~ 2 ~ 9 ,000 c: :::J 3,000 2 (!) c: 0 u Q) ·c: 2 ,000 ~ Q) "E "' 1,000 ID t Q) .0 0 ~ 20 11 2012 2013 20 14 2015 F"ou ntaln Valley Groundwatet Production IRWD Groundwater Production Mesa Water Groundwater Production Huntington Beach Gr'OUndwater Production Newport Beach Groundwater Productioo TALBERT-BA~IER INJEC<TION1WELLS I ~ .~ N~!)Ort Talbert/lambda ~ ~ Mesa Aquifer Mergence Zone / "' I 0 t .., f ~ .. C' )fi< /..,. A '(' /C' ~ OC' q ;- ~ ... ... 0 2 3 4 Miles Page 9 of9 APPENDIX D City Ordinance ORDINANCE NUMBER 1 586 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE CITY'S WATER CONSERVATION PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Seal Beach Municipal Code is amended by deleting Sections 9.35.095 through 9.35.135 and replacing those sections with new sections Water Conservation) to read as follows: Chapter 9.35 Water and Water Conservation 9.35.005 Definitions. A. For the purposes of this chapter, "backflow," "designated irrigation days," "director," "local health agency" and "water user" are defined in § 9.35.005. B. Any word or phrase used in this chapter that is defined in the Health and Safety Code Section 116275 or in California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 7583 and not defined in § 9.35.005 shall have the meaning set forth in such state law provision. 9.35.095 Permanent Water Conservation. The water conservation requirements set forth in this Chapter are effective at all times and are applicable unless repealed by the City Council. Violations of this Chapter shall be considered waste and an unreasonable use of water. 9.35.100 Leaks. Each water user shall repair all leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixture at the user's premises. Such water user shall eliminate any loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system promptly after discovering the leak and in no event in less than 7 days. 9.35.105 Runoff. No water user shall cause or allow water to run off landscape areas into adjoining streets, sidewalks, driveways, alleys, gutters, ditches or any paved surfaces due to incorrectly maintained sprinklers, excessive watering or use. 9.35.110 Limits on Watering Hours. No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of the user's lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on any day, except by use of a hand -water shut -off nozzle or device, or for a very short period of time for the limited purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. 9.35.115 Limit on Watering Duration. No water user shall cause or allow watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended for longer than 15 minutes watering per day per station. This section does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low -flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour and Ordinance Number 1586 weather based controllers or stream rotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency standard. 9.35.120 Service of Water at Restaurants. Restaurants shall not offer water service and shall serve water only to a customer that specifically requests water. 9.35.125 Re- circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features. No person shall operate a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use re- circulated water. 9.35.130 No Installation of Single Pass Cooling Systems. No person shall install single pass cooling systems in connection with new water service. 9.35.135 No Installation of Non -re- circulating in Commercial Car Wash and Laundry Systems No person shall install non -re- circulating water systems in connection with commercial conveyor car wash and commercial laundry systems. Effective on January 1, 2010, the owner or operator of any commercial conveyor car wash system shall install operational re- circulating water systems, or secure a waiver of this requirement from the Director. 9.35.140 Washing of Vehicles and Equipment. No person shall wash a motor vehicle, trailer, boat or other type of mobile equipment other than by a hand -held bucket or by a hose equipped with a positive shut -off nozzle. This prohibition shall not apply to washing performed at a commercial car wash. 9.35.145 Determination of Water Conservation Phase. A. The city council may by resolution declare a water conservation phase upon making a finding specified in paragraph B. Such resolutions shall specify the start day of the phase and shall be effective upon publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation within the city. B. The finding necessary for each water conservation phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1: A Phase 1 Water Supply Shortage exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city council of a Phase 1 Water Supply Shortage condition, the city council will implement the mandatory Phase 1 conservation measures identified in this section. 2. Phase 2: A Phase 2 Water Supply Shortage exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a severe water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city council of a Phase 2 Water Supply Shortage condition, the city council will implement the mandatory Phase 2 conservation measures identified in this section. Ordinance Number 1586 3. Phase 3: A Phase 3 Water Supply Shortage condition is also referred to as an "Emergency" condition. A Phase 3 condition exists when the city council declares a water shortage emergency and notifies its residents and businesses that a significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety. Upon the declaration of a Phase 3 Water Supply Shortage condition, the city council will implement the mandatory Phase 3 conservation measures identified in this section. 9.35.150 Phase 1 Measures. The following water conservation measures apply during water conservation phase 1. A. Irrigation shall not be performed except on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Irrigation may be performed at any time if done by means of a hand -held hose equipped with a positive shut -off nozzle, a hand -held faucet filled bucket of 5 gallons or less, or a drip irrigation system. B. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall curtail all non- essential water use, but are otherwise exempt from phase 1 measures. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time. C. Washing of motor vehicles, boats, airplanes and other mobile equipment shall be performed only on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This prohibition shall not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, vehicles used to transport food and perishables and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. D. Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes shall be performed only on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. E. Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds and recreational fields shall be performed only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This prohibition does not apply to golf course greens. F. Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks, hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a water user may wash down such surfaces when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, and then only by use of a hand -held bucket or similar container, a hand -held hose equipped with a positive self - closing water shut -off device, a low- volume, high - pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used, or a low- volume high - pressure water broom. G. Ornamental fountains and similar structures shall not be operated. 9.35.155 Phase 2 Measures. The following water conservation measures apply during water conservation phase 2. A. Irrigation shall not be performed except on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. B. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Watering of livestock and irrigation of propagation beds are permitted at any time. Ordinance Number 1586 C. Washing of motor vehicles, boats, airplanes and other mobile equipment is prohibited except when performed at a commercial car wash. This prohibition shall not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, vehicles used to transport food and perishables and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. D. Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes shall be performed only on designated irrigation days and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. E. Watering golf courses, parks, school grounds and recreational fields shall be performed only between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This prohibition does not apply to golf course greens. F. Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts patios or other paved areas except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards and then only by use of a hand -held bucket or similar container, a hand -held hose equipped with a positive self - closing water shut -off device, a low- volume, high - pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used, or a low- volume high - pressure water broom. . G. Restaurants shall not serve water to customers unless specifically requested. H. Ornamental fountains and similar structures shall not be operated. I. New construction meters and permits for unmetered service shall not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes. J. The use of non - reclaimed and non - recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 20 %. 9.35.160 Phase 3 Measures. The following water conservation measures apply during water conservation phase 3. A. Outdoor irrigation is prohibited. B. Use of water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to watering of livestock. C. Washing of motor vehicles, boats, airplanes and other mobile equipment is prohibited except when performed at a commercial car wash. This prohibition shall not apply to the washing of garbage trucks, vehicles used to transport food and perishables and other mobile equipment for which frequent cleaning is essential for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. D. Filling or refilling of swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes is prohibited. E. Watering golf course areas, other than greens, is prohibited. Watering of parks, school grounds and recreational fields is prohibited except for plant materials classified as rare, exceptionally valuable or essential to the well being of rare animals. F. Water shall not be used to wash down sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts patios or other paved areas except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. 1 1 1 Ordinance Number 1586 G. Restaurants shall not serve water to customers unless specifically requested. H. Ornamental fountains and similar structures shall not be operated. I. New construction meters and permits for unmetered service shall not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes. J. The use of non - reclaimed and non - recycled water by commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50 %. K. The use of water for commercial manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50 %. L. Water shall not be used for air conditioning purposes. 9.35.165 Relief From Water Conservation Measures. A. Within 15 days of the effective date of a resolution declaring the water conservation phase, any water user may apply to the Director for relief from the applicable water conservation measures. Applications shall be filed on a city - provided form and shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount set by city council resolution. B. The Director may approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for relief from water conservation measures. In making such determination, the Director shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether additional reduction in water consumption will result in unemployment. 2. Whether additional persons have been added to the household. 3. Whether additional landscaped property has been added to the property since the corresponding billing period of the prior calendar year. 4. Changes in vacancy factors in multi - family housing. 5. Increased number of employees in commercial, industrial and governmental offices. 6. Increased production requiring increased process water. 7. Water uses during new construction. 8. Adjustments to water use caused by emergency health of safety hazards. 9. First filling of a permit- constructed swimming pool. 10. Water use necessary for reasons related to family illness or health. 11. Whether the applicant has achieved the maximum practical reduction in water consumption other than in the specific areas for which relief is sought. C. The decision of the Director shall be final. Ordinance Number 1586 9.35.170 Enforcement of Water Conservation Requirements. A. The penalties set forth in this section shall be exclusive and not cumulative with any other provision of this code. B. Violation of water conservation measures shall be penalized as follows: 1. First violation: the Director shall issue a written notice. 2. Second violation during a water conservation phase: the Director shall impose a surcharge in an amount equal to 15% of the violator's water bill. 3. Subsequent violations during a water conservation phase: the Director shall install a flow restricting device of one gallon per minute capacity for services up to 1.5 inches size, and a comparatively sized restrictor for larger service, on the service of the violator at the premises at which the violation occurred for a period of not less than 48 hours. The Director shall charge the water user the actual costs of installation and removal of the device and for restoration of normal service. Normal service shall not be restored until all the account has been made current and all charges have been paid. C. Any person receiving a notice of second or subsequent violation may request a hearing by the Director by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within 15 days of the date of such notice. The appeal fee shall be in an amount set by city council resolution. A timely request for a hearing shall stay the installation of a flow- restricting device on the appellant's premises until a decision has been made on the appeal. If the Director determines that the surcharge was incorrectly assessed, the city shall refund any money deposited by the customer. The Director's decision on the appeal shall be final. SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of June , 2009. ATTEST:1 City Jerk Ordinance Number 1586 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced for first reading at a meeting held on the 11 th day of May , 2009 and was passed, approved and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 8th day of June , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: - c ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: And do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number 1586 has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. Y" j CirV616rk 1 f Ordinance Number 1586 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county afore- said; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or inter- ested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the SEAL BEACH SUN a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of Seal Beach County of Orange and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of 2/24/75 Case Number A82583 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: all in thckyear 2009. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Seal Beach CA, Q'\ k day f - , 2009. 60"" Signature PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY: THE SEAL BEACH SUN 216 Main Street This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of 1 1 1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 562) 430 -7555 NOTICE OF PUBLIC measures including: Prompt leak repairs; Limits onHEARING & SUMMARY -Watering Hours; Limit onORDINANCENUMBERWateringDuration; No1586WashingDownHardSurfaces; DIANORDINANCE OF THE Re- circulating water for Water Fountains; No Installation ofCITYSEALBEACH AMENDING THE SEAL Single Pass Cooling Systems; No Installation of Non- re -cir-BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING.AND SUP-culating water systems in PLEMENTING THE CITY'S Commercial Car Wash and Laundry systems; Commercial WATER CONSERVATION Car Wash Systems; Runoff. PROVISIONS There are changes to the The Seal Beach Municipal language related to declara- Code is amended by deleting tion of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Sections 9.35.095 through Phase 3 conditions. Ordinance Number 15869.35.135 and replacing those sections with a new Chapter was introduced at the regu- 9.37 (Water Conservation).lar City Council meeting of May New conservation measures 11, 2009. Public hearing, sec090 reading, aid adoptionareproposedaspartof Metropolitan Water District of Ordinance Number 1586 is of Southern California's (MET)scheduled for June 8, 2009. 5 -Year Water Supply Plan.Introduction and first read - To help foster immediate;ing of Ordinance Number 1586 was approved by thewidespreadandon -going effi- ciency practices by the pub-following vote: lic, local agencies are request- ed to enact water conserva-AYES: Antos, Levitt, Miller, tion ordinances as prerequi- sites for participating in MET's Shanks ABSENT: Sloan incentive programs. To qual-NOES: None, Motion carried ify for incentive payments, ordinances must include pro-Copies of Ordinance visions which prohibit cer-Number 1586 are available from the office of the Citytainwateruses, including washing down hard surfaces;Clerk, City Hall, 211 - 8th outdoor irrigation restrictions;Street, Seal Beach; telephone and, enforcement and penal-562) 431 -2527 ext. 1305. DATED THIS 12th day of Mayties. Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is spearheading the effort to 2009. Linda Devine, City Clerk have all of its agencies adopt City of Seal Beach ordinances which meet the MET requirements. SB -349 Published in the Seal Beach Substantive changes to the Sun 05/21/2009. existing ordinance include the addition of provisions for permanent conservation 1 1 1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 562) 430 -7555 Ordinance Number 1586 J u PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county afore- said; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or inter- ested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the SEAL BEACH SUN a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of Seal Beach County of Orange and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of 2/24/75 Case Number A82583 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: J-e IL all in the year 2009. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated _at Seal Beach. CA 2009. Signature PUBLICATION PROCESSE BY: THE SEAL BEACH SUN 216 Main Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 562) 430 -7555 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC culating water systems iniCommercialCarWash ,and HEARING & SUMMARY -' Laundry systems; CommercialORDINANCENUMBER • Car Wash Systems;;Runoff.1586 There are changes to the I language related to declare- AN ORDINANCE OF THE tion of Phase 1, Phase 2 and CITY OF SEAL BEACH, Phase 3 conditions. AMENDING THE SEAL' BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Ordinance Number 1586 BY REVISING AND SUP-'was introduced at the re u- PLEMENTING THE CITY'S lar City Council meeting of May WATER CONSERVATION 11, 2009. Adoption ofPROVISIONSOrdinanceNumber1586was approved as amended on The Seal Beach Municipal June 8, 2009 by the following Code is amended by deleting vote: Sectidris 9.35.095 through 9.35.135 and replacing those AYES: Antos, Levitt, Miller, sections with a new Chapter Shanks, Sloan 9.37 (Water Conservation). ABSENT: None New conservation measures NOES: None are proposed as part of Motion carried Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MET) Copies of Ordinance5 =Year Water Supply Plan. Number 1586 are available Substantive changes to the from the office of the City existing ordinance include Clerk, City Hall, 211 - 8th the addition of provisions for Street, Seal Beach; telephone permanent conservation (562) 431 -2527 ext. 1305. measures including: Prompt DATED THIS 9th day of Juneleakrepairs; Limits on 2009. Watering Hours; Limit on Linda Devine, City Clerk Wateringg Duration; No City of Seal Beach Washing Down Hard Surfaces; SB -354 Re- circulating water for Water Published in the Seal Beach Fountains; No Installation of Sun 6/18/2009. Single Pass Cooling Systems; No Installation of Non- re -cir- APPENDIX E Notification of Public and Service Area Suppliers APPENDIX F Adopted UWMP Resolution Will be incorporated in future draft once available APPENDIX G Bump Methodology Will be incorporated in future draft once available APPENDIX H Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report Retrofits and Acre-Feet Water Savings for Program Activity Interventions Water Savings Interventions Water Savings Interventions Annual Water Savings[4] Cumulative Water Savings[4] High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program 2001 October-15 532 1.53 2,244 16.15 105,611 3,644 20,708 Smart Timer Program - Irrigation Timers 2004 October-15 1 0.00 371 15.65 13,438 4,655 28,933 Rotating Nozzles Rebate Program 2007 October-15 3,709 14.83 18,064 135.73 478,934 2,422 9,721 SoCal Water$mart Commercial Plumbing Fixture Rebate Program 2002 September-15 2,767 7.65 3,622 18.06 51,788 3,518 34,157 Water Smart Landscape Program [1]1997 September-15 12,690 905.55 12,690 2,710.58 12,690 10,632 71,574 Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program 2006 September-15 0 11.26 1 11.26 14 357 1,357 Turf Removal Program[3]2010 November-15 947,615 11.05 2,868,923 68 10,386,596 1,454 2,982 High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Program 2005 October-15 2,337 8.28 8,102 114.87 54,376 2,010 11,439 Home Water Certification Program 2013 October-15 11 0.022 42 0.147 301 7.080 15.007 Synthetic Turf Rebate Program 2007 685,438 96 469 Ultra-Low-Flush-Toilet Programs [2]1992 363,926 13,452 162,561 Home Water Surveys [2]1995 11,867 160 1,708 Showerhead Replacements [2]1991 270,604 1,667 19,083 Total Water Savings All Programs 960 2,914,059 3,090 12,435,583 44,073 364,706 (1) Water Smart Landscape Program participation is based on the number of water meters receiving monthly Irrigation Performance Reports. (2) Cumulative Water Savings Program To Date totals are from a previous Water Use Efficiency Program Effort. (3) Turf Removal Interventions are listed as square feet. [4] Cumulative & annual water savings represents both active program savings and passive savings that continues to be realized due to plumbing code changes over time. Retrofits Installed in Orange County Water Use Efficiency Programs Savings and Implementation Report Month Indicated Program Current Fiscal Year Overall Program Program Start Date Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xlsPrepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Agency FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 Total Current FY Water Savings Ac/Ft (Cumulative) Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years 15 yr. Lifecycle Savings Ac/Ft Brea 132 175 156 42 186 144 93 115 114 43 1,777 0.30 346.91 919 Buena Park 85 114 146 59 230 145 105 106 91 24 1,412 0.19 263.13 731 East Orange CWD RZ 18 22 17 3 23 10 10 8 8 4 185 0.03 38.21 96 El Toro WD 91 113 130 32 162 112 134 121 111 29 1,438 0.23 267.47 744 Fountain Valley 205 219 243 72 289 158 115 102 110 37 2,296 0.24 467.55 1,188 Garden Grove 238 304 332 101 481 236 190 162 165 42 3,227 0.36 641.93 1,670 Golden State WC 339 401 447 168 583 485 265 283 359 106 4,723 0.80 909.33 2,444 Huntington Beach 761 750 751 211 963 582 334 295 319 89 7,930 0.64 1,649.30 4,103 Irvine Ranch WD 1,972 2,052 1,844 1,394 2,621 2,170 1,763 1,664 1,882 676 22,448 4.63 4,161.08 11,615 La Habra 96 136 83 22 179 128 82 114 87 25 1,233 0.16 230.28 638 La Palma 33 35 51 25 76 46 34 25 34 10 429 0.07 78.92 222 Laguna Beach CWD 57 77 77 27 96 57 38 37 39 23 904 0.16 181.03 468 Mesa Water 239 249 246 73 232 176 114 86 89 27 2,352 0.21 498.68 1,217 Moulton Niguel WD 652 716 742 250 1,127 679 442 421 790 337 8,995 2.42 1,691.75 4,654 Newport Beach 245 270 259 57 197 142 116 92 95 36 2,533 0.28 540.91 1,311 Orange 366 365 403 111 349 262 218 163 160 54 3,748 0.44 781.73 1,939 Orange Park Acres 4 8 - - - - - - - - 12 0.00 3.09 6 San Juan Capistrano 109 103 127 43 190 110 76 73 92 34 1,397 0.30 271.08 723 San Clemente 204 261 278 63 333 206 140 94 141 41 2,516 0.29 494.64 1,302 Santa Margarita WD 654 683 740 257 1,105 679 553 662 792 224 8,907 1.68 1,660.81 4,609 Seal Beach 47 46 57 7 81 51 31 29 38 12 582 0.10 113.15 301 Serrano WD 30 31 23 7 21 20 13 10 26 5 343 0.03 71.90 177 South Coast WD 107 130 148 43 183 112 89 79 68 25 1,522 0.18 297.39 788 Trabuco Canyon WD 69 60 62 28 82 62 30 45 47 19 755 0.14 146.53 391 Tustin 152 146 144 45 174 97 78 59 80 32 1,534 0.23 314.38 794 Westminster 213 171 233 74 329 208 121 82 109 30 2,383 0.20 480.73 1,233 Yorba Linda 288 350 367 117 394 273 181 167 156 64 3,637 0.47 750.09 1,882 MWDOC Totals 7,406 7,987 8,106 3,331 10,686 7,350 5,365 5,094 6,002 2,048 89,218 14.78 17,352.00 17,237 Anaheim 854 847 781 860 910 477 331 285 295 98 10,301 0.68 2,141.25 5,330 Fullerton 269 334 330 69 397 270 200 186 211 63 3,486 0.45 644.49 1,804 Santa Ana 236 235 257 87 355 190 163 131 132 35 2,606 0.25 570.33 1,348 Non-MWDOC Totals 1,359 1,416 1,368 1,016 1,662 937 694 602 638 196 16,393 1.37 3,356.08 3,167 Orange County Totals 8,765 9,403 9,474 4,347 12,348 8,287 6,059 5,696 6,640 2,244 105,611 16.15 20,708.07 20,404 HIGH EFFICIENCY CLOTHES WASHERS INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm. Brea 2 0 1 3 8 6 0 40 3 9 0 0 2 0 8 0 9 8 4 0 43 6 5 0 85 72 398.22 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 19 3 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 14 30 85.75 East Orange CWD RZ 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 0 3.55 El Toro WD 1 0 8 0 4 95 1 174 0 25 2 18 5 5 26 2 7 2 11 0 8 9 4 0 77 330 1,976.03 Fountain Valley 3 3 2 2 11 0 4 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 8 2 3 2 4 0 7 10 2 0 47 27 114.99 Garden Grove 2 2 11 1 2 0 1 3 2 1 6 0 5 4 7 0 5 2 9 0 10 14 3 3 63 30 106.46 Golden State WC 0 0 15 2 24 12 8 8 1 2 9 22 7 4 13 3 9 49 9 25 39 12 1 0 135 139 520.07 Huntington Beach 5 2 21 9 12 12 7 1 13 1 6 27 6 36 15 4 18 33 20 35 19 2 11 0 153 162 665.38 Irvine Ranch WD 2 2 68 111 160 434 66 183 29 56 14 145 28 153 267 71 414 135 71 59 67 310 9 0 1,195 1,659 7,923.73 La Habra 0 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 3 0 4 7 2 0 4 7 57 43 78 79 171.24 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 7 1 1.60 Laguna Beach CWD 3 0 5 0 21 0 5 0 2 0 2 14 4 1 109 2 76 2 71 0 86 0 0 0 384 19 157.52 Mesa Water 5 0 13 27 14 6 12 0 6 7 13 7 7 22 21 0 10 2 15 2 17 28 5 0 138 101 486.67 Moulton Niguel WD 2 0 25 10 39 52 59 20 21 23 17 162 36 60 179 31 51 74 40 45 46 95 2 0 517 572 2,337.11 Newport Beach 3 17 35 4 125 86 98 40 10 27 7 58 6 0 275 12 242 26 168 75 11 9 53 25 1,033 379 1,957.82 Orange 8 4 37 13 28 38 4 0 5 2 2 13 5 8 25 0 20 24 13 9 18 31 4 0 169 142 667.97 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 5 4 5 4 11 1 10 0 7 49 13 1 103 2 14 18 6 11 6 19 4 2 184 111 448.73 San Clemente 4 0 483 1 46 7 21 60 81 20 13 209 46 11 212 17 26 7 28 2 28 24 16 6 1,004 364 2,056.38 Santa Margarita WD 3 0 15 8 40 96 53 70 25 44 10 152 61 53 262 7 53 171 64 93 53 321 8 0 647 1,015 3,563.97 Santiago CWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 31 1 2.10 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 36 1 12 0 0 3 52 104.07 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 24 0 5.95 South Coast WD 2 0 6 1 17 29 7 49 11 6 3 10 13 3 78 10 13 16 8 4 104 73 4 0 266 201 828.89 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 0 29 0 10 93 4 0 1 0 2 0 2 10 12 0 6 0 2 0 6 1 6 0 80 104 695.27 Tustin 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 3 7 9 10 14 10 0 11 0 8 4 9 1 18 14 8 0 85 49 211.62 Westminster 1 0 8 12 6 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 13 17 4 0 45 31 130.93 Yorba Linda 0 0 30 6 31 5 20 41 8 5 5 21 25 0 22 0 20 0 12 5 32 2 15 1 220 86 529.19 MWDOC Totals 48 30 820 218 610 976 385 693 242 238 142 949 289 374 1,671 185 1,017 583 571 402 648 1,026 254 82 6,697 5,756 26,151.20 Anaheim 6 1 8 13 17 78 12 57 9 59 5 46 12 11 23 60 19 10 9 26 7 52 6 7 133 420 1,949.05 Fullerton 0 0 2 0 10 0 10 0 2 2 2 39 9 33 22 51 9 29 8 0 40 26 5 6 119 186 641.99 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 4 1 8 8 0 6 5 8 19 7 8 9 27 10 1 55 72 190.50 Non-MWDOC Totals 6 1 10 13 28 78 25 57 13 65 8 93 29 44 51 116 36 58 24 34 56 105 21 14 307 678 2,781.54 Orange County Totals 54 31 830 231 638 1,054 410 750 255 303 150 1,042 318 418 1,722 301 1,053 641 595 436 704 1,131 275 96 7,004 6,434 28,933 FY 06/07 FY 12/13 Agency FY 04/05 SMART TIMERS INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years Total ProgramFY 10/11FY 05/06 FY 13/14 FY 14/15FY 09/10FY 08/09FY 07/08 FY 11/12 FY 15/16 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm.Res Comm.Comm. Brea 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 32 0 0 130 0 0 65 120 0 84 0 0 157 45 0 0 842 0 498 1,107 0 13.71 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 75 0 29 0 0 32 0 0 65 0 0 53 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 464 75 2,535 450.81 East Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 55 0 0 30 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 751 0 0 9.60 El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 290 0 174 0 0 357 76 0 23 6,281 0 56 3,288 0 1,741 28,714 0 90 4,457 0 2,674 45,980 890 635.80 Fountain Valley 0 0 0 51 0 0 83 0 0 83 0 0 108 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 18 0 0 506 0 0 7.95 Garden Grove 0 0 0 44 0 0 153 106 0 38 0 0 119 0 0 95 0 0 80 0 0 88 50 0 44 0 0 812 201 0 17.16 Golden State 0 0 0 161 0 0 83 0 0 303 943 0 294 0 0 257 2,595 0 192 0 0 583 1,741 0 65 0 0 2,218 5,308 0 102.89 Huntington Beach 0 0 0 93 845 1,202 322 19 1,174 203 625 0 458 0 0 270 0 0 120 0 0 798 1,419 0 198 1,432 0 2,501 7,760 2,681 746.72 Irvine Ranch 0 0 0 610 7,435 440 1,594 5,108 85 2,411 2,861 0 1,715 4,255 0 25,018 1,014 0 11,010 4,257 0 1,421 632 0 171 1,110 0 44,984 81,113 2,004 2,656.37 La Habra 0 535 0 9 0 0 15 0 900 0 0 0 33 90 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 109 338 0 21 0 0 202 1,236 900 217.49 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0.24 Laguna Beach 0 0 0 115 0 0 101 47 0 156 0 0 763 0 0 3,596 0 0 2,948 878 0 2,879 1,971 0 46 0 0 10,795 2,896 0 164.61 Mesa Water 83 0 0 0 25 343 198 0 0 118 0 0 297 277 0 270 0 0 361 0 0 229 0 0 77 0 0 1,828 385 343 117.26 Moulton Niguel 0 0 0 297 120 0 426 6,883 1,986 1,578 0 0 1,225 0 0 512 1,385 0 361 227 0 1,596 4,587 0 473 233 0 6,702 13,435 2,945 906.15 Newport Beach 0 0 0 22 569 0 65 170 0 337 1,208 0 640 3,273 0 25,365 50 0 19,349 6,835 0 460 3,857 0 250 0 0 46,580 20,743 0 947.31 Orange 0 0 0 158 0 0 961 163 0 135 30 0 343 0 0 264 0 0 245 120 0 304 668 0 271 0 0 2,810 981 0 58.18 San Clemente 0 0 0 118 0 0 466 25 0 2,612 851 0 4,266 117 1,343 631 172 0 415 5,074 0 326 0 0 279 0 0 9,842 7,538 1,343 387.00 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 70 0 0 434 1,660 0 1,452 0 0 949 0 0 684 30 0 370 0 0 495 737 0 15 0 0 5,125 8,136 0 239.81 Santa Margarita 0 0 0 165 0 0 1,079 68 0 3,959 3,566 0 4,817 0 0 983 0 0 389 0 0 1,207 1,513 0 711 107 0 15,041 6,191 611 415.93 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5,261 0 0 0 0 155 5,552 0 50.97 Serrano 0 0 0 94 0 0 24 0 0 364 0 0 58 0 0 190 0 0 105 0 0 377 0 0 291 0 0 3,001 0 0 48.15 South Coast 0 0 0 74 133 0 115 0 0 318 1,772 0 688 359 0 435 0 0 70 0 0 4,993 13,717 0 116 179 0 6,809 16,160 0 213.13 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 77 0 0 2,033 791 0 52.43 Tustin 0 0 0 23 0 0 549 0 0 512 0 0 476 1,013 0 378 0 0 329 0 0 408 0 0 120 45 0 3,109 1,058 0 60.05 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 57 0 0 343 0 0 5.47 Yorba Linda 0 0 0 563 0 0 440 113 500 529 0 0 559 0 0 730 0 0 40 990 0 921 0 0 636 0 0 4,789 4,359 500 255.63 MWDOC Totals 83 535 0 2,797 9,127 1,985 7,596 14,727 4,645 15,343 11,856 0 19,072 9,460 1,343 59,970 11,647 0 36,622 21,669 0 19,818 65,250 0 4,026 8,405 0 174,582 231,005 14,752 8,780.80 Anaheim 0 0 0 68 0 0 329 0 0 372 382 0 742 38,554 0 459 813 0 338 0 0 498 712 0 152 5,221 0 3,231 45,846 105 575.88 Fullerton 0 0 0 95 0 0 446 64 0 416 0 0 409 0 0 119 0 0 107 0 0 684 1,196 0 260 0 0 2,584 1,260 1,484 306.37 Santa Ana 0 0 0 145 0 0 96 56 0 53 0 0 22 65 0 99 0 0 86 2,533 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 859 3,226 0 57.47 Non-MWDOC Totals 0 0 0 308 0 0 871 120 0 841 382 0 1,173 38,619 0 677 813 0 531 2,533 0 1,492 1,908 0 412 5,221 0 6,674 50,332 1,589 939.71 Orange County Totals 83 535 0 3,105 9,127 1,985 8,467 14,847 4,645 16,184 12,238 0 20,245 48,079 1,343 60,647 12,460 0 37,153 24,202 0 21,310 67,158 0 4,438 13,626 0 181,256 281,337 16,341 9,720.51 FY 10/11 Small SmallSmall FY 11/12 FY 12/13FY 08/09 ROTATING NOZZLES INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Agency FY 06/07 Total ProgramFY 07/08 Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years SmallSmall SmallSmall FY 13/14 SmallSmall FY 15/16 Small FY 14/15 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Brea 27 113 24 4 1 234 0 10 53 593 346 Buena Park 153 432 122 379 290 5 23 56 94 1,859 908 East Orange CWD RZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Toro WD 0 92 143 1 137 0 212 6 1 760 512 Fountain Valley 17 35 0 2 314 0 0 1 0 623 517 Garden Grove 5 298 130 22 0 4 1 167 160 1,525 1,304 Golden State WC 46 414 55 68 135 0 1 0 182 1,986 1,685 Huntington Beach 48 104 126 96 156 104 144 7 451 1,981 1,368 Irvine Ranch WD 121 789 2,708 1,002 646 1,090 451 725 894 11,702 5,898 La Habra 191 75 53 4 0 0 0 0 109 652 478 La Palma 0 140 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 74 Laguna Beach CWD 20 137 189 0 0 0 27 0 0 446 281 Mesa Water 141 543 219 669 41 6 0 79 269 3,080 1,817 Moulton Niguel WD 9 69 151 6 0 0 0 3 0 583 722 Newport Beach 98 27 245 425 35 0 0 566 0 1,834 1,144 Orange 18 374 67 1 73 1 271 81 62 1,966 1,560 San Juan Capistrano 2 1 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 260 367 San Clemente 2 18 43 0 19 0 0 1 0 432 350 Santa Margarita WD 6 23 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 117 182 Santiago CWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seal Beach 1 2 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 354 383 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Coast WD 9 114 56 422 84 148 0 382 0 1,320 441 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 Tustin 115 145 25 230 0 0 0 75 0 832 720 Westminster 40 161 16 63 35 1 28 0 20 835 899 Yorba Linda 10 24 8 30 0 1 0 0 135 420 498 MWDOC Totals 1,079 4,134 4,537 3,424 1,966 1,594 1,172 2,161 2,430 34,337 22,466 Anaheim 766 3,298 582 64 48 165 342 463 959 11,331 6,099 Fullerton 133 579 29 4 0 94 0 178 55 1,736 1,427 Santa Ana 493 815 728 39 12 16 17 5 178 4,384 4,166 Non-MWDOC Totals 1,392 4,692 1,339 107 60 275 359 646 1,192 17,451 11,691 Orange County Totals 2,471 8,826 5,876 3,531 2,026 1,869 1,531 2,807 3,622 51,788 34,157 Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years FY 07/08 FY 13/14 FY 12/13 FY 15/16 FY 09/10 [1] Retrofit devices include ULF Toilets and Urinals, High Efficiency Toilets and Urinals, Multi-Family and Multi-Family 4-Liter HETs, Zero Water Urinals, High Efficiency Clothes Washers, Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers, Ph Cooling Tower Conductivity Controllers, Flush Valve Retrofit Kits, Pre-rinse Spray heads, Hospital X-Ray Processor Recirculating Systems, Steam Sterilizers, Food Steamers, Water Pressurized Brooms, Laminar Flow Restrictors, and Ice Making Machines. FY 08/09Agency FY 11/12 FY 10/11 SOCAL WATER$MART COMMERCIAL PLUMBING FIXTURES REBATE PROGRAM[1] INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Totals FY 14/15 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Agency FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Overall Water Savings To Date (AF) Brea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 22 22 22 62.80 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 17 103 101 101 101 101 101 455.49 East Orange CWD RZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 El Toro WD 88 109 227 352 384 371 820 810 812 812 812 812 4,798.99 Fountain Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Garden Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Golden State WC 0 0 0 14 34 32 34 32 32 32 32 32 198.31 Huntington Beach 0 0 0 0 0 31 33 31 31 31 31 31 146.22 Irvine Ranch WD 277 638 646 708 1,008 6,297 6,347 6,368 6,795 6,797 6,769 6,780 37,821.08 Laguna Beach CWD 0 0 0 0 57 141 143 141 124 124 124 124 724.23 La Habra 0 0 0 0 23 22 24 22 22 22 22 22 135.15 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Mesa Water 191 170 138 165 286 285 288 450 504 511 514 515 2,906.82 Moulton Niguel WD 80 57 113 180 473 571 595 643 640 675 673 695 4,073.55 Newport Beach 32 27 23 58 142 171 191 226 262 300 300 300 1,479.78 Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 San Clemente 191 165 204 227 233 247 271 269 269 299 407 438 2,336.02 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Santa Margarita WD 547 619 618 945 1,571 1,666 1,746 1,962 1,956 2,274 2,386 2,386 14,007.83 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Serrano WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 South Coast WD 0 0 0 62 117 108 110 118 118 118 164 164 818.21 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 0 0 12 49 48 62 60 60 60 60 60 346.24 Tustin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Westminster 0 0 0 10 18 18 20 18 18 18 18 18 115.17 Yorba Linda WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 MWDOC Totals 1,406 1,785 1,969 2,733 4,395 10,025 10,787 11,273 11,766 12,196 12,435 12,500 70,425.9 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 142 146 144 190 190 190 190 1,147.97 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Non-MWDOC Totals 0 0 0 0 0 142 146 144 190 190 190 190 1,147.97 Orange Co. Totals 1,406 1,785 1,969 2,733 4,395 10,167 10,933 11,417 11,956 12,386 12,625 12,690 71,573.83 Water Smart Landscape Program Total Number of Meters in Program by Agency Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Agency FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Overall Program Interventions Annual Water Savings[1] Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years[1] Brea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buena Park 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 54 365 East Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fountain Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garden Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Golden State 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 22 Huntington Beach 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 127 234 Irvine Ranch 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 98 366 La Habra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laguna Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesa Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moulton Niguel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 21 18 Orange 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 330 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Clemente 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Margarita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Coast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tustin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorba Linda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWDOC Totals 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 0 13 346 1335 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 23 OC Totals 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 14 357 1357 [1] Acre feet of savings determined during a one year monitoring period. If monitoring data is not available, the savings estimated in agreement is used. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATER USE REDUCTION PROGRAM Number of Process Changes by Agency Agency FY05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Total Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years Brea 0 2 7 43 48 8 0 0 38 146 115 407 56.69 Buena Park 0 1 2 124 176 7 0 0 96 153 75 634 126.10 East Orange CWD RZ 0 0 10 12 1 0 0 0 13 26 16 78 12.77 El Toro WD 0 392 18 75 38 18 0 133 218 869 159 1,920 346.39 Fountain Valley 0 69 21 262 54 17 0 0 41 132 144 740 169.64 Garden Grove 0 14 39 443 181 24 0 0 63 350 276 1,390 281.36 Golden State WC 2 16 36 444 716 37 80 2 142 794 385 2,654 514.92 Huntington Beach 2 13 59 607 159 76 0 0 163 1,190 455 2,724 443.98 Irvine Ranch WD 29 1,055 826 5,088 2,114 325 0 1,449 810 1,777 1,398 14,871 3,784.91 Laguna Beach CWD 0 2 17 91 28 11 0 0 45 112 42 348 66.56 La Habra 0 3 18 296 34 20 0 0 37 94 52 554 139.13 La Palma 0 1 10 36 26 13 0 0 21 59 34 200 36.73 Mesa Water 0 247 19 736 131 7 0 0 147 162 116 1,565 441.29 Moulton Niguel WD 0 20 104 447 188 46 0 0 400 2,497 1,455 5,157 593.83 Newport Beach 0 5 19 163 54 13 0 0 49 168 141 612 110.87 Orange 1 20 62 423 79 40 0 1 142 978 329 2,075 326.05 San Juan Capistrano 0 10 7 76 39 11 0 0 35 140 143 461 69.71 San Clemente 0 7 22 202 66 21 0 0 72 225 178 793 141.13 Santa Margarita WD 0 5 14 304 151 44 0 0 528 997 721 2,764 350.18 Seal Beach 0 678 8 21 12 1 0 2 17 50 45 834 311.28 Serrano WD 2 0 1 13 5 0 0 0 2 40 37 100 12.47 South Coast WD 2 2 29 102 41 12 23 64 102 398 175 950 133.04 Trabuco Canyon WD 0 0 4 23 23 0 0 0 10 108 107 275 31.24 Tustin 0 186 28 387 479 17 0 0 64 132 137 1,430 393.93 Westminster 0 17 25 541 167 23 0 0 35 161 287 1,256 287.02 Yorba Linda WD 0 14 89 323 96 18 0 0 40 280 278 1,138 223.99 MWDOC Totals 38 2,779 1,494 11,282 5,106 809 103 1,651 3,330 12,038 7,300 45,930 9,405.17 Anaheim 0 255 78 2,771 619 114 0 0 156 1,188 400 5,581 1,433.43 Fullerton 0 4 28 286 60 23 0 0 61 293 193 948 174.49 Santa Ana 0 11 25 925 89 23 0 0 33 602 209 1,917 425.93 Non-MWDOC Totals 0 270 131 3,982 768 160 0 0 250 2,083 802 8,446 2,033.86 Orange County Totals 38 3,049 1,625 15,264 5,874 969 103 1,651 3,580 14,121 8,102 54,376 11,439.03 HIGH EFFICIENCY TOILETS (HETs) INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm. Brea 0 0 3,397 9,466 7,605 0 5,697 0 71,981 30,617 12,421 0 101,101 40,083 46.12 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,670 1,626 5,827 0 17,497 1,626 4.54 East Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,964 0 18,312 0 6,921 0 27,197 0 6.92 El Toro 0 0 4,723 0 4,680 72,718 4,582 0 27,046 221,612 15,277 86,846 56,308 381,176 132.49 Fountain Valley 0 0 1,300 0 682 7,524 4,252 0 45,583 5,279 5,869 0 57,686 12,803 22.35 Garden Grove 0 46,177 14,013 0 4,534 0 8,274 0 67,701 22,000 13,443 0 107,965 68,177 81.61 Golden State 0 0 42,593 30,973 31,813 3,200 32,725 8,424 164,507 190,738 29,919 0 301,557 233,335 192.04 Huntington Beach 801 3,651 27,630 48,838 9,219 12,437 20,642 0 165,600 58,942 54,016 7,426 277,908 131,294 149.53 Irvine Ranch 5,423 12,794 6,450 1,666 32,884 32,384 36,584 76,400 234,905 317,999 70,450 1,174,609 386,696 1,615,852 434.10 La Habra 0 7,775 0 8,262 0 0 0 0 14,014 1,818 6,127 2,936 20,141 20,791 18.02 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,884 0 500 57,400 5,384 57,400 9.47 Laguna Beach 978 0 2,533 0 2,664 1,712 4,586 226 13,647 46,850 2,693 0 27,101 48,788 24.38 Mesa Water 0 0 6,777 0 10,667 0 22,246 0 131,675 33,620 18,947 0 190,312 33,620 68.99 Moulton Niguel 956 16,139 4,483 26,927 11,538 84,123 14,739 40,741 314,250 1,612,845 80,041 127,043 426,007 1,907,818 681.78 Newport Beach 0 0 3,454 0 3,548 2,346 894 0 33,995 65,277 1,064 55,287 42,955 122,910 41.78 Orange 0 0 12,971 0 15,951 8,723 11,244 0 120,093 281,402 19,781 0 180,040 290,125 142.80 San Clemente 0 0 21,502 0 16,062 13,165 18,471 13,908 90,349 1,137 18,718 392,742 165,102 420,952 128.24 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 22,656 103,692 29,544 27,156 12,106 0 101,195 32,366 13,778 19,598 179,279 182,812 167.35 Santa Margarita 4,483 5,561 1,964 11,400 10,151 11,600 17,778 48,180 211,198 514,198 104,454 178,666 350,028 769,605 300.42 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 3,611 0 0 0 15,178 504 2,159 0 20,948 504 6.72 Serrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,971 0 41,247 0 32,545 0 76,763 0 17.35 South Coast 0 16,324 6,806 0 9,429 4,395 15,162 116,719 84,282 191,853 46,342 0 162,021 329,291 165.41 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 272 0 1,542 22,440 2,651 0 14,771 0 5,436 66,964 24,672 89,404 29.00 Tustin 0 0 0 0 9,980 0 1,410 0 71,285 14,137 13,567 1,700 96,242 15,837 32.24 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,040 34,631 11,354 0 25,394 34,631 15.22 Yorba Linda 11,349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112,136 12,702 51,470 54,587 174,955 67,289 59.33 MWDOC Totals 23,990 108,421 183,524 241,224 216,104 303,923 238,978 304,598 2,195,544 3,692,153 643,119 2,225,804 3,501,259 6,876,123 2,978.20 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,214 0 0 0 0 0 9,214 3.87 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Non-MWDOC Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,214 0 0 0 0 0 9,214 3.87 Orange County Totals 23,990 108,421 183,524 241,224 216,104 303,923 238,978 313,812 2,195,544 3,692,153 643,119 2,225,804 3,501,259 6,885,337 2,982 TURF REMOVAL BY AGENCY[1] [1]Installed device numbers are listed as square feet through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years Agency FY 10/11 FY 15/16FY 11/12 Total ProgramFY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Surveys Cert Homes Brea 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0.16 Buena Park 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.05 East Orange 19 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 1.39 El Toro 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0.14 Fountain Valley 3 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 0.40 Garden Grove 0 0 6 0 1 0 7 0 0.31 Golden State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Huntington Beach 2 0 5 0 2 0 9 0 0.42 Irvine Ranch 1 0 3 0 5 0 9 0 0.33 La Habra 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.05 La Palma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Laguna Beach 4 0 8 0 1 0 13 0 0.68 Mesa Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Moulton Niguel 4 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0.47 Newport Beach 2 0 8 0 3 0 13 0 0.59 Orange 2 0 18 0 1 0 21 0 1.01 San Clemente 15 0 13 0 0 0 28 0 1.67 San Juan Capistrano 4 0 13 0 2 0 19 0 0.94 Santa Margarita 15 0 40 1 12 0 67 1 3.22 Seal Beach 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0.07 Serrano 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0.09 South Coast 6 0 4 0 1 0 11 0 0.64 Trabuco Canyon 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0.19 Tustin 0 0 10 0 4 0 14 0 0.56 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Yorba Linda 0 0 13 0 8 0 21 0 0.80 MWDOC Totals 78 0 164 1 41 0 283 1 14.18 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Fullerton 0 0 17 0 1 0 18 0 0.82 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Non-MWDOC Totals 0 0 17 0 1 0 18 0 0.82 Orange County Totals 78 0 181 1 42 0 301 1 15.007 Agency TotalFY 14/15FY 13/14 HOME WATER SURVEYS PERFORMED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Cumulative Water Savings FY 15/16 Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm.Res Comm. Brea 0 0 2,153 2,160 500 0 0 0 2,653 2,160 3.30 Buena Park 0 0 1,566 5,850 0 0 0 0 1,566 5,850 5.19 East Orange 0 0 0 0 983 0 0 0 983 0 0.55 El Toro 3,183 0 2,974 0 3,308 0 895 0 10,360 0 6.98 Fountain Valley 11,674 0 1,163 0 2,767 0 684 0 16,288 0 12.46 Garden Grove 1,860 0 0 0 3,197 0 274 0 5,331 0 3.47 Golden State 6,786 0 13,990 0 15,215 0 2,056 0 38,047 0 24.88 Huntington Beach 15,192 591 12,512 0 4,343 1,504 0 0 32,047 2,095 25.29 Irvine Ranch 11,009 876 13,669 0 2,585 0 0 0 27,263 876 21.00 La Habra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - La Palma 429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429 0 0.36 Laguna Beach 3,950 0 3,026 0 725 0 0 0 7,701 0 5.84 Mesa Water 4,114 0 3,005 78,118 4,106 0 2,198 0 13,423 78,118 63.46 Moulton Niguel 14,151 0 25,635 2,420 7,432 0 0 0 47,218 2,420 35.69 Newport Beach 2,530 0 6,628 0 270 0 0 0 9,428 0 6.92 Orange 4,169 0 7,191 0 635 0 0 0 11,995 0 8.89 San Clemente 9,328 0 11,250 455 2,514 1,285 500 0 23,592 1,740 18.37 San Juan Capistrano 0 0 7,297 639 2,730 0 4,607 0 14,634 639 9.02 Santa Margarita 12,922 0 26,069 0 21,875 0 7,926 0 68,792 0 44.68 Seal Beach 0 0 817 0 0 0 0 0 817 0 0.57 Serrano 7,347 0 1,145 0 0 0 0 0 8,492 0 6.97 South Coast 2,311 0 6,316 0 17,200 0 1,044 0 26,871 0 16.43 Trabuco Canyon 1,202 0 9,827 0 0 0 0 0 11,029 0 7.89 Tustin 6,123 0 4,717 0 2,190 0 0 0 13,030 0 9.67 Westminster 2,748 16,566 8,215 0 890 0 0 0 11,853 16,566 22.47 Yorba Linda 11,792 0 12,683 0 4,341 5,835 0 0 28,816 5,835 24.48 MWDOC Totals 132,820 18,033 181,848 89,642 97,806 8,624 20,184 0 432,658 116,299 384.83 Anaheim 4,535 0 7,735 20,093 13,555 65,300 4,122 0 29,947 85,393 69.18 Fullerton 4,865 876 5,727 0 6,223 0 105 0 16,920 876 12.36 Santa Ana 0 0 2,820 0 525 0 0 0 3,345 0 2.27 Non-MWDOC Totals 9,400 876 16,282 20,093 20,303 65,300 4,227 0 50,212 86,269 83.81 Orange County Totals 142,220 18,909 198,130 109,735 118,109 73,924 24,411 0 482,870 202,568 468.63 SYNTHETIC TURF INSTALLED BY AGENCY[1] [1]Installed device numbers are calculated in square feet through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years Agency FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Total ProgramFY 09/10 FY 10/11 ULF TOILETS INSTALLED BY AGENCY through MWDOC and Local Agency Conservation Programs Agency Previous Years FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Total Cumulative Water Savings across all Fiscal Years Brea 378 189 299 299 122 144 867 585 341 401 26 48 17 4 0 3,720 1,692.64 Buena Park 361 147 331 802 520 469 524 1,229 2,325 1,522 50 40 18 9 0 8,347 3,498.37 East Orange CWD RZ 2 0 33 63 15 17 15 50 41 44 19 18 13 2 0 332 138.23 El Toro WD 1,169 511 678 889 711 171 310 564 472 324 176 205 61 40 0 6,281 3,091.16 Fountain Valley 638 454 635 858 1,289 2,355 1,697 1,406 1,400 802 176 111 58 32 0 11,911 5,383.10 Garden Grove 1,563 1,871 1,956 2,620 2,801 3,556 2,423 3,855 3,148 2,117 176 106 67 39 0 26,298 12,155.41 Golden State WC 3,535 1,396 3,141 1,113 3,024 2,957 1,379 2,143 3,222 1,870 167 116 501 43 0 24,607 11,731.47 Huntington Beach 3,963 1,779 2,600 2,522 2,319 3,492 3,281 2,698 3,752 1,901 367 308 143 121 0 29,246 13,854.70 Irvine Ranch WD 4,016 841 1,674 1,726 1,089 3,256 1,534 1,902 2,263 6,741 593 626 310 129 0 26,700 11,849.23 Laguna Beach CWD 283 93 118 74 149 306 220 85 271 118 32 26 29 6 0 1,810 845.69 La Habra 594 146 254 775 703 105 582 645 1,697 1,225 12 31 6 7 0 6,782 2,957.73 La Palma 65 180 222 125 44 132 518 173 343 193 31 27 20 17 0 2,090 927.52 Mesa Water 1,610 851 1,052 2,046 2,114 1,956 1,393 1,505 2,387 988 192 124 56 14 0 16,288 7,654.27 Moulton Niguel WD 744 309 761 698 523 475 716 891 728 684 410 381 187 100 0 7,607 3,371.14 Newport Beach 369 293 390 571 912 1,223 438 463 396 1,883 153 76 36 16 0 7,219 3,166.77 Orange 683 1,252 1,155 1,355 533 2,263 1,778 2,444 2,682 1,899 193 218 88 53 4 16,600 7,347.93 San Juan Capistrano 1,234 284 193 168 323 1,319 347 152 201 151 85 125 42 39 0 4,663 2,324.42 San Clemente 225 113 191 65 158 198 667 483 201 547 91 66 37 34 0 3,076 1,314.64 Santa Margarita WD 577 324 553 843 345 456 1,258 790 664 260 179 143 101 29 0 6,522 3,001.01 Seal Beach 74 66 312 609 47 155 132 81 134 729 29 10 6 12 0 2,396 1,073.80 Serrano WD 81 56 68 41 19 52 95 73 123 98 20 15 14 2 0 757 338.66 South Coast WD 110 176 177 114 182 181 133 358 191 469 88 72 32 22 0 2,305 990.05 Trabuco Canyon WD 10 78 42 42 25 21 40 181 102 30 17 20 12 14 0 634 273.02 Tustin 968 668 557 824 429 1,292 1,508 1,206 1,096 827 69 89 26 12 0 9,571 4,423.88 Westminster 747 493 969 1,066 2,336 2,291 2,304 1,523 2,492 1,118 145 105 70 24 0 15,683 7,064.28 Yorba Linda WD 257 309 417 457 404 1,400 759 1,690 1,155 627 158 136 81 41 0 7,891 3,409.49 MWDOC Totals 24,256 12,879 18,778 20,765 21,136 30,242 24,918 27,175 31,827 27,568 3,654 3,242 2,031 861 4 249,336 113,878.61 Anaheim 447 1,054 1,788 3,661 1,755 7,551 4,593 6,346 9,707 5,075 473 371 462 341 1 43,625 18,359.52 Fullerton 1,453 1,143 694 1,193 1,364 2,138 1,926 2,130 2,213 1,749 172 77 44 23 2 16,321 7,435.23 Santa Ana 1,111 1,964 1,205 2,729 2,088 8,788 5,614 10,822 10,716 9,164 279 134 25 5 0 54,644 22,887.95 Non-MWDOC Totals 3,011 4,161 3,687 7,583 5,207 18,477 12,133 19,298 22,636 15,988 924 582 531 369 3 114,590 48,682.70 Orange County Totals 27,267 17,040 22,465 28,348 26,343 48,719 37,051 46,473 54,463 43,556 4,578 3,824 2,562 1,230 7 363,926 162,561.30 Water Use Efficiency Program Implementation Report.xls Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 4/7/2016 APPENDIX I AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet 5 Name of Contact Person: All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: Value can be entered by user Telephone | Ext.: 562-431-2529 x1409 Value calculated based on input data Name of City / Utility: These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality: State / Province: Pcnt:Value: Country: 0.25% Year: 2014 Financial Year Start Date: 07/2013 Enter MM/YYYY numeric format End Date: 06/2014 Enter MM/YYYY numeric format Audit Preparation Date: Volume Reporting Units: PWSID / Other ID: If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at:wlc@awwa.org AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 City of Seal Beach Water Services The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page Seal Beach descobedo@sealbeachca.gov Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. USA Use of Option (Radio) Buttons: The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below. Derrick Escobedo Acre-feet Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit California (CA) American Water Works Association Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Select the default percentage by choosing the option button on the left To enter a value,choose this button and enter a value in the cell to the right Instructions The current sheet. Enter contact information and basic audit details (year, units etc) Performance Indicators Review the performance indicators to evaluate the results of the audit Comments Enter comments to explain how values were calculated or to document data sources Water Balance The values entered in the Reporting Worksheet are used to populate the Water Balance Dashboard A graphical summary of the water balance and Non-Revenue Water components Grading Matrix Presents the possible grading options for each input component of the audit Service Connection Diagram Diagrams depicting possible customer service connection line configurations Acknowledgements Acknowledgements for the AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Loss Control Planning Use this sheet to interpret the results of the audit validity score and performance indicators Definitions Use this sheet to understand the terms used in the audit process Example Audits Reporting Worksheet and Performance Indicators examples are shown for two validated audits Reporting Worksheet Enter the required data on this worksheet to calculate the water balance and data grading AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt:Value: Volume from own sources:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr Water imported:8 3,868.000 acre-ft/yr 8 acre-ft/yr Water exported:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED:3,868.000 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 3,704.000 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:6 5.000 acre-ft/yr 1.25%acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:3,709.000 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)159.000 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:9.670 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies:7 114.557 acre-ft/yr 3.00%acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:9.260 acre-ft/yr 0.25%acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:133.487 acre-ft/yr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:25.513 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:159.000 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:164.000 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:8 73.5 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:8 5,677 Service connection density:77 conn./mile main Yes Average length of customer service line:1 ft Average operating pressure:8 60.0 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:7 $4,200,700 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):7 $1.00 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):8 $864.65 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Unauthorized consumption Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 5.000 2014 7/2013 - 6/2014 City of Seal Beach Water Services *** YOUR SCORE IS: 73 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: Retail costs are less than (or equal to) production costs; please review and correct if necessary $/100 cubic feet (ccf) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1 -10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? (length of service line, beyond the property boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied OR value ?Click here: for help using option buttons below ? ? ? ? + +Click to add a comment WAS v5.0 + + + + + + American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + +Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses ? To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:City of Seal Beach Water Services Reporting Year: System Attributes: Apparent Losses:133.487 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses:25.513 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses:159.000 acre-ft/yr Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL):83.96 acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses:$58,147 Annual cost of Real Losses:$22,060 Valued at Variable Production Cost Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied:4.2% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system:2.0% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost Apparent Losses per service connection per day:20.99 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day:4.01 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per length of main per day*:N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure:0.07 gallons/connection/day/psi From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL):25.51 acre-feet/year 0.30 * This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]: 2014 7/2013 - 6/2014 Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton AWWA Free Water Audit Software: System Attributes and Performance Indicators *** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 73 out of 100 *** ? ? American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. WAS v5.0 Financial: Operational Efficiency: AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 1 General Comment: Audit Item Volume from own sources: Vol. from own sources: Master meter error adjustment: Water imported: Water imported: master meter error adjustment: Water exported: Water exported: master meter error adjustment: Billed metered: Billed unmetered: Unbilled metered: AWWA Free Water Audit Software: User Comments From Water Loss Audit Data request - The City of Seal Beach has purchased 1577.69 acre feet of water from the Metropolitan Water District during the 2013-2014 PLUS 2300 from OCWD Not tracked Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. Comment WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 1 Audit Item Comment Unbilled unmetered: Unauthorized consumption: Customer metering inaccuracies: Systematic data handling errors: Length of mains: Number of active AND inactive service connections: Average length of customer service line: Average operating pressure: Total annual cost of operating water system: Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): Estimated per email 12/15 Total biled metered consumption is $1,613,826 / 1,613,572 ccf Is there a SCADA system? The lengths of mains being entered in the reporting worksheet has been determined from information gathered in both the “drinc waterboards” reporting service through the state of California and the City of Seal Beach Annual Masterplan for water infrastructure 2012. Seal Beach owns and operates 73.4 miles of mainline pipe ranging from 4 inch to 20 inch in diameter (Seal Beach Water Master Plan 2012). PLUS 535 ft for longer mains = /.1 mi AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 2 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year:2014 7/2013 - 6/2014 Data Validity Score:73 Water Exported Revenue Water 0.000 0.000 Billed Metered Consumption (water exported is removed)Revenue Water 3,704.000 Own Sources Authorized Consumption 3,704.000 Billed Unmetered Consumption 3,704.000 0.000 3,709.000 Unbilled Metered Consumption 0.000 0.000 5.000 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption 5.000 System Input Water Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 164.000 3,868.000 Apparent Losses 9.670 3,868.000 133.487 Customer Metering Inaccuracies 114.557 Systematic Data Handling Errors Water Losses 9.260 Water Imported 159.000 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution Mains Real Losses Not broken down 3,868.000 25.513 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks Not broken down Leakage on Service Connections Not broken down AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Water Balance Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Billed Authorized Consumption Unbilled Authorized Consumption (Adjusted for known errors) Billed Water Exported City of Seal Beach Water Services WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Water Balance 1 Water Audit Report for: Reporting Year:2014 Show me the VOLUME of Non-Revenue Water Data Validity Score:73 Show me the COST of Non-Revenue Water AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Dashboard 7/2013 - 6/2014 City of Seal Beach Water Services 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Co s t $ Total Cost of NRW =$84,530 Unbilled metered (valued at Var. Prod. Cost) Unbilled unmetered (valued at Var. Prod. Cost) Unauth. consumption Cust. metering inaccuracies Syst. data handling errors Real Losses (valued at Var. Prod. Cost) WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Water Exported Authorized Consumption Water Losses 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Water Exported Water Imported Volume From Own Sources Water Exported Billed Auth. Cons. Unbilled Auth. Cons. Apparent Losses Real Losses Water Exported Revenue Water Non Revenue Water The graphic below is a visual representation of the Water Balance with bar heights propotional to the volume of the audit components Water Exported Water Supplied AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Dashboard 1 APPENDIX J CUWCC BMP Report Will be incorporated in future draft once available