PRESENTATION TITLE Beyond! Karl W. Seckel, P.E. Assistant General - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water Supplies  Diversify supply mix = recycling, water transfers, underground storage, desalination, storm water capture, groundwater cleanup  Build in supply buffers  Build storage to manage lean years  Educate/communicate w/ the public – they are the ones funding the investments!  Synergize efforts w/ others (wastewater is our new supply)  Consider & mitigate effects on rates (rates will continue increasing)  Monitor trends  Expand groundwater spreading capability to capture higher flows  Minimize impacts of uncertainties 43

The Colorado River as an Example 44

Colorado River Supplies 45

Colorado River Supplies The period 1905-1922, which was used to estimate water production allocated under the Colorado River Compact, had the highest long-term annual flow volume in the 20th century, averaging 16.1 MAF at Lee’s Ferry. The time series of flow indicates the average annual volume was 12.4 million acre-feet (MAF) from 1895 through 2003 46

Colorado River Supplies for 1255 Years • 9 droughts lasting 15-20 years • 4 droughts lasting >20 years Year Today 762 47

Colorado River Supplies Over allocated basic apportionment system - 20 th Century  was very wet  Tree Ring studies show long periods of droughts  Temperature studies indicate that Colorado River snowpack will be heavily influenced as temperatures increase – water flow yield will be reduced!  7 States depend on the water from the Colorado  Heavy Duty Negotiations! 48

Colorado River Apportionments (Million acre-feet) Upper Basin States Lower Basin States 1.04 3.86 1.71 .3 ..05 2.8 4.4 .84 Apportionments 1.5 49 Mexico

1922 Colorado River Compact and 1944 Treaty Allocations Upper Basin 7.5 mafy Lower Basin 7.5 mafy + 1.0 mafy Mexico 1.5 mafy Total 17.5 mafy 50

Lake Mead Normal Water Budget Lake Mead Imbalance Upper Basin Compact Release 8.25 MAF Tributary Flows 2.75 MAF Total Inflow 11.0 MAF Lower Basin Water Use -9.5 MAF Mexico Delivery -1.5 MAF Lake Mead Evap/River Losses -1.2 MAF Total Outflow -12.2 MAF Imbalance -1.2 MAF 51

Lake Mead Storage 2000 – 2016, Actual and Projected 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 x 1000 acre-feet Surplus 17,000 Elevation 1145 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 Shortage 10,000 Elevation 1075 9,000 8,000 52

Proposed Total State Reductions Under Discussion 1,200 1,000 California Reduction Thousand Acre-feet 800 Nevada Reduction Arizona Reduction 600 Nevada Shortage 400 Arizona Shortage 200 0 1,090 1,075 1,050 1,045 1,040 1,035 1,030 <1,025 53 Lake Mead Elevation (feet)

Colorado River – Look for Multi- State Settlement for a Drought Contingency Plan An era of hope - communication, cooperation, and collaboration 54

The Great Drought and How We Survived 2012 - 2016 55

The Great (?) Drought • 5 years? • 11 years? • 17 years? • The New Normal? Lake Mead has dropped over 120 feet 56

Santa Ana Precipitation 5 years, 28” of Santa Ana Precipitation deficit - largest deficit in Local 13 of last 19 precipitation 29.06 years below 30 since records average began in 1908 25 Average Rainfall 21.39 20.66 20 Rainfall (Inches) 16.82 14.87 14.57 15 10 9.88 9.46 8.83 8.51 8.41 8.27 8.15 8.06 6.36 5 3.62 4.37 3.82 2.19 0

Upper Colorado River Runoff Santa Ana Precipitation Lake Powell Unregulated Historical Inflow 14 of last 19 18 years below 16 average 16.17 14 12 12.79 10.71 MAF 11.90 11.90 Runoff (MAF) 10 10.61 10.08 9.62 9.85 9.53 8 8.77 7.61 6.36 6 6.77 6.69 6.42 6.21 5.80 4 4.15 2 2.80 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Runoff MAF Average

Northern California Runoff Santa Ana Precipitation 4 River Index Historical Runoff 13 of last 19 40 years below 38 35 average 32.09 30 25 Runoff (MAF) 25.13 20 18.3 MAF 19.31 18.9 18.55 17.4 15 16.04 15.94 14.6 13.02 12.2 11.8 10 10.28 10.28 9.81 9.5 9.3 7.5 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Runoff MAF Average

MWD 2018 Estimated Almost 2 million acre- Water Storage feet of storage used in recent drought Preliminary MWD Historical Demand VS Supplies Estimate 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 Million Acre Feet 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total MWD EOY Storage Total MWD Supplies Total MWD Sales

The Great California Drought How did Southern California withstand the Drought? 1. Prior Investments 2. Demand Management (Conservation) 3. Supply Management (Projects) 61

Population Growth Supplies & Demands in OC 1990 to 2015 2015 to 2040 750,000 317,000 31% 10% MET Purchases MET or Future Projects Surface Water Non-OCWD GW Recycled GWRS Groundwater 62

Past Water Supply was an Essential Component 63

Past Water Supply was an Essential Component LA-City LA AQUEDUCT 13.0 1908-1913 LA-County 12.0 $24.5 Million 11.0 10.0 Population (Millions) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - 64 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010

Past Water Supply was an Essential Component COLORADO RIVER LA-City 13.0 AQUEDUCT LA-County 12.0 1928-1941 11.0 $220 Million 10.0 Population (Millions) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - 65 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010

Past Water Supply was an Essential Component STATE WATER LA-City 13.0 PROJECT LA-County 12.0 1960-1972 11.0 $1.75 Billion 10.0 Population (Millions) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - 66 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010

Past Water Supply was an Essential Component DIAMOND LA-City 13.0 VALLEY LAKE LA-County 12.0 1995-2003 11.0 $1.9 Billion 10.0 Population (Millions) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - 67 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010

Continuous Proactive Investment $15 Billion over 20 Years LA-City 13.0 LA-County 12.0 11.0 • Water Use Efficiency 10.0 Population (Millions) • 9.0 Local Projects 8.0 • Treatment Upgrades 7.0 • Colorado River 6.0 Supplies 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 - 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 68

MET Storage Investments Increased Capacity for WET year Storage to be used during DRY Years: DVL Completed = • Diamond Valley Reservoir 800,000 AF • State Water Project Storage in Southern California • Central Valley Groundwater 1991 = Major Drought Storage • Lake Mead Storage of Colorado River Water 69

MET’s Storage Programs Central Valley/SWP Storage San Luis Carryover Semitropic Arvin-Edison Kern Delta Mojave CRA Storage DWCV Advance Delivery Local Storage Lake Mead ICS Diamond Valley Lake Mathews Lake Skinner Conjunctive Use Programs DWR State Project Reservoirs 70

Use of MET Storage Use of MET Storage (Living Off Past Investments) (Living Off Past Investments) Almost 2 million acre- feet of storage used in recent drought More storage than we had 20 years ago 71

California WaterFix – History Being Made! 72

Many Related Names • Peripheral Canal • Calfed • Bay Delta Area BDCP • Bay Delta Conservation Plan Transfers & Storage • WaterFix 25% • Twin Tunnels Colorado River State Aqueduct (1941) • EcoRestore Water Project Entitlement • Habitat Conservation Plan (1972) 25% • Natural Communities Conservation Local Supplies (Water Use Efficiency) Conservation Plan Groundwater & Recycling Ocean Desalination • Co-Equal Goals 73 (future) 50%

State’s New Proposal Announced April 2015 • Protects State’s water supplies through Delta system upgrades Supports long-term health of native fish and wildlife • Mitigation Habitat restoration • Includes ~15,600 acres of habitat ~ 30,000 acres in 5 years • Water contractor funded Includes broader public funding • Twin tunnel 74 facilities and mitigation

Bay Delta RELIABILITY - $17 Billion Sacramento River San Francisco Bay Additional Intakes Tunnels Habitat Restoration SWP Pumps 75 San Joaquin River CVP Pumps

76

EcoRestore 48” of Sea Level Rise Sustainable Delta (P (PPIC) 77 77

SoCal Loss of 440,000 California WaterFix Impact Acre Feet without the project SWP-CVP Exports (million AF) 6 5 4 1.2 MAF Less 4.7- 4.7 3 5.3 2 3.5 1 1.5 0 Existing BDCP Earthquake NEW Regulations Regulations Scenario BDCP/CA Water (No Action) without Tunnels Fix 78

Water History – How many Tunnels? How much MET participation? Options under Discussion diameter 1 = MET share in Two Tunnels 4,500 to 40’ 2 = MET larger share in 1 Tunnel 6,000 cfs 3 = MET larger share in 2 Tunnel each 1 2 3 Capital Cost (billions) $4.3 $5.3 $10.8 NEW Supply (thousands of AF) 337 410 840 Cost of NEW Supply (per AF treated $840 $840 $840 in So. Calif.) Household Cost per month $1.90 $2.40 $4.80 79

Carson Regional Recycling Project by MET Similar to Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment Project 80

Carson Regional Recycling Project by MET 62-77 MGD 0-11 MGD 15 MGD 15 MGD 18-58 MGD 0-4 MGD 81

Carson IPR Project The Next Proactive Investment  NEW local supply to groundwater basins in Southern California – helps stretch other MET supplies  Source is treated wastewater from LA County Adds another component to MET’s Water Supply Program  Initial phase = 100 mgd; ultimate up to 150 mgd of NEW 1. Colorado River drought proof-supplies 2. State Water Project  On-line 2025 to 2027 3. Transfers and Exchanges  Estimated Cost ~$2 - 3 billion 4. Support of Local Supplies by Others  Costs to be spread across the MET service area 5. Local Supplies by MET 82

Orange County Water Reliability Study 83

STATE ORANGE COUNTY MET/ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Local END USERS • Homeowner Agency • Business • Water Bills 84 84

Planning + In Investment = Reliability Iterative Collaboration & Exchange at Many Levels: • Information • Data • Analyses • Tools/Modeling • Results/Spin-offs • Funding opportunities • Project Implementation 85 85

Ingredients for the OC Water Reliability Study 2016 Demands - including population & job growth to 2040 93 historical hydrologies each for the State Water Project, Colorado River & Local Influence of climate change Local Projects all over Southern California Future Projects by MET Future Projects within OC With and Without the California WaterFix Competition for water Regulatory Actions impacting supplies Water Conservation/Water Use Efficiency Consumer Expectations Earthquakes 86 Adaptive management!

Potential Projects to Eliminate Shortages MET Projects Which of California WaterFix these are MET Carson Recycled Water part of our Transfers & Exchanges Direct Potable Reuse NEXT Water Use Efficiency investments OC Projects and WHEN are they needed? OCWD basin storage/MET purchases Water transfers and banking Over versus Additional Recycling Direct Potable Reuse Under Emergency Needs Investment Supply of Emergency Water following Earthquakes 87

OC Water Reliability Study Goal To develop common information regarding existing and future water demands, supplies, costs and potential risks to regional and Orange County water supply reliability under a wide range of possible scenarios and ultimately to improve OC’s reliability Supply Reliability System Reliability (for emergencies) 88 88

Major Earthquake Faults in So. Cal. SWP East Branch West Branch Sierra Madre – Cucamonga Fault San Andreas Fault Santa Susana Fault Whittier Fault San Jacinto Elsinore Fault Fault 89

Balancing of Issues Under Over Performing Investing 90 90

Two South County Projects • Doheny Desal • Led by South Coast Water District • Ocean desalination using a slantwell intake facility at Doheny State Beach • Phasing of project between 4 mgd and 15 mgd being considered. 91

Two South County Projects • Led by Santa San Juan Watershed Project Margarita Water District • The initial project involves rubber dams to capture low flows • Expansion projects will add recycled recharge at the dams to increase groundwater in storage 92

What did id OC le learn? 1. Our future reliability is not entirely under our Model control; it depends on: GAPS • Metropolitan’s Integrated Resources Plan Alternatives • MET water supplies & water use efficiency; this includes the State Water Project & Colorado River Supplies Evaluations • MET Member Agency water supplies & water use efficiency • What we do in OC Decisions 2. Without any NEW investments, water shortages will occur in 8 of 10 years by 2040 3. One single investment, the California WaterFix can cut shortages down to 3 in 10 years by 2030 93 93

What did OC learn? 4. South Orange County needs to develop NEW supplies to improve supply (drought) and system (emergency) reliability • NEW local projects will cost more than imported water, but overall melded costs to agencies remain competitive 5. Remaining water shortages in Brea/La Habra and OCWD Basin areas were manageable 6. Adaptive Management is key to ensure that OC maintains acceptable supply reliability without overinvesting at the local level 94 94

OC Water Reliability Study Process Highly collaborative process Plausible planning scenarios were analyzed Growth Climate/hydrologic conditions Demands synthesized to drought decline plus “bounce back” MET & MET Member Agency IRP projects considered State Water Project supplies with and without the California WaterFix Colorado River Supplies & use of MET storage accounts Decision-making left to local agencies 95 95

168,000 AF 100,000 AF Carson IPR 300,000 AF 162,000 AF Local Projects Remaining Shortages Reliability Supplies 96

MET Reliability Under Different Portfolios – 2040 1,800,000 Existing Port A Port B Port C 1,600,000 Port F Port E Port D 1,400,000 Portfolios D, E & F are Fully Reliable & are plotted on the bottom line 1,200,000 Shortage (AFY) Direction of MORE NEW Projects 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Direction of Climate Impacts Portfolio B - Selected for OC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Modeling 97 Probability of Shortage 97

2018 Update for Year 2040 for MET Service Area DRAFT Without NEW Investments 98

Upcoming High Impact Issues to Reliability 1. California WaterFix & Governor Brow n’ s Remaining Term High 2. MET ’ s Carson IPR Project, Go/No go Impact 3. MET Member Agency Projects, Go/No go 4. What happens if/when we reach the Lake Mead Trigger Issues Elevation? 5. Policy issues at MET (water rates, LRP funding, groundwater replenishment, avoid stranding assets) 6. Revised or updated biological opinions on various specifies of fish could result in significant supply reductions, primarily on the SWP. 99 99

Adaptive Management is Recommended Next several years are key Prepare as if WaterFix will NOT happen Monitor the high impact issues May require a change in course or redirection depending on outcome Adaptive Management is key 100 100