HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Response to Grand Jury regarding Paper WaterCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
September 8, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Utilities Department
George Murdoch, Utilities Director 644 -3011
gm urdoch @newportbeach ca.gov
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY ON "PAPER WATER - DOES ORANGE
COUNTY HAVE A RELIABLE FUTURE ?"
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the response letter to the Grand Jury report on "Paper Water - Does Orange
County Have a Reliable Future ?" and authorize the Mayor to submit the report to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 (a) and (b).
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On June 15, 2009, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled "Paper
Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?" (Attachment "A ") The purpose of
the report by the Grand Jury was to investigate how cities and water agencies are
planning for and responding to a profound redistribution of water supplies away from
Orange County, with the potential to affect the quality of life here for generations.
The Grand Jury states in their summary: "Paper water is an illusion. It is a term used in
the water industry that represents entitlement, existing only on paper, which agencies
can expect to receive from state and federal water projects based on projections and
expectations."
The Grand Jury has learned that Orange County's water supply is vulnerable to
extended outages as a result of catastrophic disruptions and long term system failures.
The infrastructure that conveys water to Southern California is in a state of disrepair and
neglect. The issues that affect water supply go beyond the lack of rainfall or drought.
The Grand Jury investigated how cities, water districts, businesses and the public are -
or are not - planning for an extended lack of water supply.
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Paper Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?"
September 8, 2009
Page 2
The Grand Jury conducted their investigation by reviewing documents from expert
sources and interviewed representatives from numerous agencies. They produced
thirteen findings and four recommendations, to which the City is required to respond by
September 18, 2009.
In summary, the following are some of the conclusions from the report:
• State Water Project infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to failures.
• Scientists project the inevitable end to the Delta as fresh water supply due to
high salinity.
• Recent court rulings in environmental habitat protection have cut supplies from
Northern California.
• Water rights allocations may impose permanent cuts from Colorado River.
• Orange County's water supply infrastructure has not received the proper
attention.
• Interaction between land planners and water planners needs to improve.
• Water pricing to pay for costly supply sources will rise to levels never before
seen.
• Public awareness of supply issues is unacceptable and must be improved.
• Although innovative projects are underway to create "new' sources of water, the
adequacy of contributions is uncertain.
• If Orange County water agencies work together and residents become more
involved a positive outcome is more likely.
• Orange County is praised for protecting and managing the ground water sources.
• Differences in ground water availability by north and south Orange County
causes south Orange County to be dependent on imported supplies.
• Restructuring the County's water resources management could affect working
relationships between agencies.
Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations:
F.1: Inadequate coordination between local land -use planning agencies and local water
supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues.
FA(a): Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in growth -
management decisions.
FA(b): Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations of the
water agencies supply projections.
F.2: California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any expressed
concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues
presented during development project reviews.
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Paper Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?"
September 8, 2009
Page 3
F.2(a): Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the
seriousness of the water supply situation of the complexity and urgency of the
necessary solutions.
F.2(b): Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway (e.g.
the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that are
already informed.
F.3: LAFCo is the agency charged with facilitating constructive changes in
governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCo is
conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated representative for
nearly all the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on their behalf with their
surface water supplier Metropolitan.
F.3(a): There are a number of points of governance disagreement between MWDOC
and several member agencies. This is creating an impediment to the on -going
effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply
management.
F.3(b): The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the agencies
working toward Orange County's water future.
F.3(c): The stakeholders in LAFCo's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009 deadline
for LAFCo's public hearing in this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable.
FA: Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high - quality, well- managed
groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its south reaches, it
has an equally large, high - growth area with virtually no available groundwater
resources.
FA(a): The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus have -nots"
situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts.
FA(b): The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for
responsible participants to develop and construct long -term solutions which will benefit
the entire County.
RA: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation with its respective
water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a dedicated Water
Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to exceed June 30,
2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures based on
objective -based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future water
supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address
imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Paper Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?"
September 8, 2009
Page 4
availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated
groundwater reclamation and surface water recycling. (Findings F.1, F.1(a), F.1(b), F.2,
F.2(a) and F.2(b))
R.2: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should affirm its
responsibility to develop new, additional, innovative public outreach programs, beyond
water conservation and rationing programs, to expose the larger issues surrounding
water supply constraints facing Orange County. The objective should be to connect the
public with the problem. The outreach effort should entail a water emergency exercise
that simulates a complete, sudden break in imported water deliveries. The exercise
should be aimed directly at the public and enlist widespread public participation on a
recurring basis beginning June 30, 2010. This recommendation may be satisfied by a
multi- agency exercise but the inability to coordinate such an event should not preclude
the individual agency's responsibility. (Finding F.2, F.2(a) and F.2(b))
R.3: Each MWDOC member agency should reaffirm to L:AFCo that it will assign the
resources necessary to expediently resolve regional governance issues. While the
subject study is being facilitated by LAFCo, the options are with the agencies to decide
what is best for all. Once conclusions are reached, the parties need to agree quickly
and, hopefully, unanimously to adopt a course of action. (Finding F.3, F.3(a), F.3(b) and
F.3 (c))
R.4: Each Orange County agency should affirm its commitment to a fair -share financial
responsibility in completing the emergency water supply network for the entire County.
The entire County should be prepared together for any conditions of drought, natural
or human - caused disaster, or any other catastrophic disruption. WEROC should
commence meetings of all parties, to facilitate consensus on an equitable
funding /financing agreement. (Finding F.4, FA(a) and FA(b))
Allowable Responses to the Grand Jury Report:
The following are the only proscribed responses that will satisfy the Grand Jury:
For Findings:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
For Recommendations:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Paper Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?"
September 8, 2009
Page 5
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared
for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Proposed Newport Beach Responses:
Staff considered the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations in light of Newport
Beach's water supply situation, water conservation efforts and planning practices.
Utilities Director George Murdoch attended joint meetings at the Municipal Water District
of Orange County (MWDOC) along with Water District and City representatives to
discuss the report and suggest recommended responses. In regards to the planning
element, Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood met with Orange County Planning
Directors to address responses to the findings and recommendations related to land
use planning. The draft response prepared by staff (Attachment "B ") is attached for
review and comment.
Staff is recommending that Newport Beach agree with nine of the findings, disagree
with two of the findings, and partially disagree with two of the findings. We disagree that
there is inadequate coordination between the City's planning agency and Newport
Beach's water supply agencies; disagree that the water agencies that serve Newport
Beach have avoided participating in growth management decisions; and partially
disagree that the difference in groundwater availability in north and south Orange
County provides opportunities for long -term solutions. Newport Beach staff, and the
other water agencies with whom we work, believe that this finding is not clear. Our
concern is that it may be implying that the groundwater supply developed at the
expense of north county agencies be used to supply south county, when the basin is not
even sufficient to meet all of north county's needs. Finally, we do not think it is
appropriate for the City Council to agree with the comment that citizens and interest
groups do not appear to grasp the seriousness of the water supply situation.
With regard to the recommendations, staff does not recommend that a Water Element
be added to our General Plan, as water issues are already addressed in the Natural
Resources Element. Staff notes that Newport Beach is already developing public
outreach programs participating in emergency response planning. However, we do not
believe that the recommendation with regard to a water emergency exercise with
widespread public participation should be implemented. Newport Beach conducts
Response to Grand Jury Report on
"Paper Water - Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future ?"
September 8, 2009
Page 6
regular emergency exercises on a variety of scenarios, and it would be impractical to
have a water emergency mandated when other scenarios are not. Staff recommends
that the City continue to work with LAFCO on governance issues, and continue our work
with WEROC on emergency planning and infrastructure improvements.
Environmental Review:
Staff recommends the City Council find that the City's response to the Grand Jury's
report is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a
project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Prepared and Submitted by:
4%AII nl�
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
i _
eorg Mu doch, Utilities Director
/_[[tl7rTiTMMI
"A" — Grand Jury Report titled "Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
"B" — Draft Response Letter
Water'" — Does Orange County Have A Reliable Future?
Summary
"Paper water" is an illusion. It
is a term used in the water industry
that represents an entitlement, exist-
ing only on paper, which agencies
can expect to receive from state and
federal water projects based on pro-
jections and expectations. The gap
between allocated "paper water"
and available "real water" can be
dramatic. This term may succinctly
define Orange County's water
future as judicial rulings systemati-
cally continue to remove available
supplies from the reach of Orange
County's consumers.
The Grand Jury has learned
from multiple, expert sources that
Orange County's water supply is
very vulnerable to extended outages
from catastrophic disruptions and
other long -tens system failures.
These are issues above and beyond
concerns of drought. Critical parts
of the water supply infrastructure
upon which much of California and
Orange County relies is in a deplor-
able state of disrepair and neglect.
The Grand Jury investigated
how Orange County's cities, water
districts, residents and businesses
are --or are not — planning for and
responding to a profound redistri-
bution of water supplies away from
Orange County, with the potential
of affecting its residents' quality of
life for generations.
The following excerpts from
this report highlight some signiicant
issues that led the Grand Jury to
reach conclusions from which it has
posed a series of key findings and
recommendations:
On the State Water Project...
"Predictions are for a 67%
chance of drastic levee failures
sometime during the next 25
years. In a seismic failure, sci-
entific models predict massive
areas ofthe Delta inundated
with a reverse flow of seawater
from the San Francisco Bay.
Fresh water in the Delta will
be rendered useless for agri-
cultural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would be
destroyed for two to four years,
or longer."
On water from northern Califor-
nia...
"...for the first time in Metro-
politan's 80 year history, the
agency is projecting a sig-
nificant drawdown in its water
reserves.... Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rap-
idly depleted and the ability to
refill its reservoirs has become
increasingly problematic."
On water from the Colorado
River...
"The assumption that ...
we will continue to find new
sources of water ... is wrong.
Those days are over.... Every
source of water coming into
southern California from afar
... is increasingly unreliable."
On coordination of land -use
planning with water resources plan-
ning...
"... land planning and wa-
ter resources planning have
distinctly different, highly
complex parameters that drive
their technical analyses and
decision - making processes.
Attachment "A"
The unique complexities of
these professions tend to deter
either side from interacting
effectively."
On public awareness...
"...the residents of Orange
County do not seem to under-
stand the perilous conditions
within which they live. Orange
County water consumers have
not, to any significant degree,
experienced long - duration
water supply outages. The
public's consideration for
water supply typically starts
and stops at the faucet handle
as they expect, with every turn,
dependable delivery of high -
quality, safe, clean water."
On water reliability for south
Orange County...
"Approximately 95 percent of
south Orange County's water
is imported from northern
California and the Colorado
River and ... sent 35 miles to
south County via two, aging
pipelines, traversing active
seismic faults."
On emergency water supply
planning...
"The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately ... 10 percent of what is
needed [The remainder] will
arrive when aplanned array of
pump, pipeline, treatment and
reservoir projects is built ...
as well as [having] available
brackish and seawater puri-
fication systems ... for south
Orange County. "
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 1
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
On Orange County's groundwa-
ter resources...
"Water experts ... univer-
sally praise the innovative and
effective methods by which
Orange County has protected
and managed its innate water
resources. In particular, its
groundwater aquifer is an in-
credibly rich natural resource
that is the envy of many areas
in the country challenged by
depleted and damaged water
tables."
On the governance of Orange
County's fragmented, autonomous
water resources agencies...
"The MWDOC member
agencies need to resolve their
differences and dedicate
themselves to a unified vision,
whether it be continuing with
MWDOC under a modified
agreement or creating a new,
unified, County-wide water
authority."
This report offers several ways
to strengthen government processes
whereby the residents and decision
makers of Orange County will be
knowledgeable about the County's
water supplies. It also pinpoints
areas needing attention by water
agencies to become as prepared as
possible for any potential adverse
water supply event.
These issues are discussed more
fully in this report. It is important to
recognize that the Grand Jury found
all the agencies it contacted to be
performing their duties profession-
ally and with due diligence. This is
reassuring but it neither solves the
underlying problems nor absolves
the officials. More needs to be
done.
Reason for Investigation
News reports and alarming
warnings from knowledgeable wa-
ter officials throughout California
have raised serious concerns: (1)
Supply deficiencies are becoming
critical due to a prolonged drought.
(2) Court rulings intended to pro-
tect environmental impacts in the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and
redistribute water rights from the
Colorado River have forced drastic
supply cutbacks. (3) Water delivery
infrastructure is in a precarious and
deteriorating condition and subject
to severe damage in the event of
seismic and other natural forces.
The current, unusually severe
economic contraction affecting the
home - building market has slowed
population growth statewide. If
conditions were different, a more
controversial public policy debate
would likely be occurring over the
accuracy of adequate water supply
projections to serve these develop-
ments. This situation is in dramatic
contrast to major projects receiving
environmental approval even as re-
cently as within the past five years.
The Grand Jury reviewed
environmental and planning docu-
ments that were approved in 2004,
for 14,000 homes in southern
Orange County. Water supply for
this extensive, planned community
received virtually no overt concern
aside from a brief discussion to ad-
dress growth- inducement and emer-
gency outages within the supplying
water district's system.' No com-
ments on water supply were found
from any environmental agency, in
contrast to the project's extensive
debate over traffic /transportation
and flora/fauna impacts.
Accurate water supply projec-
tions are elusive at best and are
the reason we are in our current
situation. A "water emergency" is
a result of a complex interrelated
series of actions and conditions.
Conservation - and then rationing
- are the first steps in controlling
the situation. However, increased
demand is inherent in population
growth. Legislation was enacted
within the past eight years to in-
crease the responsible coordination
between approval of projects that
induce growth in population and
identification of water supplies to
support increased demand. Cali-
fornia Government Code Sections
66455.3 and 66473.7 requires iden-
tification of adequate potable water
supplies to serve a planned devel-
opment project based on at least 20
years of historical data. California
Water Code Sections 10631, 10656,
10910, 10911, 10912, 10915 and
10657 require Water Supply As-
sessments (WSA's.) These laws,
commonly referred to respectively
as SB 221 and SB 610, are viewed
by some as environmentalist - driven
mechanisms for curtailing growth.'
Other water experts involved
with the crafting of these bills
have indicated that the legislation
does not go far enough since only
projects over 500 dwelling units
are required to comply with these
laws. Regardless, these measures
have helped to place a greater im-
portance on responsible planning,
identifying dependable, long -term
water supplies preceding major
development approvals. This seems
not only reasonable but responsible.
The Grand Jury desired to assess
the following:
• whether and to what extent
the County's water supplies
are vulnerable to major dis-
ruption
to what extent the residents
and decision makers are
aware of the County's water
supply conditions
how the development project
Page 2 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
approval process is conducted
in Orange County with re-
spect to water supplies
what measures are being
taken by water managers
to ensure the integrity of
the County's water delivery
systems
how public awareness, the
project review process and the
County's water system integ-
rity may be strengthened
Method of Investigation
As part of this investigation, the
Grand Jury researched numerous
documents obtained from expert
sources and interviewed representa-
tives of numerous agencies. Agen-
cies and their staff consulted during
this study included the following:
• Major water retailers (water
districts and cities) both in
Orange County and adjacent
counties
• Water wholesalers such as the
Municipal Water District of
Orange County ( MWDOC)
• Groundwater purveyors both
inside Orange County and in
adjacent counties
• Local agency planning depart-
ments
Renowned academic authori-
ties who have studied Califor-
nia's unique water resources
issues for decades.
The Grand Jury visited a
number of local facilities that have
demonstrated innovative means of
producing "new" water such as Or-
ange County Water District's (OC-
WD's) Groundwater Replenishment
System and Irvine Ranch Water
District's Deep Aquifer Treatment
System. It observed the state of
southern California's water supply
on a three -day inspection of the
immense State Water Project. This
system, along with the Colorado
River Aqueduct, conveys at least 50
percent of the water consumed by
Orange County. The study included
review of authoritative textbooks
and documentaries that provided an
overview of cur-
rent conditions as
they affect Orange
County, the region
and the nation.
From these inter-
views and investiga-
tions, a repetitive
pattern of concern
emerged over
many key issues.
They were seen to
threaten the avail-
ability of adequate
water supply to
support California's
growth.
reached reduced levels that are
worrisome. Diamond Valley Lake,
Metropolitan's newest reservoir
built to provide emergency stor-
age, is today less than one -half full.
Exhibit A
Orange County Water Supply Sources in FY 07 -08
State Water MWater ebropdDistitan
Pmiect� rict 14 Colorado River
258,000 AF Regular
0 AF
0 AF In -Lieu Replan
ante Ana River
San Gabriel Basin
213,000 AF
10,000 AF
MET water to
f Santiago Ck.
Berner 5,000 AF
6,000 AF (est.)
GcWD Basin
Groundwater .
` small Local
360,000 AF used `
Basins 4,000 AF
Incidental Recharge
46,000 AF lest)
Background and Facts
Organizational Structure
Delivering Orange County's
Water Supply
Orange County relies heavily
on imported water for its on -going
supply as well as much of its
groundwater storage replenishment
needs. Exhibit A depicts the sources
of supply and flow volumes. Im-
ported water from Metropolitan
Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia (Metropolitan) constitutes
over one half of Orange County's
supply.
Metropolitan pumps its supply
through aqueducts from the State
Water Project in northern Califor-
nia and through pipelines from the
Colorado River along California's
easterly border with Nevada and
Arizona. Persistent drought condi-
tions have compromised the State
Water Project's as well as the
Colorado River's supplies. Res-
ervoirs and dammed storage have
ter: yuw ..a,e
36,000 AF Irrigation, etc-
.000 AF imo GW Basin
Most of the immediate impact of
this has been seen in cutbacks for
agricultural uses and groundwater
replenishment. Added concerns
have arisen most recently over the
December 14, 2007 ruling by U.S.
District Court Judge Oliver W.
Wanger in what has become known
as the " Wanger Decision" (Case
No. 1:05-ev- 1207 OWW GSA)
which adversely affects the State
Water Project. The Colorado River
water allocations have also suffered
significant court decisions adverse
to southern California.
Exhibit B depicts how water is
distributed within Orange County.
MWDOC is the predominant
intermediary that buys imported
water from Metropolitan and sells
it to Orange County's retail water
agencies (cities and special dis-
tricts). Note that OCWD is a major
provider of groundwater only,
generally limited to the cities in the
north Orange County area.
Exhibit C demonstrates how
widespread MWDOC's influence is
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
XM'DOC
Exhibit B
in Orange County. MWDOC repre-
sents nearly every water agency in
Orange County on the Metropolitan
Board of Directors. However, three
cities (Anaheim, Fullerton and San-
ta Ana) are direct member agencies
to Metropolitan. MWDOC's role as
the wholesaler to every corner of
the County is an important facet of
this investigation.
Exhibit D (on the follow-
ing page) depicts the general
boundaries of the Orange County
groundwater basin administered by
OCWD. This water is accessible,
by law, only to cities and special
districts overlying the 350- square-
mile service area that serves 75
percent of the County's three
million residents. Typically, the
agencies with groundwater rights
draw approximately two- thirds of
their supplies from the groundwater
basin and purchase their remain-
ing demand from Metropolitan via
MWDOC. Three cities (Anaheim,
Fullerton and Santa Ana) purchase
their water from Metropolitan
directly.
Page 4
Orange County's
Precarious Water Systems
Orange County's water supplies,
from all imported sources, are in
great peril. Metropolitan has de-
veloped an extensive infrastructure
backbone to bring water to southern
California. It is the predominant
supplier of imported water to every
area within Orange County. These
supplies are completely dependent
on two primary, man-made convey-
ances: (1) the State Water Project
which taps the Sierra Nevada
mountain range snow melt in north -
em California and (2) the Colorado
River Aqueduct which intercepts
Exhibit C
..IIM•MNOJCSaM.f 4N t
�.::: j ..ma woac ew ao« roN wam.ym%m.m•,
Rpn+olFmeryaiWry • �. e
MWDOC Service Area
and Member Agencies
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
runoff from the west slopes of the
Rocky Mountains, as far north as
Wyoming, via the Colorado River.
The current water supply situa-
tion in Metropolitan's service area
and throughout the state of Califor-
nia is critically tenuous and signals
2007 -2009 as one of California's
most severely -dry three -year
periods in over 100 years. In ad-
dition to the lack of precipitation
in early 2008, the following warm
spring season resulted in early
depletion of the mountain snow-
pack. This is considered the largest
"reservoir" for California's water
supply to see the state through
the ensuing seasons. Without a
substantial snowpack leading into
spring, California must rely on its
man -made reservoirs and stored
groundwater to survive the dry
seasons. Even though 2009 snow
pack achieved 80 percent of normal
volume, it cannot overcome the
depletion caused by the two, previ-
ous, record -low years, especially
when hobbled by the court- enacted
pumping restrictions. Until now,
consumers' conservation efforts,
combined with water manag-
ers' programs to install low -flow
fixtures, agricultural usage cutbacks
and other restrictions, have been
effective in substantially reducing
consumer demand. Unfortunately,
this has finally fallen short and
local water agencies are predicting
a 50% likelihood of embarking on
water rationing as summer 2009
approaches. In fact, several agen-
cies have already instituted the
first stages of rationing as a result
of Metropolitan's adopted Water
Supply Allocation Plan which takes
effect July 1, 2009.
The 2008 -2009 Grand Jury is
extremely concerned that residents,
planners and decision makers
in Orange County are not doing
enough to recognize and publicize
the perilous condition of our water
supplies. They are not giving this
issue adequate consideration in the
process of approving plans for the
growth of Orange County.
The State Water Project
Metropolitan, on average, does
not have sufficient water supplies
to meet demands. Watersheds are
currently providing 650 thousand
acre -feet (about 212 billion gallons)
lower than normal runoff due to
reduced rainfall and snowpack. The
Wanger Decision ordered the State
Water Project to reduce pumping
from the Sacramento -San Joa-
quin River Delta due to identified,
adverse environmental impacts on
a threatened fish species, the Delta
smelt. In April, 2008, Judge Wanger
issued a second ruling, further
cutting water exports to protect the
declining populations of Chinook
salmon'
Judge Wanger's rulings resulted
in Metropolitan curtailing delivery
of 500 thousand acre -feet (about
163 billion gallons) of water from
northern California in 2008. These
lost resources would have pro-
vided water for over seven million
Californians for a year. As a result,
for the first time in Metropolitan's
80 -year history, the agency is
projecting a significant drawdown
in its water reserves. Before the
Wanger Decision, projections were
for surplus conditions 70 percent of
the time and reserve drawdowns re-
quired 30 percent of the time. Now,
this projection is reversed with
surplus conditions expected 30 per-
cent of the time and drawdowns 70
percent of the time. Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rapidly
depleted and the ability to refill its
reservoirs has become increasingly
problematic.
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Located in California's Butte
County, Lake Oroville is the
farthest upper reach of the State
Water Project. Exhibits E -I and E -2
provide a startling contrast of the
drastic changes that had occurred in
fewer than three years. In Febru-
ary 2009, Oroville Dam's storage
was at 30 percent of its capacity.
Because of near- average precipi-
tation this year, the reservoir has
recovered to nearly 60 percent of its
capacity. But even with some gains
in rainfall and snowpack in 2009,
conditions are still below normal
and the drought continues to stifle
the buildup of reserves.
No State Water Project water
delivered to southern California
and Orange County arrives with-
out traversing the Sacramento -San
Exhibit E -1
Joaquin Delta (Exhibit F, on the
following page). The Delta is a
convergence of five major rivers
in the Central Valley which have
been tamed by mining and agricul-
tural operations dating back to the
mid -19th century. This was accom-
plished by building what is now an
1,100 -mile "spider web" of pre-
dominantly privately owned, non -
engineered, earthen levees. From its
accumulated data, Metropolitan has
asserted the following with regard
to the Delta:
• There have been at least 166
documented levee failures
over the last 109 years, caus-
ing geotechnical experts to
describe the situation in a
rather cynical manner: There
are two types of levees in
the Delta. There are those
Exhibit E -2
that have failed and there are
those that will fail.
• Predictions are for a 67%
chance of drastic levee
failures sometime during the
next 25 years. Most likely,
the failures will be associated
with either a 6.7 or greater
magnitude seismic event,
severe earth subsidence or a
100 -year intensity flood.
• In a seismic failure, scientific
models predict massive areas
of the Delta inundated with a
reverse flow of seawater from
the San Francisco Bay. Fresh
water in the Delta will be
rendered useless for agricul-
tural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would
be destroyed for two to four
years, or longer.
• The potential for calamity has
been recognized by recent
Legislature budget discus-
sions. It also has received a
high priority with the Gover-
nor when he created the "Blue
Ribbon Task Force" that led
to the 2007 Delta Prsion
report. However, action for
urgent, preemptive levee res-
torations has not materialized.
Even without a catastrophic
incident, experts are forewarning
of major, long -range degradation
of the Delta ecosystem. California
needs to prepare for the inevitable
end of the Delta's role as a massive
drinking water conveyance as its
salinity increases to non - potable,
brackish levels'
The Colorado River Aqueduct
The original allocations of
Colorado River water to the south-
western states and Mexico were
sealed by the 1922 Colorado River
Compact and the Boulder Canyon
Page 6 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Exhibit F
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Map of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh
r
1
,e
Project Act of 1928. In retrospect,
water planners today recognize that
those allocations were based on
overly optimistic assumptions. The
historical hydrographic data of that
time was unusually wet. Also, the
population projections for all the
now clearly- identified high - growth
areas of the southwestern states,
and southern California in particu-
lar, were notoriously short sighted
Two critical forces have created
major problems for the viability of
the Colorado River: (1) The Colora-
do River Basin at Lake Powell has
been suffering from severe drought
conditions since October 1999. (2)
The 2003 Colorado River Quan-
tification Settlement Agreement,
involving Metropolitan, San Diego
County Water Authority, Coachella
Valley Water District, Imperial
Irrigation District and numerous
other federal, state and regional
agencies and interest groups have
redistributed the available water
within southern California. Deliver-
ies to Metropolitan are down some
400,000 acre -feet (130 billion gal-
lons) as a result.
Considering the plight of our
Colorado River allocation, Dr. Peter
Gleick, President of the Pacific
Institute, in 2008, observed the
following: "The assumption that
southern California can grow as
much as it wants and that we will
continue to find new sources of
water ... is wrong. Those days are
over.... Every source of water
coming into southern California
from afar ... is increasingly unreli-
able."'
Researchers have posed the con-
cern whether the Colorado River,
which provides up to three - fourths
of Metropolitan's supply, will
cease to be a viable water source
within the next 20 years. Recently,
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar of Colorado, when he was
a Senate member of the Energy &
Natural Resources Commission,
asserted that water in the United
States has always been taken for
granted. As a result, as might be
expected, the only time people
understand the importance of water
is when they don't have it. In sum -
mary, experts have sent this warn-
ing: "The water crisis is much more
significant to the world than is the
energy crisis... Try living without
water... it doesn't work . 114
The following is a synopsis of
comments uncovered by the Grand
Jury in the context of the future of
the Colorado River:
• Mark Pisano, past Executive
Director of the Southern Cali-
forn ia Association ofGovern-
ments, in the context of water
supplies, predicted the fol-
lowing: "We're going to grow
differently in this century than
we did in the past century....
[L]arge regions are going to
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
have to be much more sensi-
tive to what supports them en-
vironmentally so that they're
sustainable ... and if they're
not sensitive to [this] they're
going to have real difficulty."'
• Secretary Salazar stated that,
in communities where there
is not a dependable, long-
term source of water, there
will be "... an explosion of
controversy because land -use
planners have not done what
they should have done."'
• Scripps Institution of Ocean-
ography researchers Tim Bar-
nett and David Pierce, wrote a
paper, When will Lake Mead
go dry ?, that was accepted
for publication in the journal
Water Resources Research,
by the American Geophysical
Union. They concluded that,
because of allocation de-
mand, aggravated by climate
changes, the reservoirs on
the Colorado River system
will never fill again. They
further predicted that there is
a 50- percent probability Lake
Mead will be dry by 2021.
Barnett stated that they "...
were stunned at the magnitude
of the problem and how fast it
was coming at us.... Make no
mistake, this water problem
is not a scientific abstraction,
but rather one that will impact
each and every one of us that
live in the Southwest. "s
Environmental Consequences
One internationally acclaimed
water resources expert has experi-
enced and analyzed the effects of
severe water shortages worldwide.
He offered what he considers to be
one of the earliest signs and one of
the most tragic long -term, dam-
aging outcomes that occur when
regions are faced with water crises.
Specifically, where water supplies
are chronically unable to meet
demand in spite of all conserva-
tion, rationing and similar cutbacks,
essential surface flows begin to
drain from environmentally sensi-
tive habitats. Wetlands areas begin
to desiccate and degrade. Ground-
water basin overdrafting creates
irreversible geological subsidence,
permanently damaging the basin's
ability to recover. If water supply
desperation reaches those levels,
fundamental changes in that aspect
of the ecosystem could occur.
Land -Use Planning and a Crisis -
Oriented Public
How do California's statewide
water supply issues directly affect
Orange County? The Grand Jury
found that there are two, equally
important points. First, long -range
water resources planning takes a
major degree of innovation and
creativity to establish dependable
sources of diversified supply. This
includes bringing "new" water
to serve new homeowners in the
growth areas, and the industry
and commerce that sustains them.
It also requires a degree of good
data analysis to accurately project
hydrologic and climatologic data
decades into the future.
Second, the water resource
agencies, the land -use planning
agencies and the consumers all
need to be equally focused on the
possibility of major supply outages
to which the County is vulner-
able. The Grand Jury found that
the water agencies and, in fact,
the water industry as a whole, are
keenly aware of the inadequacies
and potentially disastrous circum-
stances California faces. The sense
of urgency could not be higher. But
it seems that gaining the attention
of a crisis - oriented public is a dif-
ferent story.
The Grand Jury found that
planning agencies dealt with these
concerns very differently. In fact,
water issues seem to be of no more
consequence than a noise impact
study or a traffic impact analysis.
Water resource issues in Orange
County demand more than a check
box on the environmental review
form. Based on what was observed
in this investigation, this has not
been the case.
Johnson and Loux described
this issue as a "black box" phenom-
enons wherein the professions of
land planning and water resources
planning have distinctly differ-
ent, highly complex parameters
that drive their technical analyses
and decision - making processes.
The unique complexities of these
professions tend to deter either side
from interacting effectively.
Adding to the professionals'
difficulties, the residents of Orange
County do not seem to understand
the perilous conditions within
which they live. Orange County
water consumers have not, to any
significant degree, experienced
long- duration water supply out-
ages. The public's consideration for
water supply typically starts and
stops at the faucet handle as they
expect, with every turn, dependable
delivery of high - quality, safe, clean
water.
The perception that water sup-
plies are taken for granted is an
understatement. Water agencies'
conservation messages are suc-
cessfully making consumers more
aware of their responsibility to
conserve water resources. But, this
is merely a fraction of the larger,
more compelling issue. Conserva-
tion happens after the problem has
been identified. Consumers need
to be cognizant of the impacts of
Page 8 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
development and the need for deci-
sions before land -use decisions are
made.
Case Studies
The Grand Jury interviewed key
staff and studied voluminous public
records of land -use applications and
environmental reviews pertaining
to several, recent, major develop-
ment proposals in various areas of
the County. In each case, the entire
land -use decision - making process
as it relates to water resources, one
of the County's most precious and
precarious commodities, was found
to be very disappointing. When
analyses were required, land -use
and development decision makers
deferred to the water agencies to
solve the water issues. Typically,
the input came via a WSA, after
which it quickly disappeared from
the public dialogue. Public input to
express any shred of concern for —
or to even question —the long -term
viability of potable water resources
was conspicuous by its absence. If
not relegated to a separate volume
of appendices, the water supply
reports were found buried hundreds
of pages behind other, more "vis-
ible," issues raised by vocal constit-
uents, never to be heard from again
in the public process.
In these case studies, the Grand
Jury could find little, if an)', ex-
pressed concern from any person
or responsible agency. This begged
the question as to whether the
public process is flawed in light of
the gravity of our water resources
predicament. It also substantiated
the inference that, aside from the
caveats involved, "...the duty to
serve is often viewed as the first,
foremost, and perhaps only mission
of a water - purveying agency. "�
Case Study #1: County of
Orange - Rancho Mission Viejo
(The Ranch Plan) Development
The Rancho Mission Viejo
development (known as "The
Ranch Plan") is in south Orange
County. The County of Orange
processed this development over
a several -year period, culminat-
ing in its adoption by the Board of
Supervisors in 2004. This master
planned 22,000 acres of land with
7,700 acres designated for 14,000
dwelling units. Other significant
elements were established with 130
acres for urban activity centers, 258
acres for business parks, 39 acres
for neighborhood retail centers,
five golf courses and a 1,079 -acre
regional park.
The Ranch Plan Program Envi-
ronmental Impact Report (EIR) and
General Plan Amendment, prepared
in 2003, presented exhaustingly
detailed analyses of, among other
particulars, watershed runoff water
quality, traffic circulation impacts
and endangered flora and fauna
protection. Mention of emergency
water storage and concern for
temporary water disruption via the
imported water connections were
limited to a single paragraph. Aside
from that outdated discussion, no
mention was found of how reliable
water supplies would be ensured.
Indeed, there was a WSA prepared
by Santa Margarita Water District
which also fully complied with SB
221 and SB 610 but the Grand Jury
found no substantive discussion
from its review of the following
EIR sections:
• Executive Summary: Refer-
ences were made to "areas of
controversy" voiced during
public comments at seeping
meetings. No water supply
concerns were considered
worthy of any mention.
• Growth Inducing Impacts:
Over a dozen, nearby, devel-
opment - related, potentially
growth- inducing projects
were discussed, each making
no mention of water supply
concerns.
• Water Resources: This per-
tained primarily to surface
water quality and runoff
hydrology, with absolutely no
discussion of potable water
resources.
There was seemingly no con-
cern for water supply scenarios that
could leave 14,000 homes without
water. Indeed, the following EIR
excerpt clearly established the
priorities: "Due to the nature of the
project, potential impacts to bio-
logical resources, hydrologic condi-
tions and [runoff) water quality are
of primary concern."
The EIR process solicited com-
ments not only from the public but
also via the State Clearinghouse
from every agency and environ-
mental group in the state. There
were records of interminable (albeit
important) discussions and debates
over such issues as traffic and en-
dangered species but potable water
supply was a non - issue. It was not
even deemed to be of enough rel-
evance to be mentioned in the 2004
staff report when the project was
presented to the Board of Supervi-
sors.
The aforementioned 2003 WSA
was appended to The Ranch Plan.
It was a comprehensively written
document that assessed California's
water future. The WSA provided
the required numerical justification
for 25 years of water to this area,
based on a series of assumptions
that have long since been supersed-
ed by changed conditions. The nu-
merous, crucial effects over just the
past few years have great potential
to derail many of the critical deci-
sions made in the recently adopted
2006 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
plan. The Grand Jury's view on the
state of affairs is that a six-year-
old water planning document, with
a 25 -year projection upon which
permanent development is hinged,
leaves much to be desired. It makes
no sense to have so little attention
paid to a natural resource with such
a profound impact.
Despite all this, the 2003 WSA
was apparently enough for the deci-
sion makers and the public. Despite
the fact that this development will
take place in a water - deficient area
of the County that relies virtually
entirely on imported supplies from
Metropolitan, the Grand Jury could
find not one comment at all from
the general public, let alone any
expression of concern during the
public review period. The agencies
have argued that the absence of
comment is not necessarily indica-
tive of a lack of concern but rather
a recognition that all issues were
addressed. The Grand Jury, for
all the reasons cited in this report,
has found otherwise and that there
should be concern.
Clearly, the agencies process-
ing The Ranch Plan followed the
mandatory processes to determine
adequate water supplies, using es-
tablished procedures and their best
efforts to provide professional data
to decision makers. Nonetheless,
the glaring point of this investiga-
tion is that there is a serious discon-
nect in the process where critical
data are presented seemingly as
footnotes and decisions are made
in a manner that masks the situa-
tion from public awareness. This
was certainly not found to have
been done intentionally but rather
was the inevitable byproduct of the
sheer volume and complexity of the
documents.
Typically, it is safe to presume
that anyone lacking an engineer-
ing degree is challenged in com-
prehending the complex technical
analyses of water supply issues and
the concomitant impacts of various
adverse scenarios. The tendency is
to accept WSAs on face value and
not challenge the caveats and quali-
fying statements that render these
assessments tentative at best. W SAs
providing 20 to 25 -year projections
on land uses that can be expected
to be in place for at least 100 years
can encounter dramatic changes.
The 2003 WSA for The Ranch Plan
was prepared long before several
major changes were made that af-
fect the dependability of water sup-
plies to southern California. There
should be, at least, a mitigation and
monitoring reporting requirement
in the Plan. Optimally, the question
about an update to the WSA should
be raised now, not later when
specific project development permit
applications are submitted. At that
point, developers, in the heat o£fi-
nancing time constraints, will be in
no mood to deal with the obstacles
of additional engineering analyses;
rather, they will do whatever it
takes to demand that their project
approvals be granted.
Case Study #2: City of Orange —
Santiago Hills II and East
Orange Areas Planned
Community Development
In a very similar fashion to
south Orange County, the central
Orange County city of Orange, is
facilitating aggressive expansion
within its Sphere of Influence east
and south of the Peters Canyon
region of the Irvine Ranch.
The development agreement for
this area provided vested rights to
development to the Irvine Com-
pany in 2005 for approximately
4,000 dwelling units. Irvine Ranch
Water District (the designated water
purveyor for this area) provided a
series of "Water Supply Verifica-
tions" subsequent to this agreement
to carry the project for 20 years.
While the water supply veri-
fications conclude that sufficient
supplies are available pursuant to
state law, it is interesting to as-
sess the methodologies, caveats
and disclaimers accompanying the
certification sheet. In particular, the
water supplier affirms that it "...
does not allocate particular supplies
to any project, but identifies total
supplies for its service area." It
would be safe to conclude that both
the land planners and the water
providers were satisfied that their
requirements had been met and, in
fact, Irvine Ranch Water District
officials have subsequently empha-
sized that this is the case and that
sufficient supplies are available.
Although no documents were found
to evidence their discussions, the
officials have also emphasized that
the agencies have had a dialog re-
garding the conditions under which
the water supplies would be of-
fered and District staff testified on
pertinent issues at the City Council
public hearings.
As with the The Ranch Plan,
the decisions on this major project
establish commitments far beyond
the planning horizon. It is unclear
how a developer's vested rights
may prevail over any changes in the
WSA over time.
Case Study #3: City of Brea -
Canyon Crest Development
In north Orange County, the city
of Brea, in 2009, approved (subject
to appeal) the development of 165
homes on 367 acres of hillside pas-
ture and open space surrounded by
Chino Hills State Park, near Carbon
Canyon Road.
As would be expected, the
project environmental review
Page 10 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
extensively evaluated the woodland
habitat and wildlife corridors. An
elaborate and extensive monitoring
and mitigation program was devel-
oped for the oak - walnut woodland
habitat. Because the size of this
project fell short of the trigger
points for SB 221 and SB 610, no
WSA was required. In fact, the BIR
concludes specifically that "[n]o
impact will result from the Project
involving the acquisition of new or
expansion of existing water supply
entitlements or resources." This
was the only mention found con-
cerning water supply by either the
environmental consultant or by any
person, agency or group concerned
with the impacts of this project.
Admittedly, this single proj-
ect would have a nominal annual
demand of perhaps 100 acre -feet
(about 33 million gallons), on
the County's water supply, which
would add about one percent to
Brea's annual demand. But, it is
indicative of how the cumulative
impacts of such projects can incre-
mentally affect the overall supply.
Steps Toward Understanding
A better interface between land -
use planners and water planners
has evolved over the years with the
assistance of the State Legislature.
Since the 1983 adoption of the
Urban Water Management Plan -
ning Act (California Water Code
Section 10610 et seq), California
has required each water purveyor
to prepare and submit, every five
years, an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). This is a founda-
tional document and a source of
information for long -range water
planning. Cities and counties are
required to use these documents
when preparing their General Plans.
The UWMP, while important,
is a fairly general planning docu-
ment. It was not until 2001 (after
most of Orange County already
had been developed) that the State
seriously acknowledged that water
supply and local land -use devel-
opment planning are inextricably
intertwined. The California Legis-
lature's SB 221 and SB 610 exem-
plify this need for an administrative
record in the environmental docu-
ments. These laws only apply to
large projects and, according to one
expert in the water environmental
field, do "... little more than raise
awareness."
Also in 2001, the Legislature
passed the Integrated Regional
Water Management Planning
( IRWMP) Act, which allows a re-
gional water management group to
prepare and adopt an IRWMP that
encourages local agencies to work
cooperatively in managing their
entire array of water resources for
beneficial use.
Innovative Solutions to Long -
Term Supply Shortages and the
State of Orange County's Water
Resources
Some experts in the academic
and industrial communities con-
sider that California's water crises
can be avoided by a concerted
effort on four fronts: (1) improving
water use efficiencies through con-
servation, water - saving appliances
and technological advances (e.g.
"smart" irrigation timers); (2) ad-
vancing innovative water recycling
and reuse strategies; (3) improving
storm water runoff capture, storage
and groundwater recharge; and (4)
securing water transfer agreements
between agencies to effectively
balance supply and demand. The
Grand Jury found that Orange
County water agencies are, in many
cases, setting the example of best
practices through sophisticated ap-
plications on each of these fronts.
In addition, concerted public /pri-
vate efforts are underway to build
at least two major seawater desali-
nation plants in Orange County.
Combined with a third desalina-
tion plant near Camp Pendleton,
planned jointly with the San Diego
County Water Authority, coastal
desalination projects will supply up
to 140,000 acre-feet (45.6 billion
gallons) per year of new water.
Orange County water agencies
are pursuing long -term water trans-
fers outside the County boundar-
ies. An agreement with the South
Feather Water and Power Agency
in northern California was being
negotiated to bring up to 10,000
acre -feet (about 3.3 billion gallons)
per year to Orange County.' While
this project now appears unlikely
to be consummated, there are other,
similar efforts underway that are
considered to be more viable.
Santa Margarita Water District's
transfer agreement with Cucamon-
ga Valley Water District also rep-
resents individual agency attempts
to secure firm water contracts. In
this case, 4,250 acre -feet (about 1.4
billion gallons) per year would be
allocated to Orange County from
surplus water in an entirely separate
groundwater basin. This basin re-
sides within Metropolitan's service
area, which helps to facilitate the
actual water transfer.
Irvine Ranch Water District is
developing a water banking pro-
gram in partnership with the central
valley Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water
Storage District near Bakersfield
in Kern County. This arrangement
will provide up to 17,500 acre -feet
(5.7 billion gallons) per year from
groundwater recharge and recovery
facilities, along with expanding
the Cross Valley Canal to transfer
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
stored water to the Irvine Ranch
facilities
The Grand Jury was particu-
larly impressed with the OCWD's
Ground Water Replenishment
System (GWRS) established in
conjunction with its adjacent waste-
water treatment agency, the Orange
County Sanitation District. The
Grand Jury witnessed the GWRS
while in operation, delivering
72,000 acre -feet (about 23.5 billion
gallons) per year of ultra -pure water
for direct, potable reuse via 1,600
acres of percolation basins in north
Orange County. This is about 10
to 14% of total basin demand and
production is expected to expand to
100,000 acre -feet (32.6 billion gal-
lons) per year within the next three
years.
The 2003 -2004 Orange County
Grand Jury also recognized the
GWRS while it was still in its
implementation stages. This unique
project is the largest of its kind
in the world. It exemplifies how
technology is providing innovative
solutions to environmental prob-
lems and insight to our future.
The capital cost of the GWRS
system was approximately $500
million. While immensely expen-
sive to build and operate, federal
and state grants and subsidies have
reduced the unit cost of the product
water to approximately $650 per
acre -foot. Since imported Metro-
politan water is anticipated to pass
$700 per acre -foot this summer, the
break -even point may be imminent.
As water becomes increasingly
scarce and prices rise accordingly,
recycled wastewater systems, even
those meeting stringent human
consumption requirements, are
anticipated to become more com-
petitively cost effective.
All these innovative programs
are admirable but they do not solve
the problem. Shortfalls from the
State Water Project and the Colora-
do River of the magnitudes cited by
Metropolitan and others cannot be
made up by these relatively limited
efforts.
Response to Catastrophic Supply
Interruptions
Regional shortages: The most
serious water supply concerns af-
fecting Orange County lie outside
its boundaries. Metropolitan has
elaborate response plans and infra-
structure in place to deal with sup-
ply curtailments; the most recent
notable example is its Diamond
Valley Lake near Hemet. This is an
800 - thousand acre-foot (260 billion
gallons) reservoir, of which about
one -half is reserved for catastrophic
emergencies. Completed in 1999,
Diamond Valley took four years
to fill with a six -month emergency
water supply and is considered the
most important achievement in pro-
tecting southern California against
a State Water Project system out-
age.
County -wide shortages: If
circumstances dictate that Orange
County is forced into being self -
sufficient for an extended period,
how will it survive? Orange County
water managers have been diligent
in preparing to overcome worst -
case water delivery interruption
scenarios. In times of dire need, be-
ing able to instantly re -route water
from the north County groundwater
basin, to the south County supply
lines, through pre - established pipe-
line routes, is crucial.
Beginning in 1983, the Orange
County water agencies developed
a Water Supply Emergence Pre-
paredness Plan, jointly funded
by MWDOC and OCWD, and
supported by the Orange County
Water Association. This eventually
resulted in the formation of the Wa-
ter Emergency Response Organiza-
tion of Orange County (WEROC),
a single point of coordination for
every conceivable type of acute,
water - related disaster in Orange
County.
Approximately 95 percent of
south Orange County's water is
imported from northern California
and the Colorado River and de-
livered to Metropolitan filtration
plants in north Orange County
before it is sent 35 miles to south
County via two aging pipelines
traversing active seismic faults.
The Orange County Water System
Reliability Study, along with the
South Orange County Water Reli-
ability Study established an array of
project remedies to address specific
threats to water transmission and
distribution infrastructure through-
out Orange County and, in particu-
lar, south Orange County, in times
of long -term crisis. On August I5,
2001, and again on April 23, 2003,
MWDOC and OCWD adopted a
Memorandum of Understanding
to accomplish among other objec-
tives, an on -going implementation
monitoring effort to help facilitate
the various agencies involved in
completing these projects.
The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately 3,000 acre -feet (about I
billion gallons) from an emergency
connection to Irvine Ranch Water
District's Dyer Road well field
in Santa Ana. This provides only
about 10 percent of what is needed.
The other 27,000 acre -feet (about
9 billion gallons) will arrive when
a planned array of pump, pipeline,
treatment and reservoir projects is
built. These projects will be able
to transfer and store emergency
potable water as well as have avail-
Page 12 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Sx,WaRegu.'W WfPNtm�ahrape
GW «e�q SeMrci1
Coulal pVtlmI50LWA
Exhibit G
X11
„k ,�Fru
able brackish and seawater purifica-
tion systems to create "new" water
for south Orange County. These
projects are depicted in Exhibit G.
These projects vary signifi-
cantly in their planning, design and
construction complexities as well
as in their funding requirements.
Completion of the entire system
is not expected until at least 2015.
Once completed, the projects will
serve daily needs while being ready
to deliver emergency reserves if the
supply network becomes disrupted
at any point.
,
Recommended Pim
Emerging self - sufficiency
management strategies: Several
efforts have commenced to maxi-
mize the ability of Orange County
to be self - sustaining, especially in
times of crisis. The most compre-
hensive planning underway was
begun in 2000, headed by the OC
Watersheds Division of OC Public
Works. It consolidates efforts in ur-
ban runoff watershed management
and regional water resources plan-
ning strategies. A comprehensive
approach is underway, addressing
the County's 13 watersheds with
several objectives:
• Protect communities from
drought
• Enhance local water supply
and system reliability
• Ensure continued water
security
• Optimize watershed and
coastal resources
• Improve watershed water
quality
• Safeguard endangered species
habitat
Nearly 100 projects have been
identified that encompass, among
other facets, the following:
• Water supply reliability, water
conservation and water use
efficiency
• Storm water capture, storage,
treatment and management
• Creation and enhancement
of wetlands and acquisition,
protection, and restoration
of open space and watershed
lands
• Non -point source pollution
reduction, management and
monitoring
• Groundwater recharge and
management
• Water banking, water ex-
change, water reclamation,
desalting, and other treatment
technologies
Disaster Planning: In Novem-
ber, 2008, the entire County of
Orange participated in an exercise
dubbed "Golden Guardian," based
on a Richter Scale magnitude 7.8 .
seismic event. Part of this exercise
was to include dealing with the ex-
pected effects of disrupted local and
County-wide water transmission
and distribution systems. WEROC
volunteers participated in this event
to test the water agencies' ability to
respond effectively during emer-
gency events. The lessons learned
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
0
0
W tel
N
2oAm
Emerging self - sufficiency
management strategies: Several
efforts have commenced to maxi-
mize the ability of Orange County
to be self - sustaining, especially in
times of crisis. The most compre-
hensive planning underway was
begun in 2000, headed by the OC
Watersheds Division of OC Public
Works. It consolidates efforts in ur-
ban runoff watershed management
and regional water resources plan-
ning strategies. A comprehensive
approach is underway, addressing
the County's 13 watersheds with
several objectives:
• Protect communities from
drought
• Enhance local water supply
and system reliability
• Ensure continued water
security
• Optimize watershed and
coastal resources
• Improve watershed water
quality
• Safeguard endangered species
habitat
Nearly 100 projects have been
identified that encompass, among
other facets, the following:
• Water supply reliability, water
conservation and water use
efficiency
• Storm water capture, storage,
treatment and management
• Creation and enhancement
of wetlands and acquisition,
protection, and restoration
of open space and watershed
lands
• Non -point source pollution
reduction, management and
monitoring
• Groundwater recharge and
management
• Water banking, water ex-
change, water reclamation,
desalting, and other treatment
technologies
Disaster Planning: In Novem-
ber, 2008, the entire County of
Orange participated in an exercise
dubbed "Golden Guardian," based
on a Richter Scale magnitude 7.8 .
seismic event. Part of this exercise
was to include dealing with the ex-
pected effects of disrupted local and
County-wide water transmission
and distribution systems. WEROC
volunteers participated in this event
to test the water agencies' ability to
respond effectively during emer-
gency events. The lessons learned
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
from this exercise were valuable in
identifying the need for better inte-
gration of the individual agencies'
responses through WEROC and on
to the Orange County Operational
Area Emergency Operations Center
(EOC). The issues appear to be
those requiring improved com-
munication rather than inadequate
resources.
MWDOC and Its Member
Agency Conflicts
As introduced earlier. MW-
DOC, with some exceptions, is
the predominant water wholesaler
that arranges for Orange County
water retailers' imported delivery
of Metropolitan water for their
customers. MWDOC is solely an
administrative agency in that it
operates no infrastructure facili-
ties that physically deliver water
to any of its member agencies,
comprised of cities, special dis-
tricts and quasi- public companies.
Because of its unique connection
with nearly every water agency in
Orange County, by default it has
become the coordinator of many re-
gional programs that are generally
suited for a centralized, coordinated
response. This applies to consistent
water conservation plans; compat-
ible Urban Water Management
Plans; universal customer education
outreach; centralized legislative ad-
vocacy; and coordinated emergency
preparedness.
MWDOC also is allocated four
seats on Metropolitan's 37 member
board of directors. These four mem-
bers (not all of them are necessarily
MWDOC board members), repre-
sent the interests of MWDOC's 28
member agencies.
MWDOC was formed in 1951,
when Orange County demographics
were quite different. Today, it finds
its role challenged, primarily by
several major, south Orange County
member agencies, over some key
differences in representation and
governance.
In June, 2006, MWDOC was
anticipating a scheduled Municipal
Services Review (MSR) by the Or-
ange County Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission (LAFCo). LAF-
Co's Mission Statement emphasizes
that it "... serves the citizens of
Orange County by facilitating con-
structive changes in governmental
structure and boundaries through
special studies, programs, and ac-
tions that resolve intergovernmental
issues, by fostering orderly devel-
opment and governance, and by
promoting the efficient delivery of
services." The MSR process, which
is basically a performance audit, is
one of the most effective means to
accomplish this goal.
MWDOC had commenced
stakeholder meetings with its mem-
ber agency colleagues to resolve
key issues of disagreement:
• Representation on Metropoli-
tan's board of directors
• Budget process and fairness
of rate structures
• Lack of inclusiveness of south
County agencies in setting
rates
• MWDOC's financial involve-
ment in local projects (e.g.
desalination)
• Duplicative services (e.g. leg-
islative and public outreach)
• Financial reserve policies
LAFCo discovered, when it
embarked on its MSR process in
February, 2007, that there were
still major, unresolved issues. It
facilitated several meetings to
attempt resolution. In November,
2007, after limited success, LAFCo
decided to convene a "governance
study" with a definite timetable for
reaching consensus on conclusions
and specific recommendations. The
final approval for that effort was
given in January, 2008, commenced
in June, 2008, and continues to the
present time.
All 28 member agencies have
participated in the governance
study. After nearly a year of effort,
the feasible revamping options have
been narrowed to three:
1. Continuing with MWDOC's
current structure, subject to sev-
eral administrative adjustments
to eliminate the current points
of disagreement
2. Dissolving MWDOC and form-
ing a new, County -wide water
authority
3. Creating a separate south
County water authority to, basi-
cally, provide similar services
now provided by MWDOC
but being more responsive and
accountable to the unique needs
expressed by the south County
agencies, particularly for more
equitable representation with
Metropolitan.
The particulars of the gover-
nance study discussions are beyond
the scope of this investigation so
they were not reviewed in detail.
From the Grand Jury's perspective
of the issues, however, Option 3
seems short sighted. Bifurcating the
County into two, basically compet-
ing agencies would be counterpro-
ductive as Orange County moves
into a future with increasingly dif-
ficult and contentious water issues.
LAFCo has been consolidat-
ing agencies where jurisdictional
effectiveness would be improved.
Splitting a major overseer of the
County's water supplies into two
jurisdictions would seem to con-
tradict LAFCo's previous efforts.
LAFCo has a unique role in this
discussion as a facilitator. Even
though it has hired professional
Page 14 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
support consultants and should be
as a fresh water conveyance
agreements are underway
lauded for its initiative, one noted
due to uncontrollable salin-
to create sources of "new"
professor in the field has observed
ity increases. This adds more
water for Orange County. The
that LAFCo may be operating be-
apprehension about Orange
adequacy of contributions
yond its technical abilities to effec-
County's water future.
from these new sources is
tively facilitate the varied, complex
Recent court rulings on
uncertain.
technical issues.
environmental habitat protec-
Orange County is a unique
The M WDOC member agencies
tion and water rights alloca-
territory with many inher-
need to resolve their differences
tions have raised the level of
ent advantages to endure the
and dedicate themselves to a uni-
urgency by imposing possibly
impending water crises. If Or-
fied vision, whether it be continuing
permanent cuts to southern
ange County's water agencies
with M WDOC under a modified
California's formerly reliable,
work together seamlessly and
agreement or creating a new, uni-
traditional water supplies
the County's resident consum-
fied, County-wide water authority.
from northern California and
ers become more involved
As rate increases mount and water
the Colorado River. While
stakeholders, a positive out -
supplies diminish, the need for uni-
the California Department
come is much more likely.
fication will become increasingly
of Water Resources recently
Orange County's ground -
essential. If a catastrophic event
adjusted 2009 State Water
water storage resources are
occurs, the need for unification will
Project deliveries upward to
world class, both in innova-
become urgent.
30 percent of normal alloca-
tive technical superiority and
tions, they had, at one point,
in their management. Water
Conclusions
fallen to 10 to 15 percent of
experts in both industry and
The following conclusions
normal.
academic institutions univer-
raise important concerns over the
Orange County's water sup-
sally praise the innovative and
precarious condition of Orange
ply infrastructure and supply
effective methods by which
County's water resources. More
constraints have received
Orange County has protected
public awareness and process im-
minimal attention in the over-
and managed its innate water
provement regarding water issues
all discussion of developing
resources. In particular, its
must be made as the development
Orange County.
groundwater aquifer is an in-
of Orange County continues. The
• Interaction of land planners
credibly rich natural resource
numerous water agencies in Orange
and water planners in the
that is the envy of many areas
County need to strengthen their
development process must be
in the country challenged by
unified approach in preparing for a
improved.
depleted and damaged water
difficult future. Some of the specific
' Water pricing to pay for the
tables.
points are as follows:
various, necessary, costly sup-
Orange County natural water
• State Water Project infrastruc-
ply sources, under even the
storage differs dramatically
lure is extremely vulnerable
best -case scenarios, will rise
between its north and south
to catastrophic failures from
to levels never before seen.
reaches. South Orange Coun-
natural events in the Sacra-
In this water - scarce region,
ty has no groundwater basin,
mento -San Joaquin Delta
consumers are facing dire
making it almost wholly de-
and seismic events affecting
circumstances regardless of
pendent on imported supplies
other major water transmis-
population growth and hous-
from Metropolitan.
sion infrastructure. Having
ing construction.
The County's resources have
a two - out -of -three chance of
• Public awareness of water
allowed water managers to
drastic levee failures within
supply issues is far below
institute protocols to deal
25 years which could disable
acceptable levels and must be
with emergencies. Examples
the state's water supply for at
improved.
of effective working rela-
least two years is alarming.
• A number of innovative infra-
tionships have been demon-
• Scientists have projected the
structure projects and transfer
strated in associations such as
inevitable end to the Delta
WEROC. It would be a shame
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
to politically sever the County
very little, if any, expressed
F.3(b) The current dis-
water resources management
concern from the public in
agreement is a distraction
structure and make a unified
comparison to the numerous
from the greater good
working relationship all the
other environmental issues
of the agencies working
more difficult.
presented during develop-
toward Orange County's
In closing, the announcement
ment project reviews.
water future.
for the May 15, 2009, O.0 Water
Summit in Anaheim succinctly
F.2(a): Orange County's
F.3(c) The stakeholders
raises the level of urgency: "Most
citizens and interest
in LAFCo's study failed
business leaders and residents of
groups do not appear to
to meet their March 11,
Orange County have no idea that
grasp the seriousness of
2009 deadline for LAFCo's
the water crisis is this serious and
the water supply situa-
public hearing on this mat -
escalating." Specific actions are ur-
tion or the complexity and
ter. Continued delays are
gent. This investigation is intended
urgency of the necessary
unacceptable.
to offer several of them that will
solutions.
F,4: Orange County is
strengthen the County's condition.
F.2(b): Several recent,
uniquely fortunate to have
Findings
substantial water sup-
a vast, high - quality, well -
ply awareness efforts are
managed groundwater basin
In accordance with Califor-
underway (e.g. the O.C.
serving its north geographi-
nia Penal Code Sections 933
Water Summit) that show
cal area. However, in its
and 933.05, each finding will be
promise but appear target-
south reaches, it has an
responded to by the government
ed to audiences that are
equally large, high - growth
entity to which it is addressed. The
already informed.
area with virtually no avail -
responses are to be submitted to
able groundwater resources.
the Presiding Judge of the Supe-
F.3: LAFCo is the agency
rior Court. The 2008 -2009 Orange
charged with facilitating
FA(a): The difference in
County Grand Jury has arrived at
constructive changes in
groundwater availability
the following findings:
governmental structure to
creates a "haves versus
F.1: There is inadequate
promote efficient delivery of
have -nots" situation that
coordination between local
services. To this end, LAFCo
is conducive to inherent
land -use planning agencies
is conducting a governance
conflicts.
and local water supply agen-
study of MWDOC which is
ties, resulting in a process
the designated representa-
F.4(b): The difference in
that fails to fully engage the
tive for nearly all the Orange
groundwater availability
issues.
County retail water agen-
provides opportunities for
ties, acting on their behalf
responsible participants
F.1(a): Water agencies
with their surface water sup-
to develop and construct
have tended to avoid inter-
plier Metropolitan.
long -term solutions which
fering with or participating
will benefit the entire
in growth- management
F.3(a) There are a number
County.
decisions.
of points of governance
disagreement between
Responses to Findings F.1,
F.1(b): Cities and the
MWDOC and several of its
EI(a), EI(b), and E2, E2(a) and
County have tended to not
member agencies. This is
F.2(b) are required from the Board
critically evaluate the limi-
creating an impediment to
oLupervisors of County of
Orange.' the city councils of all cit-
tations of the water agen-
the on -going effectiveness
cies' supply projections.
of these agencies in critical
ies responsible for land-use plan -
aj=. Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea,
California's looming
areas of Orange County's
water er supply crisis receives
water supply management.
Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
Page 16 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Dana Point, Fountain Malley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Habra,
La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos,
Mission Viejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal
Beach, Stanton, 7Wstin, KIla Park,
Westminster and Yorba Linda; the
city councils and boards of direc-
tors of all retail water suopliere:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Malley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Board Qf
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County. the
Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District, and the
eity councils of the cities served
by Golden State Water Company:
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Finding F.3,
F.3(a), F.3(b) and F.3(c) are re-
quired from the Board of Directors
of the Municipal Water District of
Orange County: the city councils
and boards of directors of all Mu-
nieinal Water District of Orange
County member agencies: cities
of Brea, Buena Park, Fountain
Malley, Garden Grove, Hunting-
ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma,
Newport Beach, Orange, San
Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster, East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Orange
County LocalAgena Formation
Commission: the Clty Council of
the cities ofAnaheim. Fullerton
and Santa Ana: and theme coun-
cils of the cities served by Golden
State Water Comoany: cities of
Cypress, LosAlamilos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Finding E4,
F.4(a) and F.4(b) are required
from the Board of-Directors of the
Municipal Water District ofOr-
ange County: the Board of Direc-
tors pfthe Orange County Water
District" the city councils and
boards of directors of all Orange
County retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Malley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; and the city
councils of the cities served by
Golden State Water Company
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Recommendations
In accordance with Califor-
nia Penal Code Sections 933 and
933.05, each recommendation will
be responded to by the government
entity to which it is addressed. The
responses are to be submitted to
the Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court. Based on the findings, the
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand
Jury makes the following recom-
mendations:
R.1: Each Orange County
municipal planning agency,
in cooperation with its
respective water supply
agency, should prepare for
adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to
its General Plan in conjunc-
tion with a future update,
not to exceed June 30,
2010. This document should
include detailed implemen-
tation measures based on
objective -based policies that
match realistic projections
of the County's future water
supplies. These objectives,
policies and implementation
measures should address
imported supply constraints,
including catastrophic out-
ages and incorporate the re-
alistic availability and timing
of "new" water sources such
as desalination, contaminat-
ed groundwater reclamation
and surface water recycling.
(Findings F.1, F.1(a), F.1(b),
F2. F.2(a) and F.2(b))
R.2: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
agency should affirm its re-
sponsibility to develop new,
additional, innovative public
outreach programs, be-
yond water conservation
and rationing programs,
to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply
constraints facing Orange
County. The objective should
be to connect the public with
the problem. The outreach
effort should entail a water
emergency exercise that
simulates a complete, sud-
den break in imported water
deliveries. The exercise
should be aimed directly at
the public and enlist wide-
spread public participation
on a recurring basis begin-
ning by June 30, 2010. This
recommendation may be
satisfied by a multi- agency
exercise but the inability to
coordinate such an event
should not preclude the
individual agency's responsi-
bility. (Finding F.2, F.2(a) and
F.2(b))
R.3: Each MWDOC mem-
ber agency should reaffirm
to LAFCo that it will assign
the resources necessary to
expediently resolve regional
governance issues. While
the subject study is being
facilitated by LAFCo, the
options are with the agen-
cies to decide what is best
for all. Once conclusions are
reached, the parties need
to agree quickly and, hope-
fully, unanimously to adopt
a course of action. (Finding
F.3, F3(a), F3(b) and F.3(c))
RA: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
agency should affirm its
commitment to a fair -share
financial responsibility in
completing the emergency
water supply network for the
entire County. The entire
County should be prepared
together for any conditions
of drought, natural or hu-
man- caused disaster, or any
other catastrophic disruption.
WEROC should commence
meetings of all parties, to
facilitate consensus on an
equitable fundingifinancing
agreement. (Finding FA,
FA(a) and FA(b))
Responses to Recommendation
R.I are required from the Board
of Supervisors efthe County of
Oranee: the city councils of all cit-
ies responsible for land! use Lrlan-
nlnr: Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
Dana Point, Fountain Valley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Habra,
La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos,
Mission Viejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal
Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Vila Park,
Westminster and Yorba Linda; the
city councils and boards of direc-
tors of all retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San .fuan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Waterbistrict, 7}abueo
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Board Qf
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange Coun r Board
of Directors of the Orange Coun&
Water District and the ci(y coun-
cils of the cities served by Golden
State Water Company: cities of
Cypress, Los Alamitos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Recommenda-
tion R.2 are required from the
city councils and boards of direc-
tors of all retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster, East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Bold ofof
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County the
Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District: and the
city councils of the cities served
Qy Golden State Water Company_
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.3 are required from the Board of
Directors of the Municipal Water
District QfOrange County: the c _
councils and boards of directors
Page 18 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
gall Municipal Water District
gfOrange County member agen-
ci : cities of Brea, Buena Park,
Fountain Valley, Garden Grove,
Huntington Beach, La Habra,
La Palma, Newport Beach, Or-
ange, San Clemente, San Juan
Capistrano, Seal Beach, Tustin
and Westminster; East Orange
County Water District, El Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranch Water
District, Laguna Beach County
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Moulton Niguel
Water District, Santa Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
Trabuco Canyon Water District
and Yorba Linda Water District;
the Orange Cou&D! Local Agency
Formation Commission: the
gly-
councils efthe cities served by
Golden State Water ComQanv:
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.4 are required from the Board
of Directors of the Municipal Wa-
ter District of Orange County: the
Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District: the ci
councils and boards ofdirectars
of all Orange County retail water
suonliers: cities ofAnaheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Ful-
lerton, Garden Grove, Hunting-
ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma,
Newport Beach, Orange, San
Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin
and Westminster; East Orange
County Water District, El Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranch Water
District, Laguna Beach County
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Moulton Niguel
Water District, Santa Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
Tiabuco Canyon Water District
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
and Yorba Linda Water District:
and the city councils Qfthe cit-
ies served by Golden State Water
Cq=anv: cities of Cypress, Los
Alamitos, Placentia and Stanton.
Required Responses
The California Penal Code
specifies the required permis-
sible responses to the findings and
recommendations contained in the
report. The specific sections are as
follows:
§933.05
1. For purposes of Subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury finding, the respond-
ing person or entity shall indi-
cate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees
with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees
wholly or partially with the
finding, in which case the
response shall specify the
portion of the finding that is
disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons
therefore.
2. For purposes of subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury recommendation,
the responding person or entity
shall report one of the follow-
ing actions:
(1) The recommendation
has been implemented, with
a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has
not yet been implemented,
but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe
for implementation.
(3) The recommendation
requires further analysis, with
an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis
or study, and a timeframe for
the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or
head of the agency or de-
partment being investigated
or reviewed, including the
governing body of the public
agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed
six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will
not be implemented because
it is not wan-anted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation
therefore.
Page 19
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Table 1: Findings and Recommendations Matrix
CityffiManization/
Agency
Aliso Vie'o
F
1
•
F
2
IMIMME
•
F
3
F
4
R
1
•
R
2
R
3
R
4
Ci /O anization/A enc
Anaheim
F
1
now
F F
2 3
F
4
R
1
R
2
MINIM
R R
3 4
Anaheim
•
•
•
Brea
Brea
•
•
•
Buena Park
$1010
0
Buena Park
•
•
•
Fountain Valle
•
•
•
•
•
•
Costa Mesa
I Fullerton
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
Cytiress
•
•
•
Garden Grope
0101010
0
Dana Point
•
•
•
Huntington Beach
6161-10
0
Fountain Valley
•
•
•
La Habra
Fullerton
•
•
•
La Palma
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Garden Grove
•
•
•
Ne t Beach
Huntington Beach
•
•
•
Orange
Irvine
•
•
•
San Clemente
La Habra
•
•
•
San Juan Capistrano
La Palma
•
•
•
Santa Ana
La una Beach
•
•
•
Seal Beach
Laguna Hills
•
•
•
Tustin
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laguna Niguel
•
•
•
Westminster
Laguna Woods
•
•
•
Fast Orange Coun Water District
fake Forest
•
•
•
f7 Toro Water District
Los Alamitos
•
•
•
trine Ranch Water District
Nlission Viejo
•
•
•
Laguna Beach County Water District
Newport Beach
•
•
•
Nlesa Consolidated Water District
Orange
•
•
•
Moulton Niguel Water District
Placentia
•
•
•
Santa Mar arita Water District
Rancho Santa Margarita
•
•
•
Serrano Water District
•
•
•
•
'
San Clemente
•
•
•
South Coast Water District
San Juan Capistrano
•
•
•
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Santa Ana
•
•
•
Yorba Linda Water District
Seal Beacb
Stanton
•
•
•
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Tustin
•
•
•
Orange Coun Water District
Villa Park
Westminster
•
•
•
City ofCypress
Yorba Linda
•
•
•
-ji7ty of Los Alamitos
County of Orange
.
•
•
City of Placentia
Aof Stanton
OC Local Agency Formation Commission
Page 20 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Glossary of Terms
• Acre -foot: The amount of water that would fill a one -acre area to a depth of one foot (equivalent to
325,851 gallons)
• EIR: Environmental Impact Report
• LAFCo: Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
• Metropolitan: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• MSR: Municipal Services Review
• MWDOC: Municipal Water District of Orange County
• New Water: (1) A new source of potable water with or without a new pipeline delivering water from
outside the area; (2) Purified brackish or recycled water within the area that has been treated to drinking
water standards that would otherwise be discharged to waste
• Non -Point Source Pollution: Contaminated surface drainage water (runoff) of which the sources of
the pollution are so numerous that individual responsibility cannot be determined
• OCWD: Orange County Water District
• Paper Water: A term used to describe allocated water which an individual or agency is entitled to
receive, presuming that the water exists. Paper water differs from "wet water" in that paper water is
based on projections and expected deliveries.
• SB 221: California Government Code Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7. Requires identification of
adequate potable water supplies to serve most development projects over 500 dwelling units, using a
historical water record of at least 20 years.
• SB 610: California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, 10915 and 10657. Re-
quires a WSA for most development projects over 500 dwelling units
UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan
• Vested rights: A property owner's right to proceed with his development in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time of agency approval. A vested project is
generally immune from any new conditions that might otherwise have resulted between the date of ap-
proval and issuance of building permits had the project not received vesting status.
• WEROC: Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
• WSA: Water Supply Assessment
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
References
1. The Ranch Plan NCCP/MSAA/HCP Joint Programmatic EIR/EIS Growth Induc-
ing and Cumulative Impacts, Section 6, page 12
2. Beyond Chinatown, Steven P. Erie, Stanford University Press, 2006, page 230
3. Comparing Futures for the Sacramento — San Joaquin Delta, Jay Lund, et al, 2008,
pages 3 and 53
4. TheAmerican Southwest: Are We Running Dry?, video documentary, The Chroni-
cles Group, 2008
5. Scripps News, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, February 12, 2008
6. Water and Land Use, Planning Wisely for California's Future, Karen E. Johnson
and Jeff Loux, Solana Press Books, 2004, pages 16 and 66
7. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County,
adopted December 21, 2005, pages 105 and 178
Exhibits A, B, C, E -1, E -2 and G are used with permission of the Municipal Water Dis-
trict of Orange County,
Exhibit D is used with permission of the Orange County Water District.
Exhibit F is used with permission of the Delta Vision Foundation.
Page 22 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Attachment "B"
September 9, 2009
The Honorable Kim Dunning
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
RE: Response to the Grand Jury Report on "'Paper Water' — Does Orange County
Have A Reliable Future ?"
Honorable Judge Dunning:
This letter is submitted in response to the June 15, 2009 Grand Jury report entitled "'Paper
Water' — Does Orange County Have A Reliable Future ?" As mandated by Penal Code
Sections 933.05 (a) and (b), the following responses address the findings and
recommendations of the Grand Jury.
In accordance with the report, the City of Newport Beach was requested to respond to
Findings F.1, F.1 (a), F.1 (b), F.2, F.2 (a), F.2 (b), F.3, F.3 (a), F.3 (b), F.3(c), FA, FA (a)
and FA (b) and Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3 and RA. Our responses are provided
below:
GRAND JURY FINDINGS:
Finding F.1: There is inadequate coordination between local land -use planning agencies
and local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues.
Disagree.
The City of Newport Beach is a retail water supplier, with that function managed by the
City's Utilities Department. There is regular coordination between the Planning
Department and the Utilities Department with regard to long range planning such as the
General Plan as well as with regard to specific development projects. The City's Urban
Water Management Plan was used as a resource in preparation of a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and the EIR on that project in 2006. The City's Utilities
Department, as well as Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District,
which serve parts of Newport Beach, were consulted during preparation of the General
Plan EIR. Likewise, the appropriate water supplier is asked to prepare a water supply
assessment for each proposed development project with more than 500 dwelling units, as
required by SB 221 and SB 610. The Planning Department and the City's environmental
consultants review these reports and, if necessary, ask questions of the water suppliers
before the information is used in the project EIRs.
It is important to note that the responsibilities of cities include providing for the
development of new housing for a growing population, This is clear in the State's Housing
Element requirements and Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers that must be
included as goals in Housing Elements. Newport Beach has provided the water agencies
that serve our community with our adopted Housing Element to assist them with planning,
as required by State law. While the California Water Code provides that housing for lower
income households should be given priority in water supply, the reality is that few
affordable housing projects are developed without some kind of connection to the
development of market rate housing. Water agencies generally view their jobs as using
water resources more efficiently to accommodate growth, and this assists in meeting the
State's and cities' housing goals.
Nonetheless, the water conservation ordinance currently under consideration by the
Newport Beach City Council includes a provision that no new connections will be permitted
when water shortages reach Water Shortage Crisis (Mandatory >40% reduction) This is
regardless of whether land use approvals have been granted for development.
Finding 17.1(a): Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in
growth- management decisions.
Disagree.
The City of Newport Beach wouldn't characterize the participation of water agencies in
long -range planning or growth- management decisions as "interference." As described in
the response to Finding 1, water agencies that supply Newport Beach do participate in
local planning analyses and decisions.
Finding FA(b): Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations
of the water agencies' supply projections.
Agree.
The City's Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council rely on water
agencies as experts on water supply and delivery, just as they rely on archaeologists,
biologists, geologists, hydrologists, traffic engineers and others as experts in their fields.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) speaks to the weight of information and
testimony presented by qualified experts as opposed to opinions of non - experts. The
adequacy of an EIR could be challenged if the document differed from information
presented by the recognized expert, the water agency, without evidence from other
qualified parties.
The City of Newport Beach is aware of short-term water supply problems. Conservation
efforts in Newport Beach, as a result of mitigation measures on development projects and
voluntary actions by residents and businesses, have resulted in reductions in water use of
8% over the last fiscal year. The City will continue to require water conservation measures
in new development projects. However, the Planning Department is not qualified to
"second guess" the water agencies that serve our City with regard to long -term analysis
and the water agencies' progress in developing new sources of water and securing water
transfers. Likewise, the Utilities Department and Newport Beach's other water supply
agencies are constrained to use supply projections provided to them by regional suppliers.
Finding F.2: California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed
concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues
presented during development project reviews.
Agree.
CEQA charges planning agencies with presenting information on all potentially significant
environmental impacts of proposed projects. It is true that EIRs and other analyses of
development projects in Newport Beach include more detailed discussion on issues such
as traffic and noise than on water supply. The reason is that these are the issues that are
most often raised by our citizens in response to notices of preparation (NOPs) of EIRs and
in comments on Draft EIRs. CEQA requires that lead agencies in the environmental
review process address issues raised during the NOP process in EIRs, and respond to all
written comments received on Draft EIRs. Therefore, the issues of concern to our citizens
are those that receive the most discussion. This is not to say that water supply is ignored.
Potential impacts in this area are analyzed and discussed, and mitigation measures (such
as water conservation) are often imposed. If there are no public comments on this impact
area, the analysis and mitigations are considered adequate.
Perhaps water supply will become a greater concern in the future, in which case Newport
Beach will expand our discussion of this issue in development project reviews. Until that
occurs, it would not be appropriate or responsible for the City to suggest that significant
environmental impacts would occur when information from reliable sources (i.e., water
agencies) shows no evidence of such impacts.
Finding F.2(a): Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the
seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and urgency of the solutions.
Disagree partially.
The Newport Beach City Council has no information on which to comment or base a more
detailed response. It would be presumptuous to comment on what our citizens and
interest groups "grasp."
Water consumption has reduced over the past year within the City of Newport Beach,
providing evidence that citizens have taken notice of the water supply situation. The City
used nearly one thousand acre feet less water in fiscal year 08 -09 than the previous year.
Finding F.2(b): Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway
(e.g., the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that
are already well informed.
Agree.
Large regional efforts such as the O.C. Water Summit do target audiences that work in the
industry; however, these efforts seem to focus on keeping officials up to date and retaining
a consistent message.
The City utilizes various means of keeping Newport Beach customers informed about the
state of water supply in the City, such as website, bill stuffers, local and regional classes
related to conservation issues such as the children's education festival and public and
committee forums to discuss the proposed water conservation ordinance. All of the local
efforts show promise as well, and are targeting audiences that are not informed.
Finding F.3: LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitating constructive changes in
governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCO is
conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated representative for
nearly all of the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on their behalf with their
surface water supplier Metropolitan.
Agree.
The City agrees that LAFCO is the appropriate agency to conduct the study.
Finding F.3(a): There are a number of points of governance disagreement between
MWDOC and several of its member agencies. This is creating an impediment to the on-
going effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply
management.
Agree.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently.
Finding F.3(b): The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the
agencies working toward Orange County's water future.
Agree.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently.
Finding F.3(c): The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009
deadline for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable.
Agree.
Finding F.4: Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high - quality, well -
managed groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its south
reaches, it has an equally large, high - growth area with virtually no available groundwater
resources.
Agree.
The City recognizes that we are fortunate to have access to the groundwater basin and the
south areas have virtually no ground water source.
Finding FA(a): The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus have -
nots" situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts.
Agree.
Finding FA(b): The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for
responsible participants to develop and construct long -term solutions which will benefit the
entire County.
Disagree partially
The finding is not clearly stated, but appears to include two implications that Newport
Beach believes require expanded information. The first implication is that local resources
are not being fully developed in south Orange County. This is not correct. Critical
groundwater, recycled water and ocean water supplies are all being developed in south
Orange County. The second implication is that there is sufficient water supply in the
OCWD Groundwater Basin to supply south as well as north Orange County. The
groundwater basin is managed to provide water supplies to its overlying landowners. The
OCWD Act that formed OCWD governs how it manages the basin. Currently the basin
meets 62% of each member agency's supply. The capacity of the basin was developed at
a significant cost and it will never be able to supply 100% of the existing member agencies'
demands.
GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommendation R.1: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation
with its respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to
exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures
based on objective -based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future
water supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address
imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic
availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated
groundwater reclamation and surface water recycling. (Findings F.1(a) & (b), and F.2(a)
and (b))
This recommendation will not be implemented.
Implementing this recommendation would create a redundant, and possibly conflicting,
planning process to the existing Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) requirement of
the State Water Code. UWMPs already serve a long -range planning function for water
supply issues. They are required to include the very topics listed in this recommendation,
and are required be updated more frequently (5 years) than General Plans are suggested
to be updated (10 years).
Water planning is more appropriately and effectively done by water agencies than by
municipal government. If cities were to prepare Water Elements, they would have to rely
on the same projections of water supply as the water agencies do, and it is unclear what
additional benefit would be gained from Water Elements.
The preparation of Water Elements would be complicated, confusing and problematic.
Newport Beach is served by three water agencies: the City, Mesa Consolidated Water
District and Irvine Ranch Water District, and we would have to work with all three of these
water agencies in preparing a Water Element. If policies are not consistent among the
three water agencies, Newport Beach could be faced with writing a Water Element with
conflicting policies, while State law requires that General Plans be internally consistent.
Likewise, Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District would have to
work with multiple cities as they prepare their own Water Elements. The water agencies,
too, might be faced with trying to implement policies that vary from city to city — assuming
that cities' Water Elements would even have any mandatory impact on water agencies.
Water agencies are special districts under State law, and cities do not have jurisdiction to
set policy for them.
Only the State Legislature has the authority to establish General Plan requirements for
cities and counties. The Government Code establishes the seven mandatory elements of
General Plans: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
The conservation element is required to address the conservation, development and
utilization of natural resources including water, and the portion of the element dealing with
water must be developed in coordination with all agencies that have developed, served,
controlled or conserved water for the city.
Newport Beach has satisfied this requirement with the Natural Resources Element of our
General Plan, which includes discussion of both water supply and water quality. The City
Council has adopted two goals with respect to water supply, each with a set of policies and
implementation measures. The goals are as follows:
NR 1
Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.
NR 2
Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present
uses and future growth.
Requiring another General Plan element would constitute an unfunded government
mandate, at a time when cities and counties are struggling to meet other State
requirements while the State depletes city and county resources.
Recommendation R.2: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should
affirm its responsibility to develop new, additional, innovative public outreach programs,
beyond water conservation and rationing programs, to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply constraints facing Orange County. The objective should be to
connect the public with the problem. The outreach effort should entail a water emergency
exercise that simulates a complete, sudden break in imported water deliveries. The
exercise should be aimed directly at the public and enlist wide- spread public participation
on a recurring basis beginning by June 30, 2010. This recommendation may be satisfied
by a multi- agency exercise but the inability to coordinate such an event should not
preclude the individual agency's responsibility. (Findings F.2(a) and (b))
This recommendation will not be implemented.
Current efforts are underway locally and working with MWDOC to educate the public about
water supply issues not confined to just import supplies. The City of Newport Beach
receives its water supply from both import and local groundwater supplies. The proposed
water conservation and supply level regulation ordinance addresses water supply
shortages from a multitude of circumstances that could reduce water supply. Supply
shortage levels are built into the ordinance to address all supply issues not just import
supplies. The City participates in emergency planning and exercises with WEROC, as well
as emergency drills organized by the City and other government agencies that prepare us
for a variety of possible emergencies. These drills require a significant amount of staff time
and inter - agency organization, and it would not be practical to conduct County wide
exercise on water emergencies involving 80 -100 thousand residents.
Recommendation R.3: Each MWDOC member agency should reaffirm to LAFCO that it
will assign the resources necessary to expediently resolve regional governance issues.
While the subject study is being facilitated by LAFCO, the options are with the agencies to
decide what is best for all. Once conclusions are reached, the parties need to agree
quickly and, hopefully, unanimously to adopt a course of action. (Findings F.3(a), (b) and
(c))
This recommendation will be implemented.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently. The City of Newport
Beach will assign the resources necessary. Upon completion of the study by LAFCO,
where conclusions are reached, the City will respond in the required time frame set by
LAFCO or agreed timeframe by member agencies.
Recommendation RA Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should
affirm its commitment to a fair -share financial responsibility in completing the emergency
water supply network for the entire County. The entire County should be prepared
together for any conditions of drought, natural or human - caused disaster, or any other
catastrophic disruption. WEROC should commence meetings of all parties, to facilitate
consensus on an equitable funding/financing agreement. (Findings FA(a) and (b))
This recommendation is being implemented.
The City already participates with WEROC to annually plan and run emergency scenarios
to better prepare staff for emergency response on all levels. We have already spent our
fair share and we will continue to do so as appropriate for the activities and events and
how they relate to the City's functions and operations
The City is currently working with local agencies to study the emergency intertie water
connections and ability to assist each other in an emergency. The study will address
hydrology, water quality issues, and resources needed.
If you have any questions regarding this response please contact George Murdoch,
Utilities Director, at (949) 644 -3011 or gmurdoch(cDnewportbeachca.gov, or Sharon Wood,
Assistant City Manager at (949) 644 -3222 or swood _newportbeachca.gov.
Sincerely,
Edward Selich, Mayor
cc: Orange County Grand Jury
Water" — Does Orange County Have A Reliable Future?
Summary
"Paper water" is an illusion. It
is a term used in the water industry
that represents an entitlement, exist-
ing only on paper, which agencies
can expect to receive from state and
federal water projects based on pro-
jections and expectations. The gap
between allocated "paper water"
and available "real water" can be
dramatic. This term may succinctly
define Orange County's water
future as judicial rulings systemati-
cally continue to remove available
supplies from the reach of Orange
County's consumers.
The Grand Jury has learned
from multiple, expert sources that
Orange County's water supply is
very vulnerable to extended outages
from catastrophic disruptions and
other long -term system failures.
These are issues above and beyond
concerns of drought. Critical parts
of the water supply infrastructure
upon which much of California and
Orange County relies is in a deplor-
able state of disrepair and neglect.
The Grand Jury investigated
how Orange County's cities, water
districts, residents and businesses
are—or are not — planning for and
responding to a profound redistri-
bution of water supplies away from
Orange County, with the potential
of affecting its residents' quality of
life for generations.
The following excerpts from
this report highlight some significant
issues that led the Grand Jury to
reach conclusions from which it has
posed a series of key findings and
recommendations:
On the State Water Project...
"Predictions are for a 67%
chance of drastic levee failures
sometime during the next 25
years. In a seismic failure, sci-
entific models predict massive
areas of the Delta inundated
with a reverse flow of seawater
from the San Francisco Bay.
Fresh water in the Delta will
be rendered useless for agri-
cultural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would be
destroyed far two to four years,
or longer. "
On water from northern Califor-
ma....
"...for the first time in Metro-
politan's 80 year history, the
agency is projecting a sig-
nificant drawdown in its water
reserves.... Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rap-
idly depleted and the ability to
refill its reservoirs has become
increasingly problematic."
On water from the Colorado
River...
"The assumption that ...
we will continue to find new
sources of water ... is wrong.
Those days are over.... Every
source of water coming into
southern California from afar
... is increasingly unreliable."
On coordination of land -use
planning with water resources plan-
ning...
"... land planning and wa-
ter resources planning have
distinctly different, highly
complex parameters that drive
their technical analyses and
decision- making processes.
Attachment "A"
The unique complexities of
these professions tend to deter
either side from interacting
effectively."
On public awareness...
"...the residents of Orange
County do not seem to under-
stand the perilous conditions
within which they live. Orange
County water consumers have
not, to any significant degree,
experienced long- duration
water supply outages. The
public's consideration for
water supply typically starts
and stops at the faucet handle
as they expect, with every turn,
dependable delivery of high -
quality, safe, clean water."
On water reliability for south
Orange County...
"Approximately 95 percent of
south Orange County's water
is imported from northern
California and the Colorado
River and ... sent 35 miles to
south County via two, aging
pipelines, traversing active
seismic faults."
On emergency water supply
planning...
"The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately ... 10 percent of what is
needed. /The remainder] will
arrive when a planned arrap of
pump, pipeline, treatment and
reservoir projects is built ...
as well as (having] available
brackish and seawater puri-
fication systems ... for south
Orange County."
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury page 1
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
On Orange County's groundwa-
ter resources...
"Water experts ... univer-
sally praise the innovative and
effective methods by which
Orange County has protected
and managed its innate water
resources. In particular, its
groundwater aquifer is an in-
credibly rich natural resource
that is the envy of many areas
in the country challenged by
depleted and damaged water
tables. "
On the governance of Orange
County's fragmented, autonomous
water resources agencies...
"The MWDOC member
agencies need to resolve their
differences and dedicate
themselves to a unified vision,
whether it be continuing with
MWDOC under a modified
agreement or creating a new,
untied, County -wide water
authority."
This report offers several ways
to strengthen government processes
whereby the residents and decision
makers of Orange County will be
knowledgeable about the County's
water supplies. It also pinpoints
areas needing attention by water
agencies to become as prepared as
possible for any potential adverse
water supply event.
These issues are discussed more
fully in this report. It is important to
recognize that the Grand Jury found
all the agencies it contacted to be
performing their duties profession-
ally and with due diligence. This is
reassuring but it neither solves the
underlying problems nor absolves
the officials. More needs to be
done.
Reason for Investigation
News reports and alarming
warnings from knowledgeable wa-
ter officials throughout California
have raised serious concerns: (1)
Supply deficiencies are becoming
critical due to a prolonged drought.
(2) Court rulings intended to pro-
tect environmental impacts in the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and
redistribute water rights from the
Colorado River have forced drastic
supply cutbacks. (3) Water delivery
infrastructure is in a precarious and
deteriorating condition and subject
to severe damage in the event of
seismic and other natural forces.
The current, unusually severe
economic contraction affecting the
home - building market has slowed
population growth statewide. If
conditions were different, a more
controversial public policy debate
would likely be occurring over the
accuracy of adequate water supply
projections to serve these develop-
ments. This situation is in dramatic
contrast to major projects receiving
environmental approval even as re-
cently as within the past five years.
The Grand Jury reviewed
environmental and planning docu-
ments that were approved in 2004,
for 14,000 homes in southern
Orange County. Water supply for
this extensive, planned community
received virtually no overt concern
aside from a brief discussion to ad-
dress growth- inducement and emer-
gency outages within the supplying
water district's system.' No com-
ments on water supply were found
from any environmental agency, in
contrast to the project's extensive
debate over traffic /transportation
and flora/fauna impacts.
Accurate water supply projec-
tions are elusive at best and are
the reason we are in our current
situation. A "water emergency" is
a result of a complex interrelated
series of actions and conditions.
Conservation - and then rationing
- are the first steps in controlling
the situation. However, increased
demand is inherent in population
growth. Legislation was enacted
within the past eight years to in-
crease the responsible coordination
between approval of projects that
induce growth in population and
identification of water supplies to
support increased demand. Cali-
fornia Government Code Sections
66455.3 and 66473.7 requires iden-
tification of adequate potable water
supplies to serve a planned devel-
opment project based on at least 20
years of historical data. California
Water Code Sections 10631, 10656,
10910, 10911, 10912, 10915 and
10657 require Water Supply As-
sessments (WSA's.) These laws,
commonly referred to respectively
as SB 221 and SB 610, are viewed
by some as environmentalist - driven
mechanisms for curtailing growth.'
Other water experts involved
with the crafting of these bills
have indicated that the legislation
does not go far enough since only
projects over 500 dwelling units
are required to comply with these
laws. Regardless, these measures
have helped to place a greater im-
portance on responsible planning,
identifying dependable, long -term
water supplies preceding major
development approvals. This seems
not only reasonable but responsible.
The Grand Jury desired to assess
the following:
• whether and to what extent
the County's water supplies
are vulnerable to major dis-
ruption
• to what extent the residents
and decision makers are
aware of the County's water
supply conditions
• how the development project
Page 2 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
approval process is conducted
in Orange County with re-
spect to water supplies
what measures are being
taken by water managers
to ensure the integrity of
the County's water delivery
systems
how public awareness, the
project review process and the
County's water system integ-
rity may be strengthened
Method of Investigation
As part of this investigation, the
Grand Jury researched numerous
documents obtained from expert
sources and interviewed representa-
tives of numerous agencies. Agen-
cies and their staff consulted during
this study included the following:
• Major water retailers (water
districts and cities) both in
Orange County and adjacent
counties
• Water wholesalers such as the
Municipal Water District of
Orange County ( MWDOC)
• Groundwater purveyors both
inside Orange County and in
adjacent counties
• Local agency planning depart-
menu
• Renowned academic authori-
ties who have studied Califor-
nia's unique water resources
issues for decades.
The Grand Jury visited a
number of local facilities that have
demonstrated innovative means of
producing "new" water such as Or-
ange County Water District's (OC-
WD's) Groundwater Replenishment
System and Irvine Ranch Water
District's Deep Aquifer Treatment
System. It observed the state of
southern California's water supply
on a three -day inspection of the
immense State Water Project. This
system, along with the Colorado
River Aqueduct, conveys at least 50
percent of the water consumed by
Orange County. The study included
review of authoritative textbooks
and documentaries that provided an
overview of cur-
rent conditions as
they affect Orange
County, the region
and the nation.
From these inter-
views and investiga-
tions, a repetitive
pattern of concern
emerged over
many key issues.
They were seen to
threaten the avail-
ability of adequate
water supply to
support California's
growth.
reached reduced levels that are
worrisome. Diamond Valley Lake,
Metropolitan's newest reservoir
built to provide emergency stor-
age, is today less than one -half full.
Exhibit A
Orange County Water Supply Sources in FY 07 -0 8
State Water Metropolitan Cotendo Rhrer
Proiect Witter District
258,000 AF
0 AF In -Lieu
San Gabriel Basin
10.000 AF
MET Water to
Banner 5,000 AF
OCWD aasln
GrourMwater .
360.000 AF used
Incidental Recharge
46,000 AF (est.)
Background and Facts
Organizational Structure
Delivering Orange County 's
Water Supply
Orange County relies heavily
on imported water for its on -going
supply as well as much of its
groundwater storage replenishment
needs. Exhibit A depicts the sources
of supply and flow volumes. Im-
ported water from Metropolitan
Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia (Metropolitan) constitutes
over one half of Orange County's
supply.
Metropolitan pumps its supply
through aqueducts from the State
Water Project in northern Califor-
nia and through pipelines from the
Colorado River along California's
easterly border with Nevada and
Arizona. Persistent drought condi-
tions have compromised the State
Water Project's as well as the
Colorado River's supplies. Res-
ervoirs and dammed storage have
—IVAna River
00 AF
Ck.
(eat )
all Lxal ins 4 000 AF
d Witter
36,000
36.000 AF Irrigation. etc.
18,000 AF into GW Beam
Most of the immediate impact of
this has been seen in cutbacks for
agricultural uses and groundwater
replenishment. Added concerns
have arisen most recently over the
December 14, 2007 ruling by U.S.
District Court Judge Oliver W.
Wanger in what has become known
as the "Wanger Decision" (Case
No. 1:05 -cv -1207 OW W GSA)
which adversely affects the State
Water Project. The Colorado River
water allocations have also suffered
significant court decisions adverse
to southern California.
Exhibit B depicts how water is
distributed within Orange County.
MWDOC is the predominant
intermediary that buys imported
water from Metropolitan and sells
it to Orange County's retail water
agencies (cities and special dis-
tricts). Note that OCWD is a major
provider of groundwater only,
generally limited to the cities in the
north Orange County area.
Exhibit C demonstrates how
widespread MWDOC's influence is
200 8-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
nncooC
1opw,M l \'wtw
Exhibit B
in Orange County. MWDOC repre-
sents nearly every water agency in
Orange County on the Metropolitan
Board of Directors. However, three
cities (Anaheim, Fullerton and San-
ta Ana) are direct member agencies
to Metropolitan. MWDOC's role as
the wholesaler to every comer of
the County is an important facet of
this investigation.
Exhibit D (on the follow-
ing page) depicts the general
boundaries of the Orange County
groundwater basin administered by
OCWD. This water is accessible,
by law, only to cities and special
districts overlying the 350- square-
mile service area that serves 75
percent of the County's three
million residents. Typically, the
agencies with groundwater rights
draw approximately two-thirds of
their supplies from the groundwater
basin and purchase their remain-
ing demand from Metropolitan via
MWDOC. Three cities (Anaheim,
Fullerton and Santa Ana) purchase
their water from Metropolitan
directly.
,ource in Orange County's
SerVice Precarious Water Systems
• Orange County's water supplies,
tilulr \\ilW rt ujM from all imported sources, are in
aetl u�l0� {lull
great peril. Metropolitan has de-
veloped an extensive infrastructure
backbone to bring water to southern
California. It is the predominant
supplier of imported water to every
area within Orange County. These
supplies are completely dependent
on two primary, man-made convey-
ances: (1) the State Water Project
which taps the Sierra Nevada
mountain range snow melt in north-
em California and (2) the Colorado
River Aqueduct which intercepts
Exhibit C
IINIXYIMiw CpnaY
.w. wnttr..wix xaa vw. aw.r %+.d.y
e�
e
MWDOC Service Area
and Member Agencies
Page 4 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
fmOi,M,Y.•
'3
t ;
A
5
Exhibit D
runoff from the west slopes of the
Rocky Mountains, as far north as
Wyoming, via the Colorado River.
The current water supply situa-
tion in Metropolitan's service area
and throughout the state of Califor-
nia is critically tenuous and signals
2007 -2009 as one of California's
most severely -dry three -year
periods in over 100 years. In ad-
dition to the lack of precipitation
in early 2008, the following warm
spring season resulted in early
depletion of the mountain snow-
pack. This is considered the largest
"reservoir" for California's water
supply to see the state through
the ensuing seasons. Without a
substantial snowpack leading into
spring, California must rely on its
man-made reservoirs and stored
groundwater to survive the dry
seasons. Even though 2009 snow
pack achieved 80 percent of normal
volume, it cannot overcome the
depletion caused by the two, previ-
ous, record -low years, especially
when hobbled by the court- enacted
pumping restrictions. Until now,
consumers' conservation efforts,
combined with water manag-
ers' programs to install low -flow
fixtures, agricultural usage cutbacks
and other restrictions, have been
effective in substantially reducing
consumer demand. Unfortunately,
this has finally fallen short and
local water agencies are predicting
a 50% likelihood of embarking on
water rationing as summer 2009
approaches. In fact, several agen-
cies have already instituted the
first stages of rationing as a result
of Metropolitan's adopted Water
Supply Allocation Plan which takes
effect July 1, 2009.
The 2008 -2009 Grand Jury is
extremely concerned that residents,
planners and decision makers
in Orange County are not doing
enough to recognize and publicize
the perilous condition of our water
supplies. They are not giving this
issue adequate consideration in the
process of approving plans for the
growth of Orange County.
The State Water Project
Metropolitan, on average, does
not have sufficient water supplies
to meet demands. Watersheds are
currently providing 650 thousand
acre -feet (about 212 billion gallons)
lower than normal runoff due to
reduced rainfall and snowpack. The
Wanger Decision ordered the State
Water Project to reduce pumping
from the Sacramento -San Joa-
quin River Delta due to identified,
adverse environmental impacts on
a threatened fish species, the Delta
smelt. In April, 2008, Judge Wanger
issued a second ruling, further
cutting water exports to protect the
declining populations of Chinook
salmon'
Judge Wanger's rulings resulted
in Metropolitan curtailing delivery
of 500 thousand acre-feet (about
163 billion gallons) of water from
northern California in 2008. These
lost resources would have pro-
vided water for over seven million
Californians for a year. As a result,
for the first time in Metropolitan's
80 -year history, the agency is
projecting a significant drawdown
in its water reserves. Before the
Wanger Decision, projections were
for surplus conditions 70 percent of
the time and reserve drawdowns re-
quired 30 percent of the time. Now,
this projection is reversed with
surplus conditions expected 30 per-
cent of the time and drawdowns 70
percent of the time. Metropolitan's
water reserves are being rapidly
depleted and the ability to refill its
reservoirs has become increasingly
problematic.
200 8-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Located in California's Butte
County, Lake Oroville is the
farthest upper reach of the State
Water Project. Exhibits E -I and E -2
provide a startling contrast of the
drastic changes that had occurred in
fewer than three years. In Febru-
ary 2009, Oroville Dam's storage
was at 30 percent of its capacity.
Because of near- average precipi-
tation this year, the reservoir has
recovered to nearly 60 percent of its
capacity. But even with some gains
in rainfall and snowpack in 2009,
conditions are still below normal
and the drought continues to stifle
the buildup of reserves.
No State Water Project water
delivered to southern California
and Orange County arrives with-
out traversing the Sacramento-San
Exhibit E -1
Joaquin Delta (Exhibit F, on the
following page). The Delta is a
convergence of five major rivers
in the Central Valley which have
been tamed by mining and agricul-
tural operations dating back to the
mid -19th century. This was accom-
plished by building what is now an
1,100 -mile "spider web" of pre-
dominantly privately owned, non -
engineered, earthen levees. From its
accumulated data, Metropolitan has
asserted the following with regard
to the Delta:
• There have been at least 166
documented levee failures
over the last 109 years, caus-
ing geotechnical experts to
describe the situation in a
rather cynical manner: There
are two types of levees in
the Delta. There are those
Exhibit E -2
hY..rr + +W •,1.M M�fY�a, ,�,i.OL Y.••w,
that have failed and there are
those that will fail.
• Predictions are for a 67%
chance of drastic levee
failures sometime during the
next 25 years. Most likely,
the failures will be associated
with either a 6.7 or greater
magnitude seismic event,
severe earth subsidence or a
100 -year intensity flood.
• In a seismic failure, scientific
models predict massive areas
of the Delta inundated with a
reverse flow of seawater from
the San Francisco Bay. Fresh
water in the Delta will be
rendered useless for agricul-
tural irrigation. Moreover,
the drinking water supply to
southern California would
be destroyed for two to four
years, or longer.
• The potential for calamity has
been recognized by recent
Legislature budget discus-
sions. It also has received a
high priority with the Gover-
nor when he created the "Blue
Ribbon Task Force" that led
to the 2007 Delta Vision
report. However, action for
urgent, preemptive levee res-
torations has not materialized.
Even without a catastrophic
incident, experts are forewarning
of major, long -range degradation
of the Delta ecosystem. California
needs to prepare for the inevitable
end of the Delta's role as a massive
drinking water conveyance as its
salinity increases to non - potable,
brackish levels?
The Colorado River Aqueduct
The original allocations of
Colorado River water to the south-
western states and Mexico were
sealed by the 1922 Colorado River
Compact and the Boulder Canyon
Page 6 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Exhibit F
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Map of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh
Project Act of 1928. In retrospect,
water planners today recognize that
those allocations were based on
overly optimistic assumptions. The
historical hydrographic data of that
time was unusually wet. Also, the
population projections for all the
now clearly- identified high - growth
areas of the southwestern states,
and southern California in particu-
lar, were notoriously short Sighted.'
Two critical forces have created
major problems for the viability of
the Colorado River: (1) The Colora-
do River Basin at Lake Powell has
been suffering from severe drought
conditions since October 1999. (2)
The 2003 Colorado River Quan-
tification Settlement Agreement,
involving Metropolitan, San Diego
County Water Authority, Coachella
Valley Water District, Imperial
Irrigation District and numerous
other federal, state and regional
agencies and interest groups have
redistributed the available water
within southern California. Deliver-
ies to Metropolitan are down some
400,000 acre -feet (130 billion gal-
lons) as a result.
Considering the plight of our
Colorado River allocation, Dr. Peter
Gleick, President of the Pacific
Institute, in 2008, observed the
following: "The assumption that
southern California can grow as
much as it wants and that we will
continue to find new sources of
water ... is wrong. Those days are
over.... Every source of water
coming into southern California
from afar ... is increasingly unreli-
able."'
Researchers have posed the con-
cern whether the Colorado River,
which provides up to three- fourths
of Metropolitan's supply, will
cease to be a viable water source
within the next 20 years. Recently,
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar of Colorado, when he was
a Senate member of the Energy &
Natural Resources Commission,
asserted that water in the United
States has always been taken for
granted. As a result, as might be
expected, the only time people
understand the importance of water
is when they don't have it. In sum-
mary, experts have sent this warn-
ing: "The water crisis is much more
significant to the world than is the
energy crisis... Try living without
water ... it doesn't work. "4
The following is a synopsis of
comments uncovered by the Grand
Jury in the context of the future of
the Colorado River:
Mark Pisano, past Executive
Director of the Southern Cali-
fornia Association of Govern-
ments, in the context of water
supplies, predicted the fol-
lowing: "We're going to grow
differently in this century than
we did in the past century....
[L]arge regions are going to
200 8-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
"Paper Water" —Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
have to be much more sensi-
tive to what supports them en-
vironmentally so that they're
sustainable ... and if they're
not sensitive to [this] they're
going to have real difficulty. "4
Secretary Salazar stated that,
in communities where there
is not a dependable, long-
term source of water, there
will be "... an explosion of
controversy because land -use
planners have not done what
they should have done. "4
Scripps Institution of Ocean-
ography researchers Tim Bar-
nett and David Pierce, wrote a
paper, When wiff Lake Mead
go dry?, that was accepted
for publication in the journal
Water Resources Research,
by the American Geophysical
Union. They concluded that,
because of allocation de-
mand, aggravated by climate
changes, the reservoirs on
the Colorado River system
will never fill again. They
further predicted that there is
a 50- percent probability Lake
Mead will be dry by 2021.
Barnett stated that they "...
were stunned at the magnitude
of the problem and how fast it
was coming at us.... Make no
mistake, this water problem
is not a scientific abstraction,
but rather one that will impact
each and every one of us that
live in the Southwest 115
Environmental Consequences
One internationally acclaimed
water resources expert has experi-
enced and analyzed the effects of
severe water shortages worldwide.
He offered what he considers to be
one of the earliest signs and one of
the most tragic long -term, dam-
aging outcomes that occur when
regions are faced with water crises.
Specifically, where water supplies
are chronically unable to meet
demand in spite of all conserva-
tion, rationing and similar cutbacks,
essential surface flows begin to
drain from environmentally sensi-
tive habitats. Wetlands areas begin
to desiccate and degrade. Ground-
water basin overdrafting creates
irreversible geological subsidence,
permanently damaging the basin's
ability to recover. If water supply
desperation reaches those levels,
fundamental changes in that aspect
of the ecosystem could occur.
Land -Use Planning and a Crisis -
Oriented Public
How do California's statewide
water supply issues directly affect
Orange County? The Grand Jury
found that there are two, equally
important points. First, long -range
water resources planning takes a
major degree of innovation and
creativity to establish dependable
sources of diversified supply. This
includes bringing "new" water
to serve new homeowners in the
growth areas, and the industry
and commerce that sustains them.
It also requires a degree of good
data analysis to accurately project
hydrologic and climatologic data
decades into the future.
Second, the water resource
agencies, the land -use planning
agencies and the consumers all
need to be equally focused on the
possibility of major supply outages
to which the County is vulner-
able. The Grand Jury found that
the water agencies and, in fact,
the water industry as a whole, are
keenly aware of the inadequacies
and potentially disastrous circum-
stances California faces. The sense
of urgency could not be higher. But,
it seems that gaining the attention
of a crisis - oriented public is a dif-
ferent story.
The Grand Jury found that
planning agencies dealt with these
concerns very differently. In fact,
water issues seem to be of no more
consequence than a noise impact
study or a traffic impact analysis.
Water resource issues in Orange
County demand more than a check
box on the environmental review
form. Based on what was observed
in this investigation, this has not
been the case.
Johnson and Loux described
this issue as a "black box" phenom-
enon6 wherein the professions of
land planning and water resources
planning have distinctly differ-
ent, highly complex parameters
that drive their technical analyses
and decision - making processes.
The unique complexities of these
professions tend to deter either side
from interacting effectively.
Adding to the professionals'
difficulties, the residents of Orange
County do not seem to understand
the perilous conditions within
which they live. Orange County
water consumers have not, to any
significant degree, experienced
long- duration water supply out-
ages. The public's consideration for
water supply typically starts and
stops at the faucet handle as they
expect, with every turn, dependable
delivery of high - quality, safe, clean
water.
The perception that water sup-
plies are taken for granted is an
understatement. Water agencies'
conservation messages are suc-
cessfully making consumers more
aware of their responsibility to
conserve water resources. But, this
is merely a fraction of the larger,
more compelling issue. Conserva-
tion happens after the problem has
been identified. Consumers need
to be cognizant of the impacts of
Page 8 200 8-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
development and the need for deci-
sions before land -use decisions are
made.
Case Studies
The Grand Jury interviewed key
staff and studied voluminous public
records of land -use applications and
environmental reviews pertaining
to several, recent, major develop-
ment proposals in various areas of
the County. In each case, the entire
land -use decision - making process
as it relates to water resources, one
of the County's most precious and
precarious commodities, was found
to be very disappointing. When
analyses were required, land -use
and development decision makers
deferred to the water agencies to
solve the water issues. Typically,
the input came via a WSA, after
which it quickly disappeared from
the public dialogue. Public input to
express any shred of concern for —
or to even question-4he long -term
viability of potable water resources
was conspicuous by its absence. If
not relegated to a separate volume
of appendices, the water supply
reports were found buried hundreds
of pages behind other, more "vis-
ible," issues raised by vocal constit-
uents, never to be heard from again
in the public process.
In these case studies, the Grand
Jury could find little, if any, ex-
pressed concern from any person
or responsible agency. This begged
the question as to whether the
public process is flawed in light of
the gravity of our water resources
predicament. It also substantiated
the inference that, aside from the
caveats involved, "...the duty to
serve is often viewed as the first,
foremost, and perhaps only mission
of a water - purveying agency.`
Case Study #I: County of
Orange - Rancho Mission Viejo
(The Ranch Plan) Development
The Rancho Mission Viejo
development (known as "The
Ranch Plan") is in south Orange
County. The County of Orange
processed this development over
a several -year period, culminat-
ing in its adoption by the Board of
Supervisors in 2004. This master
planned 22,000 acres of land with
7,700 acres designated for 14,000
dwelling units. Other significant
elements were established with 130
acres for urban activity centers, 258
acres for business parks, 39 acres
for neighborhood retail centers,
five golf courses and a 1,079 -acre
regional park.
The Ranch Plan Program Envi-
ronmental Impact Report (EIR) and
General Plan Amendment, prepared
in 2003, presented exhaustingly
detailed analyses of, among other
particulars, watershed runoff water
quality, traffic circulation impacts
and endangered flora and fauna
protection. Mention of emergency
water storage and concern for
temporary water disruption via the
imported water connections were
limited to a single paragraph. Aside
from that outdated discussion, no
mention was found of how reliable
water supplies would be ensured.
Indeed, there was a WSA prepared
by Santa Margarita Water District
which also fully complied with SB
221 and SB 610 but the Grand Jury
found no substantive discussion
from its review of the following
EIR sections:
• Executive Summary: Refer-
ences were made to "areas of
controversy" voiced during
public comments at scoping
meetings. No water supply
concerns were considered
worthy of any mention.
• Growth Inducing Impacts:
Over a dozen, nearby, devel-
opment - related, potentially
growth- inducing projects
were discussed, each making
no mention of water supply
concerns.
• Water Resources: This per-
tained primarily to surface
water quality and runoff
hydrology, with absolutely no
discussion of potable water
resources.
There was seemingly no con-
cern for water supply scenarios that
could leave 14,000 homes without
water. Indeed, the following EIR
excerpt clearly established the
priorities: "Due to the nature of the
project, potential impacts to bio-
logical resources, hydrologic condi-
tions and [runoff] water quality are
of primary concern."
The EIR process solicited com-
ments not only from the public but
also via the State Clearinghouse
from every agency and environ-
mental group in the state. There
were records of interminable (albeit
important) discussions and debates
over such issues as traffic and en-
dangered species but potable water
supply was a non- issue. It was not
even deemed to be of enough rel-
evance to be mentioned in the 2004
staff report when the project was
presented to the Board of Supervi-
sors.
The aforementioned 2003 WSA
was appended to The Ranch Plan.
It was a comprehensively written
document that assessed California's
water future. The WSA provided
the required numerical justification
for 25 years of water to this area,
based on a series of assumptions
that have long since been supersed-
ed by changed conditions. The nu-
merous, crucial effects over just the
past few years have great potential
to derail many of the critical deci-
sions made in the recently adopted
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
plan. The Grand Jury's view on the
state of affairs is that a six -year-
old water planning document, with
a 25 -year projection upon which
permanent development is hinged,
leaves much to be desired. It makes
no sense to have so little attention
paid to a natural resource with such
a profound impact.
Despite all this, the 2003 WSA
was apparently enough for the deci-
sion makers and the public. Despite
the fact that this development will
take place in a water - deficient area
of the County that relies virtually
entirely on imported supplies from
Metropolitan, the Grand Jury could
find not one comment at all from
the general public, let alone any
expression of concern during the
public review period. The agencies
have argued that the absence of
comment is not necessarily indica-
tive of a lack of concern but rather
a recognition that all issues were
addressed. The Grand Jury, for
all the reasons cited in this report,
has found otherwise and that there
should be concern.
Clearly, the agencies process-
ing The Ranch Plan followed the
mandatory processes to determine
adequate water supplies, using es-
tablished procedures and their best
efforts to provide professional data
to decision makers. Nonetheless,
the glaring point of this investiga-
tion is that there is a serious discon-
nect in the process where critical
data are presented seemingly as
footnotes and decisions are made
in a manner that masks the situa-
tion from public awareness. This
was certainly not found to have
been done intentionally but rather
was the inevitable byproduct of the
sheer volume and complexity of the
documents.
Typically, it is safe to presume
that anyone lacking an engineer-
ing degree is challenged in com-
prehending the complex technical
analyses of water supply issues and
the concomitant impacts of various
adverse scenarios. The tendency is
to accept WSAs on face value and
not challenge the caveats and quali-
fying statements that render these
assessments tentative at best. WSAs
providing 20 to 25 -year projections
on land uses that can be expected
to be in place for at least 100 years
can encounter dramatic changes.
The 2003 WSA for The Ranch Plan
was prepared long before several
major changes were made that af-
fect the dependability of water sup-
plies to southern California. There
should be, at least, a mitigation and
monitoring reporting requirement
in the Plan. Optimally, the question
about an update to the WSA should
be raised now, not later when
specific project development permit
applications are submitted. At that
point, developers, in the heat of fi-
nancing time constraints, will be in
no mood to deal with the obstacles
of additional engineering analyses;
rather, they will do whatever it
takes to demand that their project
approvals be granted.
Case Study #2: City of Orange –
Santiago Hills II and East
Orange Areas Planned
Community Development
In a very similar fashion to
south Orange County, the central
Orange County city of Orange, is
facilitating aggressive expansion
within its Sphere of Influence east
and south of the Peters Canyon
region of the Irvine Ranch.
The development agreement for
this area provided vested rights to
development to the Irvine Com-
pany in 2005 for approximately
4,000 dwelling units. Irvine Ranch
Water District (the designated water
purveyor for this area) provided a
series of "Water Supply Verifica-
tions" subsequent to this agreement
to carry the project for 20 years.
While the water supply veri-
fications conclude that sufficient
supplies are available pursuant to
state law, it is interesting to as-
sess the methodologies, caveats
and disclaimers accompanying the
certification sheet. In particular, the
water supplier affirms that it "...
does not allocate particular supplies
to any project, but identifies total
supplies for its service area." It
would be safe to conclude that both
the land planners and the water
providers were satisfied that their
requirements had been met and, in
fact, Irvine Ranch Water District
officials have subsequently empha-
sized that this is the case and that
sufficient supplies are available.
Although no documents were found
to evidence their discussions, the
officials have also emphasized that
the agencies have had a dialog re-
garding the conditions under which
the water supplies would be of-
fered and District staff testified on
pertinent issues at the City Council
public hearings.
As with the The Ranch Plan,
the decisions on this major project
establish commitments far beyond
the planning horizon. It is unclear
how a developer's vested rights
may prevail over any changes in the
WSA over time.
Case Study #3: City of Brea -
Canyon Crest Development
In north Orange County, the city
of Brea, in 2009, approved (subject
to appeal) the development of 165
homes on 367 acres of hillside pas-
ture and open space surrounded by
Chino Hills State Park, near Carbon
Canyon Road.
As would be expected, the
project environmental review
Page 10 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
extensively evaluated the woodland
habitat and wildlife corridors. An
elaborate and extensive monitoring
and mitigation program was devel-
oped for the oak - walnut woodland
habitat. Because the size of this
project fell short of the trigger
points for SB 221 and SB 610, no
WSA was required. In fact, the EIR
concludes specifically that "[n]o
impact will result from the Project
involving the acquisition of new or
expansion of existing water supply
entitlements or resources." This
was the only mention found con-
cerning water supply by either the
environmental consultant or by any
person, agency or group concerned
with the impacts of this project.
Admittedly, this single proj-
ect would have a nominal annual
demand of perhaps 100 acre -feet
(about 33 million gallons), on
the County's water supply, which
would add about one percent to
Brea's annual demand. But, it is
indicative of how the cumulative
impacts of such projects can incre-
mentally affect the overall supply.
Steps Toward Understanding
A better interface between land -
use planners and water planners
has evolved over the years with the
assistance of the State Legislature.
Since the 1983 adoption of the
Urban Water Management Plan -
ning Act (California Water Code
Section 10610 et seq), California
has required each water purveyor
to prepare and submit, every five
years, an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). This is a founda-
tional document and a source of
information for long -range water
planning. Cities and counties are
required to use these documents
when preparing their General Plans.
The UWMP, while important,
is a fairly general planning docu-
ment. It was not until 2001 (after
most of Orange County already
had been developed) that the State
seriously acknowledged that water
supply and local land -use devel-
opment planning are inextricably
intertwined. The California Legis-
lature's SB 221 and SB 610 exem-
plify this need for an administrative
record in the environmental docu-
ments. These laws only apply to
large projects and, according to one
expert in the water environmental
field, do "... little more than raise
awareness."
Also in 2001, the Legislature
passed the Integrated Regional
Water Management Planning
(IRWMP) Act, which allows a re-
gional water management group to
prepare and adopt an IRWMP that
encourages local agencies to work
cooperatively in managing their
entire array of water resources for
beneficial use.
Innovative Solutions to Long -
Term Supply Shortages and the
State of Orange County's Water
Resources
Some experts in the academic
and industrial communities con-
sider that California's water crises
can be avoided by a concerted
effort on four fronts: (1) improving
water use efficiencies through con-
servation, water- saving appliances
and technological advances (e.g.
"smart" irrigation timers); (2) ad-
vancing innovative water recycling
and reuse strategies; (3) improving
storm water runoff capture, storage
and groundwater recharge; and (4)
securing water transfer agreements
between agencies to effectively
balance supply and demand. The
Grand Jury found that Orange
County water agencies are, in many
cases, setting the example of best
practices through sophisticated ap-
plications on each of these fronts.
In addition, concerted public /pri-
vate efforts are underway to build
at least two major seawater desali-
nation plants in Orange County.
Combined with a third desalina-
tion plant near Camp Pendleton,
planned jointly with the San Diego
County Water Authority, coastal
desalination projects will supply up
to 140,000 acre -feet (45.6 billion
gallons) per year of new water.
Orange County water agencies
are pursuing long -term water trans-
fers outside the County boundar-
ies. An agreement with the South
Feather Water and Power Agency
in northern California was being
negotiated to bring up to 10,000
acre -feet (about 3.3 billion gallons)
per year to Orange County.' While
this project now appears unlikely
to be consummated, there are other,
similar efforts underway that are
considered to be more viable.
Santa Margarita Water District's
transfer agreement with Cucamon-
ga Valley Water District also rep-
resents individual agency attempts
to secure firm water contracts. In
this case, 4,250 acre -feet (about 1.4
billion gallons) per year would be
allocated to Orange County from
surplus water in an entirely separate
groundwater basin. This basin re-
sides within Metropolitan's service
area, which helps to facilitate the
actual water transfer.
Irvine Ranch Water District is 1
developing a water banking pro-
gram in partnership with the central
valley Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water
Storage District near Bakersfield
in Kern County. This arrangement
will provide up to 17,500 acre -feet
(5.7 billion gallons) per year from
groundwater recharge and recovery
facilities, along with expanding
the Cross Valley Canal to transfer
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury page 11
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
stored water to the Irvine Ranch
facilities
The Grand Jury was particu-
larly impressed with the OCWD's
Ground Water Replenishment
System (GWRS) established in
conjunction with its adjacent waste-
water treatment agency, the Orange
County Sanitation District. The
Grand Jury witnessed the GWRS
while in operation, delivering
72,000 acre -feet (about 23.5 billion
gallons) per year of ultra -pure water
for direct, potable reuse via 1,600
acres of percolation basins in north
Orange County. This is about 10
to 14% of total basin demand and
production is expected to expand to
100,000 acre-feet (32.6 billion gal-
lons) per year within the next three
years.
The 2003 -2004 Orange County
Grand Jury also recognized the
GWRS while it was still in its
implementation stages. This unique
project is the largest of its kind
in the world. It exemplifies how
technology is providing innovative
solutions to environmental prob-
lems and insight to our future.
The capital cost of the GWRS
system was approximately $500
million. While immensely expen-
sive to build and operate, federal
and state grants and subsidies have
reduced the unit cost of the product
water to approximately $650 per
acre-foot. Since imported Metro-
politan water is anticipated to pass
$700 per acre -foot this summer, the
break -even point may be imminent.
As water becomes increasingly
scarce and prices rise accordingly,
recycled wastewater systems, even
those meeting stringent human
consumption requirements, are
anticipated to become more com-
petitively cost effective.
All these innovative programs
are admirable but they do not solve
the problem. Shortfalls from the
State Water Project and the Colora-
do River of the magnitudes cited by
Metropolitan and others cannot be
made up by these relatively limited
efforts.
Response to Catastrophic Supply
Interruptions
Regional shortages: The most
serious water supply concerns af-
fecting Orange County lie outside
its boundaries. Metropolitan has
elaborate response plans and infra-
structure in place to deal with sup-
ply curtailments; the most recent
notable example is its Diamond
Valley Lake near Hemet. This is an
800 - thousand acre-foot (260 billion
gallons) reservoir, of which about
one -half is reserved for catastrophic
emergencies. Completed in 1999,
Diamond Valley took four years
to fill with a six -month emergency
water supply and is considered the
most important achievement in pro-
tecting southern California against
a State Water Project system out-
age.
County-wide shortages: If
circumstances dictate that Orange
County is forced into being self -
sufficient for an extended period,
how will it survive? Orange County
water managers have been diligent
in preparing to overcome worst -
case water delivery interruption
scenarios. In times of dire need, be-
ing able to instantly re -route water
from the north County groundwater
basin, to the south County supply
lines, through pre - established pipe-
line routes, is crucial.
Beginning in 1983, the Orange
County water agencies developed
a Water Supply Emergenev Pre-
paredness Plan, jointly funded
by MWDOC and OCWD, and
supported by the Orange County
Water Association. This eventually
resulted in the formation of the Wa-
ter Emergency Response Organiza-
tion of Orange County (WEROC),
a single point of coordination for
every conceivable type of acute,
water - related disaster in Orange
County.
Approximately 95 percent of
south Orange County's water is
imported from northern California
and the Colorado River and de-
livered to Metropolitan filtration
plants in north Orange County
before it is sent 35 miles to south
County via two aging pipelines
traversing active seismic faults.
The Orange County Water System
Reliability Study, along with the
South Orange County Water Relt-
ability Study established an array of
project remedies to address specific
threats to water transmission and
distribution infrastructure through-
out Orange County and, in particu-
lar, south Orange County, in times
of long -term crisis. On August 15,
2001, and again on April 23, 2003,
MWDOC and OCWD adopted a
Memorandum of Understanding
to accomplish among other objec-
tives, an on -going implementation
monitoring effort to help facilitate
the various agencies involved in
completing these projects.
The current emergency relief
through Orange County water
reliability planning is approxi-
mately 3,000 acre-feet (about 1
billion gallons) from an emergency
connection to Irvine Ranch Water
District's Dyer Road well field
in Santa Ana. This provides only
about 10 percent of what is needed.
The other 27,000 acre -feet (about
9 billion gallons) will arrive when
a planned array of pump, pipeline,
treatment and reservoir projects is
built. These projects will be able
to transfer and store emergency
potable water as well as have avail-
Page 12 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
lMma ^FP ��. Fl
m
;��3 bmw LeaMSWage
NIP OM(:
<•1•nY,lbb
I-�
�S FS&IIN ALN,
SLf -EWF01 hbM1e
t� Y emparc„m,a u.uai
aammmmi,enm,erna. Anl a�.l•:,
aN CEW aaaem�m
S.§,p R, WTP kasm,b� ape
GW Ernpmry Smeu�eµmmE,
oaan 0.,N
[m,W pp9ne15JCWA
Exhibit G
able brackish and seawater purifica-
tion systems to create "new" water
for south Orange County. These
projects are depicted in Exhibit G.
These projects vary signifi-
cantly in their planning, design and
construction complexities as well
as in their funding requirements.
Completion of the entire system
is not expected until at least 2015.
Once completed, the projects will
serve daily needs while being ready
to deliver emergency reserves if the
supply network becomes disrupted
at any point.
rA
Dm, cam
a<m
N- 1In,um
0
o � mmo
i
u�waww uc na.arvnb
C,mp RnEiam
hiM MNDOG5DCW1
Q<m Cea,Lnean Glnl
•SCE SOMGS
Emerging self - sufficiency
management strategies: Several
efforts have commenced to maxi-
mize the ability of Orange County
to be self - sustaining, especially in
times of crisis. The most compre-
hensive planning underway was
begun in 2000, headed by the OC
Watersheds Division of OC Public
Works. It consolidates efforts in ur-
ban runoff watershed management
and regional water resources plan-
ning strategies. A comprehensive
approach is underway, addressing
the County's 13 watersheds with
several objectives:
• Protect communities from
drought
• Enhance local water supply
and system reliability
• Ensure continued water
security
• Optimize watershed and
coastal resources
• Improve watershed water
quality
• Safeguard endangered species
habitat
Nearly 100 projects have been
identified that encompass, among
other facets, the following:
• Water supply reliability, water
conservation and water use
efficiency
• Storm water capture, storage,
treatment and management
• Creation and enhancement
of wetlands and acquisition,
protection, and restoration
of open space and watershed
lands
• Non -point source pollution
reduction, management and
monitoring
• Groundwater recharge and
management
• Water banking, water ex-
change, water reclamation,
desalting, and other treatment
technologies
Disaster Planning: In Novem-
ber, 2008, the entire County of
Orange participated in an exercise
dubbed "Golden Guardian," based
on a Richter Scale magnitude 7.8
seismic event. Part of this exercise
was to include dealing with the ex-
pected effects of disrupted local and
County-wide water transmission
and distribution systems. WEROC
volunteers participated in this event
to test the water agencies' ability to
respond effectively during emer-
gency events. The lessons learned
2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
from this exercise were valuable in
identifying the need for better inte-
gration of the individual agencies'
responses through WEROC and on
to the Orange County Operational
Area Emergency Operations Center
(EOC). The issues appear to be
those requiring improved com-
munication rather than inadequate
resources.
MWDOC and Its Member
Agency Conflicts
As introduced earlier, MW-
DOC, with some exceptions, is
the predominant water wholesaler
that arranges for Orange County
water retailers' imported delivery
of Metropolitan water for their
customers. MWDOC is solely an
administrative agency in that it
operates no infrastructure facili-
ties that physically deliver water
to any of its member agencies,
comprised of cities, special dis-
tricts and quasi- public companies.
Because of its unique connection
with nearly every water agency in
Orange County, by default it has
become the coordinator of many re-
gional programs that are generally
suited for a centralized, coordinated
response. This applies to consistent
water conservation plans; compat-
ible Urban Water Management
Plans; universal customer education
outreach; centralized legislative ad-
vocacy; and coordinated emergency
preparedness.
MWDOC also is allocated four
seats on Metropolitan's 37 member
board of directors. These four mem-
bers (not all of them are necessarily
MWDOC board members), repre-
sent the interests of MWDOC's 28
member agencies.
MWDOC was formed in 1951,
when Orange County demographics
were quite different. Today, it finds
its role challenged, primarily by
several major, south Orange County
member agencies, over some key
differences in representation and
governance.
In June, 2006, MWDOC was
anticipating a scheduled Municipal
Services Review (MSR) by the Or-
ange County Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission (LAFCo). LAF-
Co's Mission Statement emphasizes
that it "... serves the citizens of
Orange County by facilitating con-
structive changes in governmental
structure and boundaries through
special studies, programs, and ac-
tions that resolve intergovernmental
issues, by fostering orderly devel-
opment and governance, and by
promoting the efficient delivery of
services." The MSR process, which
is basically a performance audit, is
one of the most effective means to
accomplish this goal.
MWDOC had commenced
stakeholder meetings with its mem-
ber agency colleagues to resolve
key issues of disagreement:
• Representation on Metropoli-
tan's board of directors
• Budget process and fairness
of rate structures
• Lack of inclusiveness of south
County agencies in setting
rates
• MWDOC's financial involve-
ment in local projects (e.g.
desalination)
• Duplicative services (e.g. leg-
islative and public outreach)
• Financial reserve policies
LAFCo discovered, when it
embarked on its MSR process in
February, 2007, that there were
still major, unresolved issues. It
facilitated several meetings to
attempt resolution. In November,
2007, after limited success, LAFCo
decided to convene a "governance
study" with a definite timetable for
reaching consensus on conclusions
and specific recommendations. The
final approval for that effort was
given in January, 2008, commenced
in June, 2008, and continues to the
present time.
All 28 member agencies have
participated in the governance
study. After nearly a year of effort,
the feasible revamping options have
been narrowed to three:
1. Continuing with MWDOC's
current structure, subject to sev-
eral administrative adjustments
to eliminate the current points
of disagreement
2. Dissolving MWDOC and form-
ing a new, County-wide water
authority
3. Creating a separate south
County water authority to, basi-
cally, provide similar services
now provided by MWDOC
but being more responsive and
accountable to the unique needs
expressed by the south County
agencies, particularly for more
equitable representation with
Metropolitan.
The particulars of the gover-
nance study discussions are beyond
the scope of this investigation so
they were not reviewed in detail.
From the Grand Jury's perspective
of the issues, however, Option 3
seems short sighted. Bifurcating the
County into two, basically compet-
ing agencies would he counterpro-
ductive as Orange County moves
into a future with increasingly dif-
ficult and contentious water issues.
LAFCo has been consolidat-
ing agencies where jurisdictional
effectiveness would be improved.
Splitting a major overseer of the
County's water supplies into two
jurisdictions would seem to con-
tradict LAFCo's previous efforts.
LAFCo has a unique role in this
discussion as a facilitator. Even
though it has hired professional
Page 14 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
support consultants and should be
as a fresh water conveyance
agreements are underway
lauded for its initiative, one noted
due to uncontrollable salin-
to create sources of "new"
professor in the field has observed
ity increases. This adds more
water for Orange County. The
that LAFCo may be operating be-
apprehension about Orange
adequacy of contributions
yond its technical abilities to effec-
County's water future.
from these new sources is
tively facilitate the varied, complex
Recent court rulings on
uncertain.
technical issues.
environmental habitat protec-
Orange County is a unique
The M WDOC member agencies
tion and water rights alloca-
territory with many inher-
need to resolve their differences
tions have raised the level of
ent advantages to endure the
and dedicate themselves to a uni-
urgency by imposing possibly
impending water crises. If Or-
fied vision, whether it be continuing
permanent cuts to southern
ange County's water agencies
with M WDOC under a modified
California's formerly reliable,
work together seamlessly and
agreement or creating a new, uni-
traditional water supplies
the County's resident consum-
fied, County-wide water authority.
from northern California and
ers become more involved
As rate increases mount and water
the Colorado River. While
stakeholders, a positive out -
supplies diminish, the need for uni-
the California Department
come is much more likely.
fication will become increasingly
of Water Resources recently
Orange County's ground -
essential. If a catastrophic event
adjusted 2009 State Water
water storage resources are
occurs, the need for unification will
Project deliveries upward to
world class, both in innova-
become urgent.
30 percent of normal alloca-
tive technical superiority and
tions, they had, at one point,
in their management. Water
Conclusions
fallen to 10 to 15 percent of
experts in both industry and
The following conclusions
normal.
academic institutions univer-
raise important concerns over the
Orange County's water sup-
sally praise the innovative and
precarious condition of Orange
ply infrastructure and supply
effective methods by which
County's water resources. More
constraints have received
Orange County has protected
public awareness and process im-
minimal attention in the over-
and managed its innate water
provement regarding water issues
all discussion of developing
resources. In particular, its
must be made as the development
Orange County.
groundwater aquifer is an in-
of Orange County continues. The
• Interaction of land planners
credibly rich natural resource
numerous water agencies in Orange
and water planners in the
that is the envy of many areas
County need to strengthen their
development process must be
in the country challenged by
unified approach in preparing for a
improved.
depleted and damaged water
difficult future. Some of the specific
• Water pricing to pay for the
tables.
points are as follows:
various, necessary, costly sup-
Orange County natural water
• State Water Project infrastruc-
ply sources, under even the
storage differs dramatically
ture is extremely vulnerable
best -case scenarios, will rise
between its north and south
to catastrophic failures from
to levels never before seen.
reaches. South Orange Coun-
natural events in the Sacra-
In this water - scarce region,
ty has no groundwater basin,
mento -San Joaquin Delta
consumers are facing dire
making it almost wholly de-
and seismic events affecting
circumstances regardless of
pendent on imported supplies
other major water transmis-
population growth and hous-
from Metropolitan.
sion infrastructure. Having
ing construction.
The County's resources have
a two - out -of -three chance of
• Public awareness of water
allowed water managers to
drastic levee failures within
supply issues is far below
institute protocols to deal
25 years which could disable
acceptable levels and must be
with emergencies. Examples
the state's water supply for at
improved.
of effective working rela-
least two years is alarming.
• A number of innovative infra-
tionships have been demon-
• Scientists have projected the
structure projects and transfer
strated in associations such as
inevitable end to the Delta
WEROC. It would be a shame
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
to politically sever the County
very little, if any, expressed
F.3(b) The current dis-
water resources management
concern from the public in
agreement is a distraction
structure and make a unified
comparison to the numerous
from the greater good
working relationship all the
other environmental issues
of the agencies working
more difficult.
presented during develop-
toward Orange County's
In closing, the announcement
ment project reviews.
water future.
for the May 15, 2009, 0. C. Water
Summit in Anaheim succinctly
F.2(a): Orange County's
F.3(c) The stakeholders
raises the level of urgency: "Most
citizens and interest
in LAFCo's study failed
business leaders and residents of
groups do not appear to
to meet their March 11,
Orange County have no idea that
grasp the seriousness of
2009 deadline for LAFCo's
the water crisis is this serious and
the water supply situa-
public hearing on this mat -
escalating." Specific actions are ur-
tion or the complexity and
ter. Continued delays are
gent. This investigation is intended
urgency of the necessary
unacceptable.
to offer several of them that will
solutions.
F.4: Orange County is
strengthen the County's condition.
F.2(b): Several recent,
uniquely fortunate to have
Findings
substantial water sup-
a vast, high - quality, well -
ply awareness efforts are
managed groundwater basin
In accordance with Califor-
underway (e.g. the O.C.
serving its north geographi-
nia Penal Code Sections 933
Water Summit) that show
cal area. However, in its
and 933.05, each finding will be
promise but appear target-
south reaches, it has an
responded to by the government
ed to audiences that are
equally large, high - growth
entity to which it is addressed. The
already informed.
area with virtually no avail -
responses are to be submitted to
able groundwater resources.
the Presiding Judge of the Supe-
F.3: LAFCo is the agency
rior Court. The 2008 -2009 Orange
charged with facilitating
F.4(a): The difference in
County Grand Jury has arrived at
constructive changes in
groundwater availability
the following findings:
governmental structure to
creates a "haves versus
F.1: There is inadequate
promote efficient delivery of
have -nots" situation that
coordination between local
services. To this end. LAFCo
is conducive to inherent
land -use planning agencies
is conducting a governance
conflicts.
and local water supply agen-
study of MWDOC which is
ties, resulting in a process
the designated representa-
F.4(b): The difference in
that fails to fully engage the
tive for nearly all the Orange
groundwater availability
issues.
County retail water agen-
provides opportunities for
ties, acting on their behalf
responsible participants
F.1(a): Water agencies
with their surface water sup-
to develop and construct
have tended to avoid inter-
plier Metropolitan.
long -term solutions which
fering with or participating
will benefit the entire
in growth- management
F.3(a) There are a number
County.
decisions.
of points of governance
disagreement between
Responses to Findings F.1,
F.1(b): Cities and the
MWDOC and several of its
F.1(a), F.1(b), and F2, F2(a) and
County have tended to not
member agencies. This is
F.2(b) are required from the Board
critically evaluate the limi-
creating an impediment to
of Supervisors of the Countr of
tations of the water agen-
the on -going effectiveness
Orange: the city, councils afall cit-
cies' supply projections.
of these agencies in critical
ies rea ann Bible for land -use plan -
F.2: California's looming
areas of Orange County's
aft. Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea,
water supply management.
Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
water supply crisis receives
Page 16 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Dana Point, Fountain Valley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Habra,
La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos,
Mission 11ejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal
Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Vdla Park,
Westminster and Yorba Linda; the
city councils and boards of direc-
tors -
tors ofall retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District, the Board
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County. the
Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District, and the
city councils of lire cities served
by Golden State Water Company:
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Finding E3,
F.3(a), F.3(b) and F.3(e) are re-
quired from the Board of Directors
of the Municipal Water District of
Orange County; the city councils
and boards of directors of all Mu-
nicipal Water District ofOranee
Counn, member agencies: cities
of Brea, Buena Park, Fountain
Valley, Garden Grove, Hunting-
ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma,
Newport Beach, Orange, San
Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Seal Beach, Tusthr and Westmin-
ster, East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District; the Orange
Conn& Local Agency Formation
Commission: the City Council of
the cities ofAnaheim. Fullerton
and Santa Ana. and the cijl coun-
cils of the cities served by Golden
State Water Company: cities of
Cypress, Los Alamitos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Finding F.4,
F.4(a) and F.4(b) are required
from the Board of Directors of the
Municipal Water District of Or-
anve Counn; the Board ofDirec-
tors of the Orange County Water
District• the citi, councils and
boards of directors of all Orange
Coun{v retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster, East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District, and the dXL
councils of the cities served by
Golden State Water Compamr:
cities ofQpress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Recommendations
In accordance with Califor-
nia Penal Code Sections 933 and
933.05, each recommendation will
be responded to by the government
entity to which it is addressed. The
responses are to be submitted to
the Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court. Based on the findings, the
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand
Jury makes the following recom-
mendations:
R.1: Each Orange County
municipal planning agency,
in cooperation with its
respective water supply
agency, should prepare for
adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to
its General Plan in conjunc-
tion with a future update,
not to exceed June 30,
2010. This document should
include detailed implemen-
tation measures based on
objective -based policies that
match realistic projections
of the County's future water
supplies. These objectives,
policies and implementation
measures should address
imported supply constraints,
including catastrophic out-
ages and incorporate the re-
alistic availability and timing
of "new" water sources such
as desalination, contaminat-
ed groundwater reclamation
and surface water recycling.
(Findings F.1, F.1(a), F1(b),
F.2. F.2(a) and F.2(b))
R.2: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
agency should affirm its re-
sponsibility to develop new,
additional, innovative public
outreach programs, be-
yond water conservation
and rationing programs,
to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply
constraints facing Orange
County. The objective should
be to connect the public with
the problem. The outreach
effort should entail a water
emergency exercise that
simulates a complete, sud-
den break in imported water
deliveries. The exercise
should be aimed directly at
the public and enlist wide-
spread public participation
on a recurring basis begin-
ning by June 30, 2010. This
recommendation may be
satisfied by a mufti- agency
exercise but the inability to
coordinate such an event
should not preclude the
individual agency's responsi-
bility. (Finding F.2, F.2(a) and
F.2(b))
R.3: Each MWDOC mem-
ber agency should reaffirm
to LAFCo that it will assign
the resources necessary to
expediently resolve regional
governance issues. While
the subject study is being
facilitated by LAFCo, the
options are with the agen-
cies to decide what is best
for all. Once conclusions are
reached, the parties need
to agree quickly and, hope-
fully, unanimously to adopt
a course of action. (Finding
F3, F.3(a), F.3(b) and F.3(c))
R.4: Each Orange County
retail and wholesale water
agency should affirm its
commitment to a fair -share
financial responsibility in
completing the emergency
water supply network for the
entire County. The entire
County should be prepared
together for any conditions
of drought, natural or hu-
man- caused disaster, or any
other catastrophic disruption.
WEROC should commence
meetings of all parties, to
facilitate consensus on an
equitable funding/financing
agreement. (Finding F.4,
F.4(a) and F.4(b))
Responses to Recommendation
R.l are required from the Board
ofSupervisors of the County, of
Orange: the citr councils of all cit-
ies LMonsible for land -use plan-
ni�g: Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,
Dana Point, Fountain galley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hun-
tington Beach, Irvine, La Habra,
La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna
Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos,
Mission Kejo, Newport Beach,
Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa
Margarita, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal
Beach, Stanton, Tustin, f rlla Park,
Westminster and Yorba Linda, I&L
c& councils and boards of direc-
tors ofall retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain galley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District, the Board of
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange Countr Board
of Directors of the Orange County,
Water District and the city coun-
cils of the cities served by Golden
State Water Company: cities of
Cypress, Los Alamitos, Placentia
and Stanton.
Responses to Recommenda-
tion R.2 are required from the
cin, councils and boards ofdirec-
tors of all retail water suppliers:
cities ofAnaheim, Brea, Buena
Park, Fountain galley, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Habra, La Palma, Newport
Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Seal Beach, Tustin and Westmin-
ster; East Orange County Water
District, El Toro Water District,
Irvine Ranch Water District, La-
guna Beach County Water District,
Mesa Consolidated Water District,
Moulton Niguel Water District,
Santa Margarita Water District,
Serrano Water District, South
Coast Water District, Trabuco
Canyon Water District and Yorba
Linda Water District, the Board of
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange Coupq. the
Board of Directors of the Ortinee
Counn, Water District: and the
c& councils oftlre cities served
AK Golden State Water Co=anv:
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.3 are required from the Board of
Directors of the Municipal Water
District of Orange Coun4v the cilL
councils and boards of directors
Page 18 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
of all Municipal Water District
of Orange County member agen-
do: cities of Brea, Buena Park,
Fountain Valley, Garden Grove,
Huntington Beach, La Habra,
La Palma, Newport Beach, Or-
ange, San Clemente, San Juan
Capistrano, Seal Beach, Tustin
and Westminster, East Orange
County Water District, El Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranch Water
District, Laguna Beach County
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Moulton Niguel
Water District, Santa Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
T rabuco Canyon Water District
and Yorba Linda Water District,
the Orange County Local A=cv
Formation Commission: the CiiL'
councils of the cities served br
Golden State Water Cornpanv:
cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, and Stanton.
Responses to Recommendation
R.4 are required from the Board
of Directors of the Municipal Wa-
ter District of Orange County: the
Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District: the c&L
councils and boards of directors
gfall Orange County retail water
suppliers: cities ofAnaheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Ful-
lerton, Garden Grove, Hunting-
ton Beach, La Habra, La Palma,
Newport Beach, Orange, San
Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin
and Westminster, East Orange
County Water District, El Toro
Water District, Irvine Ranch Water
District, Laguna Beach County
Water District, Mesa Consolidated
Water District, Moulton Niguel
Water District, Santa Margarita
Water District, Serrano Water Dis-
trict, South Coast Water District,
T rabuco Canyon Water District
and Yorba Linda Water District:
and the ci(r, councils of the cit-
ies served by Golden State Water
m an : cities of Cypress, Los
Alamitos, Placentia and Stanton.
Required Responses
The California Penal Code
specifies the required permis-
sible responses to the findings and
recommendations contained in the
report. The specific sections are as
follows:
§933.05
1. For purposes of Subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury finding, the respond-
ing person or entity shall indi-
cate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees
with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees
wholly or partially with the
finding, in which case the
response shall specify the
portion of the finding that is
disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons
therefore.
2. For purposes of subdivision
(b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury recommendation,
the responding person or entity
shall report one of the follow-
ing actions:
(1) The recommendation
has been implemented, with
a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has
not yet been implemented,
but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe
for implementation.
(3) The recommendation
requires further analysis, with
an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis
or study, and a timeframe for
the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or
head of the agency or de-
partment being investigated
or reviewed, including the
governing body of the public
agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed
six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will
not be implemented because
it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation
therefore.
200 8-2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Table 1: Findings and Recommendations Matrix
City /Organization/
Agency
Aliso Vie'o
F
1
•
F
2
•
F
3
F
4
R
1
•
R
2
R
3
R
4
City/Organization/Agency
Anaheim
F F
1 2
F F
3 4
R
1
R
2
R
3
R
4
Anaheim
•
•
•
Brea
Brea
•
•
•
1 Buena Park
Buena Park
•
•
•
Fountain Valle
Costa Mesa
•
•
•
Fullerton
C ess
•
•
•
Carden Croce
Dana Point
•
•
•
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley
La Habra
Fullerton
•
•
•
La Palma
Garden Grow
•
•
•
Newport Beach
Huntington Beach
•
•
•
Orange
Irvine
•
•
•
San Clemente
La Habra
•
•
•
San Juan Capistrano
La Palma
•
•
•
Santa Ana
Laguna Beach
•
•
•
Seal Beach
Laguna Hills
•
•
•
Tustin
Laguna Niguel
•
•
•
Westminster
la una Woods
•
•
•
Fast Orange County Water District
Lake Forest
•
•
•
11 Toro Water District
Los Alamitos
•
•
•
mine Ranch Water District
Mission Viejo
•
•
•
Laguna Beach County Water District
Ney4wrt Beach
•
•
•
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Orange
•
•
•
Moulton Niguel Water District
Placentia
•
•
•
Santa Margarita Water District
Rancho Santa Margarita
•
•
•
Serrano Water District
San Clemente
•
•
•
South Coast Water District
San Juan Capistrano
•
•
•
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Santa Ana
•
•
•
Vorba Linda Water District
Seal Beach
Stanton
•
•
•
•
•
•
�' - - - - _
Municipal Water District of Orange County
—
Tustin
•
•
•
Orange Coun Water District
Villa Park
Westminster
•
•
•
City of Cypr,ss
Vorba Linda
•
•
•
City of Los Alamitos
Counh of 01'nnLe
*
.
City of Placentia
* Includes sulsets of findings i(a), (b), (c), etc.l
Citv of Stanton
OC Local Agency Formation Commission
Page 20
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
Glossary of Terms
Acre -foot: The amount of water that would fill a one -acre area to a depth of one foot (equivalent to
325,851 gallons)
• EIR: Environmental Impact Report
• LAFCo: Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
• Metropolitan: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• MSR: Municipal Services Review
• MWDOC: Municipal Water District of Orange County
• New Water: (1) A new source of potable water with or without a new pipeline delivering water from
outside the area; (2) Purified brackish or recycled water within the area that has been treated to drinking
water standards that would otherwise be discharged to waste
• Non -Point Source Pollution: Contaminated surface drainage water (runoff) of which the sources of
the pollution are so numerous that individual responsibility cannot be determined
• OCWD: Orange County Water District
• Paper Water: A term used to describe allocated water which an individual or agency is entitled to
receive, presuming that the water exists. Paper water differs from "wet water" in that paper water is
based on projections and expected deliveries.
• SB 221: California Government Code Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7. Requires identification of
adequate potable water supplies to serve most development projects over 500 dwelling units, using a
historical water record of at least 20 years.
• SB 610: California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, 10915 and 10657. Re-
quires a WSA for most development projects over 500 dwelling units
• UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan
• Vested rights: A property owner's right to proceed with his development in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time of agency approval. A vested project is
generally immune from any new conditions that might otherwise have resulted between the date of ap-
proval and issuance of building permits had the project not received vesting status.
• WEROC: Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County
• WSA: Water Supply Assessment
2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
"Paper Water" — Does Orange County Have a Reliable Future?
References
1. The Ranch Plan NCCP1MSAA1HCPJo1nt Programmatic EIR/EIS Growth Induc-
ing and Cumulative Impacts, Section 6, page 12
2. Beyond Chinatown, Steven P. Erie, Stanford University Press, 2006, page 230
3. Comparing Futuresfor the Sacramento —San Joaquin Delta, Jay Lund, et al, 2008,
pages 3 and 53
4. TheAmerican Southwest. Are We Running Dry?, video documentary, The Chroni-
cles Group, 2008
5. Scripps News, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, February 12, 2008
6. Water and Land Use; Planning Wisely for California Is Future, Karen E. Johnson
and Jeff Loux, Solano Press Books, 2004, pages 16 and 66
7. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County,
adopted December 21, 2005, pages 105 and 178
Exhibits A, B, C, E -1, E -2 and G are used with permission of the Municipal Water Dis-
trict of Orange County.
Exhibit D is used with permission of the Orange County Water District.
Exhibit F is used with permission of the Delta Vision Foundation.
Page 22 2008 -2009 Orange County Grand Jury
III
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 9, 2009
The Honorable Kim Dunning
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
RE: Response to the Grand Jury Report on "'Paper Water' — Does Orange County
Have A Reliable Future ?"
Honorable Judge Dunning:
This letter is submitted in response to the June 15, 2009 Grand Jury report entitled "'Paper
Water' — Does Orange County Have A Reliable Future ?" As mandated by Penal Code
Sections 933.05 (a) and (b), the following responses address the findings and
recommendations of the Grand Jury.
In accordance with the report, the City of Newport Beach was requested to respond to
Findings F.1, F.1 (a), F.1 (b), F.2, F.2 (a), F.2 (b), F.3, F.3 (a), F.3 (b), F.3(c), FA, FA (a)
and FA (b) and Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3 and RA. Our responses are provided
below:
GRAND JURY FINDINGS:
Finding F.1: There is inadequate coordination between local land -use planning agencies
and local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues.
Disagree.
The City of Newport Beach is a retail water supplier, with that function managed by the
City's Utilities Department. There is regular coordination between the Planning
Department and the Utilities Department with regard to long range planning such as the
General Plan as well as with regard to specific development projects. The City's Urban
Water Management Plan was used as a resource in preparation of a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and the EIR on that project in 2006. The City's Utilities
Department, as well as Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District,
which serve parts of Newport Beach, were consulted during preparation of the General
Plan EIR. Likewise, the appropriate water supplier is asked to prepare a water supply
assessment for each proposed development project with more than 500 dwelling units, as
required by SB 221 and SB 610. The Planning Department and the City's environmental
consultants review these reports and, if necessary, ask questions of the water suppliers
before the information is used in the project EIRs.
It is important to note that the responsibilities of cities include providing for the
development of new housing for a growing population. This is clear in the State's Housing
Element requirements and Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers that must be
included as goals in Housing Elements. Newport Beach has provided the water agencies
that serve our community with our adopted Housing Element to assist them with planning,
as required by State law. While the California Water Code provides that housing for lower
income households should be given priority in water supply, the reality is that few
affordable housing projects are developed without some kind of connection to the
development of market rate housing. Water agencies generally view their jobs as using
water resources more efficiently to accommodate growth, and this assists in meeting the
State's and cities' housing goals.
Nonetheless, the water conservation ordinance currently under consideration by the
Newport Beach City Council includes a provision that no new connections will be permitted
when water shortages reach Water Shortage Crisis (Mandatory >40% reduction) This is
regardless of whether land use approvals have been granted for development.
Finding F.1(a): Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or participating in
growth- management decisions.
Disagree.
The City of Newport Beach wouldn't characterize the participation of water agencies in
long -range planning or growth- management decisions as "interference." As described in
the response to Finding 1, water agencies that supply Newport Beach do participate in
local planning analyses and decisions.
Finding FA(b): Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations
of the water agencies' supply projections.
Agree.
The City's Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council rely on water
agencies as experts on water supply and delivery, just as they rely on archaeologists,
biologists, geologists, hydrologists, traffic engineers and others as experts in their fields.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) speaks to the weight of information and
testimony presented by qualified experts as opposed to opinions of non - experts. The
adequacy of an EIR could be challenged if the document differed from information
presented by the recognized expert, the water agency, without evidence from other
qualified parties.
The City of Newport Beach is aware of short-term water supply problems. Conservation
efforts in Newport Beach, as a result of mitigation measures on development projects and
voluntary actions by residents and businesses, have resulted in reductions in water use of
8% over the last fiscal year. The City will continue to require water conservation measures
in new development projects. However, the Planning Department is not qualified to
"second guess" the water agencies that serve our City with regard to long -term analysis
and the water agencies' progress in developing new sources of water and securing water
transfers. Likewise, the Utilities Department and Newport Beach's other water supply
agencies are constrained to use supply projections provided to them by regional suppliers.
Finding F.2: California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed
concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues
presented during development project reviews.
Agree.
CEQA charges planning agencies with presenting information on all potentially significant
environmental impacts of proposed projects. It is true that EIRs and other analyses of
development projects in Newport Beach include more detailed discussion on issues such
as traffic and noise than on water supply. The reason is that these are the issues that are
most often raised by our citizens in response to notices of preparation (NOPs) of EIRs and
in comments on Draft EIRs. CEQA requires that lead agencies in the environmental
review process address issues raised during the NOP process in EIRs, and respond to all
written comments received on Draft EIRs. Therefore, the issues of concern to our citizens
are those that receive the most discussion. This is not to say that water supply is ignored.
Potential impacts in this area are analyzed and discussed, and mitigation measures (such
as water conservation) are often imposed. If there are no public comments on this impact
area, the analysis and mitigations are considered adequate.
Perhaps water supply will become a greater concern in the future, in which case Newport
Beach will expand our discussion of this issue in development project reviews. Until that
occurs, it would not be appropriate or responsible for the City to suggest that significant
environmental impacts would occur when information from reliable sources (i.e., water
agencies) shows no evidence of such impacts.
Finding F.2(a): Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the
seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and urgency of the solutions.
Disagree partially.
The Newport Beach City Council has no information on which to comment or base a more
detailed response. It would be presumptuous to comment on what our citizens and
interest groups "grasp."
Water consumption has reduced over the past year within the City of Newport Beach,
providing evidence that citizens have taken notice of the water supply situation. The City
used nearly one thousand acre feet less water in fiscal year 08 -09 than the previous year.
Finding F.2(b): Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway
(e.g., the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that
are already well informed.
Agree.
Large regional efforts such as the O.C. Water Summit do target audiences that work in the
industry; however, these efforts seem to focus on keeping officials up to date and retaining
a consistent message.
The City utilizes various means of keeping Newport Beach customers informed about the
state of water supply in the City, such as website, bill stuffers, local and regional classes
related to conservation issues such as the children's education festival and public and
committee forums to discuss the proposed water conservation ordinance. All of the local
efforts show promise as well, and are targeting audiences that are not informed.
Finding F.3: LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitating constructive changes in
governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCO is
conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated representative for
nearly all of the Orange County retail water agencies, acting on their behalf with their
surface water supplier Metropolitan.
Agree.
The City agrees that LAFCO is the appropriate agency to conduct the study.
Finding F.3(a): There are a number of points of governance disagreement between
MWDOC and several of its member agencies. This is creating an impediment to the on-
going effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply
management.
Agree.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently.
Finding F.3(b): The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the
agencies working toward Orange County's water future.
Agree.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently
Finding F.3(c): The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009
deadline for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable.
Agree.
Finding FA: Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high - quality, well -
managed groundwater basin serving its north geographical area. However, in its south
reaches, it has an equally large, high - growth area with virtually no available groundwater
resources.
Agree.
The City recognizes that we are fortunate to have access to the groundwater basin and the
south areas have virtually no ground water source.
Finding FA(a): The difference in groundwater availability creates a "haves versus have -
nots" situation that is conducive to inherent conflicts.
Agree.
Finding FA(b): The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for
responsible participants to develop and construct long -term solutions which will benefit the
entire County.
Disagree partially
The finding is not clearly stated, but appears to include two implications that Newport
Beach believes require expanded information. The first implication is that local resources
are not being fully developed in south Orange County. This is not correct. Critical
groundwater, recycled water and ocean water supplies are all being developed in south
Orange County. The second implication is that there is sufficient water supply in the
OCWD Groundwater Basin to supply south as well as north Orange County. The
groundwater basin is managed to provide water supplies to its overlying landowners. The
OCWD Act that formed OCWD governs how it manages the basin. Currently the basin
meets 62% of each member agency's supply. The capacity of the basin was developed at
a significant cost and it will never be able to supply 100% of the existing member agencies'
demands.
GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommendation RA: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation
with its respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a
dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to
exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures
based on objective -based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future
water supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address
imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic
availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated
groundwater reclamation and surface water recycling. (Findings F.1(a) & (b), and F.2(a)
and (b))
This recommendation will not be implemented.
Implementing this recommendation would create a redundant, and possibly conflicting,
planning process to the existing Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) requirement of
the State Water Code. UWMPs already serve a long -range planning function for water
supply issues. They are required to include the very topics listed in this recommendation,
and are required be updated more frequently (5 years) than General Plans are suggested
to be updated (10 years).
Water planning is more appropriately and effectively done by water agencies than by
municipal government. If cities were to prepare Water Elements, they would have to rely
on the same projections of water supply as the water agencies do, and it is unclear what
additional benefit would be gained from Water Elements.
The preparation of Water Elements would be complicated, confusing and problematic.
Newport Beach is served by three water agencies: the City, Mesa Consolidated Water
District and Irvine Ranch Water District, and we would have to work with all three of these
water agencies in preparing a Water Element. If policies are not consistent among the
three water agencies, Newport Beach could be faced with writing a Water Element with
conflicting policies, while State law requires that General Plans be internally consistent.
Likewise, Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District would have to
work with multiple cities as they prepare their own Water Elements. The water agencies,
too, might be faced with trying to implement policies that vary from city to city — assuming
that cities' Water Elements would even have any mandatory impact on water agencies.
Water agencies are special districts under State law, and cities do not have jurisdiction to
set policy for them.
Only the State Legislature has the authority to establish General Plan requirements for
cities and counties. The Government Code establishes the seven mandatory elements of
General Plans: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
The conservation element is required to address the conservation, development and
utilization of natural resources including water, and the portion of the element dealing with
water must be developed in coordination with all agencies that have developed, served,
controlled or conserved water for the city.
Newport Beach has satisfied this requirement with the Natural Resources Element of our
General Plan, which includes discussion of both water supply and water quality. The City
Council has adopted two goals with respect to water supply, each with a set of policies and
implementation measures. The goals are as follows:
NR 1
Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.
NR 2
Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present
uses and future growth.
Requiring another General Plan element would constitute an unfunded government
mandate, at a time when cities and counties are struggling to meet other State
requirements while the State depletes city and county resources.
Recommendation R.2: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should
affirm its responsibility to develop new, additional, innovative public outreach programs,
beyond water conservation and rationing programs, to expose the larger issues
surrounding water supply constraints facing Orange County. The objective should be to
connect the public with the problem. The outreach effort should entail a water emergency
exercise that simulates a complete, sudden break in imported water deliveries. The
exercise should be aimed directly at the public and enlist wide - spread public participation
on a recurring basis beginning by June 30, 2010. This recommendation may be satisfied
by a multi- agency exercise but the inability to coordinate such an event should not
preclude the individual agency's responsibility. (Findings F.2(a) and (b))
This recommendation will not be implemented.
Current efforts are underway locally and working with MWDOC to educate the public about
water supply issues not confined to just import supplies. The City of Newport Beach
receives its water supply from both import and local groundwater supplies. The proposed
water conservation and supply level regulation ordinance addresses water supply
shortages from a multitude of circumstances that could reduce water supply. Supply
shortage levels are built into the ordinance to address all supply issues not just import
supplies. The City participates in emergency planning and exercises with WEROC, as well
as emergency drills organized by the City and other government agencies that prepare us
for a variety of possible emergencies. These drills require a significant amount of staff time
and inter - agency organization, and it would not be practical to conduct County wide
exercise on water emergencies involving 80 -100 thousand residents.
Recommendation R.3: Each MWDOC member agency should reaffirm to LAFCO that it
will assign the resources necessary to expediently resolve regional governance issues.
While the subject study is being facilitated by LAFCO, the options are with the agencies to
decide what is best for all. Once conclusions are reached, the parties need to agree
quickly and, hopefully, unanimously to adopt a course of action. (Findings F.3(a), (b) and
(c))
This recommendation will be implemented.
The City agrees that this issue needs to be resolved expediently. The City of Newport
Beach will assign the resources necessary. Upon completion of the study by LAFCO,
where conclusions are reached, the City will respond in the required time frame set by
LAFCO or agreed timeframe by member agencies.
Recommendation R.4: Each Orange County retail and wholesale water agency should
affirm its commitment to a fair -share financial responsibility in completing the emergency
water supply network for the entire County. The entire County should be prepared
together for any conditions of drought, natural or human - caused disaster, or any other
catastrophic disruption. WEROC should commence meetings of all parties, to facilitate
consensus on an equitable funding/financing agreement. (Findings FA(a) and (b))
This recommendation is being implemented.
The City already participates with WEROC to annually plan and run emergency scenarios
to better prepare staff for emergency response on all levels. We have already spent our
fair share and we will continue to do so as appropriate for the activities and events and
how they relate to the City's functions and operations
The City is currently working with local agencies to study the emergency intertie water
connections and ability to assist each other in an emergency. The study will address
hydrology, water quality issues, and resources needed.
If you have any questions regarding this response please contact George Murdoch,
Utilities Director, at (949) 644 -3011 or gmurdoch(a)newoortbeachca.gov, or Sharon Wood,
Assistant City Manager at (949) 644 -3222 or swoodCa newoortbeachca.gov.
Sincerely,
Edward Selich, Mayor
cc: Orange County Grand Jury